Re: Solution - A Perfect Web Site!

Sathish,

Excuse me, but before you come onto the list insulting 
people who are
genuinely trying to add the discussion, please consider 
the following:

There is NO SUCH THING as a perfect web site!

>From a technical point of view, a perfect site is one 
which conforms to the
W3C standards for mark-up, stylesheets and 
accessibility.  From an
advertising/marketing point of view, perfection comes in 
the form of
superfluous graphics.

A web site which is composed mostly of graphics is not 
one which is
accessible to people who can't use their eyes to read, or 
their hands to
click.  How can such a site be perfect?

In order to build a site that looks how you expect in all 
browsers, you need
to use some non-standard mark-up.  Standards 
compliant code, unfortunately,
is not synonymous with cross browser compatibility.  If 
this really is the
case, how can a cross-browser web site be perfect?

You have claimed that a perfect web site can be 
achieved by the use of
absolutely positioned HTML elements.  Have you looked 
at any of your sites
in Netscape 3?  If so, how can THAT web site be perfect?

A perfect web site is unachievable.  A good web site is a 
matter of personal
preference, and a balance of compromises.

This list is not only for people working on $50,000 
sites.  It is for
everyone.

Thank you for your time,

Tim



----- Original Message -----
From: "Sathish C. Bramhan" <sathish(at)bramhan.net>
To: "David R. Longnecker" 
<davidl(at)magictechnologies.net>
Cc: "HWG Techniques" <hwg-
techniques(at)hwg.org>; "HWG Style"
<hwg-style(at)hwg.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 9:24 AM
Subject: RE: Solution - A Perfect Web Site!


