Site-making question (open to all)

[Dayspring]

Apart getting space and then doing everything html-coded yourself, how does one go about making a layout? How do you make a structured set of links on the left (or right-hand) side of a site? How do you place them in a table, like on daizex's left, or make menus like the tables in the center of the daizex site? I know this is insanely general, but I'd like to use an easy to upload and edit program to make a simple site and have no clue where to look. I have Microsoft Publisher 2003; how fucked am I with it?

[askani son]

For a start, I'd say go with using Frontpage instead (I find it way easier to use and it has better functions), secondly you need a layout (you could get a pre-made one here or make one yourself with a design program, I would reccomend Photoshop for this).
Tutorials up on http://www.pixel2life.com might help with the tables and stuff aswell as coding the images from Photoshop into a html document.

Feel free to tell me if I missed the point here completely... I do that way to much...

[desirecampbell]

I'm a little confused by your post Dayspring. Are you asking

'How do I make a webpage without HTML?' or
'how do I make a webpage with HTML?' or
'I already know HTML, how is it best implimented?'

If it's the first question, don't even try - without a basic knowledge of HTML you'll have to use front-end editors like FrontPage - and that usually looks like crap (though I have seen a few decent ones).
For question 2, refer to askani son's post, the best thing to do is read tutorials and test stuff out.
The last question requires a bit of discussion, I'd love to get into it but you'd need to know you code first.

[Dayspring]

I'm a little confused by your post Dayspring. Are you asking

'How do I make a webpage without HTML?' or
'how do I make a webpage with HTML?' or
'I already know HTML, how is it best implimented?'

If it's the first question, don't even try - without a basic knowledge of HTML you'll have to use front-end editors like FrontPage - and that usually looks like crap (though I have seen a few decent ones).
For question 2, refer to askani son's post, the best thing to do is read tutorials and test stuff out.
The last question requires a bit of discussion, I'd love to get into it but you'd need to know you code first.

Then allow me to paraphrase Ash from the Evil Dead trilogy:

I only know two things about making a website: Jack and Shit, and Jack just skipped town.

I don't have any skills when it comes to editing images (ie: photoshopping to make a layout). I also have NO html skills. I do have a bunch of resources, original ideas, and the desire to make a site. Put them together and I get nothing frustration.

[desirecampbell]

I'm a little confused by your post Dayspring. Are you asking

'How do I make a webpage without HTML?' or
'how do I make a webpage with HTML?' or
'I already know HTML, how is it best implimented?'

If it's the first question, don't even try - without a basic knowledge of HTML you'll have to use front-end editors like FrontPage - and that usually looks like crap (though I have seen a few decent ones).
For question 2, refer to askani son's post, the best thing to do is read tutorials and test stuff out.
The last question requires a bit of discussion, I'd love to get into it but you'd need to know you code first.

Then allow me to paraphrase Ash from the Evil Dead trilogy:

I only know two things about making a website: Jack and Shit, and Jack just skipped town.

I don't have any skills when it comes to editing images (ie: photoshopping to make a layout). I also have NO html skills. I do have a bunch of resources, original ideas, and the desire to make a site. Put them together and I get nothing frustration.

Hehehehe "Boomstick."

Anyway, your best bet is to read some HTML tutorials - learn the basics: like creating a page, changing font size and colour (remember: they say 'color'), making hyper-links (yes, they're called 'hyper'-links), and putting in images. The basics.

Then try some advanced stuff like, tables, style sheets, and images as links. Then you can start trying to make a really good layout.

After you've got a basic layout, impliment some basic PHP (it's easy stuff, and makes multi-page sites easier to manage).

Once you get to step 2 you can start experimenting with PhotoShop (or GIMP if you prefer free and legal ) for layout images. I can help you with the PHP stuff. I use PHP to keep my navigation the same on every page, but it can be used for many more, more complex functions.

All in all, your best bet is to learn HTML. If you start now you'll have a decent understanding in a couple of hours. It's an easy language, and it's not hard to find tutorials for. Try the sites askani son posted. If you have trouble, at all, post here, or email or pm me. I'd be happy to help, and I'm sure everyone else here would be too.

