SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 54
  1. #26
    The CSS Clinic is open silver trophybronze trophy
    Paul O'B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Hampshire UK
    Posts
    40,339
    Mentioned
    179 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by deathshadow60 View Post
    I

    If that "subtitle" is like a tagline, I'd have that:
    Code:
    <h1>
      Article title<br />
      <small>Article Subtitle</small>
    </h1>
    <p>Content</p>
    Yes I'd go along with that as it seems to make sense.

  2. #27
    SitePoint Zealot PatrickSamphire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    113
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by deathshadow60 View Post
    I'd even argue against that H2 Paul... well, depending on the page. Is that the start of a new subsection, or is it part of the same heading.
    That's the point of the hgroup, though, isn't it? To allow a subtitle to be marked up with a separate tag but to be clearly linked to the tag used for the title. Semantically, a subtitle isn't part of the title; it's a linked item, of subsidiary importance. It doesn't imply a new section, but clarifies the meaning and content of the current section. In HTML4 you have no semantic way of stating all of this information about the relationship between the tags. In HTML5, the hgroup creates that semantic relationship, and in any case, headings don't create the document structure in HTML5, so the H2 wouldn't by necessity imply a new section.

    Now, hgroup might not be the best way of achieving this relationship, but I think it's an improvement over any hacking that HTML4 requires.

  3. #28
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,276
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Semantically, a subtitle isn't part of the title;
    I'd argue that it is.

    After all, the title of the book is "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed". Sure, people may say or type "Collapse" for brevity, but surely the book's title is not just "Collapse"... that is only part of the title.

    A true tagline isn't part of a title, true, but I would argue a true tagline is a tagline and not any type of header. Instead, as you say, a clarifier of the preceding header. If they're going to make new tags on us, they should give us <tagline>, with the associated semantic meaning of "clarifies and expands upon the header, rather than simply being plain content who is merely headed BY the header".

  4. #29
    Non-Member bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Keene, NH
    Posts
    3,760
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by PatrickSamphire View Post
    That's the point of the hgroup, though, isn't it?
    To me that's a PERFECT example of "what's wrong with HTML 5" -- throwing another tag in there to justify using the WRONG tag in the first place -- sheer lunacy at best!

    But then I consider HTML 5's approach to heading tags a complete atrocity -- one that stems from the fact that NOBODY seems to grasp what heading tags are, how to use them or what a proper heading order even IS!!!

    Headings, at least prior to HTML5's turning them into a jumbled mess, should fan out like a tree -- it's WHY one H1 per page, it's WHY it's improper going down your heading orders to skip over numbers. Lower order (higher numbered) headings are by definition the start of SUBSECTIONS of the higher order (lower numbered) heading preceding it. If you aren't starting a new subsection, you shouldn't be using a heading tag -- and that's what's wrong with the hgroup/h1/h2 'grouping' -- if you need to 'group' heading tags, you're using the heading tags wrong in the first place. It's also what's COMPLETELY WRONG with using a second heading tag for a tagline -- as you are creating a new subsection when it isn't the start of a subsection! If anything it's part of the SAME heading.

    HTML 5's combination of HGROUP, use as many H1's as you like, and all these extra ALLEGEDLY semantic elements just look like spaghetti code to me -- and after over three decades of programming, much of it spent cleaning up DiBol and Clipper code (or porting it to more modern platforms) I know spaghetti code when I see it. Sometimes I wonder if these new kids are getting paid old-school style, by the K-Loc given the tendency to use CTC ratio's of 10:1 on something that inherently should never break 2:1 once you have more than 10k of plaintext content.

    With all the existing tags the majority of developers don't even seem to realize exist (DEL, COL, COLGROUP, THEAD, TBODY, TH, FIELDSET, LABEL, LEGEND, CAPTION) throwing more tags at it instead of educating people on how to use the ones we already have is NOT the answer!!!

    More code is NOT simpler, new tags to do the same job we can already do is NOT simpler -- no matter how hard people try to sell it as such.

    It's why to me, HTML 5 just looks like it's undoing ALL the progress STRICT offered us turning something simple into an unnecessarily complicated and bloated mess - the mess compounded even further by the loosening of what's valid and what isn't to the point that any "validation" becomes meaningless drivel.

    Which is probably why to make it actually look good they had to slap a bunch of stuff under the HTML 5 banner that have absolutely jack {multiple expletives omitted} to do with HTML!

    LITERALLY the target audience for HTML 5 seems to be the people who still just write presentational HTML 3.2, slap a tranny doctype on it and call themselves up to date... Or the people who write polished turds -- where content is the last concern after all their pointless bling bling bull!

    It sure as shine-ola wasn't made for anyone who understands the point of strict, semantic markup or separation of presentation from content.

