How Do You Build A Web Page?

[Rolfe]

Just for a different perspective, almost exactly six years ago I didn't know how to spell HTML either. I went into the local bookshop and bought somethng called HTML4 for Dummies. Within 48 hours I had the basics of my home page, exactly as I wanted it, just typing in the code.

I realised I needed a better text editor than Notepad, and downloaded one called Editpad which is an absolute peach. Between that, and a freebie version of Paintshop Pro to resize the images I wanted, and later writing a macro for WordPerfect to do the donkey work of adding the codes to the already-existing text I was publishing, I had it all peachy in two or three weeks.

I had some more work to do when I uploaded it to my web space, partly because I hadn't realised that the Unix server at Demon is case-sensitive, but that was fairly soon overcome, and it all worked very well.

I didn't include any discussion capability, but later one of my regular readers wanted to do that, and she set up a Yahoo group which I just linked to from the front page.

I suppose all these fancy html editors I don't know how to use do great things, but hand-knitting is actually quite easy, you get exactly what you want, it won't look stereotyped, and you learn HTML from the basics.

Just a different thought, that's all.

Rolfe.

 

[epepke]

I suppose all these fancy html editors I don't know how to use do great things, but hand-knitting is actually quite easy, you get exactly what you want, it won't look stereotyped, and you learn HTML from the basics.

I agree, except that you can do just as great things with hand-knitting, possibly occasionally supplemented with some automation. I still use Perl for this, though I know that Python is kewler.

Also, I think that the HTML editor is still a more complex solution than the OP is asking for.

 

[CFLarsen]

Also, I think that the HTML editor is still a more complex solution than the OP is asking for.

Yep: Leave that stuff to the experts. He should focus on the content.

 

[epepke]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How Do You Build A Web Page?

No offense, but you clearly don't understand what usability and good design is. You simply cannot put usability in a box - there are so many parameters to consider, depending on the design and architecture, that you can't get that kind of automation.

I both strongly agree and strongly disagree. I strongly agree that design is hard, very important, and something that a lot of people think they can do but can't.

I strongly disagree that you can't put usability in a box. Putting usability in a box is what good design is for. But web development and computer science in general are still extremely primitive technologies.

 

[CFLarsen]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How Do You Build A Web Page?

I both strongly agree and strongly disagree. I strongly agree that design is hard, very important, and something that a lot of people think they can do but can't.

Absof***inglutely.

I strongly disagree that you can't put usability in a box. Putting usability in a box is what good design is for. But web development and computer science in general are still extremely primitive technologies.

I think you misunderstand me. I am saying that you cannot get usability from some standardized product. Usability has to be designed as well, depending on the content and IA.

Usability for a sports site is fundamentally different than a site like SkepticReport.

 

[epepke]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How Do You Build A Web Page?

I think you misunderstand me. I am saying that you cannot get usability from some standardized product. Usability has to be designed as well, depending on the content and IA.

No; I think I understand you.

There was a time when you could get a Model T truck. It didn't come with a seat. They gave you a crate you could use to drive home. Then you could take it to Sears, and they would build you a custom body.

We don't do that any more. People look at the offerings and find one that is approximately right. Then they decide what options they want. The car gets built. If they want, they can then trick it out. Add a trailer hitch and maybe some racing stripes.

Usability is, if anything, far more important in cars, because if the car isn't usable, somebody dies. The variety, if anything, is even greater. A truck for hauling manure is going to be very different from an efficient commute vehicle.

The reason that we got from there to here is that we had a century to work out what the majority of people needed in their cars and trucks.

We haven't done that yet with web sites. But that doesn't mean that it's impossible; it just means that it hasn't been done. We're still in the Model T era.

 

[CFLarsen]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How Do You Build A Web Page?

We haven't done that yet with web sites. But that doesn't mean that it's impossible; it just means that it hasn't been done. We're still in the Model T era.

Hmmmmmm.....nope. We have reached a point where it is clear that if you want a working website, you gotta go talk to the profs.

Anyone can create a website. The trick is to know what it takes to create one that works.

 

[H3LL]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How Do You Build A Web Page?

No offense, but you clearly don't understand what usability and good design is.

Methinks you are forming opinions without good information.

You went totally commercial.

It should be horses for courses. You solution involves you doing much of the work in your way and when you are out-of-the picture they are left with not having a clue how to re-design their own website without dipping in their pocket for another pro'.