> Hello, knock, knock, McFly!
>
> You are missing the point.
>
> How much is HWG site worth? 10 bucks an hour? A 
total idiot can create HWG
> site in 3 hours with FrontPage support. Do you have 
anyone who can create
> mgm.com in 3 hours that can be w3c and browser 
compliant? And also a
great,
> actually the best studio web site. (It is not w3c 
compliant at present,
> that's the point) Look carefully; mgm site is not easy 
to produce. It's
> incredibly difficult. I have worked in projects like that. 
Have you? (I
was
> not involved on this site, but I admire the people. 
They are bloody
great!)
>
> Please take a hike, or get a haircut. Or do something 
useful. Don't waste
my
> time! PLEASE! I don't have time for BS. Talk about 
$$$$ and w3c
compliance!
> (If your sites are anything below $50,000. Please 
don't waste my time.
Talk
> to the professors in this list)
>
> I'm tired off all the idiots. You have something 
concrete. Talk to me! If
> not go to Yahoo Geocities and open a home page 
and leave us alone! PLEASE!
I
> beg you!!!
>
> ... SATHISH
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David R. Longnecker 
[mailto:davidl(at)magictechnologies.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 12:51 AM
> To: Sathish C. Bramhan
> Cc: HWG-Style; Hwg-Techniques List
> Subject: RE: Solution - A Perfect Web Site!
>
> Then I suppose I'm missing the point entirely.. Since 
when did I have
> "Advertising Exec" on my doorframe?  Web design 
isn't advertising, it is a
> medium.. television isn't advertising, it is a medium.. 
it's what you put
on
> it that makes it advertising, informative, educational, 
etc.
>
> Most web designers aren't coming up with the content 
(unless it's our
> company).. we're being present with the content and 
to "have fun, make it
> look good, and make it bring me customers!".  That 
would take Advertising
> out of our job description.  So, returning to being a 
web designer...
>
> As far as creating a graphic rich page conforming to 
w3c standards.. I
> pulled up the W3C's validator (though not always 
accurate, will give you a
> good example):
>
> HWG's page was perfect HTML 4.01.
> W3C's page was perfect XHTML 1.00.
> MGM Studio's page was very flawed HTML 4.01.
> Website.fi's page was flawed in the framesets in HTML 
4.0.
>
> A w3c site with just graphics?  If MGM and Website.fi 
hasn't done it... do
> they consider it a necessity?
>
> Real world web sites have problems conforming.. real 
people have trouble
> conforming.. it's reality.
> I see the desire for perfection.. but with every browser 
supporting
> something different and w3c changing the standards 
constantly.. is it
> possible or practical?  Typically, bleeding edge will 
cause more bloodshed
> than necessary.
>
> -David
>
> David R. Longnecker
> President & CEO
> Magic Technologies, Inc.
> http://magictechnologies.net
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sathish C. Bramhan 
[mailto:sathish(at)bramhan.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 2:29 AM
> To: David R. Longnecker
> Cc: HWG Techniques; HWG Style
> Subject: RE: Solution - A Perfect Web Site!
>
>
> David,
>
> You have a valid point. I agree. I'm not saying you're 
wrong.
>
> My argument is not about Web Design, that's 
Advertising. It has different
> rules and a ball game.
>
> This is purely about a graphic rich page, conforming 
to w3c standards and
> popular browsers.
>
> I don't want to give a lecture on Advertising. This 
forum is pure, "html"
&
> I would like to stick to it.
>
> Do you have any better, easy, time saving ideas? I'm 
all for it.
>
> ... SATHISH
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David R. Longnecker 
[mailto:davidl(at)magictechnologies.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 12:12 AM
> To: Sathish C. Bramhan
> Cc: HWG-Style; Hwg-Techniques List
> Subject: RE: Solution - A Perfect Web Site!
>
> Sathish and fellow HWG members:
>
> Can I buy this whole conversation in book form?  I 
think it'd be funny
years
> down the road. As much as I'm just aching to design 
for NS6, I can barely
> get the bloody software to work properly in Windows 
ME.. and Unix is just
a
> laugh.
>
> A perfect web site is an opinion of the creator and the 
viewer.  Some
people
> would whine and complain to be in a new Porsche 
when they wanted a Station
> wagon--the same is vice-versa.
>
> Jason and Marc in the Style group had a good quote:
>
> "Web designers have to concern themselves with what 
does work in the real
> world and not what should work in an ideal world."
>
> Very true.. if we work towards idea.. then we'll go 
insane as developers.
> Why do you think software production never ends 
(and not just because of
the
> bugs).. a web site is something that is a work of art in 
constant
creation.
> It's something that evolves over time.  To create 
the "perfect" site on a
> first attempt or first rendition is impossible.  Have you 
ever seen a
> rollout or production site?  It's chaos unless there are 
several people:
> graphic designers, web designers, coders, custom 
programmers--all working
on
> one site.  Large companies have that ability... I know 
that in my
company..
> it's me, myself, and my invisible friend that brings me 
lots of coffee.
>
> A quote from the w3c's web site about design:
>
> "Design: W3C designs Web technologies to realize 
this vision, taking into
> account existing technologies as well as those of the 
future. "
>
> Note EXISTING technology.. meaning when designing 