  5. #30
    SitePoint Zealot PatrickSamphire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    113
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    I'd argue that it is.

    After all, the title of the book is "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed". Sure, people may say or type "Collapse" for brevity, but surely the book's title is not just "Collapse"... that is only part of the title.
    I think in that case that the whole thing would be marked up with an H1. It clearly is all a single title. Whether or not people choose to shorten it, it's still the complete title.

    But not all titles fit that pattern. Take this title (of a book sitting on my shelf next to me): 'Sir Gregor MacGregor and the Land that Never was'. It is subtitled, 'The Extraordinary Story of the Most Audacious Fraud in History'. That subtitle is clearly not part of the title. I know this, because the main title page of the book only includes the first title. This would probably be a case where your TAGLINE tag would make sense, rather than an H2.

    But consider another example: 'A Dance with Dragons. Book 5 of A Song of Ice and Fire'. The title is 'A Dance with Dragons'. But the 'Book 5...' is not a tagline, and it is not part of the main title. It's clearly an independent subtitle.

    So, I think there are different types of 'subtitles', which should be handled in different ways.

    Now, I've said that I don't think HGROUP is necessarily the best way to indicate the linking of the subtitle with the title. It would probably make more sense to use something like the way we link labels to form fields with FOR, and / or to use a SUBTITLE role. All IMHO.

  6. #31
    SitePoint Zealot PatrickSamphire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    113
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by deathshadow60 View Post

    It's why to me, HTML 5 just looks like it's undoing ALL the progress STRICT offered us turning something simple into an unnecessarily complicated and bloated mess - the mess compounded even further by the loosening of what's valid and what isn't to the point that any "validation" becomes meaningless drivel.
    Well, you won't have me disagreeing about the decision to abandon all the STRICT requirements. It feels like giving in to bad coders and just throwing up our hands. I hate to think of how hard it's going to be to deal with code that has been through the hands of several incompetent developers who've all used different 'valid' methodologies of coding HMTL.

  7. #32
    The CSS Clinic is open silver trophybronze trophy
    Paul O'B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Hampshire UK
    Posts
    40,339
    Mentioned
    179 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by PatrickSamphire View Post
    . It feels like giving in to bad coders and just throwing up our hands.
    I have to agree also (and as I mentioned above that seems to be what I'm seeing more and more of in peoples code these days).

  8. #33
    Non-Member bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Keene, NH
    Posts
    3,760
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul O'B View Post
    I have to agree also (and as I mentioned above that seems to be what I'm seeing more and more of in peoples code these days).
    I don't know if I'd say "these days" -- its true of any field and has been true of web development from the beginning. There will always be those who sleaze through on as little effort as possible -- often making MORE WORK for themselves in the long run. I've seen it for forty years now.

    Sherry Bobbins said it best:
    If there’s a task that must be done, don't turn your tail and run, don't pout, don't sob… just do a half assed job!!!

    If you cut every corner, it's really not so bad, everybody does it, even Mom and dad. If nobody sees it, then nobody gets mad!

    It's the American way!


    I think a lot of it stems from literacy LEVEL being at a all-time low, despite the more popular literacy RATE being at an all time high. People just don't take the time to understand things, even their own work!

    "Oh, but I have to feed my family" -- sure, and you'd be able to feed them better if you did some real work, instead of sleazing by on no effort so you get sacked next week.

    Several years ago Roger Johansson made a decent blog entry on the topic... lemme find it here...
    Lame excuses for not being a Web professional | 456 Berea Street

    Sums it up VERY well. Everything on that page is as true today as it was four years ago!

    Much of it can also be blamed on the fact that 90% of web tutorials and 90% of books on shelves are outdated rot... It's like in Ian Lloyd's video pimping 2nd edition of his book, where he talks about going into a bookstore and browsing what was on the shelves, and being aghast at what the books were promoting as proper coding techniques -- and I quote:

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Lloyd
    Nearly every book that I looked at was recommending techniques that most professional web designers had long since abandoned... and I'm talking about techniques like using tables for layout; but that was just the tip of the iceberg. Each new book I picked up off the shelf I expected and hoped to see something better. Every single book I picked up just seemed to get worse and worse.
    ... and really apart from his book (and I even disagree with some bits of that) little if anything has changed.

    Overall, I often get the feeling people never heard Pattons ideal of "A pint of sweat now saves a gallon of blood later." -- see the practice of whitespace stripping to hide bloated code, vomiting up presentational markup, PHP and ASP programmers who don't know enough HMTL or CSS to actually do their job properly, and the tendency to try and build sites on nothing but copypasta instead of learning how to do the job properly.