Your solution:

That he and I start with talking. He tells me what he wants. I tell him straight up if his ideas are bad, but also propose solutions that I know have worked in the past. We uncover the level of ambition, we look at the content, how the architecture should be, and then - when he has a working prototype, decide on how he should update it.

This is just sales waffle. Which part of

...simple instructions that help design your own personal web site...

does this address?

A coworker wants to create a sports web page with a friend of his and wants to know how to go about it.

I'm unaware that you are either the coworker or his friend. You have chosen to ignore two very specific requirements.

You approach is firmly fixed in small to medium commercial business approach, lacking in high end corporate methodology and also unsuited to a couple of guys that want to have a go on their own.

Far from being realistic, you seem to have the "Priests of Syrinx" approach.

You have offered nothing to help these people go away and try for themselves, just vague waffle with the priests holding their hands and telling them what is "bad", assuming they are unable to judge and learn for themselves.

My approach addresses the requirements. It is at fault that I am assuming a willingness to learn and assuming maybe too high a level of ability.

My solution is a solution, not the solution. There are others. MRC_Hans has offered a solution.

Your approach cannot be assessed as it fails to address any of the requirements.

Off topic for a moment; Your contempt for freely distrubuted, open source software is very sad. There are excellent free product. LINUX and Apache are ones that springs to mind. Hardly "bland" products as they make up a large proportion of the software that runs the Internet.

 

[Xeriar]

e107 is one of the few CMS that I haven't looked at (I forget why), though I was dissatisfied with all of them, but I have a cardinal rule:

Friends do not let friends use PHP-Nuke.

 

[rightbrain]

As a Web developer, I agree with everything CFLarsen has been saying. However, I usually don't discourage people from designing their own sites. I know they'll come back to me later, and I can charge them extra for cleaning up the mess they've made.

One of the biggest problems is that those "small, personal" sites, if they're successful at all, have a way of growing into larger, not quite as personal sites.

If your friend is determined to do it himself, he really wants a blog, not a forum. Have him take a look at :

Blogger.com

It's hosted software, it's easy to use, and it's owned by Google so it probably won't go out of business anytime soon.

If he wants any sort of "real" Web site, he should hire a pro. If he chooses to ignore that advice, he can Google for "easy Website builders" or somesuch and spend the next 14 years checking out all the choices. Or just learn some basic HTML, which is not really that difficult.

 

[CFLarsen]

H3LL,

You are not listening to me. A website is not merely technology. It isn't merely getting the tools and have a go at it. You simply don't address the design and usability issues at all - and those are by far the toughest disciplines to master. Yes, Luke's friend can most probably learn what your solution requires of him. But he will get a crappy site and will have wasted a lot of time.

And that's the key issue: Luke's friend doesn't merely buy a website, he buys time. His goal is sports, not to be a technical developer. He should focus on what he likes, instead of getting in way over his head. Yeah, HTML is relatively simple, but only if you are used to programming.

In my long experience with building websites - and it is as long as it possibly can be - it does not merely take a few tools and a lot of hours before you have a site. Sure, you have a site that doesn't work for the user, and it looks like ◊◊◊◊, but is that the goal Luke's friend has? No, he wants to do a sports site, emphasis on sports.

My approach works just fine with personal sites as well. Take a look at Hvidebæk Listen. It's a local political list for a municipality in Denmark. Good design, well-thought out IA, focus on content, presented straight-up.

And guess what? They update it themselves, with no problems. They don't know anything about HTML, and they don't need it. That's fine, because that's not their goal. Their goal was to have a website, where the voters can learn about their politics. And they are very satisfied with it.

There are indeed many solutions. My solution works. It saves him time and effort. It enables him to focus on what he wants to do.

Your solution forces him to become a techie. I can't read his mind, of course, but I doubt that that is his goal.

I don't despise open-source software, and I haven't ruled out that there are examples where it works. But neither LINUX or Apache reached a level of seriousness before they were accepted as corporate products. I know, this will piss off a lot of aficionados, but that's reality.

 

[CFLarsen]

As a Web developer, I agree with everything CFLarsen has been saying. However, I usually don't discourage people from designing their own sites. I know they'll come back to me later, and I can charge them extra for cleaning up the mess they've made.

Yeah, well...I'm not as cynical as you...

One of the biggest problems is that those "small, personal" sites, if they're successful at all, have a way of growing into larger, not quite as personal sites.

