Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Web Design Challenge(s)
#11
seph: Very sorry, that one is old or something...the one I use is vlad_man80@hotmail.com.
BTW I'm going to be changing the design soon...but please do chat with me, I always want suggestions.
f only life let you press CTRL-Z.
--------------------------------------
Freebasic is like QB, except it doesn't suck.
Reply
#12
*Shocked by recent comments*

Excuse me... stylesheets save loads of code. For example, I don't have to panic when Lord HD tells me that the yellow at QBNZ is too bright... all I do is change one character, and the change reflects on the *entire* site! Stylesheets mean effective code.

Think of it this way. If someone told you that the font size was all wrong and you have to change all the h3 tags, would you rather go hunting through the crap of an HTML document, or change one rule in a stylesheet? Personally, I'd much prefer the latter.

I know that in some places you would end up typing more code than using the HTML equivilants, but these cases come few and far between, especially when you apply one central stylesheet to an entire document collection. Give me an HTML page with formatting embedded, and I would guarantee a 10-50% saving in code overall by using stylesheets. What's more, it does reduce server load: stylesheets are cached, so you only download it once, unlike with an embedded HTML document, where each time you go to a new page you effectively have to download the formatting again.

Another way stylesheets are effective. You remember those 1X1 pixel transparent GIF images? The ones used to hold empty space or make borders? Each time one of those is referenced in an HTML document the browser has to make another server hit to download it (they are not cached). This means much longer waiting times when CSS properties like margin and padding are widely supported.

Of course there are some down sides. For just a small, one page document an external stylesheet is hardly nessecary, but unless the page is *really* small you can still use an embedded stylesheet to save code. Some features remain unsupported by major browsers too: there is no way to reproduce rowspan and colspan.

But overall, the reasons for using CSS are overwhelming. The W3C are the standard setting body for HTML etc and they are steering the 'net the way of CSS. It is the way that documents are gonna be formatted in the future, so I suggest to everybody here that you get at least a grounding in CSS for the future. And that includes you, toonski.

*breathes again* sorry :wink:

Re the contest: excellent idea. I can provide a document just *itching* to be formatted... we can get some people to use HTML formatting and some to use CSS and compare.

I think toonski's ideas for judges is good. I'll be the functionality judge if you want - I have a good understanding of browser compatibility, CSS and w3 standards, and access to Netscape 6 and 7, Mozilla 1.0.0, IE 5.5, IE 6 and Konqueror.

I'll send the document to you, wildcard, if you want, and any other decided judges, unless of course you already have one.
Reply
#13
Ok, the contest is going ahead. If you want to participate send me an email or PM if you have not already done so.

oracle: feel free to send it, I'm not sure if I can use it but I'll take a look.

The challenge will be to redesign/design a 2 page website from a basic page set sent out to the people entering. You are free to remove/add graphics, change the content wording by rephrasing/rewording but the main idea must still come through. The challenge will run from this Thursday to next Sunday(actually Saturday but am allowing for timezones post GMT).

Judging of the challenge will be done by me and two other judges (names given tomorrow).

Any suggestions/changes need to be made before it starts so..
Reply
#14
oracle. Ain't important. I know you like CSS, and i'm not saying it's a good thing, i'm just saying that the user wouldnt care, and that the overall size is more important, so that's what should be measured.

and functionality is not just browser compatibility. Everyone has netscape, IE and opera. It's ment to be that your site is easy to navigate and understandable, which is why its the most important.

but i've stated my point, and now i'm beginning to repeat myself. *puts on sunglasses* Time to make some websites, people.
i]"I know what you're thinking. Did he fire six shots or only five? Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I've kinda lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum ... you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?"[/i] - Dirty Harry
Reply
#15
Just for info, I'll post better judging guidelines soon but judging will take mainly the look of the site into account. The site will be viewed with IE 5 or 6, but if asked other browsers will be used. Being standards compliant will be a bonus but not the focus, maybe that could be another challenge?
Reply
#16
Toonski: CSS *does* cut down on size in 99% of cases though. That was the gist of what I was saying.

Wildcard: check your email.
Reply
#17
Well, just to confirm, I've sent you an e-mail wildcard...
Reply
#18
I PM'd ya awhile ago, Wildecard. But I'll be out of town for the next few days. I'll probably be back at the end of the week. Just email the contest stuff to me at joe @ betterwebber.com
i]"I know what you're thinking. Did he fire six shots or only five? Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I've kinda lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum ... you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?"[/i] - Dirty Harry
Reply
#19
Hello... are we doing this challenge or what? It's been a while since "tomorrow"...
Reply
#20
Its coming, patience. Theres something called real life, but I'll be sending out the stuff in a few short hours from this post.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)