    Cut every corner and sleaze it out any old way -- do just enough work you don't get fired but not enough work to actually be successful or promoted. Go team! That way you have more time to blog, tweet, text, and sit around playing Farmville on company time. Of course, I'm the jackass who when running my own business fired an employee for his needing to be on the phone to his wife 6+ hours a day... and after visiting a friends work told him to fire half his production staff for sitting there texting on the job when there was work that needed to be done.

    It's like people think work is the same thing as high school study hall -- but of course with our delaying childhood into the mid-20's nowadays through paying for school that these kids don't need, aren't learning jack, and is bankrupting the economy putting these poor kids DECADES into debt before the age of 24 -- this is hardly a shock.

  9. #34
    Community Advisor silver trophybronze trophy
    dresden_phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    2,798
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    here is one for you...how about

    LOGO:MOTTO

    This seems obviously wrong: <h1>My Company<br>I do stuff."</h1>
    This IS off the mark <h1>My Company</h1><h2>I do stuff."</h2>
    This ends up reacquiring the same # of tags as hgroup but w/o the TRUE semantic implications: <div id="logo"><h1>My Company</h1><em>I do stuff."</em></div>

    so in a sense the HTML5's hgroup IS logical and semantic that some "coders" dont know how or when to apply it is not the fault of the markup language itself at least not anymore that it is HTML4's fault when someone does this:

    <div>
    <h1>some head<h1>
    <span>some line</span>
    <div><div><ul><li>a singe list item</li></ul></div></div>
    </div>

    for deathshad:

    "Oh, but I have to feed my family" -- sure, and you'd be able to feed them better if you did some real work, instead of sleazing by on no effort so you get sacked next week.
    I don't think you understand... a client/boss may INSTRUCT YOU to do things the wrong way. As a prfession I always respond by recomending the RIGHT way. but the sad truth about any economic system and in any profession is that the peroson paying has teh final say.

    I ask you, what would would be the "professional status" of a coder who has the knowledge and ability to make 100% semantic lean code, but because of his unwillingness to "take client direction which is contrary to what he knows is technically right" loses 100% of his clientele? believe it or not this happens quite often in a free ( buyer driven) market economy and not just just in web development , but in just about ANY and ALL disciplines.

    If the illiterate where also poor... maybe this wouldn't be happening ...lol. Still, what I am saying is... some of the bad coding is teh result of client request not just ignorant coding.

    Just on a side note, I LOVE Dreamweaver ( I miss GoLive tho)... as a text-editor and FTP app. In other words, I agree with your take on such "helper" apps, but it has been a question posed to me by EVERY INTERVIEW I have ever had..."how well do you know/ how good are you at Dreamweaver"... this is even if I am enthusiastically pointing at the VIEW SOURCE display of my sample sites...


    so in reply to your Patton reference... the soldiers have and live by it, but the generals seem to WANT/ and gauge the soldiers by the gallon of blood.

    INHO, the problem stems from people determining authority by reasons other then education and knowledge. For his $x/hour pay rate the clients/bosses demand a level of control that should be exclusively the domain of the initiated or better yet experienced. Really the issue is.. and just about everyone is guilty of this.. the lack of appreciation of value. Coders don't value artists, artist don't value coders, coders, writers dont value artist or coders and clients/bosses dont feel like valuing anyone; of course corners are going to end up getting cut!

  10. #35
    Non-Member bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Keene, NH
    Posts
    3,760
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by dresden_phoenix View Post
    This seems obviously wrong: <h1>My Company<br>I do stuff."</h1>
    This IS off the mark <h1>My Company</h1><h2>I do stuff."</h2>
    This ends up reacquiring the same # of tags as hgroup but w/o the TRUE semantic implications: <div id="logo"><h1>My Company</h1><em>I do stuff."</em></div>
    You missed one way of doing it.
    Code:
    <h1>My Company</h1>
    <div id="tagline">I do Stuff</div>
    One LESS tag than HTML 5's way... Though I still say this:
    <h1>My Company <small>I do stuff</small></h1>
    makes more sense as that's ONE heading. It's a heading -- the description of a section. In that way I'll often put the date and author inside the heading.

    Code:
    <h2>
      <span>4 June, 2011 <span>-</span></span>
      We did something different today<br />
      <small>By Jimbo</small>
    </h2>
    (the inner span is display:none, it's there for CSS off users as a divider)

    That's a heading. ALL of it is a heading... a section of the data describing that which follows situated at the top and/or front. It often seems that people think that because headings can only contain inline level elements it should only be the line of text describing it -- if that were true why are line-breaks legal inside them?

    Quote Originally Posted by dresden_phoenix View Post
    I don't think you understand... a client/boss may INSTRUCT YOU to do things the wrong way. As a prfession I always respond by recomending the RIGHT way. but the sad truth about any economic system and in any profession is that the peroson paying has teh final say.
    It does often come down to "then why did you hire me?" in many of those cases. I've never had a client balk when I say "taking technical advice from Forbes is like taking financial advice from Popular Mechanics" -- and when you coach it in those terms they typically finally "get it".

