Re: CSS for positioning

[BootNic]

news:[email protected]...

[snip]

I don't see any posts from Bootnic .. just attachments and I
won't open attachments.

Never mind this milkman. <g>

[snip]

No cookies for you <g>

--
BootNic Tue May 11, 2010 01:57 pm
I try to take one day at a time, but sometimes several days attack
me at once.
*Jennifer Unlimited*

â• 62 days remaining

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkvpmroACgkQmo2774GZ7qlmFgCfQva89v39mHJc+5V1eF6CMQQm
oZEAoMVu2atTqeSzNuUP55a4S9suC+1/
=Lt7V
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Jeremy J Starcher]

Validation may be fine for small hobby sites, but I don't see it as
being practical for gigantic sites with constantly changing dynamic
content, imo.

No reason why validation can't be (and shouldn't be) done.
If the tools generate bad markup, get better tools. If the bad markup is
user-generated, then there are tools that can correct that as well.

 

[Jenn]

At the same token, I cannot predict 100% much of anything, but I can go
a /long/ way towards pushing the odds in my favor.

Coding to the standards. It is /very/ unlikely that a browser released
today that doesn't follow standards will become popular.

I can let HTML do what HTML was *meant* to do ... not care about what it
was displayed on.

(VERY important piece of history about HTML. HTML was /not/ meant to
display on a computer screen. It was meant to display on /everything/.
Literally. The design goal of HTML was 'This is what I mean .. hey you,
think that shows me. Figure out how I'll look best.'

The advent of the 'font' element, as well as 'i' and 'bold' were a major
step in the wrong direction and pushed HTML where it never should have
gone and now we are fighting to bring it back.

Properly structured HTML using the best practices, will remain viewable
on things now -- and into the future.)

I've already made the move to using CSS for formatting fonts and links..
etc... but I really don't like using it to format a site layout or tables...
although I will use it if I want to do something specific across the board,
but I still like having some formatting for the tables within the table code
itself.

 

[Jenn]

Add keywords to your list of obsolete knowledge.

LOL it's not likely to happen anytime soon.

 

[Jenn]

You are right that the float template is unlikely to suit people
with very different size thumbnails. However inline-block method
instead of floats along with a fix for IEs (like, to quote
Bootnic: display:inline; zoom:1 sound attractive to me. I
better make an example and pretend it is my own idea soon. <g>

I look forward to see your example.

Newsreader settings? His or yours or the chemistry between them?
In other words, I don't know. I see his posts fine.

<shrugs> I'm using eternal-september.org to view these usenet NNTP groups.

 

[Jeremy J Starcher]

Google is not the most important visitor to your website... your target
customer is.

In my case, no google, no target customers.

Google will adapt and crawl your site just fine if you remember to
include keywords within your page and not just in the meta tag.

Iff (yes, that is with two f's) it can reach the content.

 

[Jenn]

What is important is good meaningful headings in the body text,
using words in the opening paragraphs of a page that are
appropriate to the website and quite natural but which are also
likely to be asked for in searches. Clients can place paid ads if
they want to get ahead of the pack, meta keywords don't much work
these days, Jonathan is right.

I will have to disagree with you on the meta keywords not working these
days...

 

[Jeremy J Starcher]

I've seen many sites that specifically post in their footer or nav
somewhere... "This site is best viewed with JS enabled" or "This site is
best viewed in 'browser name'. If someone wants to view that site, then
they view it as it was designed to be viewed.

"The Web is not a magazine."
"The Web is not a magazine."
"The Web is not a magazine."

Unfortunately, too many people treat it like it is. They want to make
web pages like they would layout a glossy magazine, put this here, that
there and this stuff will be in a two-point myopic font ...

If a site was designed to be viewed with a particular piece of hardware,
then the designer of the site /failed/.

If you are going to use any of those, then this one /might/ work:
http://www.scatacook.org/images/BestViewedComputer.png

"The Web is not a magazine."
"The Web is not a magazine."

Design for the web.

You can give the user agent some hints (CSS) about how you want things to
look ... but they are just that. Hints. In the end, your audience might
be using a screen reader or braille terminal. In the end, your target
audience might have no fonts, no margins, no backgrounds. No colours, no
sizes. Just raw content.

So... start with raw content. Then spruce it up.

 

[Neredbojias]

It is still usable, but the problem is that he has not bothered to
accommodate a workaround for the deficient browser IE7 and under.

