Very Frustrated Website Builder Newbie

[beadgoddess]

I started building websites years ago so I guess I'm not that much of a newbie. BUT I've built them using free sites where the building software was included. They were usually so easy, I thought this web site building thing was a snap. I used Frontpage 98 years ago then kept having trouble with hosts not allowing the extensions (which doesn't allow some things to work??) and it also added lots of gobbledy gook which I would be highly chastised for from gurus.

 

I recently used a software called WebEasy 5 and it was, like it said, a very easy software. I built my own logos, drew graphics, added navigation, borders, and it was basically easy and quite fun. Then the trouble began when I tried to upload the website I built. For some reason, I could not upload the entire site at one time. I could upload a few files at a time but it would still either disconnect or stall.

I am assuming for quickness in the website coming up for visitors, it chopped up my images into separate files and filled my public-html folder with tons of files and made it really hard to organize. I also wouldn't allow me to save the images I built in the site so that I could further edit them with other software.

 

It was suggested that I try cutesite builder. I downloaded the trial version and I guess I must be missing something because...there is very little I have control over. It doesn't seem to be a very...visual program. You can't be very creative or original and I can't stand using the pre-designed templates. I don't see any drawing capability, I even put one of my own images in there and then couldn't move it..I was completely confused. What happened to drag and drop...??

 

Anyway, I guess we all have our own opinions as to site building software. I was hoping for one software to handle all my needs, image editing, drawing, themes and so on. (I still use Image Composer that came with Frontpage, it's a very very easy to use image editing software)

 

If I stick with Cutesite Builder, (it must be good if it's so recommended) does everyone else use other programs for their logos, image editing, drawing and so on? Do I actually have to use other programs to create backgrounds, navigation buttons and so on?

[TCH-Thomas]

Have a look at Samanthas site (look in left menu): www.samisite.com and Kevins site http://www.csbsupport.com/ and many of these questions will be answered before you give up. CSB do need you to know a little more than drag and drop (but just a little ) if you do not want to go with the preinstalled designs, BUT, that is what the above sites explains very good.

 

Both of these explains CSB very good and them inlcuding mine: www.jikrantz.se does not use any of the preinstalled designs (as far as I know).

[beadgoddess]

Wow, I really loved Sami's site. It's just like something I might have made. Looks like I will have to do a lot of reading to be able to do something like that. I just got really frustrated when I tried even using one of their templates and it wouldn't put my image where I wanted it to, and went all funky on me when I wanted to change the wording, lol! Thanks for the input, I have bookmarked both sites.

[TCH-Rob]

Dont forget we have CSB forum here as well. Though we cannot make it for you many of us here use it and would be happy to answer questions for you.

[Samrc]

Glad you liked my site. It's a work in progress as most are.

 

Many of us monitor the CSB part of the forum, and there's also a forum offered by GLobalscape too where you can post for assistance. If you get stuck or need a nudge, POST a question. We will assist and point you in the right direction!

 

If you would like to see more of what CSB can allow you to do, check out my long list of CSB sites on this page for some ideas: www.samisite.com/csbsites.htm

Here's just a few from that list:

- www.jikrantz.se - uses tables and iframes

- www.cmg02.com/webmasters/ - uses tables inside tables (like my home page)

- www.rjskon.com/templates/ - inserted FLASH (you can get more CSB templates here)

- www.altaredlives.org/ - this IS a template, but not an ordinary one.

- www.unitarianhiltonhead.org/index.htm - modified template (site uses frames)

 

There's a wide variety on the look and purpose for the sites and they do not have to be cookie-cutter, plain templates. That's just a starting point. You can modify any of the formats with your own colors/images, or start with a blank page and build from there.

 

You can read up about layering tables to create a page like mine or Curtis's here:

http://www.samisite.com/test-csb/id36.htm

 

Suggest you download the user guide from Globalscape. That and MANY MORE web building resources are discussed on this page (whether you use CSB or other programs, there are some great program suggestions on that page!). http://www.samisite.com/webbuild.htm

 

CSB has a deceptively simple interface. When I started with the Trellix (Forerunner) to CSB, I was disappointed that I not could do "special things" with the program. WRONG. You can! The program looks generic at first. But the more you work with it, the more you find you can do with it! But it is NOT an photo or HTML editor. You will need to prepare your photos outside of CSB. You can insert HTML or other codes to dress your site, but the main HTML code is generated automatically by CSB and you will never edit it directly.

