Suzanne — Wed, 16 Jan 2002 02:50:20 +0000

Oh, no contest, content is king. But it must work in concert with both the function and structure of a website (which includes the design).

I think that the newer technologies will be better for designers. They will be able to do less of the repetitive junk work and far more of the design itself. Plus -- PLUS! -- this will free up money for actual content development, and copywriting. Which means we could see some vastly improved options opening up.

Hopefully even some more exciting writing, better customer support, archives that help people, and more.

Content is the most expensive thing on a site, so I'd really like to see it get some attention.

Suzanne

detox — Wed, 16 Jan 2002 02:09:14 +0000

I don't want to sound too pretentious here (too late!!) but this is one of the most intelligent threads I have read on ANY forum for ages.

It is a shame that the industry for the most part is way behind the developers. The only thing I really have to say is (heavy pessimism) we can all get excited about when this will happen and what this new technology will mean.... BUT what is the point if the take-up is only 60-70 % of visitors to a site.

I suppose the upside to the browser wars with regards to support of standards is that if they were all compliant and there were no headaches with compatibility, half of us would be out of work.......

DianeV — Wed, 16 Jan 2002 01:27:46 +0000

Got it. And you might be surprised how fast and efficient site management tools can be.

However, to me, a site is not just about how it was made, though it's easy to get wrapped up in the tech and technique of it all. In my experience, what clients focus on is whether it achieves their goals -- branding, sales, whatever. That's what keeps them coming back and recommending.

But, we all have our opinions, and this is just mine. Viva la difference.

Suzanne — Wed, 16 Jan 2002 01:00:47 +0000

Quote: Ok, I know you are talking about the @import for nn here, but does this mean for the whole global style sheet? Or for individule sheets?

You can use a global stylesheet with the and another more advanced stylesheet with @import.

So you can use what IS supported in the ed stylesheet, and what isn't in the @imported one.

Since stylesheets are built to cascade, put the first, then the @import.

***

Quote: I suspect I'm getting to the same place ( more or less) -- easy to manage layout and content.

Exactly -- the user sees the same thing, but how it's put together can make a big difference in cost and time for the site owners.

Suzanne

DianeV — Tue, 15 Jan 2002 23:20:16 +0000

Suzanne -- ah, I get it. Nice. I may go about it a little different way, but I suspect I'm getting to the same place ( more or less) -- easy to manage layout and content.

dragonsjaw — Tue, 15 Jan 2002 23:17:55 +0000

quote:
Oh heavens, no, I'm suggesting the opposite. Or rather, that you use the power of CSS to keep the CSS that will blow up Netscape out of its sigh.

Ok, I know you are talking about the @import for nn here,
but does this mean for the whole global style sheet?
Or for individule sheets?
I guess what i want to know is:
If you have a rel link to a global site wide style sheet..
would it be better to link to it using @import?

This has been a great thread, btw.

dragonsjaw

Suzanne — Tue, 15 Jan 2002 23:09:14 +0000

Actually, I'm refering to templates on the server, not in Dreamweaver.

The content isn't republished when the design changes, only the few files holding the design are updated. Think more like Greymatter or Movable Type as far as that goes.

But I go a step further and use includes, so the content is entirely separate from the design.

That is how I can happily say, sure, we'll use tables for layout, and move to CSS when it's supported. I have a handful of files that control the entire site's look and layout, the content is untouched. The CSS for text controls its look, colour, et cetera.

Suzanne

DianeV — Tue, 15 Jan 2002 23:03:52 +0000

> Using templates and includes + standard XHTML and CSS, you can build a table layout today and easily replace it with a CSS layout tomorrow.

I know what you mean. This is basically what we've been doing for a while. That is, I assume you're referring to DreamWeaver Templates to speed up updates(?), which have been the how-to-work-smarter/faster saving grace for many of us (ex-hand-coders). And yes, you can crowbar DW into turning out pretty clean code.

However, I have to say I'm pretty marketing-oriented, and while I can appreciate concept behind what A List Apart is doing, ALA is basically intended for web designers and developers ... and it's really no skin off their noses if we don't see the site as displayed in current browsers. We were forewarned, and we're not going to run screaming from the site if we've chosen to view it in an older browser.

However, I do not have one client with whom I could take the same risk.

Suzanne — Tue, 15 Jan 2002 21:52:06 +0000

Quote: Okay, I'll bite. You're suggesting designing one set of pages for current browsers and another for older ones?

Oh heavens, no, I'm suggesting the opposite. Or rather, that you use the power of CSS to keep the CSS that will blow up Netscape out of its sight.

With templates and CSS, you can certainly serve entirely different sites to different browsers, but it's not necessary. I wouldn't recommend that.

Using templates and includes + standard XHTML and CSS, you can build a table layout today and easily replace it with a CSS layout tomorrow.

I would suggest using the available technology to its full potential, not sticking with static HTML pages because of older browsers.

Suzanne

Megan — Tue, 15 Jan 2002 20:47:52 +0000

Welcome Diane! Please stop by the Intructions forum and let us know a little more about yourself.