You're right, you're absolutely right. I could have *sworn* I did that
(-page is about a year old), but guess not. However, I have a good
excuse. -I forgot. Anyway, here's one (-properly fixed) that you'll
probably like better, anyway:

C:\Pictures\html\web08net\sgs.html

(PS: Not sure, but that _could be_ dorayme in the background of the 6th
picture.)

 

[Jenn]

No, the fact is those sites *also* don't know that google and the other
major search engines stopped reading meta keywords over ten years ago,
due to webmaster/authors stuffing with sex-oriented words just to gain
more hits.

It is a fact. Accept it.

http://www.metatags.info/spiders

What do you think of what this site says?

 

[Jenn]

"The Web is not a magazine."
"The Web is not a magazine."
"The Web is not a magazine."

Unfortunately, too many people treat it like it is. They want to make
web pages like they would layout a glossy magazine, put this here, that
there and this stuff will be in a two-point myopic font ...

If a site was designed to be viewed with a particular piece of hardware,
then the designer of the site /failed/.

I think you are looking at it from just one point of view, tho. The
internet is more often than not contains pages designed for a specific
reason, hardware, browser .. etc.

If you are going to use any of those, then this one /might/ work:
http://www.scatacook.org/images/BestViewedComputer.png

"The Web is not a magazine."
"The Web is not a magazine."

Design for the web.

I like your image.. it made me laugh ..

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

http://www.metatags.info/spiders

What do you think of what this site says?

What do you think of what this (these) site says?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta_element#The_keywords_attribute
http://www.seoimage.com/meta-tag-tutorial.html
http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum30/28356.htm
and googling produces many more.

 

[Jeremy J Starcher]

I think you are looking at it from just one point of view, tho. The
internet is more often than not contains pages designed for a specific
reason, hardware, browser .. etc.

Really?

I thought all of those disappeared when Geocities shut down...

In all truth, I think I'll find that sites geared towards a particular
browser fall into one of these camps:

1) An ancient zombie from the great Browser Wars and hasn't been updated.

2) Cargo cult coding from people who study from (1).

3) intranet (internal network) applications designed for IE6.
(Who are struggling now that 6 is on its way out)

4) Extremely misguided 'security' attempts.

5) Web application sites. (Mind you, they really could do everything in
one version, but at least many of them offer a 'light weight' a 'simple'
interface to the important stuff.)

 

[Jenn]

What do you think of what this (these) site says?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta_element#The_keywords_attribute
http://www.seoimage.com/meta-tag-tutorial.html
http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum30/28356.htm
and googling produces many more.

There appears to be conflicting information:
http://www.seoimage.com/meta-tag-tutorial.html
Meta Keywords:
<META NAME="Keywords" CONTENT="Search Engine Placement">
The Keyword tag once reigned as an almighty tag until Google decided to
ignore it due to webmaster spam. Webmasters flooded it with every keyword
they could thing of, relevant and irrelevant keywords were used to
eventually render this tag worthless. It is still used by other search
engine with more priority then Google. Google will consider the tag if it
has limited usage. A good useful keyword tag should have a limited number of
keywords. Somewhere between 5 and 20 is a good range.

 

[freemont]

Anyway, here's one (-properly fixed) that you'll
probably like better, anyway:

C:\Pictures\html\web08net\sgs.html

Hehehe... slow down! ;-)

 

[freemont]

http://www.metatags.info/spiders

What do you think of what this site says?

<http://www.metatags.info/meta_name_keywords>

<quote>
So why do we say meta tags keywords have significant influence ?

"Because wrongful use of keywords will get your website banned from the
seach engines. The negative effect will even double. If you use the
keywords right, the influence wil be little. But if you use them wrong,
perhaps you get banned. So the negative effects are huge !"
</quote>

To emphasize: "If you use the keywords right, the influence wil be
little."

So meta keywords are useful because if you use disallowed ones, your
rankings will fail. ooooooook

Your meta tag example site also fails validation partly because they
placed a <meta> tag within the <title> tag. Sheesh. Nice example.

Anyway, that site exists to convince you to use as many meta tags as
possible. Citing a site called "metatags" as a source of unbiased opinion
on the value of meta tags is a poor choice.

What will you have next, I wonder?

poorwebdesigntips.info

whytablesrule.info

onlyIEmatters.info

itsokwhenyoursitebreaksiftheclientlikesitlol.info

 

[Jenn]

--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
http://pqlr.org/bbs/

Really?

I thought all of those disappeared when Geocities shut down...
In all truth, I think I'll find that sites geared towards a particular
browser fall into one of these camps:

1) An ancient zombie from the great Browser Wars and hasn't been updated.

