On Mon, 5 May 2008 22:25:16 -0500, Dolores Park wrote
(in article <brddYgxvE0gm-pn2-JDXiRdrX6hbo@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):
[continuing in our back and forth in this thread regarding my ECR website
and
Freeway 5 Pro, the application used to develop the site]
> That company is free to do***ent their product as they wish. If it is
> aimed at those who are not overly conversant with GUI concepts, it may
> serve their purposes to call these links "buttons" for the sake of
> simplicity. However, if you review the page source, you'll see that
> the menu items are substantially identical to the links you'd find on
> any webpage (i.e. they are all anchors, as indicated by the <a> tag).
> If you'd like a more comprehensive description of anchors and buttons,
> see the HTML 4.01 specification (http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/),
in
> particular chapters 12 & 17.
One of the advantages of Freeway 5 Pro, and to me a very im****tant and big
advantage, is that it gives those of use who are not HTML geeks a way to
develop websites. Just as there are high level programming languages that
free one from the underlying nitty-gritty of the hardware there are
programs
such as Freeway that free us from having to learn HTML and such.
Incidentally, I find it interesting that the W3C Markup Validation Service
shows that websites produced in Freeway tend to have far few errors than
sites produced by other means. For instance, all of the pages of the ECR
site
pass 4.01 Strict except the home page which has two errors which result
from
my including an action, not written by SoftPress the authors of Freeway,
which allows random selection of a graphic. Compare this to the results
obtained from such as the Apple, Adobe, and Microsoft websites.
> BTW... this tool is rather dated in the way it format pages using
> tables & transparent GIFs. That was considered fine some years ago
> but is now deprecated in favor of using CSS to handle positioning.
Again, I can't comment as I'm not versed in HTML and such.
> BTW2... why is all of the text rendered as GIFs? That technique is
> usually reserved for logos and other text that requires an uncommon
> type face. It's pretty unusual for text rendered in Times Roman or
> the like and can have a downside. If your cellphone has a browser
> be sure to check your page for readability on a small screen.
That the text is rendered as a GIF is my choice. This is a reaction to
the
massive layout corruption that generally occurs when the text is rendered
otherwise and the receiver chooses to magnify the site. I guess I'm just
not
a fan of so-called "liquid layout" and I think that there can be better
solutions for viewing when the screen area is limited, a good example
being
the iPhone and iPod touch.
And....
Many thanks for participating in the discussion!
--
James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
