This is the first time i am properly coding in HTML,CSS. in my code i have used whole lot of div's to position and also to put the content in place. i am not sure if i am coding the right way. i have loads of contents too in a single page. here is the link to my code i have used.
http://jsfiddle.net/32ShZ/
can you please suggest. is it really bad in structure and shape?
Absolutely not. You don't want to go overboard though (it's called "div soup" when you do). If you find that a div has no purpose but to hold a background image, or to clear a float, etc that means you've done something wrong. By using wrappers (e.g. 3 levels deep of div tags for a content area that has some backgrounds, etc is OK), you can properly achieve any layout that you need without resorting to "div soup". Take a look at http://www.digitalperfections.net/ for an example of good (x)HTML with a lot of div tags.
To further expand, and answer the question about your code specifically, I noticed one thing right off the bat: <div id="divider"></div> - this is bad because you're using this div purely for non-semantic purposes (for decoration only).
The general principle is use as less HTML for layout as possible. And try to give Style to your page with the help of CSS. So if a minimum number of divs can achieve your task, you should go for it. This helps to make page lighter and maintainable. But yes how small structure (HTML) you can have in your page depends on your experience and design.
Related
hello...(1st time here)...
I've been told never to use Absolute Positioning w/ my Child divs inside the Parent.
In my designs, I almost always create a Container w/ relative positioning; & w/ a margin: 0 auto; so it remains centered on the page (since I almost always use background images)...& then my other blocks (nested inside the container) are always positioned absolutely...the layout of which would look something like this example:
EXAMPLE
[btw...not a coder by a long shot...I design like a graphic illustrator would in laying out a magazine page]...but now...given the fact that I very much need to upgrade my skills (have been working in DW 2004 up to this point...just downloaded DW CC 2018, tho)...
HOW would I now code that page (using I'm assuming CSS thrown in w/ the HTML) so that it looks like that until the browser gets resized...& then all those elements flow correctly, stacking the way they're supposed to...WITHOUT USING THE DREADED ABSOLUTE POSITIONING...???
thanx,
dox
btw...not asking to have the code written for me, just a link to an informational on the web detailing exactly how to do it...thanx
To answer your question, these are very basic ideas that you would pick up from a beginner html / css course.
https://www.codecademy.com/ is a good site, and it's what I used to learn basic web design.
If you've already done something like this, I would recommend finding another more in depth course. You mention that you're not a coder, but if you're not asking someone to write the code for you, then you need to become one.
Essentially, the way to do this without "absolute" is with margin. For example, margin-left: 80px;
I am just learning to code and have been looking everywhere for an answer on this one and for some reason cannot find anything.
I noticed that it seems to be common practice to put an image inside of a container or wrapper. For instance, rather just having:
<img src="url"/>
Everyone seems to be in agreement that it needs to be this way:
<div class="container">
<img=src"url"/>
</div>
What is the purpose of wrapping the img inside of a div in this way? It seems to have something to do with "responsive design", but I'm not 100% sure. Is it just so that we have something to size the image relative to, rather than using definite sizing like pixels on the image selector in css? The more I think about it as I write this, the more it seems to be the right answer, but I'm not sure if there's something else I'm missing on this one.
Any insight would be very much appreciated. Thank you.
unfortunately there is no "single" correct answer for this.
There can be many reasons as to why one would wrap any element in another element, it is not specific to <img /> tags :)
In your question I read something like this (converted to real world example):
I see that it is common practice to put a frame around a photo.
Where the "frame" would be the wrapper element, and the photo would be the <img />.
Looking at it this way might make it seem more clear. The photo is the most important part, technically speaking you don't need a frame to show the photo. If you have just a photo, you won't be able to hang it on your wall without damaging it by driving a nail through the top or applying some tape. If you have a frame though, you can make that photo take up any amount of available space within it, you can use the clip to hang it on a wall and if you put multiple photo's in the frame, you can move them all at once since they are in the same frame.
The reason most people put that image in a "container" is because they get some sort of advantage out of it over using an image alone, this could range from aspect-ratio locks to relative positioning. In some cases, a wrapper is required to achieve certain (notably more complex) animations as well.
Websites are built out of "logical" pieces that, together, form a website. The individual pieces are all "frames" that "flow" together to create any page layout you see on every website.
It is merely a structural way of thinking, if the purpose of that image was to be used as a background image for the entire page, a better alternative would be to use CSS background-image property on the <body> tag and not use the image at all. But if the image is meant to be part of a smaller part of your website, it should probably be contained as appropiate.
This answer is in no way a guide to go by, nor a ruleset or anything like that, they are just the thoughts of another developer. There are countless reasons for wrapping an element and this answer doesn't even cover 0.0000001% of those cases. I'm just saying -- there's no specific reason to do or don't here.
I already have a piece of css/html code which display 4 images, 2 per row, 2 rows, and logo in the middle of them all.
Now I need to add another set of 4 images right below the first 4 in the same format, with the same logo in the middle
Each image has some text added and a link in it, visible when hoovering over the image.
I've been trying to have it done but can't make it. Was wondering if you're willing to help me out.
My code is here
jsfiddle.net/Cristian_C/b9961995/1/
Thank you
I have no idea how to add the code for a link here
I'm not entirely sure why you're mixing inline styles with stylesheets, but you should (as a rule) avoid it, as it will make maintaining your CSS a nightmare (separation also makes the DOM more readable for you, too).
Because of the code bloat, I'm not sure if you have important styles in there that are essential to your markup; however, there's an easy way to achieve what you want to do by utilizing z-index, float and clear.
See my demo fiddle.
I've seen quite a few answers on this site which advocate using tables for a design because it can't be done using CSS and Divs... when in actual fact it can be done with a bit of ingenuity.
What are examples of things that genuinely can't be done?
The only one I've ever come across is vertically aligning a box within another box.
*edit: I suppose I'm mostly interested in unachievable layouts using CSS2
Vertical alignment of blocks or text.
Having elastic containers that stretch to the width of their content.
Having several "rows" with the same structure where "cells" are synchronized in width throughout all rows.
Having several "columns" synchronize their height (up to the length of the longest text block).
These are quite basic designer needs that appear in even basic design concepts.
Cells/columns issues can possibly be solved with CSS if you take IE8 into account, but it will be many years until its wide spread (even IE7 in 2-3 years hasn't reached the desired market share).
As for "ingenuity", it is not that good thing in software development. Tricks that your colleagues and you yourself after a couple of months will not be able to understand usually build up that code base that everyone either is scared to touch or determined to refactor/rewrite completely.
Remember the KISS principle. The simpliest way you do this, the more reliably it will work.
The answer to this question depends on a number of things:
How backwards compatible do you need to be? Including IE6 will decrease the capacity of pure CSS; and
How much of your site is fixed-width and/or fixed-height. There are certain things in CSS that become hard if not impossible in variable width and/or height situations.
Side-by-side content is a problem for CSS. You can use floats for this but if the sum of widths exceeds the width of the container, the tail end floats will fall down below. Tables are more capable in this regard as they will squeeze columns where possible to make things fit and cells will never be split onto new rows.
Vertical centering you mentioned. Its trivial with tables and hard or impossible (depending on compatibility and fixed or variable heights of the container and the item) in pure CSS.
You may also be referring to hover content. IE6 only supports the :hover pseudo element on anchors. Javascript is required for that browser for :hover-like behaviour.
Basically if what you need to do can be done fairly trivially with pure CSS then do it. If not, don't feel bad if you have to use tables despite all the anti-table fanatics (and they are fanatics) jumping up and down in horror.
If you want a relatively simple exmaple of this check out Can you do this HTML layout without using tables?. This is a conceptually simple layout problem that is trivial with tables and noone has yet posted a solution meeting the requirements with pure CSS.
"... when in actual fact it can be done
with a bit of ingenuity."
How about 'avoiding the need for ingenuity' as a thing that's hard to do in CSS.
;)
tables should be used for tabular data! We should always try to use the correct HTML for the given content in which to markup. So not just div's (span, ul, li, dl, strong, em ... etc) This ensures that the content is not just looking right but is right (for SEO and accesibile reasons)
By not using tables it allows us to transform the content from one look and feel to the next without having to change the HTML, see Zen Garden
For now though with current browsers CSS table like layouts can be done but are tricky. there are techniques to get round many of the issues, weather they are done though global wrappers with background images, or positioning fixes... where both articles also refer to using Javascript to progressively enhance a page to get those additional classes you may require.
or of course you could use some XSL as a middle ware to help do formating if processing from a CMS.
Alternate row colors in a table without manually (or with the aid of a script) assigning alternate styles to each row.
Determine one element's position relative to another. For example you can't use CSS to determine which position one box is in a bunch of floated boxes using the same class. Would be nice to for example know if one box is the first box floated, or the second, or the last.
Handle widows. A widow is a word that dangles off the end of a paragraph, that is a single word starts the last line on a paragraph. It's a big nono on print design, but in the world of web it's hard to control.
Floating elements in multiple columns, where text in each cell can expand the height of the element, but the entire row below must be pushed down if this happens.
--- --- ---
|AAA| |BBB| |CCC|
--- --- ---
--- --- ---
|AAA| |BBB| |CCC|
| | |BBB| | |
--- --- ---
--- --- ---
|AAA| |BBB| |CCC|
--- --- ---
An image cannot placed in exact center of a cell with align attribute.It can be done with some brute force .
Sounds obvious but you can't change content with CSS, it can only be used for styling.
Rory, I think you're absolutely right. Vertical alignment can be done with line-height, and creating lay-outs in CSS really isn't that hard. In fact, it's far more flexible when using absolute/relative positioning and floats.
People still using tables for design should really brush up with the current standards.
Going on topic, with CSS3 coming up it's hard to think of stuff CSS can't do. Image manipulation, content manipulation, advanced selectors, it's all going to be possible. But if I had to name one thing, it's that with CSS you can't (and won't) be able to rotate elements.
I was unable to use a transparency to create a variable-height text area across all pages. I believe it's impossible. I ultimately just wrote a quick javascript function to reset the height after the page load, to get the layout to work. See http://peterchristopher.com to see what I mean by transparency for the text area.
There is absolutely nothing tables can do that CSS can't.
There seems to be a common misconception that HTML & CSS should be easy. It isn't. If you find yourself wanting to use tables then its your CSS skills that need improving not the technology (although the technology does obviously have plenty of holes that could do with improving).
I generally use a manual process:
Look at the page, figure out the semantic elements, and build the HTML
Slice up the images I think I'll need
Start writing CSS
Tweak and repeat different steps as necessary
Got a better approach, or a tool?
I have a fairly natural way of coding. The key is to treat the page like a document or an article. If you think of it like this the following becomes logically clear:
The page title is a top level heading
Whether you make the site title or actual page title the h1 is up to you - personally I'd make About Us the h1 rather than Stack Overflow.
The navigation is a table of contents, and thus an ordered list - you may as well use an ol over a ul.
Section headers are h2, sections within those sections are h3s etc. Stack them up.
Use blockquotes and quotes where possible. Don't just surround it with ".
Don't use b and i. Use strong and em. This is because HTML is structural rather than presentational markup. Strong and emphasis tags should be used where you'd put emphasis on the word.
<label> your form elements.
Use <acronym>s and <abbr>s where possible, but only in the first instance.
The easiest: always, always give your images some alternate text.
There's lots of HTML tags you could use that you probably haven't - address for postal addresses, screen code output. Have a look at HTML Dog for some, it's my favourite reference.
That's just a few pointers, I'm sure I could think of more.
Oh, and if you want a challenge write your XHTML first, then write the CSS. When CSS-ing you aren't allowed to touch the HTML. It's actually harder than you think (but I've found it's made me quicker).
Well, when I build a website I tend to try and forget about the design completely while writing the HTML. I do this so I won't end up with any design-specific markup and so I can focus on the semantic meaning of the elements.
Some pointers how to markup things:
menu - use the UL (unordered list) element, since that's exactly what a menu is. an unordered list of choices. example:
<ul id="menu">
<li id="home">Home</li>
<li id="about">About</li>
</ul>
if you'd like an horizontal menu you could do this:
#menu li {
display: block;
float: left;
}
Logo - use a H1 (heading) element for the logo instead of an image.Example:
<div id="header">
<h1>My website</h1>
</div>
And the CSS (same technique can be applied to the menu above if you would like a menu with graphical items):
#header h1 {
display: block;
text-indent: -9999em;
width: 200px;
height: 100px;
background: transparent url(images/logo.png) no-repeat;
}
IDs and classes - use IDs to identify elements that you only have one instance of. Use class for identifying elements that you got several instances of.
Use a textual browser (for instance, lynx). If it makes sense to navigate in this way, you've done good when it comes to accessibility.
I hope this helps :)
I essentially do the same thing Jon does, but here are a few other ideas:
Use Guides in Photoshop (and lock to them). Figure out all of your dimensions for each box/ region ahead of time.
Collect all of your dimensions and color hex values into an info file (I use a txt file) that you can easily reference. This will reduce your alt-tab tax and selecting colors in Photoshop multiple times.
After all my Guides are in place, I slice out the entire website into my images folder, starting with photos and grouped elements, and ending with the various background tiles/images, should they exist. (Tip: Use ctrl-click on the layer preview to select that layer's content).
Notes on using Photoshop:
Use Guides or the Grid.
Use the Notes feature for any pertinent information
Always use Layer Groups for similar elements. We need to be able to turn entire regions off in one click. Put all 'header' content in one Layer Group.
Always name your layers.
You can put each page template in one PSD file and use nested Layer Groups to organize them. This way we don't have to setup all of our guides and notes for each page template on a site.
No shortcuts :) but everybody works slightly differently.
This tutorial that popped up in my feedreader yesterday shows the process from start to finish and might help people who have never done it before but as you are an old hand it's just about streamlining your own methods.
EDIT:
The listapart link certainly is more automated for 'flat' designs where both imageready and fireworks have had pretty good support from day one and it's got better and more semantic with every release but if you have a more complex design it's the twiddly bits that make the design what it is and these have to be done by hand.
I just thought it was worth pointing out that in addition to the excellent advice you've had so far I'd recommend getting a printed version of the design, using a red pen to mark up all the block elements on the design you think you can spot and sitting down with the designer for half an hour and talking through how they envisioned their design working for the use cases that don't fit the static design.
What happens when more text is put in the navigation?
Is this width fixed or fluid?
Is this content pane to the right fixed height or fluid? If it's fluid why did you put a background on it that can't be repeated?
You have a border extending down the page that breaks two otherwise connected elements. Visually it makes sense, but semantically I not can't just use an li to house both those elements. What do you think is more important?
It'll also help you spot potential problems that you might otherwise not have realised were going to be issues until your elbow deep in css.
Not only does it make your job easier after a few times doing it your designer will get a much stronger sense of what is involved in marking up their work - some designers have real trouble comprehending why something they think looks visually very simple will take a few days of css tweaking to make work.
Some of the designers i know, usually uses Illustrator to make the design elements.
This page shows how to do it a little more automated.
Also, get to know the "Layer Comps" feature. I use this for changing button states.
Create layer comps for normal, hover, and active.
In each of these, set up the effects/color overlays and visible layers which belong with that state.
Save for web: go to a different folder for each state, unless it's easier to rename each slice (otherwise your hover button slices will overwrite your regular slices).