I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t know enough about web standards. I’ve been designing web sites for several years and have known about web standards for only the last few years. In order to learn as much as possible about web standards I now read lots of Web Design blogs. Thankfully I’m learning more and more from those blogs. There’s always plenty of interesting posts on web standards, accessibility, usability, and the likes.
But what I don’t get is why there is the need for so many Doctypes. Can someone please explain it to me?
With all the talk about this site and that site conforming to Web Standards and this site and that site not conforming to web standards, why isn’t there anyone trying to simplify the situation?
Why isn’t there only two doctypes? One for standard compliant sites and one for non-compliant sites. In fact, why isn’t there only one doctype – a standard compliant one?
Why do we need three doctypes just for HTML 4.01, and three more for XHTML 1.0? What’s the rational behind this? I have honestly no idea, but hope that someone will impart their wisdom upon me and make me all the wiser :)
Web Design Point (a site for web design articles) has been redesigned to comply with web standards (XHTML 1.0 Transitional). The layout is based on Layout 14 from the Layout Gala, with some minor tweaks to get the desired result.
The design has been in place for quite a while now, but I forgot to blog about it (coupled with the fact that I’ve had PC problems for about 8 weeks – sorted now!). The site in itself is still very young, and lots of articles still need to be added, so if you are interested in writing for Web Design Point please get in contact!
I’m looking forward to an influx of emails now, y’hear :D
As you can see, Wired Vision has a new design! This is inline with my CSS Reboot.
The new design uses web standards instead of the old table based layout.
There might be a few small issues (list items for example) that I still need to work out, but overall it should display fine in all major browsers.
Let me know what you think :)
I’ve decided to take part in CSS Reboot Spring 2006. The reason being that the current design uses tables (please don’t heckle me :)) and it’s about time I designed a web-standards style.
As a matter of fact, I have already created one (screen shot), but it’s just not doing it for me. So, I’m going to start afresh and try to come up with something unique, but simple at the same time.
I just hope that I manage this before May 1st! I better get my skates on :D
Please see Standard Web Fonts Revisited.
When choosing fonts for web pages I usually end up limiting myself to four or five (Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Trebuchet MS). Why, you ask? To make sure that the majority of visitors to the web site are capable of viewing the site as intended.
Lately, however, I’ve found myself growing tired of the same old fonts. I need to spice things up (for myself as well as the visitors).
So, my question to you is… What are the standard fonts that are available to Windows, Unix/Linux and Mac users? What can I do to spice things up? What web-compatible fonts are you fond of at the moment?