Learning Web Design

[DreamThrall]

Those downloads all are free but none of them are for ASP itself. For example I can go to www.php.net and download PHP. So a better way to word this would be a download link for ASP .Net. No IDE or anything.

For ASP 3.0, you don't need to download anything. Just make a .asp file and put it on your IIS server and it will automatically run it. For asp.net, all you need to do is install the .NET framework. If you have IIS installed, the .NET framework installation will automatically register the framework with IIS, which will allow it to run ASP.NET files and applications. You can download the .NET framework here. That link is also found on the homepage for www.asp.net.

For a SQL system I would definently go with MySQL. MySQL is not only completely free but on Dice.com for instance, it has 5x the results.

If you're working with .NET, it has an optimized data access provider for MS Sql server, so it would be better for ASP.NET to use MSSQL. As I stated before, MSSQL Express is free, and if you need a more powerful engine than that, any hosting provider you go to will be running the full version. You can directly upgrade an express DB to the full version. As for dice, if you search for "SQL Server", you'll find at least 10x the number of results for mysql - even searching for "Sql Server 2005", which is the most recent version of MSSQL has about the same number of results, and many companies haven't yet upgraded from Sql Server 2000 to 2005.

Agreed.
Honestly though I found little I actually wanted to do with Javascript ... I would suggest learning a server-side language before a client side language. I find server side languages far more useful than client side languages.

I agree that server side languages are much more useful, but they are also far more complex. For someone with no programming experience at all, it might be easier to learn the basics on something like JavaScript, which you can play around with without having to download or install any languages or frameworks.

 

[Cole]

If you're working with .NET, it has an optimized data access provider for MS Sql server, so it would be better for ASP.NET to use MSSQL. As I stated before, MSSQL Express is free, and if you need a more powerful engine than that, any hosting provider you go to will be running the full version. You can directly upgrade an express DB to the full version. As for dice, if you search for "SQL Server", you'll find at least 10x the number of results for mysql - even searching for "Sql Server 2005", which is the most recent version of MSSQL has about the same number of results, and many companies haven't yet upgraded from Sql Server 2000 to 2005.

I did Mssql vs Mysql. Also because SQL is in both Mysql and Mssql it may not search for the excat word SQL but just the text and therefor your comparing both Mysql and Mssql to just Mysql.

For ASP 3.0, you don't need to download anything. Just make a .asp file and put it on your IIS server and it will automatically run it. For asp.net, all you need to do is install the .NET framework. If you have IIS installed, the .NET framework installation will automatically register the framework with IIS, which will allow it to run ASP.NET files and applications. You can download the .NET framework here. That link is also found on the homepage for www.asp.net.

I'm a bit suprised they put ASP right into the windows system.

I agree that server side languages are much more useful, but they are also far more complex. For someone with no programming experience at all, it might be easier to learn the basics on something like JavaScript, which you can play around with without having to download or install any languages or frameworks.

I would still say server side scripting. Once you learn how it works(simple), find a simple host and there you go.

I would like to point out that whatever dice says, this guy is probably not looking to become some professional. Sticking to PHP and Mysql will give you most hosting options and more support.

 

[Ennui]

But I like tables D:

Whereas my friend prefers divs, so when we jointly write Web pages, they turn into horrible mutant bastard structures of interweaved divs and tables from Hell.

Which is probably bad form. I've just never found a reason to get divs when tables work fine.

I use tables too, but for those hypercorrect W3C validated XML humping superneat coders out there, tables are evil and anyone who uses them should be burned at the stake.

using divs is a lot cleaner, more reliable, and a hell of a lot harder to get right.

i use tables AND divs, because i'm lazy and don't care if my code validates.

i also think that tables are going to be slowly phased out or something, but no browser is ever going to take them away so that doesnt matter.

 

[Cole]

I like tables to be honest. There simple and get the job done. When it comes to layouts, my pages are already split up with PHP so thats no problem. I like being able to just do:
<Table Width=100% Height=25><Tr><Td>Yo</Td></Tr></Table>. I know exactly what it does and that it works. With Div's im messing all around with float's and etc..

 

[Beerdude26]

I like tables to be honest. There simple and get the job done. When it comes to layouts, my pages are already split up with PHP so thats no problem. I like being able to just do:
<Table Width=100% Height=25><Tr><Td>Yo</Td></Tr></Table>. I know exactly what it does and that it works. With Div's im messing all around with float's and etc..

Yeah, same. A friend of mine wants that I use divs, but tables are so reliable D:

 

[StardogChampion]

<Table Width=100% Height=25><Tr><Td>Yo</Td></Tr></Table>

<div >Yo</div> :smoking:

And it would actually be less than that since you would put the "styling" in the stylesheet:

style.css file:
#box {height: 25px;}

index.html file:
<div id="box">Yo</div>

Divs are so much easier. The only problem is getting them to look right in every browser which can be annoying. Also, for getting your site listed in Google, it's much easier for spiders to read/understand a div layout since everything's labled clearly. So it's a must for business websites nowadays, unless your someone huge like Microsoft.

 

[Raeven0]

Well, now that we've brought in CSS, I get another chance to complain. Wee!

Evidently, both <center> and align="center" are deprecated, meaning that CSS is required if I want to align something to the centre of my page. Which is stupid. If I'm writing an HTML file, NEWSFLASH, I expect to USE HTML in the writing of it.

Which only contributes to my distaste for divs. Divs rely almost entirely on CSS for all of their properties, meaning that a site made of divs uses almost NO HTML. So what's the point? Why did I even learn HTML if now all the hypercorrect bastards are telling me that HTML is obsolete, that Web pages should be made entirely with CSS instead? Why do we still call them HTML files if they don't even use HTML?

I quit using Mozilla because it quit supporting align="center", incidentally.

 

[Login_Here]

Divs are a part of HTML though. What are you supposed to use instead anyway?
Can't be arsed to check right now...

 

[DreamThrall]

<div >Yo</div> :smoking:

And it would actually be less than that since you would put the "styling" in the stylesheet:

style.css file:
#box {height: 25px;}

index.html file:
<div id="box">Yo</div>

That's not what tables are for... Tables make it much easier to display tables of data. Try doing that with divs.

 

[Cole]

<div >Yo</div> :smoking:

And it would actually be less than that since you would put the "styling" in the stylesheet:

style.css file:
#box {height: 25px;}

index.html file:
<div id="box">Yo</div>

Divs are so much easier. The only problem is getting them to look right in every browser which can be annoying. Also, for getting your site listed in Google, it's much easier for spiders to read/understand a div layout since everything's labled clearly. So it's a must for business websites nowadays, unless your someone huge like Microsoft.

Ok now do this width divs:
<Table Width=18% Height=25px Bgcolor=000000><Tr><Td Width=10%>A</Td><Td>B</Td><Td Width=20%>C</Td><Td>1</Td><Td>2</Td><Tr Bgcolor=FFFFFF><Td width=75%>Whats up</Td></Tr><Tr><Td>D</Td><Td Width = 15%>E</Td></Tr></Table>

Do it so in every browser it will look the same. It's nothing special but I wrote that up fairly quickly. I just find writing that much easier than having to mess around with Floats. I don't have to double check my code or worry about it not working. It simply works on every browser. Thats the main idea here. Having multi-browser support to me is the biggest thing.

 

[destrukt]

an easy way to position div's easily and have it display properly in most browsers is to use:

position: absolute

though, if like most people you use a div as a 'container' or 'wrapper' for everything so you can centre it all easily, if you use position: relative on that div and whatever to have it centered it should work out fine.

Raeven0, i've never thought about it that way.. that's really interesting and what you're saying is actually quite valid. /ponders

 

[Cole]

Well I'm not going to use absolute. I like making my website look the same under every resolution therefor I use percents. If my CSS knowledge is correct absolute is pixel based.

 

[Login_Here]

CSS isn't just pixel-based actually, if you want to you can set an objects width, height, margins, padding, etc to percentages.

 

[Cole]

Obviously Login, I wasn't commenting on CSS itself.

 

[Login_Here]

Misread your post, sorry. Absolute isn't pixel based either though, just tried it on a div with position: absolute and left: 30%, worked like a charm.

 

[StardogChampion]

Well, now that we've brought in CSS, I get another chance to complain. Wee!

Evidently, both

and align="center" are deprecated, meaning that CSS is required if I want to align something to the centre of my page. Which is stupid. If I'm writing an HTML file, NEWSFLASH, I expect to USE HTML in the writing of it.​

Divs are HTML.

You said you'd usually do <center>​

, or <div align="center"></div>, right?

You could just do <div ></div> or something, except the whole point of CSS is not to mess up the HTML code, so you'd put the "text-align: center" into a CSS file to keep it seperate.

If it's a whole page you want centered then you just give the outer-most box/div a "margin: auto".

Which only contributes to my distaste for divs. Divs rely almost entirely on CSS for all of their properties, meaning that a site made of divs uses almost NO HTML. So what's the point? Why did I even learn HTML if now all the hypercorrect bastards are telling me that HTML is obsolete, that Web pages should be made entirely with CSS instead? Why do we still call them HTML files if they don't even use HTML?

Like I said earlier Divs are HTML. CSS should be used for everything visual on a site like colours/sizes of things etc. HTML is for the basic structure. And tables are for tabular data e.g. shopping lists with prices/totals or whatever.

Ok now do this width divs:
<Table Width=18% Height=25px Bgcolor=000000><Tr><Td Width=10%>A</Td><Td>B</Td><Td Width=20%>C</Td><Td>1</Td><Td>2</Td><Tr Bgcolor=FFFFFF><Td width=75%>Whats up</Td></Tr><Tr><Td>D</Td><Td Width = 15%>E</Td></Tr></Table>

Do it so in every browser it will look the same. It's nothing special but I wrote that up fairly quickly. I just find writing that much easier than having to mess around with Floats. I don't have to double check my code or worry about it not working. It simply works on every browser. Thats the main idea here. Having multi-browser support to me is the biggest thing.

You could just do random columns/rows that nobody would want to use ever, so of course it wouldn't be easy with CSS. But if you look at any proper table website layout you should be able to make it in CSS.

Also, you forgot a </tr> for the first row.

Here it is in CSS + your table with the fixed </tr> - LINK Top = table, bottom = css/divs. View the source to see what it looks like. Maximise the window to see them properly.

They both look crap in Firefox, including the table (probably because half your code isn't in quotations), but they look fine in IE. I could do a better version if I could be bothered.

 

[Login_Here]

Well, bgcolor is also a deprecated element, which means that Firefox has stopped supporting it... I'd assume you actually have to use CSS to set the background colors of tables nowadays.

 

[Raeven0]

You could just do <div ></div>

you'd put the "text-align: center" into a CSS file

you just give the outer-most box/div a "margin: auto"

Why should I have to do that?

CSS should be used for everything visual on a site like colours/sizes of things etc. HTML is for the basic structure.

Then why even include visual elements in HTML?

Oh, yeah. The CSS fanatics are the ones trying to get them removed...

 

[sinkoman]

yet it goes against every design principle imaginable ..coders do not make good designers ...and vice versa

O RLY?

I should show you the site I handcoded.

 

[StardogChampion]

Why should I have to do that?

Because it's the way it's supposed to be done.

Then why even include visual elements in HTML?

Maybe they were put in before CSS. I've no idea. Now that CSS is here there is no need for them so they're all being phased out.

If you add bgcolor="#000" on 100 HTML pages, then you're fooked if you want to change the colour later, because you'd have to go through all 100 files and find & replace it. With CSS you just change 1 line in the CSS file and it updates every single page.

 

[sinkoman]

If you add bgcolor="#000" on 100 HTML pages, then you're fooked if you want to change the colour later, because you'd have to go through all 100 files and find & replace it. With CSS you just change 1 line in the CSS file and it updates every single page.

Indeed.

They were standard PRE-CSS, but after the css DTDs were released, they all were deprecated.

 

[Raeven0]

Deprecating stuff that works just fine and replacing it with stuff that works completely differently -- seems very well-thought-out to me. Fortunately, most browsers are still smart enough to be minimally backwards-compatible...

If I have a lot of pages that should look the same, I use PHP include().

 

[StardogChampion]

Yeah but you can't include everything with php. The content of each page would still be different.

Deprecating stuff that works just fine and replacing it with stuff that works completely differently

Tables aren't depreciated. Just tags like bgcolor, font.

CSS doesn't work completely differently. It's easy.

 

[Ennui]

Then why even include visual elements in HTML?

Oh, yeah. The CSS fanatics are the ones trying to get them removed...

HTML was a precursor to CSS. Now that CSS can do everything visually better or as well as HTML, the old sloppy HTML is being deprecated and phased out, and the new neat shiny CSS is being adopted as the standard.

I don't particularly like it either, because it's more work.

 

[DreamThrall]

ASP.NET Master Pages > Includes.

As for CSS - in the end it is actually LESS work, since you can define classes across your entire site with one file. Plus, your HTML code will be a LOT cleaner and easier to read, since you will basically only be looking at content layout, so it will be much easier to see what's going on. You can also do a LOT more things in CSS that you can't do with plan old HTML.

 

[Raeven0]

in the end it is actually LESS work, since you can define classes across your entire site with one file.

That depends on the specific implementation. Less work is required to add align="center" to the opening table tag in raod_header.php than to develop a single CSS class to be used only once in the entire site for that table. align="center" is fewer characters, also. More work, however, is required to set every link colour to off-white than to add an a:link entry to style.css, and it's utterly impossible to make 14px text without CSS.

I think I use align="center", <center>, and a CSS class all together, though; I don't remember. I do this because I am a pussy and can't stand to see the site rendered differently on a browser that doesn't support whatever I choose.

Plus, your HTML code will be a LOT cleaner and easier to read

Or, more accurately, the tags will be less cluttered and shorter; this does not inherently mean the code is easier to read. The inclusion of a style sheet, especially an excessively complex one, changes the behaviour of every tag to the point that I can't even speculate as to what a page does from its source.

You can also do a LOT more things in CSS that you can't do with plan old HTML.

Yep.

 

[Cole]

Because it's the way it's supposed to be done.


Maybe they were put in before CSS. I've no idea. Now that CSS is here there is no need for them so they're all being phased out.

If you add bgcolor="#000" on 100 HTML pages, then you're fooked if you want to change the colour later, because you'd have to go through all 100 files and find & replace it. With CSS you just change 1 line in the CSS file and it updates every single page.

Thats why I use php to simplify everything.
I use a bunch of includes.
I have a main page, then an include for my navigation, an include for the body, an include for the header and an include for the footer.
Then I just use the include function for the body page I want.
Overall I just change something on my main page. It works flawlessly.
This allows me to change the navigation in a snap, no worries about frames, etc..

About neatness? My HTML is already split up enough for me so I can easily read it. With CSS I might need to be looking at the css document in order to read it. And other people reading my code? Thats not my problem.

Whlie yes I do use CSS for some things such as removeing the underline on links until you go over it. Overall I still use mostly HTML with little CSS. I can write everything in one document quickly and no that in every browser it will work like this.
Hell I test all my things in IE, Opera, and Firefox because thats how important it is to me.

 

[StardogChampion]

Thats why I use php to simplify everything.
I use a bunch of includes.
I have a main page, then an include for my navigation, an include for the body, an include for the header and an include for the footer.
Then I just use the include function for the body page I want.
Overall I just change something on my main page. It works flawlessly.
This allows me to change the navigation in a snap, no worries about frames, etc..

Most people use PHP includes or the similar. Even CSS sites. It's a basic thing nowadays.

But like I said before, there is always going to be content that isn't in the includes. You'll have to go through every page to change something.

Another thing about CSS is accessibility. It's important for businesses and popular sites. People who are hard of seeing could use their own custom CSS file for every website they visit to make the fonts bigger etc. With tables containing style tags, nothing will change.

You could also add a button that lets you change the colours/layout of an entire page. A bit like changing forum skins.

http://www.csszengarden.com - Click any design from the right, it uses the EXACT same HTML as cssgarden, but only the CSS has been changed. :smoking: