Footer problems...content overlaying

Text is better than images when the images represent TEXT… when the images are just images (like a photograph of a person relevant to the content) that’s when it should be an IMG.

Again, one of the best ways to test for that is to view the page with CSS off. If the image looks stupid or out of place, it probably shouldn’t be a IMG tag. Testing CSS off is one of the great ways to get a general idea what search engines see, what screen readers read, and how ‘semantic’ your code is.

For example, you have a news article about a fire, with a picture of a burnt house – that’s a content image and belongs in an image tag. You have a quotation with a picture of the person being quoted – that’s CONTENT, it gets a IMG tag. You have a news article where you’re using a image for some goofy font and color effects – that’s presentational affectation of text, and so has no business in the HTML… You have a border image – that’s a presenational affectation meant JUST for screen users, that doesn’t belong in the CSS either.

Also why 99% of the time people omit the MEDIA attribute or send media=“all” they’ve gone into miserable /FAIL/ land.

In Opera it’s under the view -> style menu. “user mode” is CSS off, “author mode” is CSS on. If you install the web developer toolbar in Firefox, you can do it there as well. In the “developer tools” in IE8+, there’s a “disable” menu.

Disabling images is much the same. I like Opera because it’s built in right there on the view menu. View -> Images -> No Images. There’s a reason it’s taking iPhone and Chrome combined to cut into Opera’s share of the mobile world (where Opera is still the king) – and have yet to actually make them lose any users. (Again, share drop has less meaning when there’s market growth!)

There’s a lot of stuff that just isn’t covered in starting materiels - most of the tutorials and books on shelves being a decade out of date on the subject.

You have to go over the history of HTML to really get the point of it. Back when TBL made HTML at CERN, he was looking for a way to transmit hyperlinked documents that could be handled on any number of different mediums – print, teletype, 22x21 text on a vic-20, 1280x1024 graphics on a 22" Monochrome NeXT workstation, 800x600 truecolor in windows 3.1 – With all the different capabilities of those devices the notion of “what you see is what you get” was as absurd then as it is today. The original browser TBL made actually had stylesheets! Thing is, they were device specific and would have been included with the browser for each device instead of each page. What today would be considered “user CSS” and lives on in browsers like LYNX.

But then in the late 90’s the capabilities of devices started to converge and “designers” hit the scene wanting fonts, fancy graphics – and HTML “lost it’s way” with HTML 3. The big two browser makers of the time started adding in tags like FONT and attributes like BGCOLOR, which were completely inappropriate for many devices and tended to result in really big code for little content. It’s the legacy of HTML 3 that we are still fighting today – “Transitional” for example just being HTML 3 with a 4 doctype slapped on it.

HTML 4 Strict (and by extension XHTML 1 Strict) was created for a host of reasons – there were too many tags confusing users, so redundant tags like DIR, MENU and APPLET got the axe, as did third party tags and presentational tags that served no purpose once CSS was introduced. Bringing back the stylesheet and letting developers put all their device specific commands in there instead of the HTML gives you a return to HTML’s original device neutrality, while still being able to go ape with the fancy stuff for “screen” – the MEDIA attribute for LINK letting you target device types specifically. Further, with 4 Strict they tightened up the rules in a manner designed to prevent developers from even making mistakes in the first place.

This led to the concept of “separation of presentation from content” – HTML being for saying what things ARE, CSS for saying how they should LOOK for screen, print, handheld, or whatever else you want to target.

Though it’s truly sad, HTML 5 loosening the rules to absurd levels, introducing a bunch of useless, confusing and redundant tags, changing the rules for headings making even having numbered headings pointless, and on the whole pissing all over the progress strict offerred – The target audience for it obviously being the people who still vomit up HTML 3.2, slap a 4 tranny doctype on it, and call themselves a modern developer.

But this stuff goes in cycles. Be fun when HTML 6 throws away 90% of the crap in 5 that even the creators of it can’t figure out how to use properly… since much of it is redundant, pointless and setting coding practices back a decade.

In any case, separation of presentation from content, building semantic markup followed by css for layout followed by images optimized for the web (which means using something OTHER than photoshop to save them, since it wouldn’t know optimized file saves from the hole in it’s DVD)… it’s the best approach for accessible sites. Progressively enhance the page so that it gracefully degrades as all the “gee ain’t it neat” nonsense is unavailable.

Also makes it easier to practice “page targets” – choosing ideal sizes for the total of your page to match what you can afford for hosting and what your audience can actually use. Whenever I see these 1 megabyte plus monstrousities that abound these days I just shake my head, and say “enjoy your bounce rate”; but then there’s a reason most such sites fold inside a year or never get past the “100 frequent visitor” mark. Me, I aim for 70k total with a 140k upper limit for a home page… though with the slow bandwidth increases I’m considering upping that to 96k/192k; This is even more of a concern with google penalizing slow loading pages, though a fast loading easy to use page will beat some flashtard script-tard bloated train wreck any day becuase people can actually USE them… or in the case of our friends to the north, aren’t bankrupted by them when they hit an overage.


Gosh, what an optimist you are!

which means using something OTHER than Photoshop … since it wouldn’t know optimized file saves from the hole in its DVD

You never fail to come up with a great turn of phrase! :lol: [/ot]