Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
I use a website that recently changed its layout, which I (and a lot of other people) extremely dislike. I checked over the changes, and I believe that most of the changes involve a simple css change.
I own a domain that I would like to display the contents of this website, but with my own css, however I am unfamiliar with the web. I am open to all solutions that would do this (embedding, reflecting, etc.) I would like to do this without paying money.
*Note: the reason I am avoiding using a userstyle is because I would like to be able to access this website on any computer, anywhere, anytime, and let others do the same.
The website in question is http://www.scarsdaleschools.org/, and I would like it to look like this.
I know there might be some conflicts with the using the old css on the current website, it is okay as long as it is usable.
I will give an additional 50 point bounty if the solution does not involve me hosting my own website.
Clarification: I am not looking to create a mirror for the website, I would like a client to access scarsdaleschools.org directly, only replace all css documents with my own css, thus all content is accessed directly from scarsdaleschools.org.
EDIT: This was put on hold as too broad. I am looking for a method by which I can accomplish what I am trying to do.
According to the help center:
There are either too many possible answers, or good answers would be too long for this format. Please add details to narrow down the answer set or to isolate an issue that can be answered in a few paragraphs.
Chances are, there is probably only one way (or a small few ways) that can answer my question. Regardless, my question does not require a few paragraphs, but just a simple name of a technique (and hopefully a small explanation of how I would use this technique).
Well if you don't mind having to put some insane amounts of !important in your CSS for it, the iframe tag is actually powerful enough to do it (doesn't even need the proposed-then-cancelled seamless attribute).
I'd still suggest using something like a portable browser on a flashdrive/CD, and having your userstyles installed on that, instead, as it's a little less red-flag-inducing (your site may be flagged as a potential attack site w/ the iframe trick). Added bonuses, it dodges corpsec spyware and update restrictions, and has all your bookmarks/addons.
But simply iframeing the website from your own with your stylesheet (loaded with !importants) will suffice, so long as you can get around any framekiller they use (if any).
Related
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I had a conversation with my CTO regaring using CSS Grid, and the question that I heard the most was “Why use grid, that’s not supported in old browsers if we have to write flexbox fallbacks anyway? Why don’t we just build with flexbox?”
And it got me thinking. A big advantage of CSS Grid for me is writing less code. But if I have to write fallbacks, I’m effectively writing grid code AND flexbox code, which is more work. So that argument kinda makes sense I guess?
What would you answer to that?
Here is some arguments why.
You could do a lot more with design. Think about all the workarounds you need to implement in order to have something simple as 100vh... Your designers will be happy if they have you on their team.
Lot less duct taping solutions, see above.
New features makes your code better, maintenance will be a lot better, you code in general will be more clean. This actually means less work in the feature.
Performance, browsers that support new features will have lot less code to use, this is not true ofc for every new feature out there.
More work with fallback solution, yes, that might be true. But if you are always writing the same fallback solutions to the same features then you are doing something wrong, search the web, there might be a solution already there, if not make your own internally and reuse it on other projects, thus you will have to make a fallback solution only once.
You want your developers happy, if there is a way to use new features (and there is almost always a way), you should use it. Motivation kind of a thing.
If NOT then those features will never get used anyway since people will stick the old ways thus there is no need for browsers to implement in the new versions because guess what no one is using those new features thus we don't need them. But we all know we need them.
New features will eventually becomes standard (if we actually use them), you want to have team that is already proficient in those new technologies, thus you can sell yourself better to the client.
As for grid css layout, check this one --> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/CSS_Grid_Layout/CSS_Grid_and_Progressive_Enhancement
Also, this kind of question is better fit for the Quora or something similar, not stack.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I want to create Websites for small companies like restaurants. But i can imagine that i will often get called when they need help "Changing the text". Because they simply doesnt know better. Then i often will have do it for them. But there might be another way?
Image changing is simple. Just rename any Picture you want.
Like:
indexPicture.jpg
Everyone easily can replace those jpg. They simply rename any picture to indexPicture.jpg (preferable same size).
But when it comes changing to text. I can imagine a customer, that destroys html code. and removed some tags like (30 min work). Because he doesn't know better.
