my new site

I'm still working on a couple things like the main header. That building image is generic and not mine, so I'm going to modify it a little. I don't have watermarks on the pics either, which I may put on.

Tell me what should be improved on.

www.burdg.com

Seems fine to me. Simple, clean, uncluttered.

Minor nitpick:
The small text on the logo image is noticabley pixelated on my screen, don't know if you care about that or not (I probably wouldn't much ...)

Gotta get rid of the tables, man. Semantic web design ftw.

I plan on changing that logo a little bit. I also noticed the text quality too.

bieber, what do you mean by tables? Are you talking about the whole organization of the picture catagories?

@ bieber - Meh...as long as tables and basic html still work in a browser, I'll keep using it.

kyleturbo wrote in post #2872073
I plan on changing that logo a little bit. I also noticed the text quality too.

bieber, what do you mean by tables? Are you talking about the whole organization of the picture catagories?

It's not a matter of the way it looks, but of the way the code is written. Tables were never meant to be used for layout, although it was once necessary. They aren't any more, thanks to CSS, so now the only reason to use them is being too lazy to learn how to do things properly...

I see many many many programs still using tables for layout - they're just not using codes within the table commands/the actual page file to dictate table color schemes, padding, fonts styles, sizes etc.

If that's what you mean, then sure, CSS is a lot easier for controlling/changing appearance and some other things all at once, if your site has lots of pages. I have yet to see any evidence that tables themselves are actually gone.

Edit: Also, I think the OP is using Gallery, which means a lot of what his page layout is using is dictacted by that.

I agree with puma, nice clean uncluttered look.

Question - are joomla and gallery one and the same, or is this a hybrid between the two CMS and gallery apps? /Dan

CrazyPuma wrote in post #2872268
If that's what you mean, then sure, CSS is a lot easier for controlling/changing appearance and some other things all at once, if your site has lots of pages. I have yet to see any evidence that tables themselves are actually gone.

Exhibit 1: One of my sites
Exhibit 2: Digg

Open the source of either page, and look for a table. Unless you're presenting tabular data, there shouldn't be any...

Hmm...that's interesting, thanks. That's all done with css somehow? I tried a quick google on the topic and while there's many articles not many really say what it is, exactly. From all the pretty big programs that still use tables, I'd guess it's still a fairly new way to do things - ie, hasn't caught on "big" yet?

Is there a quick explanation for why it's better than tables for the simple table-looking layouts like most people use? I don't mean one-file color switching or something like that - but more like...say...design flexibilty or less code writing?

If you want to see the power of css, click on this page. It's been around for years.

When you view it, you will see a column at right that says to click a design. What this page demonstrates is how radically a given page can be redesigned with only a style sheet. when you click one of the style links, the content that goes into the page remains the same. the only thing that changes is the style sheet. a new stylesheet is loaded onto the same page and changes the design. /Dan

Oh - ok...being able to see the css sheet makes me understand. I do know about that aspect of CSS. For some reason I thought he was talking about something entirely different.

The problem I have with using CSS to place content in that manner is that, at least when I tried it (and I'm obviously no expert), if I placed any statically-sized content that was just as wide or wider than the dimmensions defined in the CSS sheet, or if you re-size the browser so it was no longer as wide as defined in the stylesheet, it would do weird things to the 'tabled' look - ie, the image 'floats' across other content, obscuring, say, side menus or whatever. I still see that happen on other sites, particuarly blog sites - don't like it; can't stand it. Even in, say, the Cannon RAW browser, I hate that floating color/WB adjustment etc. menu because it can put the image behind the menu, and use the 'stacked/attached' menu option instead.

I never delved too deeply into trying to figure a way around the problem in terms of webpages - perhaps there is one/I assume there is one.

CrazyPuma wrote in post #2874746
The problem I have with using CSS to place content in that manner is that, at least when I tried it (and I'm obviously no expert), if I placed any statically-sized content that was just as wide or wider than the dimmensions defined in the CSS sheet, or if you re-size the browser so it was no longer as wide as defined in the stylesheet, it would do weird things to the 'tabled' look - ie, the image 'floats' across other content, obscuring, say, side menus or whatever. I still see that happen on other sites, particuarly blog sites - don't like it; can't stand it. Even in, say, the Cannon RAW browser, I hate that floating color/WB adjustment etc. menu because it can put the image behind the menu, and use the 'stacked/attached' menu option instead.

I thought ~ one of the advantages of using CSS is that no matter the size of your browser window the information would display properly. ? ? ? Is that correct (( I am new at this as well))

onBit wrote in post #2877567
I thought ~ one of the advantages of using CSS is that no matter the size of your browser window the information would display properly. ? ? ? Is that correct (( I am new at this as well))

I'm fairly sure that in most cases, if used properly, it probably does. Like with most things, I imagine it's a matter of knowing not only what to do, but also what to NOT do ... CSS is not unlimited in capacity and sometimes maybe people try to force it do things? Like I said, I never went too deeply into CSS layout.

I think it's the float command that gives the trouble (pic attachment is example of what I mean) so maybe I'll Google that more sometime. Whether they've wrangled ways around it by now, I don't know. There also used to be some things didn't work in IE, so they made 'workarounds'.

In most pages the floating issue wouldn't matter I think, and if you never resize your browsers much, wouldn't either. I resize mine a lot tho, so it's annoying when it occurs. Dunno?

Edit: btw, I apologize to kyleturbo for rather hijacking his thread. I'll stop now.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

No, you're ok....Everything has been going over my head though.