[Dayspring]

So much work for something so simple.

Man, all I want is a website like yours, desire.

[desirecampbell]

So much work for something so simple.

Man, all I want is a website like yours, desire.

Flattery will get you everywhere hehehe

My layout's pretty basic, most layouts are. Just a table. Mine's set up like this:

first I make a table, and <center> it.


then I make the individual cells


then I make them specific sizes.


The top cell is the banner image, the left cell is for the navigation, and the right cell is for content. It's the same basic layout for most of the websites out there.

Trust me, you can do it too - just learn the basics of HTML first, you'll catch on quick.

[lost in thought]

So much work for something so simple.

Man, all I want is a website like yours, desire.

Flattery will get you everywhere hehehe

My layout's pretty basic, most layouts are. Just a table. Mine's set up like this:

first I make a table, and <center> it.

First of all, you want to make it in notepad (being the most flexible editor you can find, without the clutter of poorly programmed non-standards observant code implementing buttons).

Also, desire you do not use tables, or least of which <center>. Center has been deprecated since 4.0. As well, your best bet is to construct a layout with dividers, as they are the current standard (of which most servers, and browsers follow direct support of.)

If you want a layout Dayspring, I can code one up for you. And if you want an example of the sort of work I do, a good example would be: www.underated.net/ . It's barely constructed so its basicly a blank tablet for you to look over.

Edit:
Also, a good website is one that stores content in mySQL databases for ease of storage, and use, as well as one that properly implements the collection of pages, for viewing. None of that index.php?id=somepage bullshit.

[VegettoEX]

Do not use our site as a good example of anything. It's terrible, out-dated, and was finished long before I was actually professionally doing this stuff .

[lost in thought]

Do not use our site as a good example of anything. It's terrible, out-dated, and was finished long before I was actually professionally doing this stuff .

Heheh. If thats a sign that you don't like the old code, I could be talked into writing some new code.

[desirecampbell]

First of all, you want to make it in notepad (being the most flexible editor you can find, without the clutter of poorly programmed non-standards observant code implementing buttons).

Also, desire you do not use tables, or least of which <center>. Center has been deprecated since 4.0. As well, your best bet is to construct a layout with dividers, as they are the current standard (of which most servers, and browsers follow direct support of.)

If you want a layout Dayspring, I can code one up for you. And if you want an example of the sort of work I do, a good example would be: www.underated.net/ . It's barely constructed so its basicly a blank tablet for you to look over.

Edit:
Also, a good website is one that stores content in mySQL databases for ease of storage, and use, as well as one that properly implements the collection of pages, for viewing. None of that index.php?id=somepage bullshit.

Tables are the simplist way to structure a page. Especcially for someone who doesn't know HTML at all, it's the best way to explain how the structure works and it'll be easier for him to design a page with tables instead of divs.

And when did <center> become 'deprecated'? I'm not quite up to speed on the current WC3 standards but a quick validation check shows I've only got 8 errors (most of which are 'no ALT text' bullshit).

Yeah, 'using databases' is better than 'not using data bases' but that's kind of a moot point for someone who doesn't even know HTML. Thought I wouldn't call php GETs "bullshit". There's absolutly nothing wrong with using that as a content retrival system.

[lost in thought]

Tables are the simplist way to structure a page. Especcially for someone who doesn't know HTML at all, it's the best way to explain how the structure works and it'll be easier for him to design a page with tables instead of divs.

And when did <center> become 'deprecated'? I'm not quite up to speed on the current WC3 standards but a quick validation check shows I've only got 8 errors (most of which are 'no ALT text' bullshit).

Yeah, 'using databases' is better than 'not using data bases' but that's kind of a moot point for someone who doesn't even know HTML. Thought I wouldn't call php GETs "bullshit". There's absolutly nothing wrong with using that as a content retrival system.

Tables are simple, yes, but no longer are the days when browsers and servers were optimized to produce tabular data at its peak display. Now its all served with direct support to divs, and while old code still is usable, its always advised to follow standards.