Can't I bind some text file to a <p> tag? So they simply have to open it and write something new.
Are there any better method?
Like a free App, they can open every website and simply drag and drop changes or select a <p> tag and simply rename it?
This isn't something that's really supported in basic HTML5, so the simple answer to a simple question is: no.
But life is never that simple in the modern web. If you're using a client-side templating framework like React or Angular (both are JavaScript frameworks which are freely available) you can code the pages to load fragments of text from disparate files which your client may have an easier time editing. I don't believe posting example code here is valuable to the question since that's basically a tutorial on how Angular or React work. There are great tutorials and examples on their sites.
As suggested in the comments the most accurate thing I can think of is to use a CMS. These are very helpful when changing the content of your site. Some examples are Wordpress, Drupal or Joomla. You can have a look here: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/building-great-websites/managing-your-website/using-a-cms
I hope that helps you!
You could try a shtml file instead? No CMS needed. I recently found out about this when creating my own HTML5 site as I wanted an easy way to edit a common footer rather than going through all the pages.
Just create a folder with the necessary files (Every paragraph maybe) and include it in the main file using a code like this:
<!--#include virtual="../filename.shtml" -->
I noticed that you didn't want to use a CMS such as WordPress, which as the comments suggest would be a really effective solution.
I once had an issue where I couldn't use a CMS cause I didn't have Cpanel access and what we essentially did was the follow.
Define a XML file, with clearly defined tags for each section of the
website that the client may want to change periodically.
Access the XML file through PHP(something like SimpleXML), and
display the tags/relevant content in the page.
Create a backend that allows the client to view/update content
through forms.
Alternatively, you may use a similar solution with databases and give forms for editing.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
In a fully working website, with the looks and functions working just the way a client wants BUT loaded with tons of illegal HTML...what are the adverse effects of those illegal HTML?
My question might seem a bit simple, but I am trying to look beyond the obvious...Nowadays, web browsers ignore (or correct) illegal HTML. Is there a SEO penalty, or some other kind of problems besides slower loading time?
Aside slower loading time, making fixes on such page by another developer/designer might take unnecessary long time for such person to understand the flow.
Also, come to think of a situation when you jQuery to 'backdoor' pick-up (or inject) some elements on (or into) your page, this can also lead to BIG bug.
There is no harm in proper planning of tag usuage and lots.
super!
A big reason is to help you be sure that it will render correctly in different browsers and be understood correctly by other html readers, such as web crawlers.
Whilst HTML5 has increased specification for standardized error handling, that is still not going to guarantee that it will appear exactly the same to every browser, and there are increasingly too many browsers to test them all.
Also, good code is not just about validation but about semantic markup. Letting search engines know what your content is by the correct use of markup can only help your site be understood correctly by the search engines, which is what SEO should be.
Browsers will, as always, try to correct badly written HTML. The problem is that different browsers will "correct" the markup in different ways. Some may get it right, while others will fail in more or less subtle ways. Badly written HTML (and also CSS and Javascript) may result in:
important content disappearing from the page,
overlapping or unreadable content,
forms that cannot be submitted,
missing form elements,
dead links and buttons,
the author looking like an ass.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
My girlfriend is making a website for her exam.
She is not good at HTML - at all! (Me neither). But for making it easy for her, I told her to use frames. It's easy and manageable.
But the problem is that the website have to live up to the standard HMTL5. That's a requirement. I don't think frames does that because it's deprecated. Am I right or wrong?
So.. What to do? It has to be as simple as possible. I don't think the other solutions I could find are something she can do herself :( Any ideas?
(Sorry, if my english sucks :) )
You should definitely try not to use deprecated elements. They will behave inconsistently, and probably won't work in the future. There's also a very good reason why frames are deprecated.
You probably need to rethink how you're structuring your data. An HTML page should be as simple and to-the-point as possible. If you have to pull in a significant amount of content from other web-pages using frames, you're doing it wrong. In most cases it's better to simply link to the extra content.
If you're trying to use frames to pull in the <header> or the <nav>, so you don't have to simply copy them across multiple pages, although I applaud you for trying to be DRY, this is the wrong way to do it. Just copying these sections into all your documents is a better solution than using frames.
Ideally though, you'd use a server-side templating system of some sort. The simplest one (depending on your setup) may be Server-Side Includes.
Having said all that, if you really need frames, the <iframe> element is perfectly valid in HTML5 and may help you out.
Don't use frames, very old and not needed at all
Make sure all your style stuff is made in CSS and it's loaded through a CSS file.
Then make each html page with the information needed in it. Use links for navigation to another page.
With the external CSS you can change the look of your site in one file (the CSS file), and it will automatic update for each html page.
You are correct in assuming that frames do not conform to the HTML5 draft (to the extent that it makes sense to speak of conformance to a draft). HTML5 is not a standard, though it may one day become W3C Recommendation. It does not use the term “deprecated” but “obsolete” and “non-conforming”, but in any case, frameset and frame elements do not conform.
The iframe element (“inline frame”) conforms, however. Using it instead of “normal” (old-style) frames is clumsy and limited, but possible to some extent.
I think this answers the specific, on-topic questions asked. The rest is mainly opinion-based and hence off-topic at SO.
P.S. If “living up the the standard HTML5” is a requirement, then the teachers would need a crash course on the basics of HTML5 process. The requirement means that a page that is “standard HTML5” in the morning may become non-conforming before lunch. After all, HTML5 is a draft that may change at any moment without prior notice, and it says itself: “It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress.”
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
When you learn HTML and so forth nowadays, the mantra is always "Clean code = better code".
So why do sites like Mobile Me and Google and Facebook all use huge amounts of tables and other not-semantically correct code?
Thanks!
Because people still use IE6, unfortunately, and it's so incredibly bad at CSS as to make it almost worthless for CSS selectors of any sophistication. Until IE6 is gone and dead dead dead in the cold ground, you're still going to see a lot of this.
If you could see what SharePoint generates, you would probably go into seizures.
Clean code is better, yes.
But working code is much much better )
Because sometimes that's the path of least resistance. It's not always about being ideologically pure, it's about being pragmatic and getting the job done in this crazy, multi-browser, multi-platform world.
Because it's easier.
While the purist in me will also strive for semantic tags and external CSS for layout, the pragmatist in me need to get this site up by 6pm (so I can go home to my wife and a nice warm dinner!) and there's just this little problem with [insert browser here*] that could easily be solved with a bit of conditional CSS, or a table or something.
There are other reasons for high-traffic sites like Google and Facebook to use inline CSS and js: bandwidth. Every external file you reference is one extra round-trip to the server to fetch. Of course, that doesn't really explain the style="xxx" tags as opposed to just inline <style> tags, but it still reduces the size of the page. Also, while caching does tend to reduce the number of trips, there are still a significant number of requests that are made with a "clean" cache that you still want to optimise for that case.
Not always IE (but mostly is)
I had an affiliate marketing client the other day who wanted me to make him a web template where he could go in and edit it with Adobe Dreamweaver (some app I don't use because I'm a Linux user). So, being the web-savvy guy I am, I did it in XHTML with cross-platform CSS that I have learned over the years, using DIVs primarily, and only using TABLES for form field alignment simply because of the 80/20 rule. It was lean code in as few lines as possible, loaded super fast, and worked on all browsers from IE6 on up.
But then I handed it off to him, and he was visibly frustrated and asked me to make changes. He didn't like the CSS because he couldn't cut and paste sections to another page and have the styling carry over. Instead, he wanted me to switch everything to inline styles. Next, he couldn't edit the floating DIVs very well, and would undo my cross-platform work I had done, so he wanted it reverted back to tables. The end result was XHTML + CSS for the shell of the page that centers everything into the middle and adds the fancy graphics around the page. Then, I used PHP "include" separation for headers and footers. The final part was the middle of the page, and that was his domain. I had to compose it in TABLEs with inline styles. At that point, he was happy and I had a compromise.
So, keep this in mind that there are some cases where you have to use TABLE formatting and inline styles because that's all the client really knows how to manipulate.