[thelist] presentation vs. structure (was "random image")

[Erika Meyer]

I think this is all a process of learning, unlearning, relearning.

When I started with HTML it probably hitting peak FONT tag madness 
time.  I started with the NCSA Beginners Guide to HTML which was 
good, and which promoted structural markup. But I was influenced by 
the trends around me. So I wanted my headers to look just "so" so I 
colored the H1 tag...eventually giving it up all together for <FONT 
SIZE=6 FACE="Arial, Helvetica, Verdana, Sans-Serif" color="red">This 
is Pretty?</FONT>.

I wanted links two different colors (hence the <font> tag inside the 
<a href> to force a link color) I wanted a funky-looking table layout 
with colored cells like hotwired.com, so along came <td bgcolor> plus 
an attribute-laden font tag in every cell.

My portfolio of sites, when I look at the HTML, is a story in itself. 
It's like when you see the brush strokes the artist painted over... 
the progress of the work, not just the finished product.

Of course, 99.999% of clients couldn't give a **** about what the 
HTML looks like....that is until they need to go and do the updates 
themselves. (all the while I am praying: "Please don't use 
PageMill...")

A lot of times I (and others) do choose CSS elements based on how the 
"look."  Especially when it comes to Netscape.  I tend to use <div> 
because Netscape can manage to put it in a square and put on a 
rectangular background-color with some kind of border around it.  I 
don't know exactly what NN would do with a background-color on a <p> 
but I have my doubts... (maybe I'll have to try it).

When I find something that works tolerably well in two major 
platforms I'm not generally inclined to go looking for CSS trouble.

We are just now getting to the point of having CSS1 compliant 
browsers.  So for me, I am still trying to figure out what I can get 
away with in terms of CSS1.  And I think I'm just coming to the point 
where, in sites where I'm in control, I'm going to be okay with 
leaving non-CSS browsers behind, in terms of presentation.

As with FONT tags.  I did not eliminate them all in one fell swoop. 
As I became more proficient with CSS, they kind of trickled away out 
of my code bit by bit.  Once my documents came close to clean 
validation, that was inspiration enough to boot out the last few 
stragglers.

My process of site design is now a process of addition & subtraction. 
How much can I put into an external stylesheet & still have a 
tolerably attractive site across platforms? And what kind of "look" 
am I going to seek and/or tolerate from non-CSS browsers?  I'm still 
trying to figure out how much I can "get away with" under what 
conditions.  I would prefer my sites look pretty good to prospective 
employers, prospective clients, who rarely or never look at the code.

I would like one day, for a client/employer to say, "oh, how lovely. 
Your code validates. And your interface is both attractive and quick 
to download.  And my, what a wonderful job you have done separating 
presentation from content."  It would be great if this one day these 
priorities are important to someone who has money to pay me to build 
web sites.  I hope it happens. If not, I'll just have get by on my 
deep sense of personal satisfaction.

So anyway, my current goal is to build something interesting, 
informative, navigable, accessible, well-formed, valid AND pretty (in 
4x browsers).  If I can do that, I'll be more than satisfied.

<span class="still_waiting_for_netscape6">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Erika 
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>

HTML Unleashed: procedural & structural markup
http://www.webreference.com/dlab/books/html/3-1.html
1997. Dmitry Kirsanov


>i've noticed a few sites repalce all their <font> with <span>, and
>then tell themselves they've split the content and the style... they
>haven't... they're just kidding themselves...

erika at seastorm.com
http://www.seastorm.com