Slashdot Mirror

w3schools.com have a page where they keep a up-to-date stats on the resolutions of browsers visiting their pages. 47% use 1024x768 against 37% running 800x600 (as of January this year)

Probably slightly skewed, but interesting non-the-less.

The page also shows browser usage stats, and whether javascript is enabled or not (92% yes).

You'll get the page here

T.

responding to your other comments CSS is very useful but unfortunately can cause things to display slightly differently in IE vs other browsers, I've used CSS but I've restricted my use to options that work in older browsers: at least NN4, IE4. CSS is quite helpful for maintaining sites easily. a decent CSS reference

In my experience, when people are exposed to Mozilla for a stretch of time, it rapidly becomes apparent that it is better than IE. It's just something that sells itself. Looking at some stats from January 2003 to June 2004, Mozilla usage has almost trippled going from 4% to 11.2%. Mozilla usage is up 37% this year alone. That is some serious growth anyway you look at it and it doesn't seem to be slowing down.

one thing should be point out, it should be a professional web developer, not the one just finshed online training of http://www.w3schools.com/, which only tell you something about IE.

Considering most people.. and most meaning everyone minus a tiny percentage.. have js enabled,

I wonder how this will work with Opera's plans for an IPO?
For those who don't know:
XForms:XForms provides a richer, more secure, more reliable, and presentation independent way of handling interactive Web transactions.
I made a quick xml page, with the source being here, just to show some people who don't know. Please note that in the example I used css to make the page look like something, this is technically incorrect
Some other XML technologies

I wonder how this will work with Opera's plans for an IPO?
For those who don't know:
XForms:XForms provides a richer, more secure, more reliable, and presentation independent way of handling interactive Web transactions.
I made a quick xml page, with the source being here, just to show some people who don't know. Please note that in the example I used css to make the page look like something, this is technically incorrect
Some other XML technologies

I wonder how this will work with Opera's plans for an IPO?
For those who don't know:
XForms:XForms provides a richer, more secure, more reliable, and presentation independent way of handling interactive Web transactions.
I made a quick xml page, with the source being here, just to show some people who don't know. Please note that in the example I used css to make the page look like something, this is technically incorrect
Some other XML technologies

Crap you're right. I guess I'm so anal that I forgot about all the things you can get away with. Another weakness about JavaScript is I have yet to find a decent tutorial to point people to besides W3 Schools.

HTML, CSS, then PHP.

This path provides the immediate gratification and a doorway to wizardry if she chooses to pursue it.

• in my experience the most difficult concept involved is that of "files"; make sure she has a good understanding of what a text file is, and has a good text editor
• I like w3.org and w3schools.com as starting points; lots less to unlearn that way
• start with the most recent version of the HTML standard; the industry will not be going backwards with this stuff
• Avoid javascript; some ECMA scripting might be useful, but javascript is too platform dependant (bad habits)

Here it is.

After a little investigation, I realized that W3Schools is not run by the W3C. Still, its numbers are interesting. I'd like to know how they got them.

According to this W3 site, IE 5 and 6 combined is down to 82.3%, and Mozilla is up to 10.7%.

#pageHeader {position:absolute;left:1px;top:1px;width:222px;}

<div id="container">
<div id="pageHeader">Blah</div>
</div>

Uh...last I checked, Mozilla (and derivitives) had 10% browser marketshare.

The point is NOT to make a web site accessible to people who don't understand web sites! This is like the icon caption: "AOL 4.0: DOUBLE CLICK TO START". Don't do that. It's okay to say "Click here to view the page I have written about foo." instead of "I have written a page about foo.", but please don't take all that advice literally.

Yes, please do not take this advice literally, as it is wrong. The poster is correct that you are not to build a web site to people that don't understand web sites, but W3C actually recommends the exact opposite of his example of what is ok.

Also, making multiple links only seperated by spaces is bad. Not just because slashdot's filter (or whatever it is that adds the link domain) probably just garbled that, but those with poor sight cannot tell the difference when one link ends and the other begins (unless slashdot garbles it for them to point out a link is done and where it goes).