That is another important issue: The worst thing that can happen when you have a website is not that nobody looks at it. The worst thing is if everyone looks at it! Scalability is most certainly something that must be solved from the start - it is almost impossible to remedy a poorly prepared website for a much bigger influx than was expected.

If your friend is determined to do it himself, he really wants a blog, not a forum.

That might be a solution. He should definitely look into that.

If he wants any sort of "real" Web site, he should hire a pro. If he chooses to ignore that advice, he can Google for "easy Website builders" or somesuch and spend the next 14 years checking out all the choices. Or just learn some basic HTML, which is not really that difficult.

And he would still get a bad design and confusing IA. Something which annoys users to no end. And then, they leave, never to come back.

 

[H3LL]

It's you that is not listening.

I have nothing against what you're saying, if they asked for a web developer.

They did not.

Here's the words of someone that is a confessed newbie with using e107 and even mentions some problems he's had and solved:

I have a fishing site that I made with e107..actually a few. I am in the process of making more. I am easily a newb which is evidenced by the number of clean re-installs I have had to do.
Out of the box, e107 is everyones best bet. I would suggest some help with the config for the databse for a newb though.
Samples of my sites..
http://www.cast-a-line.com http://www.takemefishing.ca
I even mimiced the theme to use as my forum skin (although I have a Christmas skin on my message board now) and found a script which merged my e107 and IPB 2.0.2 member databases! Sweet!
My total time to install an e107 site is now about 15 minutes.

Here are his sites.
They're not too bad IMHO.

cast-a-line.com

takemefishing.ca

There are sites that are hideous using e107 as there are by professionals, but at least they were done on their own, and if they need more, they can come to people like you.

The OP wanted to have a go at DIY.

You just stick to the opinion that DIY people are ◊◊◊◊ (your words) at making sites, don't even try, cough up for the professionals. That's just plain condescending and arrogant.

As for the commercial website you posted. This should follow stricter criteria not applicable to the OP.

I would want my money back.

All the links fail if scripts are de-activated and will not function for text only browsers and is heavily reliant on Java. I see no evidence of coding to assist disabled, such as the blind. There is no evidence of XML compliance. I haven't looked further, that is enough.

It the proposal for that site landed on my desk it would go straight in the bin.

As I said, stuck in small to medium sized business thinking.

e107 functions with scripts disabled, java disabled, pictures disabled and flash disabled. The site you posted does not.

So much for the professional getting functionality and usability right that you made such a fuss about.

I'll leave it at that:

For the OP:

* If you want to have a go at DIY. There are several suggestions here in this thread.

* Getting a pro is always a good idea if your site is/becomes financially important and you will do well to follow CFL's advice and comments.

* If it's for fun, have a go and maybe one day you will be a professional web developer. You can't do worse than the example above.

 

[CFLarsen]

H3LL,

I am neither being condescending or arrogant. I am speaking from experience. Both from small companies, to medium-sized companies, to as-big-as-they-come. You want to ignore that, be my guest.

Hvidebæk-Listen is not a commercial site. They don't sell anything. There's no money involved. And, quite frankly, I can't really take your criticism of it seriously. There is no JAVA at all on the site. Text-only browsers were not a requirement, nor assisting the disabled. There is not a shred of XML on the site.

You are inventing problems. And you are barking up the wrong tree.

The two sites you linked to are built exactly the same way, IA-wise: Not a single thought has gone into where things should be. They are classic cases of "Let's put that here. Great, it works!", where they should have been about "Great, it works for the user!"

Centering large chunks of texts? Think that is legible? Non-transparent GIFs? Terrible color schemes? Generic graphics? Inconsistent style sheets?

I can understand why there are so few members.

 

[H3LL]

H3LL,

I am neither being condescending or arrogant. I am speaking from experience. Both from small companies, to medium-sized companies, to as-big-as-they-come. You want to ignore that, be my guest.

Hvidebæk-Listen is not a commercial site. They don't sell anything. There's no money involved. And, quite frankly, I can't really take your criticism of it seriously. There is no JAVA at all on the site. Text-only browsers were not a requirement, nor assisting the disabled. There is not a shred of XML on the site.

You are inventing problems. And you are barking up the wrong tree.

The two sites you linked to are built exactly the same way, IA-wise: Not a single thought has gone into where things should be. They are classic cases of "Let's put that here. Great, it works!", where they should have been about "Great, it works for the user!"

