Edited and lengthened over two hours or so.
Ree smash webpage!
Grr. I really hate pretentious crap about webpage design, particularly when it doesn't help me out. I'd love to design wisely and correctly, but there are just so many good ideas on webpage markup that end up being implemented differently in each browser, if at all, and never as well as first planned.
I've been banging about "Morons in web space" (I will not recreate that abyssmal title, dammit), and I'm spouting a blue streak and seeing red. Colors, whee.
I really want to smack people who think I should do webpages without using tables for layout. Apparently I'm supposed to use CSS-P instead. Now, CSS-P (Cascading Style Sheets used for positioning) is a very good way to control layout to the pixel. I, however, am not that anal. I won't design a perfect layout for one screen resolution only to have it look like crap in all others (in fact, a later portion of the page rails against layouts designed for one resolution!). Tables allow me to create a three-part table with set widths for my sidebars, while filling the space between them with my third, main area. I've attempted to lay out templates with CSS-P and I felt stupider for trying. If there's a simple way to achieve the effect I want with CSS-P, it eludes me. Until someone can show me how CSS-P is so much better and simpler to use than tables, I won't use it. At least with tables I don't risk overlapping design elements.
I, as a web page designer, am supposed to use CSS-P to control my every pixel's placement -- and yet I am also supposed to not specify font sizes ot even font faces! I feel obliged to point out that, unless I control the precise font size, I won't know how large a box to make in CSS-P to contain that text. I'll have to design a lot of empty space (which I hate) or allow parts of the page to overlap each other. That isn't smart web design to me. It's a headache I want to slam into the dustbin.
Now, this page (which I've not finished reading yet, as I was getting too hot under the collar) makes some valid points. The section dealing with abuses of HTML in particular earned my respect. I had never considered using the TITLE attribute for an image instead of the more common ALT, but this page points out that ALT is meant only for images used as links. I hadn't heard that before, but it sounds valid to me. My Opera browser doesn't display ALT text when I hover over an image, but it does show TITLE text.
And I know I shouldn't use the definition list for my cast page, but it's not like the same system was being used for anything else here. I might end up creating a glossary page for strange terms I like to toss about, and if that happens, I will for once being using the definition list as intended. Oh, the irony.
I'll probably add to this later -- if I do, I'll try to remember to save as text file, delete and repost with the same filename, so it shows as an update in people's buddy lists.
(later)
Or not.
Aha, something handy! A pet peeve of mine is people who use the DiaryLand comments system (available to paid accounts) and link to each comments page using the JavaScript ONLY. Don't do that! It's very cool to make the window pop. Good for you. Not very hard -- I could do it if I felt like cheesing people off -- but I guess it looks cool for awhile. Fine. Your diary, do what you like. But please use proper JavaScript coding so that I can still leave you a comment, even if my JavaScript is turned off!
Fuck. Did that even make sense? See, whenever JavaScript is placed in a page, tags are used that say SCRIPT. A careful page maker also uses NOSCRIPT tags; these control the content seen by people who don't have JavaScript turned on in their browsers. By placing an HTML link in the between the NOSCRIPT opening and closing tags, you can let people without JavaScript read other comments and leave their own! I should note, though, that I'm not sure just how the comments system works, and there might not be a provision to put an HTML link to comments pages without doing it manually on eacah entry (ew!). It would be nice if something could be done, though -- perhaps using NOSCRIPT to link people to your notes page if their JavaScript is turned off. Using no NOSCRIPT leaves a non-functional JavaScript link. Boo.
Hm, ragging on column layouts like mine. I do mine this way because I lose my place in a page if the text streams across the entire screen. I prefer pages of books, which are taller than they are wide; I rarely lose my place in those pages. I also have a number of little widgets I like to shove where they'll be spotted, but won't be obtrusive. If I shove them at the start of the page, readers will have to scroll past them and be annoyed by them; if I place them at the foot of the page, readers will rarely scroll down far enough to see them. I like this setup, though I'll grant that my buddy list taking up several screens is irritating. I can't imagine putting that in a header or footer, though -- ugh!
Ah yes. Frames. Don't. Please. Just don't. If you truly MUST, at least make sure the frames are resizable and that you have a no-frames version of your site, or I'll come slap you with month-old tunafish sandwiches.
I'm much liking this page now. Looks like all the things that annoyed me were early on, and the things later in the page are sensible things that I quite agree with. Yay. For instance, making links look like normal text by removing the underline. Please don't. Luckily, I have my trusty Opera to help me out -- but on another computer, I can't tell that you're linking stuff! Grr!