Also, if you come across sites referencing Bobby, please note that for some reason Bobby has decided that if an image is used anywhere in the page it will not pass their test. Previously, they would mark it off and warn testers that they must ensure that colors aren't used to differentiate context. Because of this, there are many sites out there that will claim Bobby compliance when they are not. That said, Cynthia Says provides a similar tester with a few more options. If you use Mozilla, Chris Pederick's Web Developer Extension contains an option under the Validation menu to validate against WAI Accessibility or Section 508 (as well as validate links, HTML and CSS).

Finally, it's worth noting that some you should check your pages in Lynx Viewer to see how the page would look in Lynx (or just run Lynx yourself). This is useful for when judging your content based on its textual equivalent (which in some instances is what is read off by screen readers). Also add a "skip to content" link whose CSS sets it to display none for graphical browsers (some people suggest leaving this on, but W3C's validator even uses this method so I go with them). If they are having the screen read to them after a while they will no how the navigation system works, and won't need to have all those links read to them and just want to get to the actual content in your page. If you go the full XHTML route, you'll also have accesskeys and tabindexes available so they can tab through your links corretly and can get back to the beginning of your page if you set a named anchor as the first thing they tab to (the second being the skip to content, thus they can simply hit the 'T' key on to take them to the top and then skip the content to get to the beginning of the content OR they can go through the navigation (of course, you could have given each entry in your navigation an accesskey, but that's not always helpful, and this is useful in case they forget what they key is for something in the navigation).

Wow, I can't believe I knew this much on the subject....

The point is NOT to make a web site accessible to people who don't understand web sites! This is like the icon caption: "AOL 4.0: DOUBLE CLICK TO START". Don't do that. It's okay to say "Click here to view the page I have written about foo." instead of "I have written a page about foo.", but please don't take all that advice literally.

Yes, please do not take this advice literally, as it is wrong. The poster is correct that you are not to build a web site to people that don't understand web sites, but W3C actually recommends the exact opposite of his example of what is ok.

Also, making multiple links only seperated by spaces is bad. Not just because slashdot's filter (or whatever it is that adds the link domain) probably just garbled that, but those with poor sight cannot tell the difference when one link ends and the other begins (unless slashdot garbles it for them to point out a link is done and where it goes).

Also, if you come across sites referencing Bobby, please note that for some reason Bobby has decided that if an image is used anywhere in the page it will not pass their test. Previously, they would mark it off and warn testers that they must ensure that colors aren't used to differentiate context. Because of this, there are many sites out there that will claim Bobby compliance when they are not. That said, Cynthia Says provides a similar tester with a few more options. If you use Mozilla, Chris Pederick's Web Developer Extension contains an option under the Validation menu to validate against WAI Accessibility or Section 508 (as well as validate links, HTML and CSS).

Finally, it's worth noting that some you should check your pages in Lynx Viewer to see how the page would look in Lynx (or just run Lynx yourself). This is useful for when judging your content based on its textual equivalent (which in some instances is what is read off by screen readers). Also add a "skip to content" link whose CSS sets it to display none for graphical browsers (some people suggest leaving this on, but W3C's validator even uses this method so I go with them). If they are having the screen read to them after a while they will no how the navigation system works, and won't need to have all those links read to them and just want to get to the actual content in your page. If you go the full XHTML route, you'll also have accesskeys and tabindexes available so they can tab through your links corretly and can get back to the beginning of your page if you set a named anchor as the first thing they tab to (the second being the skip to content, thus they can simply hit the 'T' key on to take them to the top and then skip the content to get to the beginning of the content OR they can go through the navigation (of course, you could have given each entry in your navigation an accesskey, but that's not always helpful, and this is useful in case they forget what they key is for something in the navigation).

Wow, I can't believe I knew this much on the subject....