    Quote Originally Posted by dresden_phoenix View Post
    I ask you, what would would be the "professional status" of a coder who has the knowledge and ability to make 100% semantic lean code, but because of his unwillingness to "take client direction which is contrary to what he knows is technically right" loses 100% of his clientele?
    I wouldn't know -- since usually I'm cleaning up the messes made by inept coders that the client wants fixed. That was actually my specialty so far as clients went, taking people who had either micromanaged their site to death or been led down the garden path by some dimwit still vomiting up HTML 3.2, and fixing everything.

    Though that has to be dealt with up front; Clearly defined roles for both developer and client HAVE to be discussed before the first line of code is laid down.

    Quote Originally Posted by dresden_phoenix View Post
    Believe it or not this happens quite often in a free ( buyer driven) market economy and not just just in web development , but in just about ANY and ALL disciplines.
    Maybe it's the engineering background, but when someone hires an engineer, usually you leave it to the engineer to do the job RIGHT -- since the client usually lacks the knowledge to make logical choices of vendor, materials, or personnel -- if they did they wouldn't have hired the engineer and his crew. What you're describing sounds more like hiring an interior designer or personal shopper.

    Quote Originally Posted by dresden_phoenix View Post
    Some of the bad coding is teh result of client request not just ignorant coding.
    Which is when you have to tell them "Just what the *** did you hire me for then?". Always worked for me...

    Quote Originally Posted by dresden_phoenix View Post
    Just on a side note, I LOVE Dreamweaver ( I miss GoLive tho)... as a text-editor and FTP app.
    So... a couple grand for crappy text editor that locks everything into a single window (useless) and a really mediocre FTP app... Oh yeah, that's SO great.

    That's what I keep saying about it -- by the time you have the skills to use it properly you shouldn't need it and it's massive over the top hour and a half load time bloated idiocy anymore.

    Quote Originally Posted by dresden_phoenix View Post
    In other words, I agree with your take on such "helper" apps, but it has been a question posed to me by EVERY INTERVIEW I have ever had..."how well do you know/ how good are you at Dreamweaver"... this is even if I am enthusiastically pointing at the VIEW SOURCE display of my sample sites...
    Eh, maybe I just like the look on people's faces when I say "I've used it enough to know to stay the **** away from it!" -- and then proceed to list every single thing wrong with it. Usually if you start listing the reasons for your statements, the argument actually has weight.

    Quote Originally Posted by dresden_phoenix View Post
    so in reply to your Patton reference... the soldiers have and live by it, but the generals seem to WANT/ and gauge the soldiers by the gallon of blood.
    Well, George was a bit unique -- he and Rommel both led from the Front. Usually you don't see Generals in the field.

    Quote Originally Posted by dresden_phoenix View Post
    INHO, the problem stems from people determining authority by reasons other then education and knowledge. For his $x/hour pay rate the clients/bosses demand a level of control that should be exclusively the domain of the initiated or better yet experienced.
    That's just letting them push you around and/or not explaining things well enough to them... Though yes, EVENTUALLY you do often have to cave and say "Fine, but if it fails it's on your head, not mine!" -- and get it in writing... and sometimes you really do have to tell them "look, just exactly what did you hire me for? You think you can do better, let's see you do it!" -- and I've never once lost a client from doing that.

    Though even in those cases it's STILL no excuse for invalid buggy broken non-semantic code a decade out of date -- no client is going to tell you to do that... Most clients aren't even smart enough to know what that means.

  11. #36
    Community Advisor silver trophybronze trophy
    dresden_phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    2,798
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    <small>!!!! As always ....Am still learning, Shadow.
    But it does sound weird when you apply it: <h1>GE <small>We bring good things to life</small>".. still, best solution I seen thus far!! I will begin implementing it.


    I did miss h1>My Company</h1> <div id="tagline">I do Stuff</div>... but that goes back to the my response to the OT.


    You think you can do better, let's see you do it!" -- and I've never once lost a client from doing that.Though even in those cases it's STILL no excuse for invalid buggy broken non-semantic code a decade out of date -- no client is going to tell you to do that... Most clients aren't even smart enough to know what that means.
    I have been hemorrhaging do to a more polite version of what you just said... :/


    That's what I keep saying about it -- by the time you have the skills to use it properly you shouldn't need it
    YUP. I am not defending DW as holding the ultimate text editor; just the one I have been given.. and apparent the ones clients ask for by name, in which I can type code just as well as TextEdit. But it doesn't mean using DW make u a bad coder IF you KNOW how to code well in the "code view" mode. Thus my point DW doesn't make bad coders... bad coding practices make bad coders. But maybe you are right, the problem with DW is that it makes people FEEL they can code even when they are just using WYSIWYG. But thats not the software's fault is the need for people to feel.

    the reason I brought up the source view, was that that I was trying to point out how my sites would not only looked nice but were well structured and "minimal" ( I try to get better everyday) code, but that they didn't care. As future bosses they want it done THEIR WAY ( or at least in a way they "feel" understand). another great reason for the DW code mode. Boss feels he's looking at DW and thus doesn't pursue it further ... coder codes properly in code mode.

    My father is a retired civil engineer, and while he would support you point in the execution of things, he mention the frequent faux pas in the direction of projects caused by DIRECT and FORCEFUL client intervention. So it does happen the difference is most client of civil engineers lack the math and equipped to actual affect the execution .. it doesnt mean its not heading that way like in every other field. The old art directors/creative Directors here still talk about what it was like before the mac when a client could NOT DEMAND a funeral poster done in COmic Sans because that how HE mocked it up in MS WORD so we could see what he wanted us to DO; another of my coworkers check's HER DOCTORS diagnoses against Web MD!!! It's really not that difficult to see how a web design a client could jump on a design forum and develop the position that he knows enough to "guide" developers.

    I hold your posts in hard regards, but your ire seems misplaced. The big downfall is that people hate admitting ignorance... "I bought a mac so now am a graphic designer since I can DO anything a GD can ", "I bought DW, so am a developer since it lets me DO anything a WD can", etc; when it fact "just because you CAN DO something doesn't mean you SHOULD" is a cardinal rule in engineering, as it is or should be in every other discipline.

    Maybe I am just unlucky, but I have notice that the an ever increasing number of client/bosses feel just knowledgeable enough to cause trouble. People with no knowledge of code or intent in fully immersing themselves on it have access to sites forms and opinion and can pull $4!+ like saying " I looked at your code you have "divitis" the only time you didnt use a div was for the navigation list..." ( yes, that didnt make sense to me either). in another word, clients that come in the door with the desire to submit to a professional's expertise ( tested or other wise) are few and far between. What does come through the door are folks that reason if you aren't doing something their way is because you arent clever enough to figure out a way to make it work, not because that's NOT the way or BEST WAY to achieve their goal.

    Back to the OT, the goal should not be decreasing the # of divs. it should be MAKING SURE every tag is efficient. for that you need to know the structure and maybe the content to be provided and the intended support. so as much I hate buzz phrases, because lift just isnt that simple, the best way to REDUCE UNNEEDED WRAPPERS ( divs or otherwise) is: code from the inside out.

  12. #37
    Non-Member bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Keene, NH
    Posts
    3,760
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by dresden_phoenix View Post
    <small>!!!! As always ....Am still learning, Shadow.
    But it does sound weird when you apply it: <h1>GE <small>We bring good things to life</small>".. still, best solution I seen thus far!! I will begin implementing it.
    It's why I suggest actually taking the time to read through ALL the tags on a site that organizes them well... Like the WDG reference:
    HTML 4 Reference

    If I hadn't read that end to end, I wouldn't be as proficient with HTML as I am. I prefer it to the sitepoint reference for it's simplicity and that it LITERALLY takes the specification and turns it into plain English instead of design by committee legalese.

    There are a lot of tags like DEL, SMALL, BIG that most developers don't even know are there; or tags like KBD, SAMP and CODE that even if they are aware of them, they don't use them properly. (code goes inside PRE, not instead of... and PRE's NOT presentational as you're saying what it is, pre-formatted text.)

    Quote Originally Posted by dresden_phoenix View Post
    I have been hemorrhaging do to a more polite version of what you just said... :/
    Most unusual, but it can hinge on the client base -- As I've said before I know what works for me here in New England would leave me with no clients in Florida - and the mannerisms of your average millivegan tofu loving PETA card carrying west coast emo would be dumped out on their ass before more than four words escaped their lips here.

    Regionalism, Gotta love it.

    Quote Originally Posted by dresden_phoenix View Post
    YUP. I am not defending DW as holding the ultimate text editor; just the one I have been given.. and apparent the ones clients ask for by name, in which I can type code just as well as TextEdit. But it doesn't mean using DW make u a bad coder IF you KNOW how to code well in the "code view" mode. Thus my point DW doesn't make bad coders... bad coding practices make bad coders.
    The problem with it isn't just not using only code-view though -- EVERY example template and auto-generated code even outside the WYSIWYG just mucks up everything. I have sites that all you have to do is load it into DW, do nothing but hit save, and it breaks the entire blasted layout -- that's just screwed up right there.

    It's a steaming pile of crap we need to start campaigning to have stamped out as wasteful, irrelevant and doing NOTHING but teaching bad coding habits. there is NOTHING you can learn from it that's any good -- and that you basically have to ignore 90%+ of it's functionality to even work with it in a professional manner is reason enough not to waste your time with it -- or to allow people to so much as THINK it's a useful tool.

