CSS

In the past I have used w3c.org for CSS standard but the past week I haven't been able to access anything at the Consortium's site past the home page.

[url=http://www.richinstyle.com/]Rich In Style[/url] has a great browser bug table for CSS.

[url=http://www.webreference.com/]Web Reference[/url] does a good job with javascript and DHTML information.

And don't forget this very forum! Our members represent one of the broadest knowledge bases I've ever come across.

I had just posted a thing about a css Opera glitch and scrolled down to check out the links you offered.

yikes...

Ever notice that a lot of the css 'authority' pages use such large fonts and put so much info on one page that... it's just plain bad design? If not for being what one might consider 'unattractive', from a use-ability standpoint the pertinent content scrolls for acres and acres, partially because the fonts are rendered much larger than necessary.

Idiotgirl's Rules to Page Design:

HTML 101 - break up large content areas into more than one page.

HTML 101 - if it isn't necessary - eliminate it.

HTML 101 - if it's necessary, but still ugly, for goddsakes refine it.

All standard rules of HTML and cross-browser compliance apply, of course. Personal taste is always a consideration, but never more important than the HTML rules above.

However, the information is great, and the spiders seem to gobble up these low overhead pages. I'm grateful they're out there and easy to locate.

Conversely, I haven't had any problems with sites I've done that are both graphic and content rich showing up in the SE's. < knocking wood this minute >. And, sometimes, I use frames. I'm not touting my expertise or advising this as the do-all of page design, but I do know from practical experience it can be done. Whenever I read warnings about text vs. images or avoiding frames at all costs I have to wonder what all the panic is about.

Personally? I maintain: really big fonts are ugly and are often detrimental to usability.

Yeah, Google has raised the bar on SEs indexing frames. That warning is becoming obsolete, IMO.

On the text vs. images issue, it depends on how competitive your market is and how relevant the text is. Sometimes in heavy competition, you can use every edge you can get. But there's not much value in making an all text menu if the words you use are HOME, PRODUCTS, COMPANY INFO etc.

Are you placing images inside <H1> tags, and things like that? Do you see evidence that this is effective? I've always assumed that this was just throwing away a big potential boost.

But, what I habitually do is use descriptive alt tags with pertinent keywords, and always use a long, boring no-frames description for framed content. I kinda sorta cheat there: I use SSI and, if it's a catalog database, I use x lines from the database in bare-bones text format for my noframes alt text. That way, it's pre-loaded with relevant links for SE's and always current.

Non-catalog frames stuff I use SSI and have my standard alt page inserted. I update the alt page and - bingo - all my alt frames text is updated throughout the site. I can toy with my alt page and see what the SE's like best. Once it's there - I sit back and leave it the heck alone.

I see even using alt tags for my spacer.gifs has helped, though. Pick a keyword, any key word, and slam it in.

What I DON'T do is spam my alt tags with irrelevant keywords. I think I'd get hung for that. If it isn't found somewhere on the page - I don't use it. Period.

But all the "put your menu in this table cell" and "don't use images for a menu" and don't this and that - I have ignored it, and I can't see it's affected me. If your content is there, your alt tags are there, and your alt frames text is there - I think you can pull it off. At least, I have.

<added> Oh - and I cloak my description and keywords, too. Tired of them being stolen and used against me.

So you see- Im a total 'rogue' if you go by what the books tell you ;)