2) Cargo cult coding from people who study from (1).

3) intranet (internal network) applications designed for IE6.
(Who are struggling now that 6 is on its way out)

4) Extremely misguided 'security' attempts.

5) Web application sites. (Mind you, they really could do everything in
one version, but at least many of them offer a 'light weight' a 'simple'
interface to the important stuff.)

Here are a few from a current google search.. these sites aren't any of what
you said above.
http://www.ors.utah.gov/best_viewed.htm
http://www.ece.unm.edu/csc/index.htm
http://www.floridadisaster.org/SiteView.htm
http://www.microsoft.com/en/us/default.aspx (see footer text)
http://thegolflockertv.com/index.php/the-news/74-firefox

 

[Jenn]

--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
http://pqlr.org/bbs/

<http://www.metatags.info/meta_name_keywords>

<quote>
So why do we say meta tags keywords have significant influence ?

"Because wrongful use of keywords will get your website banned from the
seach engines. The negative effect will even double. If you use the
keywords right, the influence wil be little. But if you use them wrong,
perhaps you get banned. So the negative effects are huge !"
</quote>

To emphasize: "If you use the keywords right, the influence wil be
little."

So meta keywords are useful because if you use disallowed ones, your
rankings will fail. ooooooook

Your meta tag example site also fails validation partly because they
placed a <meta> tag within the <title> tag. Sheesh. Nice example.

Anyway, that site exists to convince you to use as many meta tags as
possible. Citing a site called "metatags" as a source of unbiased opinion
on the value of meta tags is a poor choice.

For your reading enjoyment, Freemont....

There appears to be conflicting information:

This link was provided by beauregard...
http://www.seoimage.com/meta-tag-tutorial.html
Meta Keywords:
<META NAME="Keywords" CONTENT="Search Engine Placement">
The Keyword tag once reigned as an almighty tag until Google decided to
ignore it due to webmaster spam. Webmasters flooded it with every keyword
they could thing of, relevant and irrelevant keywords were used to
eventually render this tag worthless. It is still used by other search
engine with more priority then Google. Google will consider the tag if it
has limited usage. A good useful keyword tag should have a limited number of
keywords. Somewhere between 5 and 20 is a good range.

 

[Jenn]

--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
http://pqlr.org/bbs/

Google doesn't use keywords.

Really, did you just turn your brain completely off last century?

In addition to this text below.. there is conflicting information as to how
effective keywords are.. No need to be insulting in your comments, Lewis.

There appears to be conflicting information:
http://www.seoimage.com/meta-tag-tutorial.html
Meta Keywords:
<META NAME="Keywords" CONTENT="Search Engine Placement">
The Keyword tag once reigned as an almighty tag until Google decided to
ignore it due to webmaster spam. Webmasters flooded it with every keyword
they could thing of, relevant and irrelevant keywords were used to
eventually render this tag worthless. It is still used by other search
engine with more priority then Google. Google will consider the tag if it
has limited usage. A good useful keyword tag should have a limited number of
keywords. Somewhere between 5 and 20 is a good range.

 

[freemont]

This link was provided by beauregard...
http://www.seoimage.com/meta-tag-tutorial.html Meta Keywords:
<META NAME="Keywords" CONTENT="Search Engine Placement"> The Keyword tag
once reigned as an almighty tag until Google decided to ignore it due to
webmaster spam. Webmasters flooded it with every keyword they could
thing of, relevant and irrelevant keywords were used to eventually
render this tag worthless. It is still used by other search engine with
more priority then Google. Google will consider the tag if it has
limited usage. A good useful keyword tag should have a limited number of
keywords. Somewhere between 5 and 20 is a good range.

It was a poor example, a result I'm sure of pure haste and/or possibly
dwindling interest in presenting information to you.

At the bottom of the cited page there is this bit of content:

<quote>
About the Author: Alan Rabinowitz is the CEO of a prominent NYC <a
href="http://www.seoimage.com/">SEO Company</a>, SEO Image. Visit SEO
Image for more information on <a href="http://www.seoimage.com/search-
engine-optimization.html">Search Engine Optimization</a>, Internet
Marketing and Link Building. http://www.seoimage.com/
</quote>

That's not the markup, mind you; that's what the webmaster(s) present on
their page. What a joke.

So much for any credibility there. The site is junk, selling snake oil to
suckers.

Keep trying to "win", instead of listening to what people tell you, ok?