"how many just code for IE6"
Too many probably. According to some web browser statistics, Mozilla and its derivatives are used by about 10% of the web (or the part of the web that visits that site). While 10% is small, you're still talking a significant amount of users, possibly thousands depending on the site's total traffic.

It is easier to ignore those relatively few Gecko users of course, but sooner or later web designers won't.

I just started learning CSS this past weekend, and I love it. The review of this book seems rather serendipitous to me, then. And yes, w3schools is a great place to get started.

Not to be flamebait or anything. An honest question...

What exactly does this book have that is not available at W3schools.com?

Yeah, your reality != others reality (Moz = 10.1%). Stats can be changed to benefit anyone.

Loads of people are still on Internet Explorer 5 today, that was released over five years ago

Actually, most sites that track this sort of thing show about 75% of all users on IE6, but only around 10% on IE5.

Some examples:
http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2004/January/brows er.php
http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat.htm
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.a sp
http://www.cen.uiuc.edu/bstats/latest.html
http://www.webreference.com/stats/browser.html

Yeah according to this site (linked from yahoo) on browser statistics IE 5 only makes up 11% of the market.

I found that here

Where do you get info on this myth that make has this continual %5 desktop share? Didn't you read that /. article that Linux has more desktop share now then Mac? And if you count server usage (Linux has 25%), then there is no comparision. According to w3schools Linux has 2.6% of the desktop market and Mac has 2.4%. In fact, I have never seen any stat that has Mac at 5%.

• Design Graphics Magazine I'm not sure if it's still in print, but it's Australian, so they might give pointers to some user groups of interest in your area
• CSS Tutorial by W3Schools Something to get you started on CSS
• A List Apart, articles on doing tricky things with CSS
• Eric Meyer's writings. Links to articles and such by the author of ORA's CSS: The Definitive Guide. [read the Web Review articles from 2000 for some of the real power of CSS]
• Learning CSS a list of books and online resources
• Westciv courses on-line courses on CSS, CSS2 and some free resources.

And, as a matter of fact, it does work quite nicely. It's basically a T9-to-Google interface - instead of having to hit a key multiple times to select one of the specific characters that a key maps to (ie. hit the "7" key 4x to get a "s") you just need to hit it once, and let the algorithm figure what you meant). I actually use this on a daily basis, and while it's not perfect, it's quite usable.

Would you rather I had said this:

I don't use Document Type Definitions, but I do use Extensible Markup Language Schema Definitions for all of my document formats. There is a good link to learn the basics here.

I usually use Extensible Markup Language Schema Definitions with Java Advanced Programmer Interface for Extensible Markup Language Binding because it provides me with an Object-Oriented approach to reading/writing that specific format. There are also a couple projects to do that for C++ (Rogue Wave). Personally, I *love* Extensible Markup Language Data Binding, because I no longer have to deal with Document Object Model or Simple Advanced Programmer Interface for Extensible Markup Language.

Realistically, these acronymns are the only thing that make our posts even readable/understandable.

I usually use XSD with JAXB (Java XML Bindings) because it provides me with an Object-Oriented approach to reading/writing that specific format. There are also a couple projects to do that for C++ (Rogue Wave). Personally, I *love* XML Data Binding, because I no longer have to deal with DOM or SAX.

Hello, Since webmonkey is going down, what are some others resources that you guys find equally well? I know of Arson Network. What about you guys?

Besides W3Schools which has been mentioned in this Slashdot discussion sometimes, I like Dev Shed - http://www.devshed.com/. It has lots of nice tutorials/articles about Perl, PHP, Java (including JSP), Python, XML, MySQL, Flash, etc...

There was also a very nice discussion in Slashdot, around two years ago, about online resources for Developers:

I have never seen Mac get 5%. If you look at w3schools it shows Mac with 2.5% and Linux with 2.6%. Didn't you read the /. article on Desktop Linux Share Overtaking Macintosh or the Yahoo! News article?