 

-Samantha

 

(edited to correct jikrantz.se - Sorry Thomas... I was posting too early in the morning to notice what I typed).

[TCH-Thomas]

Tiny Correction...

 

It´s www.jikrantz.se

.com works but I prefer .se

[Samrc]

corrected my post with apology

[TCH-Thomas]

No worries Samantha.

 

Dont forget to update your site though. I dont know for how long I will keep the com adress.

[Samrc]

I have a couple different links to your site.... will have to locate them and update!

-Samantha

[TCH-Don]

You can always start with the blank template and modify it any way you wish.

As Sami suggested the user guide is invaluable.

Give it a chance, I think you will like it.

 

And there are lots of CSB'ers here to help.

[Betty1]

I use CuteSITE Builder and I love it. I don't know what I'd do without it.

 

Sure, you can't do everything with it that you could with HTML, but for people who can't quite grasp HTML, it's the perfect solution.

 

In fact, I have alot of people tell me they are absolutely shocked when I tell them I used a site builder for my sites.

[TCH-Thomas]

Sure, you can't do everything with it that you could with HTML, but for people who can't quite grasp HTML, it's the perfect solution.

and

In fact, I have alot of people tell me they are absolutely shocked when I tell them I used a site builder for my sites.

With some imagination, workarounds and a little code from the various places around the internet, you can do pretty much the same as the other people can.

 

CSB has its problems, but which program doesn´t

Edited September 25, 2004 by Jikrantz

[Nicholas Naime]

You have to realize, however, that the code generated by these "site builders" is almost never a valid HTLM. In other words, you automatically cut off many viewers. Most standards-compliant browsers will simply refuse to display your page the way you want it to look.

 

Without getting too deep into technical issues, just submit your site (or any site you like) here: W3C Markup Validator. Just enter the URL to the Address field and click Check. This should give you some ideas. You don't need to look at the errors explained below, if you don't feel like it. Just note that there are reasons for standards to exists.

 

Happy building. :hug:

[TCH-Thomas]

Most standards-compliant browsers will simply refuse to display your page the way you want it to look.

Not quite true in my own experience.

 

You have to realize, however, that the code generated by these "site builders" is almost never a valid HTLM

True, but if choosing between easy managing making every line valid, I know which I choose.

We have to remember, that some people just cant do it in a program which makes everything perfect according to the developer, visitor and the validators.

[LisaJill]

My sites are valid xHTML and I code using a plain text editor - no syntax highlighting, no gui, etc.

 

But that's not what the point of this post is. The point of this post is to get a site up without knowing HTML. Let's face it, most amateur sites (as opposed to commercial sites, and a lot of them at that) don't validate; and they look fine in all modern browsers. After all, Microsoft' site doesn't validate, nor does Amazon's site validate. I could go on and on.

 

(edit: Neither does Apple's but at least they get further than M$

 

It's really just not that important. =)

 

Start off doing whatever is easiest for you to make the page; whether that be drag and drop or digging right into the guts of HTML - this is supposed to be fun.

Edited September 25, 2004 by TCH-Lisa

[Betty1]

You have to realize, however, that the code generated by these "site builders" is almost never a valid HTLM. In other words, you automatically cut off many viewers. Most standards-compliant browsers will simply refuse to display your page the way you want it to look.

 

Without getting too deep into technical issues, just submit your site (or any site you like) here: W3C Markup Validator. Just enter the URL to the Address field and click Check. This should give you some ideas. You don't need to look at the errors explained below, if you don't feel like it. Just note that there are reasons for standards to exists.

 

Happy building. :hug:

Not necessarily true.

 

I'm a member of one message forum for a website called thefanlistings.org, and the members there are forever trying to get their sites compatible in all browsers. The ones who use IE browser, some of them you can't view their sites in Firefox.

 

However, I have absolutely no problem viewing any of my CuteSITE builded sites in Firefox.

 

And I am not going to download every single browser just to check them.

