J
Jonathan N. Little
Jenn said:
You missed the hint! The Google spider does not have javascript enable.
You missed the hint! The Google spider does not have javascript enable.
J
Jenn
Jonathan N. Little said:
so? does that mean you don't put any javascript on a website? No.
R
rf
Jenn said:
It's not people who I am concerned with. It's that most important visitor
mentioned above. The search engine bot.
If you use javascript to insert content (eg. images) onto a page, as the
page you mention above appears to do, then google will never see that
content.
Besides, what that page does is a simple exercise to code in a fully cross
browser mannar, and also in a mannar that degrades gracefully in the absense
of javascript, so google will be able to index the site properly
B
BootNic
A trick question yes?
I don't even want to take a guess at what "work" would mean.
If the question is can variable with images be used. Yes.
The problem with one of the galleries I looked at would be that there
does not seem to be any standard size to the images at all. It would
make it much easier to accomplish if there were some sort of standard
sizes to the images, that is not saying they can't be different sizes,
but they should at least be limited in say 3 widths.
An example would be:
http://bootnicredirect.bounceme.net/ex0004
NOTE: I did not bother to add support for IE 6/7 or older mozilla
browsers. CSS3 selector support required for the above example. This is
not to say that the extra support can't be added.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkvo2/sACgkQmo2774GZ7qn67QCg19jf3AX1lh7zWxzKldIrGZ/2
qz0AoO+QDf+HG57cd0ty+uPE16wPjsaP
=RO5+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
R
rf
Jenn said:
No it does not mean that at all. It means that you use javascript to
*enhance what is already there*.
Those thumbnails should be links and they should be coded in the page using
vanilla HTML a elements. That way google can follow them.
It's fine, once the page actually works, to jazz it up with a bit of
javascript but you most definately should *not* use javascript to "write"
content into the page.
The most absurdly stupid thing I've ever seen was a site that used flash for
its primary navigation. Google saw the first page and that was it. When I
pointed this out to the sites owner her eyes glazed over until I showed her
exactly which page (one, index.html) was in googles database, whereupon she
tore strips of her "web designer". A lot of those javascript dropdown menus
(and many of them come from dynamicdrive) behave like this as well. Google
simply can not index anthing past the first page.
J
Jenn
rf said:
the page was a suggestion or an idea... use it .. don't use it ... it
doesn't matter to me either way. A person can keep trying to get the
perfect page and never get the page working so anyone can appreciate it, or
you can do something now and get the page up in a timely manner. If all
someone wants to do is code for the google bot, I imagine there are other
ways to do that and still use some of those ideas on dynamic drive. Why
re-invent the wheel? I don't understand why it's so difficult to get a page
going that will work for a great many people and the browsers they use...
but might not work perfect for a small number of people. I don't think it's
possible to have a perfect website and perfect code and the site look nice
all at the same time with everything sheer perfection. It doesn't exist.
J
Jenn
rf said:
Thus far I've seen many people make suggestions as to how to do that page
for the photos, and no one has an answer and nothing has worked that anyone
else has suggested. I'm beginning to think all this talk about perfect pages
is just smoke in the wind. How long should it take to find a solution? Do
this.. don't do that.. if you do that it won't work if you resize the font
... if you do the other thing it won't work in such and such browser. You
could take weeks only to find out there is no perfect solution. How is
doing it your way better, or faster, or improved in any way or how I would
do it if you can't even agree on a solution that will be perfect? It's kind
of frustrating to watch someone ask a question and there be no solution at
all.
A
Adrienne Boswell
It means that you don't use JavaScript for anything vital like
navigation. If you can still use the page with javascript disabled,
you're fine.
R
rf
Jenn said:
Yes Jenn, it does.
A page with zero HTML errors. A page with zero CSS errors. A page with zero
Javascript errors. A page that will display correctly for all current and
future browsers including the one in next years telephone and will degrade
gracefully for all past browsers all the way back to lynx. And a page that
is also asthetically pleasing and conveys the content in exactly the mannar
for which it was designed.
Such pages do exist. People are creating them all the time. It is not easy
do to but it is not very hard either. I created one just the other day.
But it is true that these pages are a bit rarer than all the hundreds of
millions of junk pages out there, including many of the junk scripts from
dynamicdrive.
R
rf
D
dorayme
"Jonathan N. Little said:
Here is a hint: there are times that important points should not
be hinted at.
D
dorayme
"Jenn said:
There have been some good answers. That does not mean that these
answers will suit everyone's website makers needs. But if it
suits some and it works well for the users, that is perfection
enough surely?