As well, divs may be harder to control, but they work 100x better than tables. Tables have set structure limits, that dividers do not have, and as such learning divs can and will make it easier to do some of the more tricky, yet interesting patterns some websites have that tables cannot emulate.

Now as far as <center> goes, its been deprecated since 4.0. If you've ever read the information about the upgrade at the W3 website, you would know that:
<center> = deprecated,
<br> = deprecated, (you must use <br /> as it self closes. All tags now must be lower cased, and closed.)
<i>, <b>, <u> = deprecated,
<font> = deprecated.

And a few more.

The W3C basicly ousted most of the old tags, to make CSS usage easier, and more effective, as well as make it the standard for page development.

Now then, you wouldn't call page querying bullshit? That may be what you think, and it may make pages easier to access on a static layout, but it is entirely wrong. First querying can leave your system open to attack (I've experienced it myself,) and most search engines don't catalogue queried links. Google being the only excemption.
Its far more safe, and productive to eliminate those, and there is an exceedingly simple method for doing such. The best method is to break your layouts code in half, at the content display start and end tags, and put them in their own files, and then with each new page you just add an include to your header/footer php files at the top and bottom of the file.
This actually works better, and can in some instances be faster than average queries.

[desirecampbell]

Tables are simple, yes, but no longer are the days when browsers and servers were optimized to produce tabular data at its peak display. Now its all served with direct support to divs, and while old code still is usable, its always advised to follow standards.

As well, divs may be harder to control, but they work 100x better than tables. Tables have set structure limits, that dividers do not have, and as such learning divs can and will make it easier to do some of the more tricky, yet interesting patterns some websites have that tables cannot emulate.

Now as far as <center> goes, its been deprecated since 4.0. If you've ever read the information about the upgrade at the W3 website, you would know that:
<center> = deprecated,
<br> = deprecated, (you must use <br /> as it self closes. All tags now must be lower cased, and closed.)
<i>, <b>, <u> = deprecated,
<font> = deprecated.

And a few more.

The W3C basicly ousted most of the old tags, to make CSS usage easier, and more effective, as well as make it the standard for page development.

Now then, you wouldn't call page querying bullshit? That may be what you think, and it may make pages easier to access on a static layout, but it is entirely wrong. First querying can leave your system open to attack (I've experienced it myself,) and most search engines don't catalogue queried links. Google being the only excemption.
Its far more safe, and productive to eliminate those, and there is an exceedingly simple method for doing such. The best method is to break your layouts code in half, at the content display start and end tags, and put them in their own files, and then with each new page you just add an include to your header/footer php files at the top and bottom of the file.
This actually works better, and can in some instances be faster than average queries.

1. Tables are still useful, and DIVs don't work 100% of the time.

2. GETs arn't that bad, and again - mySQL isn't bulletproof either.

3. Google's the ONLY search that matters

4. header/footer includes are NOT the best way to go - it's harder to transfer content to new layouts and creates more server traffic. Using a content include is way better than that.

[lost in thought]

1. Tables are still useful, and DIVs don't work 100% of the time.

Thats because I haven't gotten rid of my tables from that page, or my news display yet. I am overhauling everything.

2. GETs arn't that bad, and again - mySQL isn't bulletproof either.

The image you sight there is because I forgot to change my password on the article display, because I've been busy overhauling classic-gamer. And the only non-bullet proof part is the part with the query, which suffers from injection attack, which is pretty minor, but there is a safe way around such problems.

3. Google's the ONLY search that matters

To you maybe, but it isn't perfect, so many people (including myself) use others as well.

4. header/footer includes are NOT the best way to go - it's harder to transfer content to new layouts and creates more server traffic. Using a content include is way better than that.

You're not thinking logically, see, when it comes to header/footer includes it's the best way for transfer content, since (unless you fuck round with more than one part of the layout) all you're doing is creating the layout AROUND the content which, if you code properly will make it easy to switch out for a new layout similarly designed. The only problem it might suffer from, is lack of 100% positioning of the text itself, but that is taken care of by your CSS if you have any idea what you're doing.