    As Dan used to say, the only professional grade tools in Dreamweaver are the people promoting it's use.

  13. #38
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Augusta, Georgia, United States
    Posts
    4,147
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by deathshadow60
    It's a steaming pile of crap we need to start campaigning to have stamped out as wasteful, irrelevant and doing NOTHING but teaching bad coding habits. there is NOTHING you can learn from it that's any good -- and that you basically have to ignore 90%+ of it's functionality to even work with it in a professional manner is reason enough not to waste your time with it -- or to allow people to so much as THINK it's a useful tool.
    The great thing about it is itmakes people who have no business building web experiences create them. Then when they have issues because of it come onto a forum like this one were have people such as yourself promote their incompetence by helping them. So by helping them and giving them an answer you essential are promoting its use!
    The only code I hate more than my own is everyone else's.

  14. #39
    Non-Member bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Keene, NH
    Posts
    3,760
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by oddz View Post
    The great thing about it is itmakes people who have no business building web experiences create them. Then when they have issues because of it come onto a forum like this one were have people such as yourself promote their incompetence by helping them. So by helping them and giving them an answer you essential are promoting its use!
    Not if you start with "Well there's your problem" and tell them WHY they can't use that steaming pile, and your "help" involves throwing that bloated overpriced heap of dung in the trash.

  15. #40
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Augusta, Georgia, United States
    Posts
    4,147
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    You know that about 99% of people posting for that "type" of help don't listen to you. They are merely looking for a fix and forget it solution and could care less about anything regarding DW being a pile of trash. On top that you always have a designer here or there join in the conversation and well… you know.
    The only code I hate more than my own is everyone else's.

  16. #41
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,276
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    always a disaster when a designer joins the conversation

  17. #42
    Community Advisor silver trophybronze trophy
    dresden_phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    2,798
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    I liek to star by urging them to THINK!!!

    I think I will switch to coda, once someone flips $$ for it.

    The problem with it isn't just not using only code-view though -- EVERY example template and auto-generated code even outside the WYSIWYG just mucks up everything. I have sites that all you have to do is load it into DW, do nothing but hit save, and it breaks the entire blasted layout -- that's just screwed up right there.

    That made me chuckle, as one of the things people say about my work... is WOW.. that's definitely not a template (tho I think they are talking about the art direction.. but maybe they did look at the source code... as I like show that off.. tho am probably not at any of your levels.. YET) .. then when it comes time for me to custom code for them is when the "template" work is "requested " by the client. With no format, no structure, no content in mind.. eventually they ask for "something that we can just plug in stuff as it comes to mind and 'it displays like in our sketch') " . Some times they cant tell me if they will have a secondary content such as a sidebar navigation or featured articles or staff... "we might.. we dont wanna lock ourselves into anything... (DW preset layout is suggested... which not only offend me as a fledgling coder but as an art director) (followed by previews quote)" it's really hard as hell to write semantically like that.. but really that is or becomes 80% of my potential clients. I have already elaborated at length about their reaction when I try to push proper coding techniques. Which is what I am saying, at least in the chicago-midwest area.. it seems the norm is that a coder and /or designer is a filter that magically does exactly what they would do but it there after considered "correct".

    that sounded messy. I mean I had an experience in which someone hired me to mere create a color scheme for their brand, handed me a ready made ( and horribly mismatching and inappropriate color palette )... I though easy $500...48 hours and a presentation later.. they were mad I changed any of their colors, yet actually said " we thought you understood .. we wanted you to make our colors match.. " Essentially, fix what they felt was wrong , but w/o changing anything at all.

    always a disaster when a designer joins the conversation
    ==:P

    Seriously, I don't advocate DW. I am just saying that it is easy to code well in it DESPITE it. It's just a typing tool. The only advantage that SimpleText has over DW is that when someone who didn't take the time to learn HTML/CSS gets on it.. they get frustrated within right away and QUIT. I suppose that is slightly preferable, if a bit cruel a solution.

  18. #43
    Community Advisor silver trophybronze trophy
    dresden_phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    2,798
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Yeah this thread is getting tired.. but tonight I came across a PERFECT EXAMPLE of what I been trying to say about the urge to over reduce. Looking the source code for (mint) I saw that in their footer, they have a set of menu columns which they code this way:

    Code:
    			<ul class="first left list">
    				<li class="header">Site Links</li>
    				<li><a href="/">Home</a></li>
    
    				<li><a href="/how-it-works/security/">Privacy &amp; Security</a></li>
    				<li><a href="/help/">Help</a></li>
    				<li><a href="/blog/">Personal Finance Blog</a></li>
    				<li><a href="/mint_sitemap/">Site Map</a></li>
    				<li><a href="http://answers.mint.com/">Mint Answers</a></li>
    