About javascript, in the template of
http://tinyurl.com/2jcs5r
there is js, but it is merely for the non-crucial purpose of
centring the whole block of floats. If js is off in someone's
browser, their experience is not devastated and in fact, in this
case, hardly diminished, it is perhaps a nice touch, cream on the
cake (the milkman was Bootnic, btw.)
D
dorayme
"rf said:
It is limited to 4 thumbs per row in my Safari? The general idea
is good though, the better idea is to look at Bootnic's oft
posted thumb pages where there is proper fluidity.
R
rf
dorayme said:
He's got a max-width in there, that's all.
D
dorayme
"rf said:
I am sure he has, why would anyone reduce the power of a
technique this way? Tables are inflexible, let's get some
flexbility! But let's not go all the way, the sky might fall in?
Is this something like deliberately speed limiting one's own
machine gun in a real war for no reason that can be fathomed?
D
Dave
rf said:
While I totally agree with the standard practise of using javascript to
enhance a page whilst ideally not making content unavailable to search
bots or other non-javascript clients, it's probably worth pointing out
at this stage that as of a little over a month ago Google have enhanced
sitemaps to allow you to specify images in your sitemap.xml thus
allowing them to find images reached via javascript.
http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=178636
So in principle it seems there is at least some scope for making
javascript-only content available to Google now. Not sure how much use
that will be, or how well it will work. I've modified one of my sites to
test it out - just need to wait on Googlebot catching up. ZZZzzz..
R
rf
dorayme said:
Agreed.
<rant>
I am not in favour if max-width. Everybody cries about "but my lines of text
are too long". They are too long because that is how wide the idiot
drezigner has set their browser canvas. Want shorter lines? Narrow your
canvas. For me (who is viewing said idiots site) perhaps I *do* want my
lines, and they are now *my* lines as I have just downloaded them, two
thousand pixels wide, maybe because maybe I am a little blind and like each
letter to be fifty eight pixels wide.
</rant>
As to Neredbojias's site, why can't I fill my entire screen, or indeed all
three of them, with his thumbnails?
http://barefile.com.au/screenshot/n.jpg
You will need to scroll that way ---> a long long way to find any content.
Shame, Neredbojias, shame
1
123Jim
rf said:Agreed.
<rant>
I am not in favour if max-width. Everybody cries about "but my lines of
text are too long". They are too long because that is how wide the idiot
drezigner has set their browser canvas. Want shorter lines? Narrow your
canvas. For me (who is viewing said idiots site) perhaps I *do* want my
lines, and they are now *my* lines as I have just downloaded them, two
thousand pixels wide, maybe because maybe I am a little blind and like
each letter to be fifty eight pixels wide.
</rant>
As to Neredbojias's site, why can't I fill my entire screen, or indeed all
three of them, with his thumbnails?
http://barefile.com.au/screenshot/n.jpg
You will need to scroll that way ---> a long long way to find any content.
Shame, Neredbojias, shame
lol .. that,s funny ..
Is that extended desktop on three monitors? . in that case you would not
lose his thumbs they would be on one of them., the centre one.
R
rf
123Jim said:
Ha. Yes, you are correct of course. Central monitor contained thumbnails.
<-- and --> monitors contained immaculately grey dreary rainy night coloured
pixels.
The ---> in my post was so the student would remember to wake up and scroll
her viewport to the right so as to admire the total width of my carefully
constructed jpeg
But, as to N's page, I wanted to view ALL of the thumbnails on ALL of my
monitors. He has gone to great lengths (well one line of CSS length) to
prohibit me from doing what I wanted most desperately wanted to do.
Several years ago I said, and it bears repeating: Browsers will do exactly
what their operators want them to do and web authors should respect this.
But no, the average web author spends lots and lots of time writing code (of
whatever flavour) to restrict what the operator of the browser can do with
the page.
Or something like that. It's in the archive IIRC, just next to the KISS
principle entry.
N
Neredbojias
Agreed.
<rant>
I am not in favour if max-width. Everybody cries about "but my lines
of text are too long". They are too long because that is how wide the
idiot drezigner has set their browser canvas. Want shorter lines?
Narrow your canvas. For me (who is viewing said idiots site) perhaps
I *do* want my lines, and they are now *my* lines as I have just
downloaded them, two thousand pixels wide, maybe because maybe I am a
little blind and like each letter to be fifty eight pixels wide.
</rant>
As to Neredbojias's site, why can't I fill my entire screen, or
indeed all three of them, with his thumbnails?
http://barefile.com.au/screenshot/n.jpg
You will need to scroll that way ---> a long long way to find any
content.
Shame, Neredbojias, shame
All right! -I'll take it out. Geez...