I ♥ HTML
The following article was witten and published by William Szilveszter.
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN">
<html>
<head>
<title>I ♥ (x)HTML</title>
<style type="text/css">
.notice { I suggest you change; the XHTML to match the; content being checked (e.g., CSS, HTML5,
etc.; }
</style>
</head>
<body>
If you've got an unhealthy <obsession /> with getting
<a href="#">every</a>
<a href="#">single</a>
<a href="#">thing</a>
on your website to pass <em>W3C Validation</em>, then this is for <you />. And if <you /> got here from some link, that means I probably bamboozled someone and they in turn, <you />.
<sorry src="/' alt="really" />
<link src="So put a link in your footer and be proud of your slavish devotion to W3C doctrine, and show that you ♥ your code" />
<!-- I don't think I need to tell anyone the code, do I? -->
<p><strong>G33k for Life</strong></p>
</body>
</html>Poetry in Code: The Haiku Error Page
The following article was witten and published by William Szilveszter.
There exists an abundant supply of articles on the internet aimed at making 404 error pages more helpful and informative. They often suggest web designers include a search field, common links, and generally avoid being too convoluted or too technical in nature. All excellent tips that promote usability and accessibility.
Frankly, I could care less about reading an error page. I’ll go look elsewhere. I don’t need suggestive links. Give me access to your navigation system and I’m good. I’d rather just fall back on Google or another place for the content. Internal site searches often produce irrelevant content or poorly presented information. In any case, I don’t like using internal searches and can’t remember the last time I’ve had to rely on them (or better yet, the last time they produced anything remotely close to what I was looking for).
Furthermore, the only sure fire way to avoid the problems those pages often cause visitors is to monitor crawl stats, either through your server or through Google Web Master Tools. If you see 404s, clean them up by fixing the code (if you broke something), or simply by adding permanent (301) redirects to your .htaccess file. Packing an error page with links or miscellany is a waste of time in my opinion. It’s a bandaid, not a cure. Fix the problem and you’ll likely never need one (provided it’s not a 403 or a 500).
So I decided I would take a different approach and pack my error pages with wisdom instead of the usual drivel.
The Hidden Cost of Banners and Online Advertising
The following article was witten and published by William Szilveszter.
We all love ads. I mean, what’s not to like? They’re obtrusive, compete for our attention, distract us, slow down our browsing, sometimes crash our browsers, and generally frustrate us to the point of madness. And can I get everyone to raise the roof for Flash ads? Awww yeah, baby! Adobe in the house! Mo’ crashes, mo’ crashes.
Seriously, advertising is still a scourge of the internet. Usability mogul Jakob Nielsen discovered a long time ago that people pay little, to no attention, to advertising in web pages. You actually have to trick them to look, by making the ads appear to be “a part” of the website. Still companies and budding entrepreneurs pack their website full of banner ads. But is their overzealousness myopic and ultimately fuelled by a “sledgehammer to crack a nut” mentality? I did some digging into the effects adverts have on general load times, performance, and subjective feel.
What to Look for in a (Web) Designer: Uncovering the Charlatans
The following article was witten and published by William Szilveszter.
Every 3rd rate designer, charlatan, scam artist, and wannabe is going to tote about W3C valid code, high usability, and SEO, yet few will probably deliver on their claims. After all, most of their clients probably won’t have any clue they’re getting everything they paid for. These smarmy “designers” will probably flaunt their online portfolio, chalk full of cherry picked work that exemplifies their phenomenal skills and abilities—some may be truly inspirational. In fact, a well put together site from these unscrupulous individuals may look downright appealing, almost too good to pass up. But is it all smoke and mirrors? Are they truly legit artists that are going to provide bang for your buck?
Find out with a little bit of investigating. Just 15 minutes of digging can save you loads of cash, time, and ultimately your sanity.
Taking MacRabbit’s Espresso Web Development Program for a Spin
The following article was witten and published by William Szilveszter.
MacRabbit (of CSSEdit fame) has loosed another version of their “vapourware turned legitimate program,” Espresso, unto the suspecting public. Version 1.1 expands on the “skeleton-like shell” of former iterations by adding several new features, a lot of polish, and some general refinements to the interface and operational program behaviour. Admittedly, I have given little time to this program in the past (yet I’ve always strangely wanted to like it, despite its many failings), as it proved to be quite buggy, and just too eclectic for my taste. However, this new iteration seems to tie a lot of loose ends together and is getting to be an attractive alternative to the already popular Coda. It generally feels a lot snappier and much more refined than previous versions. There are still some rough spots, but it’s certainly starting to come into its own. So I decided to give it a good, solid evening of testing.
So without further ado, let’s run through some of the most prolific components that grabbed my attention, for better or for worse.