Centering large chunks of texts? Think that is legible? Non-transparent GIFs? Terrible color schemes? Generic graphics? Inconsistent style sheets?

I can understand why there are so few members.

No JAVA? - What's this in the source code?

SCRIPT LANGUAGE="JavaScript" type="text/javascript" src="programmenu.js"

No XML on the site? That's just the point. It has NO XML compliance.

Other items "not in the requirements".
Weak excuse for a developer that never thought or knew to ask.

You were the one stressing usability. More bucks for the developer, better useability for people browsing better service for the client. Missed it with that site.

"As-big-as-they-come".
Very doubtful as you are unaware of XML compliance, can't see JAVA and see no validity in offering usability support. GE is as big-as-they-come. You wouldn't get your foot in the door or maybe you have become a black-belt super-coder in your spare time.

"Built the same way"
What a surprise! they used the same CMS.

"Inconsistent style sheets"
The style sheets are used throughout the site. That's what they are for. Didn't you know that?

"I can understand why there are so few members".
I'm very certain that you can't understand why they have so few members. It has little to do with web design.

The sites I gave are not professional, they are done by amateurs. They are amateur's web pages. They are new to web design (like the OP), and want to have a go (like the OP). They managed to have a go because of a tool that let them. As amateurs.

Attacking amateur websites is a bit sad, and your defence of the professional one shows your niche and limitations.

As I said, if they want to be professional, get a pro. If not, there are tools easily available for them to have a go. What's your problem with this?

Why do you seem hate amateurs wanting to have a go on their own?

Sure, they will screw-up. Sometimes really bad. Were you born coding?

I've supported most of your comments as sensible for developing a good website, in particular for financially important websites.

I feel it is not the only way for an amateur to get on the web and offered a solution. What's the big deal?

 

[Donks]

No JAVA? - What's this in the source code?

SCRIPT LANGUAGE="JavaScript" type="text/javascript" src="programmenu.js"

Java != javascript. They are quite different animals. As I recall, javascript was so named just to get some name recognition from the hot new kid on the block back then.

I'm a programmer, but not a website designer, though I have designed a couple of sites. HTML is trivially easy, designing a website is not. My recomendation would be, first Luke's friend has to do some research, look at sites, see what's available and decide what he wants his site to be. Perhaps he just wants a blog, and for that he probably doesn't need to hire anyone, perhaps he wants something quite more complex, and hiring someone would be quite a good option.

 

[CFLarsen]

H3LL,

Java and Javascript are two different things. You should know that, if you had the slightest knowledge about webpages. You clearly do not.

There is no reason for a site to be XML compliant if there is no XML on it. You should know that, if you had the slightest knowledge about webpages. You clearly do not.

I did ask about disability, and they didn't want it. You didn't know that, but you still have to criticize me for it. You are clearly not a very reliable consultant on these matters.

You can read my C.V. here. Still think I haven't worked with companies as big as they come?

The two sites are built the same way IA-wise. That means "Information Architecture". You didn't know that, despite me having mentioned it several times before. You are clearly not very observant, or simply don't understand what IA is.

I know what stylesheets are, I even use them on the site you so "thoroughly" dissected. You didn't discover that.

The reason that the design and IA sucks is exactly why the two sites don't have a lot of members. You don't believe me, but I could care less about that right now.

I don't "hate" amateur designers, I think it is admirable that people want to educate themselves. I am trying to maintain a professional attitude towards someone who wants to have his own site. You, OTOH, wants him to do what you have done, perhaps so you can justify your own choices.

You think it is a "big deal" to be criticized, and perhaps it is - to you. Since you haven't come up with anything useful, and made several blunders along the way, I think you should concentrate more on realizing that your advice sucks, rather than trying to make this into a personal issue.

 

[CFLarsen]

My recomendation would be, first Luke's friend has to do some research, look at sites, see what's available and decide what he wants his site to be. Perhaps he just wants a blog, and for that he probably doesn't need to hire anyone, perhaps he wants something quite more complex, and hiring someone would be quite a good option.

Good advice.

 

[Interesting Ian]

If he wants any sort of "real" Web site, he should hire a pro.

I don't see why. I'm doing my own personal website at the moment and I know next to nothing about html and building websites. It's easy.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/interesting.ian/MindandReality.htm

 

[CFLarsen]

I don't see why. I'm doing my own personal website at the moment and I know next to nothing about html and building websites. It's easy.
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/interesting.ian/MindandReality.htm

Proves my point exactly.