[LisaJill]

You'd have to have multiple os's too, Betty - but there's Browsercam for those that want to see their site in various other browsers. =)

[TCH-Don]

Here is a little background on CuteSite Builder.

 

Originally called Trellix,

created by Dan Bricklin of Visicalc fame.

Developed in a time when browser incompatabilities were at their worst.

I know first hand how hard it was to code a site by hand for IE3

and then see it in another browser like NS3

IE4 and NS4 did not improve the situation.

 

Dan set out to improve on programs like FP.

Sites created in Trellix looked remarkably similar in all browsers.

Trellix differs from the likes of FP, by using a word processor like file

and then at the last step when publishing, converts the file to html

 

FP and others just reload the old code and add to it,

making it bloated and buggy.

 

Yes there is a little more code in there that if you know what you are doing,

but no where as much as FP, in fact similar sites are much more compact in Trellix.

 

One more nice feature of Trellix is when using frames,

a no no for search engines back then.

Trellix unlike other WYSIYG programs actually puts something inside of the no frame tags beside "your browser does not support frames"

Trellix create the best representation of the all the frames and puts that code inside the no frames tag.

The side benefit of this was sites created in Trellix with frames ranked very well in search engines.

 

So don't worry about Cutesite Builder, it is a big improvement in site builders.

And with experience you can create amazing sites.

[Nicholas Naime]

Wow! I didn't expect such a reaction to my post.

I'm sorry if I offended anyone, but the point was absolutely different. I was not ditching the newbies for not knowing HTML. I wanted to attract their attention, however, to the fact that those who offer online "web site building" solutions may be doing them a bad favor.

 

True, but if choosing between easy managing making every line valid, I know which I choose.

We have to remember, that some people just cant do it in a program which makes everything perfect according to the developer, visitor and the validators.

I agree. Yet, I see an internal contradiction here. What is the purpose of making a web site? Some people tend to forget, that the sole purpose of the Internet was to create a system for informations exchange available for everyone. Regardless of people's choice of platform or browser.

I looked as some of the sites above. I saw tags that were specific to Netscape or IE. How can one create a browser-dependent web site? Once again, I'm talking about the companies who allow for "easy" web site creation. Unlike their clients, they should know about standards.

 

After all, Microsoft' site doesn't validate, nor does Amazon's site validate. I could go on and on.

 

(edit: Neither does Apple's but at least they get further than M$)

I know. I began with Microsoft, then gave it some apples. Somehow it did not surprise me. At least Apple, unlike Microsoft, doesn't do this

Warning: You are viewing this page with an unsupported Web browser. This Web site works best with Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.01 or later or Netscape Navigator 6.0 or later.

Sorry, but I don't buy this. Browser detection? Huh? ON THE INTERNET?

 

It's really just not that important. =)

Ahem... To whom? It was important for me when I was making my web site. It's my first and only one (*hugs his web site and kisses it tenderly*). It's very simple, and I began making it without ANY knowledge of HTML. It learned it for that purpose. I put it up on the Internet only after I manually fixed it (I originally made it in Dreamweaver) and optimized the code. Why? See below.

 

And I am not going to download every single browser just to check them.

That only proves my point. You see Betty1, theoretically you don't have to. Really, really. Unfortunately, the definition of the web browser cannot be applied to every product that claims itself to be one.

Once again, before resorting to online "web site building" solutions, decide what the purpose of making a site is.

Before I uploaded my web site to one of the servers of a company who shall go nameless because it RRRRROCKS!!!! Rock Sign (ahem, sorry, got carried away), I made sure it adheres to HTML standards and looks exactly the same in the following browsers:

 

Mac OS X

Safari

iCab

Firefox

Mozilla

Opera

 

Mac OS 9

Netscape

iCab

 

Windows 95, 98, 2000

IE 5

 

Windows XP

IE6

 

Am I nuts? Most likely. Am I a professional web designer? Far from it. In fact, I don't think I am going to make another web site. Well, I might, but there is no need for it currently.

Then why did I go through all of this? Well, guess what? I want my site to be available to everyone.

AND to be standards compliant.

 

I apologize to everyone whom I might have offended by my posts in this thread. Believe me, I did not intend to bash web building newbies. The sole purpose was to attract their attention to the caveats of the tools they're using. If at least one of these newbies becomes a professional web designer, or at least remakes his or her site to be more compatible, I would be much, much happier. Like that: woooot

 

The thread is called "Very Frustrated Website Builder Newbie." I'm saying that I understand where this frustration comes from. Not only can this be avoided, but you might become addicted to web site building, because it is fun.

 

We are a family, anyway. We're here to help each other. I'm more than willing to do so, so let's hug! :hug: Anyone?

[Samrc]

This is supposed to be fun

 

EXACTLY Lisa! Thumbs Up

 

If you get tied up with "finishing" your site before you publish, or trying to match every browser, or only use codes to current standards (which change), or worrying so much about the dotted i's and crossed t's, you lose sight of why you wanted to build the site in the first place.

 

Someone that is a code purist, fussy about the HTML coding being EXACTLY correct (Nicolas, I put you in this category), has a different need than someone that only doesn't care about the code, just the end result. For someone that has no wish to delve deeply into the CODE of the page, CSB can be a joy to work with.

 

People are not wired the same. That's why editors and builders come with so many different options/abilites. The key is to find a program that fits YOU and YOUR needs and makes the adventure of building/maintaining a site fun/challenging, not a chore.

 

Nicolas, I agree it's important to know that standards exist and that conventions change as new technology is applied to the internet (ie websafe colors are no longer a big deal....used to be a standard).

 

But recognize that you have been bitten by the CODE bug! Some folks will NEVER see that bug let alone get bitten because they won't have the INTEREST in any part of the code, correct or not! Trying to read about coding and standards is GREEK/GEEK to them, causing frustration and brain freezes. I know some folks that have published websites for years and still have yet to insert the first piece of code into thier webpages! Others of us get bitten, but only get a some of the symptoms, not a full-blown case (I count myself in this category!). We want to work with code, but not the extent that you do. Different strokes for different folks! Thumbs Up

 

Yes.....it is FUN! And always something new to learn and play with! woooot

 

-Samantha

[curtis]

To start, I am not bashing CSB. In fact part of my site is built using CSB. Part built using Notepad.

 

A couple of post in this thread talk about site builders adding extra code,all of them do.

I got just a little curious about just how much extra code CSB adds. I know its a good bit from just looking at the source.

 

As an example I made a basic page layout consisting of a header,left column,center content,right column and a footer . A couple extra cells thrown in the center content for my own interest.

 

The basic layout using Notepad 1279 bytes

http://www.cmg02.com/test1/table3.htm

 

The basic layout using CSB 5261 bytes

http://www.cmg02.com/test1/table2.htm

 

A large amount of difference for such a small amount of code.

On a large page this could add up fast to a very slow loading page.

[TCH-Don]

Yep, hand coding will always win out

and can be fun if you give it a chance.

[Nicholas Naime]

But recognize that you have been bitten by the CODE bug!

Yup!

Some folks will NEVER see that bug let alone get bitten...

 

See the pictures below. Do they look familiar? They do? Which one?

[TCH-Bruce]

I apologize to everyone whom I might  have offended by my posts in this thread. Believe me, I did not intend to bash web building newbies. The sole purpose was to attract their attention to the caveats of the tools they're using. If at least one of these newbies becomes a professional web designer, or at least remakes his or her site to be more compatible, I would be much, much happier. Like that: woooot

I wasn't offended and I knew what you were trying to say. But here's the jist of it as I see it. Oh, BTW I do code by hand and use HTML-kit (sometimes) and my site is standards compliant.

 

But the fact of the matter is most of the newbie web designers are doing it for their own personal pleasure. They are doing it for themselves and/or family and friends to enjoy. Most are still using IE which can render almost anything the way they intended it. I'll give M$ a Thumbs Up for that.

 

I am currently redoing the web site for the company I work for. Making it XHTML compliant and I understand the frustrations of the new people jumping into web design. When I created the original site I was under time constraints to get it done. Just make it look good for the person wanting it (my boss). He only uses IE so as long as it looked as he wanted in IE he was happy. He didn't care that other people are using different browsers and the pages didn't render as they should in Netscape or Mozilla and Firefox. They will when I post the pages next week.

 

I have yet to find a web design editor that can write standards compliant code, Dreamweaver included. But as long as the pages render as the designer wants I guess all that matters.

 

I want to know what's going on with the code as you do, but not everyone does.

[Samrc]

Hey Curtis....

Could you make the tables the SAME, format-wise so the comparison is truly accurate? And would LOVE to see the same tables done in FrontPage too!

 

Yes, hand coding can be fun, and will definitely make the code trimmer.

There's a real sense of accomplishment when you upload it and open the browser to YOUR code and it looks the way you intended! Been there done that using CuteHTML Pro so I understand Nicholas hugging his site with pride.

 

But some folks do not have the inclination to learn code, others don't have a logical mindset so can not comprehend code no matter how much you explain, and others just don't have the time to work with it and choose to put devote the little time they have towards images or other content. For those folks a program that produces HTML (like CSB and many others) is a joy to work with.

 

CSB and others like it definitely have limits. But for some uses, some people those limits are not a problem. For some people, those limits help to make the program easier to use/understand.

 

-Samantha

[Nicholas Naime]

Most are still using IE which can render almost anything the way they intended it. I'll give M$ a Thumbs Up for that.

An interesting observation. There is no way of knowing for sure that most people are using IE. Many browsers can (and many do) change the agent sig to pretend they are IE. This is done specifically in order to override poorly coded pages that require IE.

 

I am currently redoing the web site for the company I work for. Making it XHTML compliant and I understand the frustrations of the new people jumping into web design. When I created the original site I was under time constraints to get it done. Just make it look good for the person wanting it (my boss). He only uses IE so as long as it looked as he wanted in IE he was happy. He didn't care that other people are using different browsers and the pages didn't render as they should in Netscape or Mozilla and Firefox. They will when I post the pages next week.

XHTML is great. I wanted to code my site using XHTML originally. Then I realized that not all browsers support it in full. Went back to HTML 4.01 Transitional.

 

Research shows, that it is much easier to code using valid markup and then adjust it to IE, if needed.

 

I have yet to find a web design editor that can write standards compliant code, Dreamweaver included.

 

Oh boy! PM me right away if you find one!

On the other hand, more and more people recommend using Movable Type.

 

I want to know what's going on with the code as you do, but not everyone does.

Agreed! Absolutely! But isn't it frustrating to know that some of your friends cannot see your page?

[Samrc]

Nicolas,

 

Yes... I HAVE looked at my site and many others with different browsers.

Quite a variance. Some pages more so than others.

 

I accept that the VAST majority of the people (82.4 %) that visit that site use IE and view it the way it was intended. Even if that figure is not a TRUE number, it is still a large MAJORITY. I accept that some visitors with different browsers will not see it that way but will still have a functional site (with a few quirks perhaps). I use IE at work and Firefox quite a bit at home. I do not have the time to hand tweak all code to get it fully compliant. I reach for quality with a nod to limitations of time. I CHOOSE to accept a less than perfect site. Thumbs Up

 

If I were required to only post a perfect site (code-wise), I would probably choose to remove the main content from my site. The site is based around CSB/Trellix assistance. Hand-coding the site would defeat the purpose of the tutorial site: to demonstrate that your CSB/Trellix site can be much more than plain generic template!

 

I do have other webpages that ARE hand coded. They have other purposes.

 

I am not offended or offput by your posts. I have been bitten by the coding bug, but do not suffer as strong a case as you. And that's ok with me. I may have partial immunity to it. Or who knows...maybe it just needs incubation time and eventually my posts will sound like yours! woooot (chuckling as I hit post)

 

-Samantha

[TCH-Bruce]

An interesting observation. There is no way of knowing for sure that most people are using IE. Many browsers can (and many do) change the agent sig to pretend they are IE. This is done specifically in order to override poorly coded pages that require IE.

Who knows how to change the agent sig? Not the newbies. And I look at my Awstats frequently and IE is the leading browser hitting my work site and my site. And I know most of the people getting to either of those sites wouldn't have a clue on how to change it either. So I think it's a safe bet that it is IE visiting.

 

On the other hand, more and more people recommend using Movable Type

Depends on what kind of site you are building. I use MT for my blog. I wouldn't think about using it for our company site or my other site.

 

If I were required to only post a perfect site (code-wise), I would probably choose to remove the main content from my site.  The site is based around CSB/Trellix assistance. Hand-coding the site would defeat the purpose of the tutorial site (to demonstrate that your CSB/Trellix site can be much more than plain generic template!).

I agree Samantha and you have done a great job with your site.

Edited September 25, 2004 by TCH-Bruce

[Nicholas Naime]

Or who knows...maybe it just needs incubation time and eventually my posts will sound like yours! woooot (chuckling as I hit post)

:hug:

[TCH-Dick]

I use DreamWeaver but hand code 50% of the time. My site is compliant with XHTML standards, when I have it up, because I love to constantly change it. Since it's not a business I only make sure it works fine in IE and FireFox. I could care less about other browsers(e.g. IE for mac,Safari), they can get a different browser if they want to see it that bad.

I can also tell you from helping others that just because it validates doesn't mean it that its proper code. If have seen alot of crap slapped between tags that makes a mess of a site but still validates.

[Samrc]

I agree Samantha and you have done a great job with your site.

How kind Bruce! Thank you.

 

It's still a work in progress as they all are. It has been fun showing people that CSB/TRELLIX can make a decent, if imperfect, website if you want to put time and effort into some of the extras to dress them up. But if you don't want to do any "extras", I still help with some excellent resources and provide newbies instructions on basic tasks too. We ALL need a leg-up to get started.

 

We don't all want to drive a NASCAR vehicle, or even a high-performance auto. Some of us are willing to drive an auto that is reliable, somewhat attractive and functional, but has its own little quirks. Naughty

 

I could care less about other browsers(e.g. IE for mac,Safari), they can get a different browser if they want to see it that bad.

woooot Thumbs Up

 

-Samantha

[TCH-Bruce]

If have seen alot of crap slapped between tags that makes a mess of a site but still validates.

 

So true...

Edited September 25, 2004 by TCH-Bruce

[Nicholas Naime]

If have seen a lot of crap slapped between tags that makes a mess of a site but still validates.

Sure. This is because browsers interpret your code (as opposed to compiling it). If web browsers actually complied the code fed into them, half (if not more) of web pages would never make it to the reader.

The markup validator is your regular compiler that checks the syntax of your code. Naturally, just because you make no syntax errors does not mean your web site will look or work as intended. But unlike, say, software programming, where you cannot possibly build your application with syntax errors, web site building is more forgiving.

[LisaJill]

Just check it in Opera; if it's badly coded it'll look awful. I hate that browser, gives me such a headache making the page work in that.

 

As far as MT goes; I'm not sure what this "more and more people are suggesting it" comes from; but it's not a GUI - and you do need html/css knowledge to get the templates working right. And then some. =)

 

As far as not all browsers reading xHTML - all modern browsers do; some version 4's have issues with it but I refuse to cater to people living in the stone ages.

[beadgoddess]

Wow guys, thanks so much for all the replies. I think this post will probablyl help a lot of people, not just this frustrated website builder-wanna be.

 

I remember the first site I built on Homestead.com with their site builder. I thought it was AWESOME. You could add borders and dividers just by inserting shapes, you could have all kinds of colors, all kinds of cool fonts, make really cool logos by messing with their templates colors and textures. I was simple, easy and viewed well in the end. I could make a really cool site in one day. Maybe I screwed myself at that beginning stage thinking all site builders were that way. Then I started building with FrontPage and could build cool sites but they never looked right after publishing and I would always get people griping about how much garbage there was in the coding which, as a newbie, took me a while to figure out, let alone the extension issue.

 

I will stick with CSB and work with it to see what I can come up with. Ahhh, I can see the hours in my life being sucked away as we speak. Thanks again for all the help. I can see that it won't matter if I need help, I know where I can get it.

 

Tammy Rock Sign

[curtis]

Samantha,

Could you make the tables the SAME, format-wise so the comparison is truly accurate?

 

The only way to do that is to write the code the exact way CSB does.

The point of my post was to show that it isn't necessary to specify the border attributes

for every single table nor the font face,size and color for each and every cell. Thats where most of CSBs bloat comes from.

 

As for making that layout in Front Page I can't help you there. I tried FP and it adds even more useless stuff than CSB,way more. I admit that was several years ago so FP may not add as much now.

 

As i stated above I am not bashing CSB. I think its a very good program.

[TCH-Rob]

I made my site, it isnt compliant. It looks fine in IE and FireFox, I get visitors and I get sales. I am not concerned with perfect code. Life isnt perfect and neither is my sites code. Should it be? Probably but I have to take some shortcuts to get it made in the time frame I need it.

 

If we didnt take short cuts we would all have perfect sites, cars and homes impervious to each other and mother nature and I would have the body of the California Governor in his Conan days. Although I do have the body of god, unfortunately it's Buddha.

 

This isnt going to happen, more power to you if you are striving for it but you might have a better time making peace on Earth become a reality.

[Nicholas Naime]

Just check it in Opera; if it's badly coded it'll look awful. I hate that browser, gives me such a headache making the page work in that.

Opera is just becoming a decent browser. Version 7 is the first to handle CSS2 properly (more or less).

As far as not all browsers reading xHTML - all modern browsers do; some version 4's have issues with it but I refuse to cater to people living in the stone ages.

Right. As far as Internet Media Type "text/html" [RFC2854] goes.

[TCH-Don]

Tammy, glad you were helped,

even if we got off topic

 

Yep if you need help, just ask.

[Nicholas Naime]

Wow guys, thanks so much for all the replies. I think this post will probablyl help a lot of people, not just this frustrated website builder-wanna be.

Hey, you're welcome! Knowledge is power, isn't it?

[Nicholas Naime]

Does this make sense?

 

Accessibility is an important idea behind many web standards, especially HTML.

 

 

Not only does this mean allowing the web to be used by people with disabilities, but also allowing web pages to be understood by people using browsers other than the usual ones - including voice browsers that read web pages aloud to people with sight impairments, Braille browsers that translate text into Braille, hand-held browsers with very little monitor space, teletext displays, and other unusual output devices.

 

 

As the variety of web access methods increases, adjusting or duplicating websites to satisfy all needs will become increasingly difficult (indeed, some say it’s impossible even today). Following standards is a major step towards solving this problem. Making your sites standards-compliant will help ensure not only that traditional browsers, old and new, will all be able to present sites properly, but also that they will work with unusual browsers and media.

 

 

Some consequences of ignoring standards are obvious: the most basic consequence is that you will restrict access to your site. How much business sense does it make to limit your audience to only a fraction of those who wish be a part of it? For a business site, denying access to even small portions of a target audience can make a big difference to your profit margin. For an educational site, it makes sense to allow access not only to affluent, able-bodied school-children with graphical browsers, but also to children in Third-World countries who only have text-based browsers access, or disabled students using specialized browsers.

 

 

The same principle applies to all types of websites — while straying from the standards and taking advantage of browser-specific features may be tempting, the increased accessibility which comes from standards-compliance will lead to far greater rewards in the long run.

[Samrc]

Tammy,

For CSB questions, post in the CSB forum or on the Globalscape board.

 

Glad you decided to hang in for a bit. There is a HUGE difference for online builders vs CSB: Online builders you are STUCK with only one host. With CSB (as with other pc-based programs) you can change hosts at will, or work on a second website for someone else on a different host.

 

NOTE: was NOT implying that you would want to leave TCH! Rock Sign Only that the online builders lock you in and when you want to move, you lose your site and your program and have to start over.

 

We do have a wish list for CSB and some of the options you mentioned are already on the list. But whether Globalscape would consider the list if/when they update the product is unknown.

 

---------------------

 

Nicolas,

We do not disagree that standards are necessary. Several of us have said the same thing...sometimes TIME is the major decision factor not total compliance. If there were a program that wrote totally compliant code that was easy, fast, inexpensive to use we would probably all consider using it. But it does not exist.

 

Well folks....this has been fun. But gotta shut down the computer and unplug all equipment. HURRICANE JEANNE (cat 3) will be starting to come ashore soon and we will begin to feel high winds and rain. The storm should angle just south of Orlando, putting us in the NE quadrant (dirtiest side of the storm with most winds and tornados). Don't want to lose my computer to a power surge. If I have power I will check the thread to view other posts tomorrow evening after the storm has passed. Say a prayer and wish me good luck and power!

 

-Samantha