    			</ul>
    			<ul class="left list">
    				<li class="header">Your Money</li>
    				<li><a href="/budget/">Manage your budget</a></li>
    				<li><a href="/invest/">Understand investing</a></li>
    				<li><a href="/credit/">Credit card advice</a></li>
    				<li><a href="/saving-money/">Save money</a></li>
    
    				<li><a href="/solutions/debt/">Pay off debt</a></li>
    				<li><a href="/solutions/student/">Pay off student loans</a></li>
    				<li><a href="/solutions/retire/">Save for retirement</a></li>
    				<li><a href="/solutions/taxes/">Get ready for taxes</a></li>
    			</ul>
    ...
    While this is "valid code" , it is semantically wrong.
    They have turned the first LI into a faux header. They should have used a <hx> for the header and a div wrapper, but the "coder" probably thought .. , "hey since the UL is a block element already.. I will save TWO TAGS, a DIV and an Hx!!!" A prefect example of people coding for presentation and tag reduction, which I think can be just as bad as overusing DIVs.

  19. #44
    SitePoint Enthusiast willsmith727's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    90
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    At the end of the day the amount of <div>'s on a page doesn't matter to the client. As long as the design looks great, the page renders how you intended it to in the major browsers and the website is getting leads/sales then thats all they're interested in.

    Don't get my wrong, we should all be striving for clean code yes, but spending ages arguing over whether 'thats an improper time to use the H3 tag - it should be h4' is a waste of time.

    I think HTML5 goes a long way in reducing the number of divs we use and the more experienced you get using HTML and CSS you start to realise you can style other elements (e.g. unordered lists) to behave as a block level element.

  20. #45
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,276
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    At the end of the day the amount of <div>'s on a page doesn't matter to the client. As long as the design looks great, the page renders how you intended it to in the major browsers and the website is getting leads/sales then thats all they're interested in.
    Unfortunately this is true. Which is why it's up to us and us alone to reduce the bloat-boat. I could build our current insurance pages in tables and the bosses wouldn't know the difference. But I don't.

    I think HTML5 goes a long way in reducing the number of divs we use
    Reduces divs by increasing other (new) tags. Total result is more code per amount of content. Which could be okay in my book IF the new "semantics" of the new tags meant anything to user agents... which I expect they will, someday in the future. They don't mean anything to anyone now.

    In fact, the only parts of the new semantics that have gone anywhere are some of the new form input types, and the roles. HTML5 is giving elements roles, which UA's mostly ignore, but some screen readers are starting to embrace both hand-listed ARIA roles and sometimes also default roles. Roles are pwning semantic tags right now.

  21. #46
    SitePoint Zealot PatrickSamphire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    113
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    Which could be okay in my book IF the new "semantics" of the new tags meant anything to user agents... which I expect they will, someday in the future.
    Which gives two reasons to work in HTML5 now:

    1. A chance to learn HTML5 now, so that you're ready when you do need it.
    2. Including future functionality right now. At some point these tags (e.g., time) may be widely used and you'll already have them. This is much like including edge-case CSS3 now: you don't do it for something core, but it's nice to have in place for when browsers evolve.

  22. #47
    Non-Member bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Keene, NH
    Posts
    3,760
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    Reduces divs by increasing other (new) tags. Total result is more code per amount of content.
    Especially since many of the allegedly "semantic" tags add no new semantic meaning you shouldn't already have (like heading and list) and are to be slapped around elements that don't need extra block level containers around them (like heading and list)

    Which is why I say HTML 5 is crafted for the people who used to slap tables around everything for nothing, then proceeded to slap div around everything for nothing. Basically the people who still vomit up HTML 3.2 and slap a tranny doctype on it.

    Everything old we got rid of because it sucked is new and trendy. As already noted (was it this thread? Too lazy to backread) by someone on these forums, in a lot of places HTML 5 looks like "throwing your hands up and saying oh well" when it comes to expecting people to bother writing good code.

    Literally might as well go back to using FONT, CENTER, and ALIGN for all the "improvements" HTML 5 offers.

  23. #48
    SitePoint Enthusiast willsmith727's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    90
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by deathshadow60 View Post
    Literally might as well go back to using FONT, CENTER, and ALIGN for all the "improvements" HTML 5 offers.
    I think that's a bit pesamistic myself.

    HTML5 is a step in the right direction massively imo.

    Relating it to the topic at hand of excessive divs, now that we're using HTML5, this;

    Code:
    <div class="nav"></div>
    can become this;

    Code:
    <nav></nav>
    Thats more semantic and you've eliminated an extra div!

  24. #49
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,276
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    You haven't eliminated anything. You've added an element.

    This is what you have in HTML4.01Strict (not valid only because the W3C validator has not been updated to understand XHTML2 roles, which have been implemented in HTML at all levels but only recognised by the validator.nu HTML5 validator):
    Code:
    <ul id="nav" role="navigation">
      ...
    </ul>
    (if I'm not supporting IE6, I could just leave off the id="nav" part)

    Here's what you get with HTML5:
    Code:
    <nav>
      <ul id="nav">
        ...
      </ul>
    </nav>
    Definitely added an element, since the only time you wrap a div around a nav ul is when you want/need a background colour/image/border to extend beyond the boundaries of the ul itself. In my case, that has happened but not very often.

    What will eventually happen though is the nav element's default role (which is "navigation") will become implemented in browsers and will gain semantic meaning. This may pose a problem though when authors want to use ARIA landmark roles, where you may have this:
    <nav> (has a native navigation role)
    <ul id="nav" role="navigation"> (has an ARIA landmark role)
    ...

    Maybe screen readers will get that figured out, but for example NVDA would read out multiple navigation roles, when ideally it should only read out one (the one the author put in the attribute... after all, you don't want a navigational landmark role on every nav on the page... only the *main* navigation). That is, they should not announce native or default roles as landmarks.

    I expect that to get figured out eventually, but in the meantime I know my code will work much better with current screen readers and current browsers if I stick to HTML4.01 and use landmark roles than mixing half-implemented HTML5 native roles with landmark roles.

    But likely my next "new" site will use the HTML5 doctype, shortened attributes and the new form elements, since I know I can always tell the W3C validator to check my site "as if it were XHTML1.0 Strict" to see all real and possible errors. I can do this while still avoiding the funny stuff, the draft stuff and the stuff that's conflicted in current user agents.

    Also, I don't have to worry about being "ready for the future" with this... user agents are NOT going to drop HTML4 within the next 10 years... and I dare any web site of any size or popularity to last 10 years without some kind of rewrite anyway. Certainly nothing I ever build will last that long. : )

  25. #50
    Non-Member bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Keene, NH
    Posts
    3,760
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by willsmith727 View Post
    Thats more semantic and you've eliminated an extra div!
    I've never liked "nav" as a class/id Since every element on a page is navigation so it's just a wee bit vague -- and swapping a DIV that in 99% of layouts is a completely unnecessary wrapper if you are using semantic tags like UL/OL, for another tag to wap around them instead is NOT the answer! NAV also being so uselessly vague for targeting purposes you'd likely still have a ID or class on it. Falls into the same trap as calling your stylesheet "style.css" or using classnames like "style1, style2" -- vague/meaningless/not all that helpful.

    Especially when they could have just brought back the MENU tag to do that -- but of course instead they brought MENU back for something completely unrelated.

    MENU having been deprecated as redundant to UL.

    Code:
    <nav id="mainMenu">
      <ul>
       <li><a href="#">Home</li>
       <li><a href="#">Forums</li>
       <li><a href="#">Links</li>
      </ul>
    </nav>
    Is STILL basically the same stupid extra wrapping tag around the UL for NOTHING. UL's a perfectly good block-level tag... That's what I mean by the people who used to wrap tables around single elements for nothing now wrap DIV around tags for nothing will just wrap most of HTML 5's allegedly semantic tags around things... FOR NOTHING.

    It's why when I see code like
    Code:
      <div id="header">
        <h1>Site Title</h1>
        <div id="mainMenu">
          <ul>
           <li><a href="#">Home</li>
           <li><a href="#">Forums</li>
           <li><a href="#">Links</li>
          </ul>
        <!-- #mainMenu --></div>
      <!-- #header --></div>
    OR in HTML 5
    Code:
      <header>
        <h1>Site Title</h1>
        <nav id="mainMenu">
          <ul>
           <li><a href="#">Home</li>
           <li><a href="#">Forums</li>
           <li><a href="#">Links</li>
          </ul>
        </nav>
      </header>
    I shake my head in disgust -- the above being LEAN versions compared to how some folks go about it... when all that really should be needed to do that job is:
    Code:
      <h1>Site Title</h1>
      <ul id="mainMenu">
        <li><a href="#">Home</li>
        <li><a href="#">Forums</li>
        <li><a href="#">Links</li>
      </ul>
    Perfectly good block level containers that unless you're doing something like sliding doors (and even then) need no assistance from unnecessary parent wrappers.

    It's why I think that if they were going to introduce something like 'nav' for their alleged "better for screen reader" nonsense I'm not even sure CAN be implemented in a practical manner, it should probably have been reusing an attribute like 'rel' to say what it is instead.

    That's EXACTLY what I mean when talking about HTML 5 being little more than justification for the people who never really got the point of STRICT or semantic markup -- and basically just vomit up HTML 3.2 to slap a Tranny doctype on it.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •