This is Interesting: Free Magazines for Graphics designers and webmasters  


Home > Archive > Website Design Forum > December 2006 > Need opinion on design of this site...





You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread. To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to this thread please [click here]

Author Need opinion on design of this site...
Gater

2006-12-06, 8:05 pm

http://www.wrestlerratings.34sp.com/index.php

Thanks,


Brendan Gillatt

2006-12-06, 8:05 pm

Gater wrote:
> http://www.wrestlerratings.34sp.com/index.php
>
> Thanks,
>
>


It's certainly an improvement on you're old style.
I would loose the background image - it's a bit straining on the eyes.
You also use a few formating tags such as <B> which are depreciated in
favor of CSS (as well as being upper-case). Use a <span> tag with
appropriate formatting.

--
| Brendan Gillatt |
| brendan {at} brendan \removethis// gillatt {dot} co {dot} uk |
| http://www.brendangillatt.co.uk |
| PGP Key: pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x6E265E61|
Spartanicus

2006-12-06, 8:05 pm

Brendan Gillatt <brendan@brendanREMOVETHISgillatt.co.uk> wrote:

>You also use a few formating tags such as <B> which are depreciated in
>favor of CSS (as well as being upper-case).


Maybe you no longer "appreciate" the <b> element, I can assure you that
it has not been *deprecated*. There are instances where using the
element is perfectly appropriate.

>Use a <span> tag with
>appropriate formatting.


Which, contrary to use of the <b> element, is rarely a good solution.

--
Spartanicus
Brendan Gillatt

2006-12-06, 8:05 pm

Spartanicus wrote:
> Brendan Gillatt <brendan@brendanREMOVETHISgillatt.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Maybe you no longer "appreciate" the <b> element, I can assure you that
> it has not been *deprecated*. There are instances where using the
> element is perfectly appropriate.
>
>
> Which, contrary to use of the <b> element, is rarely a good solution.
>


Sorry if I was wrong but I was under the impression it was - meh. I
thought the idea was to off load the presentation of the document to CSS.

--
| Brendan Gillatt |
| brendan {at} brendan \removethis// gillatt {dot} co {dot} uk |
| http://www.brendangillatt.co.uk |
| PGP Key: pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x6E265E61|
Spartanicus

2006-12-06, 8:05 pm

Brendan Gillatt <brendan@brendanREMOVETHISgillatt.co.uk> wrote:

>
>Sorry if I was wrong but I was under the impression it was - meh. I
>thought the idea was to off load the presentation of the document to CSS.


It is, but there is also the need for a document to work without CSS.

Occasionally the visual representation of a document rendered sans CSS
can be improved by using the <b> element around content which cannot
justifiably be marked up as a header or as having emphasis, this can
justify using the <b> element with content.

Then there are situations where an empty hook in the HTML is needed to
attach styling properties to, for that purpose there is nothing wrong
with using <b></b> or <i></i> instead of <span></span> or <div></div>.

Finally <span class="foo">foo</span> with .foo{font-weight:bold} is no
less presentational markup than <b>foo</b>, it just wastes more bits.

--
Spartanicus
Sponsored Links


Copyright 2003 - 2009 forum4designers.com  Software forum  Computer Hardware reviews