As well, server traffic is a minor, if not trivial thing, since its always better to have a static page (with a normal file name) than using any sort of include that can be changed very easily. A good website is one with pages that always stay the same, which comes from static files (/content/page.php, etc.)

The bottom line is, divs are the standard and that is what you or anyone else should use. The W3C makes standards for a reason, and not observing them is a pretty poor way of showing appreciation, since, if it wasn't for them we wouldn't even have webcode in the first place.

Now quit trying to find faults in this, because it doesn't work. For anything I've said, you can accept or deny it, but trying to find faults in it gains you no ground. I code day in, and day out, it's everything I do (short of videogames and dragonball,) and have done so for many years now, so if for nothing else, I should know what I am talking about in regards to HTML.

[desirecampbell]

1. Tables are still useful, and DIVs don't work 100% of the time.

Thats because I haven't gotten rid of my tables from that page, or my news display yet. I am overhauling everything.

2. GETs arn't that bad, and again - mySQL isn't bulletproof either.

The image you sight there is because I forgot to change my password on the article display, because I've been busy overhauling classic-gamer. And the only non-bullet proof part is the part with the query, which suffers from injection attack, which is pretty minor, but there is a safe way around such problems.

3. Google's the ONLY search that matters

To you maybe, but it isn't perfect, so many people (including myself) use others as well.

4. header/footer includes are NOT the best way to go - it's harder to transfer content to new layouts and creates more server traffic. Using a content include is way better than that.

You're not thinking logically, see, when it comes to header/footer includes it's the best way for transfer content, since (unless you fuck round with more than one part of the layout) all you're doing is creating the layout AROUND the content which, if you code properly will make it easy to switch out for a new layout similarly designed. The only problem it might suffer from, is lack of 100% positioning of the text itself, but that is taken care of by your CSS if you have any idea what you're doing.

As well, server traffic is a minor, if not trivial thing, since its always better to have a static page (with a normal file name) than using any sort of include that can be changed very easily. A good website is one with pages that always stay the same, which comes from static files (/content/page.php, etc.)

The bottom line is, divs are the standard and that is what you or anyone else should use. The W3C makes standards for a reason, and not observing them is a pretty poor way of showing appreciation, since, if it wasn't for them we wouldn't even have webcode in the first place.

Now quit trying to find faults in this, because it doesn't work. For anything I've said, you can accept or deny it, but trying to find faults in it gains you no ground. I code day in, and day out, it's everything I do (short of videogames and dragonball,) and have done so for many years now, so if for nothing else, I should know what I am talking about in regards to HTML.

I'm not trying to find faults, it was just using your pages as examples. (c'mon, it was funny)

I still don't understand your argument for header/footer includes. It's true it creates static pages, but that doesn't seem important (at least to me). It's not a better system to put a layout around your content, it's a better system to put content into your layout - that's what you said for mySQL content queries.

And finally, tables need to be learned before DIVs, period. Dayspring needs to learn the basics first. When he understands how to use tables to create a layout, then he can learn how to use DIVs to do the same.

[lost in thought]

I still don't understand your argument for header/footer includes. It's true it creates static pages, but that doesn't seem important (at least to me). It's not a better system to put a layout around your content, it's a better system to put content into your layout - that's what you said for mySQL content queries.

It should be important to you, because if you change a file name, and google doesn't cache the latest version for awhile, then the google link will be dead to people. If you have static pages you don't need to worry about changing page names for any reason but whim. (In the end, static pages are far more efficient in this respect.)

As well, other than that one link on Underated, I don't use queries with mySQL. It may be a little more tedius, but calling the content directly through your pages internal mysql query, without using keys to identify is the safest way of preventing php/mysql related injection attacks.

Also, despite what you believe it is more efficient to build your layout around your content for many reasons. The most notable of which, is breaking it up. Normal files can be considerably long, based on just how much code you use, this way you get TOP and BOTTOM and it loads around your content which would be stored within its own file, and any problems you have (especially with PHP) will make tweaking 10x easier than having to sort through one long page.
(I've been at this for almost 6 and a half years, and in that time, I've found that this is the most efficient when tweaking designs. It's tried and true.)

And finally, tables need to be learned before DIVs, period. Dayspring needs to learn the basics first. When he understands how to use tables to create a layout, then he can learn how to use DIVs to do the same.

No, if this were 2003, then that would be true. But it isn't a period affair, because they are deprecated and are of no longer value unless you intend to ignore standards.
Bottom line, if you learn tables, it will be far more difficult to learn Div's, especially with someone who is only just learning to code HTML. You learn divs because pages are supposed to be coded with them, and you advise standards; this being the basic reason, and the secondary is just how well they work when you know what you're doing.

Divs can do what tables cannot, and do them well.

The bottom line is, you should stop living in 2003 and come into 2005, because we've left behind deprecated coding, and are moving to a far more flexible format.

Anyway
To steer this back on topic, if anyone wants a website built for them (you included Dayspring), I'll throw my hat in. You can contact me through PM, or at classicgamer@gmail.com. Also: I don't charge, and I will build for free host users, but as an optional, I normally prefer to work with people who have paid webspace.

[desirecampbell]

It should be important to you, because if you change a file name, and google doesn't cache the latest version for awhile, then the google link will be dead to people. If you have static pages you don't need to worry about changing page names for any reason but whim. (In the end, static pages are far more efficient in this respect.)

Granted, but that seems like just such an obscure reason. "If" I do this and "if" Google does this... seems unlikely.

As well, other than that one link on Underated, I don't use queries with mySQL. It may be a little more tedius, but calling the content directly through your pages internal mysql query, without using keys to identify is the safest way of preventing php/mysql related injection attacks.

But only the 'news' page works, the 'community' (404), 'submit' (blank), and 'contact' (blank) pages don't work. I'm trying to understand why the way you do it is better - but your explanations are sparse, and your examples are, um, broken.

Also, despite what you believe it is more efficient to build your layout around your content for many reasons. The most notable of which, is breaking it up. Normal files can be considerably long, based on just how much code you use, this way you get TOP and BOTTOM and it loads around your content which would be stored within its own file, and any problems you have (especially with PHP) will make tweaking 10x easier than having to sort through one long page.
(I've been at this for almost 6 and a half years, and in that time, I've found that this is the most efficient when tweaking designs. It's tried and true.)

"Files can be long" and "breaking up files is good"? Um, I find it hard to beleive that "files can be big" is a reason to break them up - if the content is too big it still shouldn't be 'broken up' into multiple files. And if your layout is "too big" then it's time for a new layout
I used to use a header/footer include system, it was terrible for 'tweaking'. If there was a problem with layout it was difficult to spot because it was in two files. If your layout's in one file it's easier to see and work with.

No, if this were 2003, then that would be true. But it isn't a period affair, because they are deprecated and are of no longer value unless you intend to ignore standards.
Bottom line, if you learn tables, it will be far more difficult to learn Div's, especially with someone who is only just learning to code HTML. You learn divs because pages are supposed to be coded with them, and you advise standards; this being the basic reason, and the secondary is just how well they work when you know what you're doing.

Old code is useful. It is incredibly useful. Knowing older, simpler code is the basics of any language. In assembly language, for example, everyone learns how to interupt the CPU before they learn how to input/output any other way. We're not allowed to interupt the CPU anymore - but we still learn it as a guide.
This is even more true for HTML. We learn table before div because it's easier to use table than div. If div was as easy as table we'd never use table - but because it's easier to grasp when you're just learning it's still important.

BACK TO DAYSPRING...
I suggest learning the basics of HTML, including <table>. Start making a 'Hello world' page and work up from there. Don't just use a pre-made layout without knowing what you're doing.
Not that using a pre-existing layout is bad (hey, I've still got those free-layouts from SaiyanHeat.com) but you should know what you're doing before trying anything fancy.

[Dayspring]

I haven't the slightest fucking idea what anybody's talking about.

Do not use our site as a good example of anything. It's terrible, out-dated, and was finished long before I was actually professionally doing this stuff .

Perhaps, however I always thought that simplicity was the way to go when it came to websites, mainly because it's easier on the eyes of the user and for quick navigation. I also find people seriously misuse font colour-schemes these days, that is, they underestimate the effects of black text on a white background, especially when the simplest complimentary, yet still contrasting colours, like red and blue fonts are used sparingly to attract attention. Rather than create a font size variance or the ever-awkward and over-experimented block text, blue and red font on white bgs are perfect eye-catchers when one consistently uses black font. These are all things your site does. Plus it uses the easy to navigate whatever-the-hell-it's-called on the left, which is also sub-divided by category.

So...yeah.

if anyone wants a website built for them (you included Dayspring), I'll throw my hat in.

I'll probably take you up on that. I just wish I had the ability to do it myself.

[Dayspring]

BACK TO DAYSPRING...
I suggest learning the basics of HTML, including <table>. Start making a 'Hello world' page and work up from there. Don't just use a pre-made layout without knowing what you're doing.
Not that using a pre-existing layout is bad (hey, I've still got those free-layouts from SaiyanHeat.com) but you should know what you're doing before trying anything fancy.

I've never heard of Saiyan Heat. I tried to check the site out, but I keep getting hijacked by internet optimizer lately. Speaking of which, anybody know what Internet optimizer is? I'm assuming spyware or a trojan, but I can't set things back to normal.

[lost in thought]

But only the 'news' page works, the 'community' (404), 'submit' (blank), and 'contact' (blank) pages don't work. I'm trying to understand why the way you do it is better - but your explanations are sparse, and your examples are, um, broken.

Those context links wont be working for awhile yet, as I work on Classic-Gamer. It's just an example of coding, mostly for the index page.

"Files can be long" and "breaking up files is good"? Um, I find it hard to beleive that "files can be big" is a reason to break them up - if the content is too big it still shouldn't be 'broken up' into multiple files. And if your layout is "too big" then it's time for a new layout

The text within a file can become quite long in the tooth, so seperating it at where you display your content can make fixing areas within incredibly easy if you know what you're doing.

I used to use a header/footer include system, it was terrible for 'tweaking'. If there was a problem with layout it was difficult to spot because it was in two files. If your layout's in one file it's easier to see and work with.

Obviously you're not using Notepad, not to mention know what you're doing.

Old code is useful. It is incredibly useful. Knowing older, simpler code is the basics of any language. In assembly language, for example, everyone learns how to interupt the CPU before they learn how to input/output any other way. We're not allowed to interupt the CPU anymore - but we still learn it as a guide.

This isn't assembly, and old code is only useful to people who don't observe standards. New standards are inflexible, and just because you can use old code doesn't mean you should, or for that matter, should learn it.

BACK TO DAYSPRING...
I suggest learning the basics of HTML, including <table>. Start making a 'Hello world' page and work up from there. Don't just use a pre-made layout without knowing what you're doing.
Not that using a pre-existing layout is bad (hey, I've still got those free-layouts from SaiyanHeat.com) but you should know what you're doing before trying anything fancy.

Stop telling him to use deprecated code, you're totally running him in the wrong direction.

Perhaps, however I always thought that simplicity was the way to go when it came to websites, mainly because it's easier on the eyes of the user and for quick navigation. I also find people seriously misuse font colour-schemes these days, that is, they underestimate the effects of black text on a white background, especially when the simplest complimentary, yet still contrasting colours, like red and blue fonts are used sparingly to attract attention. Rather than create a font size variance or the ever-awkward and over-experimented block text, blue and red font on white bgs are perfect eye-catchers when one consistently uses black font.

You've got the right idea on how a website should look, Dayspring. But also remember that people these days like style over substance, so a few images doesn't hurt.

I'll probably take you up on that. I just wish I had the ability to do it myself.

Just let me know. As well, I can definitely show you a thing or two during the progress if you do, since I would intend to work with you for emulating the display the way you would like it, which includes colors, and images.