a graphical site... what
> happens to those with older PCs that would die if they 
even computed
Flash?
> You must still design for everyone.  The average PC, 
according to sources
on
> the web (ZDNet) is still ranging from Pentium 90's to 
Pentium 266Mhz's
with
> 32Mb - 64Mb of RAM.. these are things that are not in 
w3c that need to be
> taken into consideration.
>
> So, before you start telling us that our responses 
are "nonsense" and
we're
> forgetting what our true purpose is.. expand what 
you're thinking about
and
> look beyond the browser.. look at the box, the user, 
and the environment.
>
> -David
>
> David R. Longnecker
> President & CEO
> Magic Technologies, Inc.
> http://magictechnologies.net
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-hwg-style(at)hwg.org [mailto:owner-hwg-
style(at)hwg.org]On Behalf
> Of Sathish C. Bramhan
> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 12:30 AM
> To: sathish(at)bramhan.net
> Subject: Solution - A Perfect Web Site!
>
>
>
> To everyone:
>
> After three Days/Nights of trial and error, here is my 
Solution to the
> problem. Last night when I sent a request for a 
solution, I should have
> re-phrased the title as, "A Perfect graphic intensive 
html/xhtml page." I
> thought at least "One" person from HWG related 
forums could answer my
> problem. I have received several mails from you 
guys. Guess how many
> suggestions for a proper solution? - NONE! Most of the 
replies were utter
> nonsense.
>
> Proper solution here is not throwing away Netscape 6, 
saying "To hell with
> w3c", or ignoring graphics. Proper solution is to create 
a page with
> incredible graphics, conforming to w3c standards and 
which works in most
of
> the browsers. As of now, 4 plus. Please understand, 
no big client's or
> motion picture studio is going to pay 100,000 or a 
million bucks for a
very
> nice text full web page "hand coded" by a professor. 
And if these people
> don't pay, there's no money in this business. No w3c 
and NO "html writers
> guild" I'm aware money is not everything, but money 
is something! At the
> same time, we have to stick to the standards.
>
> Here's my solution to the problem. Some of you 
might have a better idea.
> Instead of criticizing each other like idiots, let's 
discuss.
>
> At present, when an html integrator gets a psd file, 
he/she uses a graphic
> editor, most popular are Fireworks and Imageready, 
slices the graphics,
> applies the required behaviors, exports them to an 
html editor and rest
you
> all know. The slices exported are housed within 
Tables as required. Add
rest
> of the elements and hey! It's a perfect w3c compliant 
web page! (Well, to
> make sure validate with the w3c validator)
>
> What can go wrong?
>
> Here comes Netscape 6! A perfect web page validated 
by w3c validator is
> messed up. In this discussion, it is the "Broken 
Tables." The reason
> Netscape 6 considers the correct "document type 
declaration" as strict
> html/xhtml or some other reason, nobody knows! 
(Even the so-called
> professors who talk about w3c and 'hand coding' had 
no clue.) Easy,
> emergency and practical way without a major 
compromise was to ditch the
> correct "dtd" so as to enable Netscape 6 to default to 
the non-standard
> version. (It was a question of "money" and a firing 
squad)
>
> This might sound stupid and insane, but slices 
housed inside table cells
> like old times don't work! You have to create layers 
with 'div id' for
each
> slice and control them with a css positioning. If there's 
100 slices,
you'll
> have 100 layers! I tried to control the parameters of a 
cell thru css. It
> did not work. The former is the only solution to make 
a graphic rich page,
> w3c compliant and browser independent (4+) (both 
html 4.01 and xhtml 1.0)
> that's totally stupid. Layers for the entire page? For 
each slice? Maybe
one
> of these professors might have suggested this genius 
idea without any
> understanding of the industry. I understand 
professors are used to text
> pages!
>
> For people who use Fireworks and Dreamweaver, I 
used the latest version
> i.e., 4. (I don't know about Imageready and Golive) 
After slicing in
> Fireworks 4, while exporting select, css layers-html 
page. Each slice is
> automatically exported as a layer. Open it up in 
Dreamweaver, add required
> behaviors (Rollovers don't work, use swap image and 
layer hide), open it
> with Note Pad (I use Note Pad for repair work, 
everything looks big) and
fix
> each layer with a css id tag, add correct 'document 
type declaration' and
> other elements (for xhtml add the appropriate end 
tags) and there it is! A
> perfect page. (Funny, though, everything on the page 
will be in a layer,
> even the text!)
>
> As of now, I cannot show you a practical example. 
Most of the psd's we
have
> has a brand. I'll post a link as soon as I get a non-
branded page.
> Meanwhile, I'm open to good criticism and 
suggestions. In case any of you
> want a demo and you happen to have a graphic psd, 
please send it to me,
I'll
> slice it and upload it somewhere, so you can take a 
look at my method. If
> anyone has any better idea, my ears are open.
>
> Please remember, this forum is from "html writers 
guild." This problem is
> pure html. There has been discussion on HWG lists 
about asp, java, php,
> etc., These other subjects have their own forums. So, 
a html problem needs
> preference.
>
> ... SATHISH
>
>

HWG hwg-techniques mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA