chrometweaks.org

What should I know about iPage web hosting before buying?

Click Here To View All Answers...


Got a question, hope someone can answer... What should I know about iPage web hosting before buying? Hoping for any answer. Second question of mine... I used to ALWAYS include the above attributes even though they had no values, since I thought some browsers might have default settings of 1 or something. Yet whenever I viewed the source code of a website, I noticed if they didn't have a value of 1 or more, the programmer did not use those attributes at all..

For example, I've read border=0 for an image is apparently only useful if the image is within an <A> tag and you don't want an automatic border, so if an image isn't clickable, forget the border=0 Also, if a picture is a spacing element like a 1x1 transparent GIF, then alt="" isn't necessary..

So just compare:.

<img src="spacer.gif" width=10 height=15 vspace=0 hspace=0 vspace=0 border=0 alt="">.

To.

<img src="spacer.gif" width=10 height=15>.

That's half the code gone! Quite a saving, especially if you reuse the same graphics like a spacer.gif over and over againg like I do. For any other images designed to be visible that don't use vspace hspace or border attributes, I think you can safely avoid these and maybe put a few more keywords in the alt attribute instad for search engine optimisation..

So what are people's opinions on redundant or unnecessary code, for <IMG> tags as well as other tags? Am I off the mark here?..

Comments (18)

I'm stumped. I'm not so sure what is the answer to your question. I'll do some poking around and get back to you if I discover an anything. You should email the people at iPage as they probably could give you an answer..

Comment #1

The alt attribute has not been deprecated. The others have been, "in favor of style sheets." For the time being, I'm going to continue using HTML for controlling the images, though. IMO, style sheets complicate this, they don't simplify it...

Comment #2

No Rock,.

BROWSERS complicate things.. the standards simplify it.. imagine if you could design webpages using css and never had to use tables because the browsers would support the standards they have promissed to do ? .

E.g. if you want a column of text 200 pixel wide and another column 100 pixel wide, 50 pixel to the right of the left column.. would it not be easier to write:.

Now imagine that you need to bring text or contents in via a database or another file, would it not be easier for the content writers to simply do this:.

Rather than trying to fit it into your html table setup ? You can then control the entire look and feel to the pixel using style sheets instead of tables, spacer gifs, etc....

Thinking about it.. I will stop using tables.. only css....

Comment #3

Kdjoergensen, I agree with Rock. And if there are only bad programmers and not bad browsers like your signature says, why use code that won't work in older browsers?.

I still use the <FONT> tag a lot for example, because I know it's supported by all browsers and people can also increase the size if they want by using View -> Text Size, rather than CSS fixing the size to a certain pt or px which the vision impaired or Mac users can't see that well. I think web designers and programmers go a little bit overboard using the latest and greatest, and forget the users' needs or takes control out of their hands. (Yes, I've been spending too much time at.

Http://www.useit.com.

)...

Comment #4

But not enough time to notice this in his code:.

If you want to build web sites to a professional level, whose presentation, colour-scheme, and even layout, are easily manageable from a single file (as opposed to duplicating formatting changes across every page) then you have no choice but to use CSS..

CSS is not the problem. Sure, it has been poorly implemented in some older browsers but get yourself a decent css editor (like TopStyle) and it shows you which styles are supported by which browsers as you go along...

Comment #5

I am not opposed to CSS, and I am sure I underutilize it. In my next upgrade of.

The Visible Policy.

, I will probably implement a iPage site CSS sheet it is my largest site, and controlling style from one place is quite appealing..

If I used dynamic content, CSS would also be an appealing choice..

But for an amateur webmaster who builds a page that is not part of a bigger whole, CSS may not be useful for anything more than setting page margins so that text does not jam against the window borders..

I am an old-fashioned hand-coder who learned HTML before CSS existed. I also strongly believe in the original web concept you design for the user's preferences, not your own..

If he wants/needs a large font, what kind of anal logic is that would lock him into a small font? (Fortunately Mozilla lets users retake control of text size even if supposedly locked by CSS.).

If he has a preference for the Bookman font, why should I override it?.

If he has a wide screen (1600 pixels say), why should I lock him into using only 800 pixels of it? If he wants only 800 pixels, he can make the browser window narrower..

CSS has become partly philosophical. Since it can provide so much control, many web designers have forgotten, and maybe even think they should, override the original,.

User-is-boss.

Philosophy..

I am not claiming CSS is evil. IMO, however, many use it thinking they design for themselves. That's wrong. The web is for the user. Those who want 100% control of everything should be authoring PDF documents, not web pages...

Comment #6

Yes, CSS and so on just encourages designers to try and control every single variable of every single element in the layout. But shouldn't websites be flexible enough that it DOESN'T MATTER if a particular pt size of a certain font with x lines-spacing isn't used or whatever? I like to design wbsites that are "loose" where layout and style is secondary to content and if the user decides to increase the text size or use Netscape 4.7 on a 800x600 screen or whatever, I'm not going to override their font size preferences or tell them something pissy like "This iPage website looks best at 1024x768 in Internet Explorer 6"..

To get back on topic, are there other HTML attributes that are maybe used and abused or simply unnecessary? I've found for example I don't need to specify the width and height of every single table, row and cell eg if you have a <TR> with 3 <TD width=200> then the next <TR> doesn't need to have the width specified for the second row of <TD>s, since the first row "sets" the width in place. I'm also learning I don't need to have one <TD> per <IMG> for precise image placement and it's better not to have too many rows and cells anyway, since it takes longer for the browser to reander - colspan and rowspan come in handy to eliminate unused cells...

Comment #7

I'm not sure whether you don't have a firm grasp of CSS or whether you have been grossly misinformed. CSS doesn't do any damage to your web pages, take control of your browser, cause you to lose your hair, or anything else..

The only thing that destroys a good web page is the developer. You can do as much damage with HTML alone as you can with CSS. Also, what prevents you from resizing all your fonts to stupid sizes and using icky colours with the <font> tags? I can count on one hand how many people I know who set up browser specific link colours, font sizes, etc, in their properties. I really do not think your argument holds water..

Web designers produce bad web sites.....not HTML or CSS!.

I know CSS can be a trial to learn but it's the way forward, no ifs or buts. You may as well start now. Also, if you want to produce pages that conform to HTML 4 or XHTML 1 then you will also need to use CSS (as many HTML attributes are being deprecated)...

Comment #8

Read what you just said. there is a reason you have to put width and height in.

Every.

Cell and table. the browser loads it faster if it is there. plus you don't need that many tables and cells if you use css as it doesn't require it..

Now I know that some browsers (netscape4.xx) don't accept over half of the css standard but you have to remember that NS4.xx was out way before the standards of any kind were set. to make NS4.x compatible to most of the standards it would require a total engine rewrite, hence NS6 and NS7. the webmaster has to get rid of NS4 so people like you would quiet complaining about how it doesn't supoport anything. if we keep using it then they will keep making it. Besides if you make a page with css and that is all, you can do it jsut right it will still look good in older browsers. NS4.xx is the only browser that goes haywire on css.



Come to think of it if you want to trash browsers try doing it to IE. that is the worst browser made. why do you ask? well make a table that doesn't have any closing tags, in fact make a page that doesn't have one closing tag including </html>, IE will run it and NS will choke. why you ask again? IE interprets what you want, not what you coded. NS is better as it sees your errors and pukes which lets you know you made a mistake..

But if you can't present that information in a presentable manner, the user will not be back. to present it in that manner you have to start using css. besides if the browser stop actually supporting the deprecated tags then you will be hurting as you redo all your pages..

Could be next year you never know...

Comment #9

I definately don't know CSS as well as I know HTML. Bad design in either (or both) causes bad web pages. We agree..

What's uncommon to do in plain HTML is make superficially attractive pages with difficult to use content. It is apparantly easy with CSS. Consider for example a 3-column page, with the center column containing information the user primarily wants. There might be a navigation column on the left and an advertisement or link column on the right. The content column is hardwired to a small font which many browsers cannot change. The three columns together are hardwired to occupy 800 pixels (which probably aren't even centered)..

Concerning table attributes.

, I usually only use the width attribute within the overall <table ...> tag. Then the table content itself can define individual column widths. Sometimes it is useful to specify a width attribute within a <td> tag, but generally the rendering machine can do a respectable job of deciding this itself. Sometimes I don't use the width attribute anywhere within a table...

Comment #10

Yes, obviously I need to learn more about CSS, since it is the future. Tell me, how do you set fonts for a certain size, yet allow users to increase onscreen text by using View -> Text Size -> Larger in IE for example?..

Comment #11

If you set the fonts then they still can change them. don't get to hung up on view-> text size. that is least of your worries. just make the font presentable and not so small people have to do it. 10-12 is a perfect size. no reason to do a page in 8 or below.

When you set a style you give the page 3-5 choices to choose from so the user still sees it like you intended, not how they want..

And did you know that NS reads tables from the inseide out. it is totally backwards from IE so that is why you need the width in every cell and every table tag...

Comment #12

Scoutt,.

While a font size of 10-12 may be satisfactory for 85% of a page's viewers, it can be quite difficult to read for the other 15%. Some have very large monitors (1600x1280 or bigger), and what looks good on the author's 800x600 screen is quite tiny for such viewers. And some people just don't see very well, and really want to view the web at 18 to 24 points (or even more)..

This is not a problem if they are using a browser (Mozilla, Netscape 6,7) which allow the viewer to override locked-in CSS selections, but so far as I know, IE does not yet allow such overrides..

Example:.

RiskyLife.

Home page. (Most of this iPage site allows resize, though. There are whole sites which do not, but I cannot quickly find one.).

Concerning table width attributes, I do not believe you are correct about Netscape 4.7 needing them. The.

Glosspinion.

Is an example page, admittedly crying out for some CSS tuning, which contains many tables which render the same in Netscape 4.x, IE 5/6, Netscape 6/7, and Mozilla. It frequently sets the overall width in the <table> tag, but it does not bother to do so within sub-elements. Some of the GlossPinion's tables are nested and quite complex. (Ref. the tables illustrating Mutual Holding Companies and Mutual Insurance Companies.).

One secret of letting a table make good column-width choices is appropriate use of the nowrap attribute. If a <td> tag uses it, then the table knows exactly what to render. Plus it avoids the stupid line-break choices sometimes made by IE (such as splitting -37.58 into -<br>37.58). Sometimes nowrap is inappropriate. If the cell contains normal sentences, using nowrap would usually lead to very anal design...

Comment #13

HotMale,.

Here is a page which explains why some CSS-controlled pages have IE-resizable fonts and some don't..

Http://www.kangarose.com/tss/cssexample.html..

Comment #14

Well for one you can have your own style sheet to use on every iPage site you goto. IE and NS both allow this. in IE you can set the font to anything you want for any page..

If a person is cruising around on the net at 1600x1280 then either they have a 32" monitor or have a video card that is not of this world. at that resolution is absurd. I have perfect iPage site and even at 1024x768 it is too small for me to read. I have a 19" monitor by the way. if they do have a 32" then they are rich as those are very pricy..

For the average web user 97% of them are at 800x600. for web standards you don't worry about 1024x768. if you do it right it will look good in both resolutions so no worries..

No iPage site is suited to be viewed at 18 or 24 font. that is jsut insanely big and you would only have a couple of sentense per page..

Boy do you have some serious learning to do. let me find that article again and I will teach ya...

Comment #15

I am sure there are many things for me to learn..

Conc erning tables how about this? Provide a link (or post code) which demonstrates that differences between NS 4.x and IE require width attributes in almost every cell. I will either modify it in such a way that those attributes are not necessary for inter-platform browsing, or I will admit you are correct..

To date I haven't yet experienced what you describe, but that doesn't mean it can't happen. A couple times I have started with auto-generated tables (such as HTML output from a word-processing or spreadsheet app), I have observed extreme over-formatting of the cells. Since I don't like to post a 111-kbyte table when an 11-kbyte one is equivalent, I'll spend 30 minutes stripping out all the unneccessary overhead..

The one problem I have observed with NS 4.x and tables involves printing them. 4.x doesn't always print the table the same as it renders on the screen...

Comment #16

I can't show you code that will prove me right. it is internal to the browser. NS reads the page different before it spits it out to the user..

I will still find that article though...

Comment #17

Scoutt,.

I believe you that Netscape and IE parse tables with different (possibly "inside-out") algorithms. I'm sure this difference can cause problems..

For me, it has not. Since I generally don't try to force exact table behavior, whatever symptoms the parsing difference causes hasn't bitten me. Or maybe it has, and in the process of checking the table in different browsers, I found a way around the problem one that doesn't force width attributes in individual cells...

Comment #18

The only way to notice and you can't get around it unless you insert the width into the table and cells is that NS will load a lot slower. if you are on anything faster than 56K you can harldy notice it, but it still happens. to help the slow unstandardise browser is to have teh width set so NS doesn't have to compute how far it suppose to go..

And I am still looking..

Comment #19


This question was taken from a support group/message board and re-posted here so others can learn from it.