Also, I don't know where people get this idea that Linux users do not spend money. The fortune 500 I work at have spent a lot of money on Linux applications, like Oracle 9i and Oracle 9iAS, PeopleSoft, we have 24x7 support contracts with Red Hat, etc. I think the average Linux desktop user doesn't want to spend tons of money on normal day-to-day software. That is understandable to me. It costs far too much to get average desktop software for an MS Windows platform. Tons of MS Windows users just go and steal that software from p2p. I personally take the Linux approach and use freely available desktop software instead of stealing $1,000's of dollars of software. Go look at the average /. MS Windows using users desktop and I bet you will find tons of stolen software. Now compare that to the average /. GNU/Linux using users desktop and you will find zero stolen software.

In the end I hope you are right and Mono/.Net will be an alternative cross-platform development platform to bring competition to Java, which would be a good thing.

There's so many more computers running than 2000/XP than 9x, why bother writing any kind of worm that targets 9x?

Is that true? Can you prove it?

Are you a troll, or just ignorant? Here is just one of many sites that list up to the date web statistics from a large sampling of web surfers. Windows NT, Windows 95, Windows 98, Linux & Mac combined don't equal how many users have XP.

Learning to create HTML links

I usually recommend strict,yes. But if one have an an exception like this of course you can use Transitional. Usually there shouldn't be any need for a Transitional doctype. (probably cause i'm a bit fed up by messy code ;) )

And instead of value, I think one wants you to use Counters in css. Of course currently one browser is supporting counters in css.

Some example of counters.
www.html-world.de(translated by google)
www.w3schools.com counter-reset
www.w3schools.com counter-increment

I'm also aware of the problems with xhtml, the reason i only said strict, not 4.01 strict or xhtml 1.0 strict. I believe it should be up to yourself to deside which is the best suited for you. But of course there is always a bunch of people jumping the bandwagon. As it is now xhtml1.0 may be sent as text/html http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/ Though i have seen very often pages that is supposedly in xhtml1.1, but sent as text/html. When confronted most of the people that made these pages have no clue what the document should be delivered as. they just think its cool to use the latest doctype. Espesially fun when you know these people use MSIE ;) (MSIE which open a download dialog, when it tries to open a document sent as application/xhtml+xml)

One could use this apache mod_rewrite described at greytower.net but it really doesn't solve the problem, but it allows the document to be opened in MSIE.

I usually recommend strict,yes. But if one have an an exception like this of course you can use Transitional. Usually there shouldn't be any need for a Transitional doctype. (probably cause i'm a bit fed up by messy code ;) )

And instead of value, I think one wants you to use Counters in css. Of course currently one browser is supporting counters in css.

Some example of counters.
www.html-world.de(translated by google)
www.w3schools.com counter-reset
www.w3schools.com counter-increment

I'm also aware of the problems with xhtml, the reason i only said strict, not 4.01 strict or xhtml 1.0 strict. I believe it should be up to yourself to deside which is the best suited for you. But of course there is always a bunch of people jumping the bandwagon. As it is now xhtml1.0 may be sent as text/html http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-media-types/ Though i have seen very often pages that is supposedly in xhtml1.1, but sent as text/html. When confronted most of the people that made these pages have no clue what the document should be delivered as. they just think its cool to use the latest doctype. Espesially fun when you know these people use MSIE ;) (MSIE which open a download dialog, when it tries to open a document sent as application/xhtml+xml)

One could use this apache mod_rewrite described at greytower.net but it really doesn't solve the problem, but it allows the document to be opened in MSIE.

w3schools.com is hardly the be-all end-all authority on HTML semantics. In fact, I'd say that a website that (as of 2004-01-09) uses tables for layout and <b> for navigation bar heading text wouldn't know what "semantic web" meant if it reared up and bit them in the you-know-where. (Go ahead, view the source.) The disclaimer on their homepage states, "W3Schools is for training only. We do not warrant the correctness of the content. The risk of using it remains entirely with the user." I'd listen to their disclaimer (and homepage joke-of-the-day) much more than their markup advice.

Come on: A random link does not an argument make. I've seen horrible HTML tutorials "explain" how <blockquote> is used to indent text and <h1>, <h2>, et al are good for making text bigger and smaller. If "somebody wrote it on the Internet" links constitute an argument, though, I'd say that Web Design Group offers a much more reliable and better-thought explanation of <abbr> and <acronym>.

Also, note that the W3's homepage itself uses <abbr> and <acronym> as I described, with the incomprehensible exception of their copyright-footer link to the name of the W3 itself. Their entire homepage navbar marks up abbreviations such as "HTML", "CSS", and "XMLP" using <abbr> while reserving <acronym> for pronounceable formulations such as "SMIL" and "SOAP". (Again: View the source.) I'd say that if any page has been extensively tested using a diverse spectrum of user-agents (including aural browsers and experimental semantic web applications), the W3's homepage is probably the benchmark to be exceeded.

As for the formal specs and other documentation (which really ought to be referenced here), I'm way too lazy to dig through them for a random /. argument. But that's ok, since another poster already took a decent crack at it. :-)

But the central issue remains: Assuming that <abbr> and <acronym> are to be used as you say, they're semantically indistinguishable and therefore redundant. I say that each has its own correct discrete usage. <acronym> is for acronyms, which are pronounceable by definition and often words in and of themselves (e.g., Web Design Group's example of "radar"). <abbr> is for other abbreviations, including unpronounceable initialisms, which cannot be pronounced or used as whole words in their own right. This is an important practical distinction for Web robots and aural browsers.

HTH.

<acronym> is intended to be used for pronounceable formulations. <abbr> is for unpronounceable strings.

<acronym> is intended to be used for pronounceable formulations. <abbr> is for unpronounceable strings.

Checking out the tutorial here

I find that simple example is clean in straight forward in html but significantly more verbose and convoluted in XML/Xforms. I guess I am always suspicious of technology that makes things harder to do simple things.

Right now, I don't feel like I have the need to use them, but it's better to be prepared.

You can find a tutorial on XForms here.

Well w3schools show XP at 19% so who knows?

It is less than 51% by any measure, so the majority of MS Windows users still deal with DLL Hell.

My original claim still stands.

BWP
BTW, how did I misquote the study?

Send her here. Really. I taught myself HTML in my spare moments during a weekend using a much worse tutorial than that, and I was in college at the time. Kids learn faster. In three hours she'll have the HTML figured out and be looking for clip-art.

Actually looking a little closer at w3schools, they actually run their own stats showing a different (and somewhat encouraging) picture. Although at this growth rate it will take some time before it is even. However I've heard several web site managers state that they will start taking non-IE browsers serious when they reach more than 10% market share, since then it will start to hurt not supporting them. So there is hope.

...but "winning" seems to be accurate if the stats at thecounter.com and W3Schools are at all trustworthy.

On the other hand, I'm not sure if, in these numbers, "Netscape" includes "Mozilla".

P.S. This HTTP POST request sent by Mozilla.

Ok, so I could probably find out what a PVR was easily by googling, but instead I'm going to make a suggestion and see what people say.

Why don't Slashdot stories have abbreviations surrounded by ABBR or ACRONYM tags? This way you can insert a title="Expanded form of Acronynm" inside the ABBR/ACRONYM tag and when you hover your mouse over the acronym (in browsers other than MSIE) a little tooltip will pop with the fully expanded acronym displayed!

In Mozilla ABBR/ACRONYMs are even highlighted with a special dashed underline to alert the user that this particular acronym can be decoded without the use of ones imagination.

Here's an example or two.

Must learn ho to do URLs.

For some good information on how to actually use xforms, go to W3Schools, which also has lots of other stuff. But knock off the buzzwords, people!

Hopefully this will make companies realize that the Internet isn't comprised of just IE users.

Well, not quite, but the last time I looked, (which was about 9 days ago) about 95% of internet users used Internet Explorer for their web browser. While that doesn't comprise all internet users, it's close enough to make no odds.

Internet Simulator