how much css I have to learn to make a good web page?

Is there nessesary that i have to learn css to make a web page?

 

You don't need too much css knowledge to create a website however to create a good looking website requires a fair amount of css knowledge if creating from scratch. If your not comfortable with css there are lots of alternatives such as wordpress and other content management systems which do alot of the work for you. I would recommend trying to build a website from scratch if you looking at developing your html/css skills however.

 

You need some. You can usually figure out what you need -add 'css'to it and google i.e 'textbox css', 'text shadow css'. At some point you may want to understand it more fully. When that time comes go to the library and pick out a book that is ONLY about css, not a generic web design guide.

 

To make one... you can skimp... to make a GOOD one you better know what the **** you are doing -- not just on CSS, but the HTML it's applied to.

 

In the first part of this sequence on how to build a world wide web location, you wise how to: evolve a purpose for your location; coordinate a task summarize; Draw a wireframe; coordinate your folder structure; and characterise HTML and JavaScript.

In the second part of the series, you learned how to: Get an HTML editor; characterized the different components of an HTML file; composed your first HTML cipher; and begun your CSS document. The third article recounted how to: Add additional methods to the CSS and How links work and how to method them. Now, you'll method="color: Red;">discover how to method="color: Red;">conceive as heet layout in the CSS.
characterizing the sheet Layout utilizing CSS

 

You should learn css for making a website. it is nessesary for creating a error free and according to w3c validation's law website. now adays alot of softwaer available for learning css

 

YEs you need to know a lot. A good website is responsive too and you need to know how to do that.

 

You must learn css to create web page..it's important thing, css is easy so many tutorial out there

 

CSS is an essential portion of web development. There are two heads to the creation of front end web development:
1. the first is layout-- how you intend to group your content (paragraphs, tables, headings)
2. the second is styling-- how you intend to style your content (fonts, sizing, colors, positioning)

CSS essentially covers everything in the second part. Quality CSS work is what really gives a website it's "wow" factor, and certainly very important when it comes to front end web development.

 

Html is much more required to make a good web site but css is also important

 

I shouldn't worry about css too much, at least not before you toroughly look at html. The basics for well written css, starts with well written html. Don't forget that!

 

CSS is CSS though. You don't need to memorise all the different elements, but once you know how the attributes and everything work, you should be able to design anything.

 

You know, I've seen you make some real gibberish nonsense posts, but seriously, learn about something before opening yer yap!

ANYONE who tells you CSS has ANYTHING to do with SEO is talking out their ass, and don't know the first damned thing about web development! Search engines don't give a flying purple fish what a site LOOKS LIKE -- Search engines don't HAVE eyeballs.

They see text, and tags, and attributes from the markup, and THAT'S IT. (though google has gotten semi-passable at pulling scriptard AJAX bull, it's still inaccessible crap in most cases) -- That's why one of the best tests to see how accessible your site is AND what search engines are going to see is to view it in Lynx, use the web developer toolbar to disable CSS and all styles, or use Opera 12/lower (since 15+ is pathetically useless crippleware BS) to set it to "user mode" instead of "author mode"... that way you can see what your markup has for 'formatting' -- or more specifically how it's semantics holds up.

Since again, the first step in coding a site should be semantic markup of content of value, before you even THINK about layout. (part of why the whole dicking around in photoshop and calling oneself a 'designer' idiocy needs to be stamped out of existence!) You can then progressively enhance it with CSS to build the layoutS (YES, PLURAL!), then and only then going into the goofy paint program to make the graphics to hang on the layout (if any with CSS3 on the table) or enhance it with scripting.

Though if you follow the unwritten rule of javascript you'll be doing that with an eyedropper. "Make the page work without scripting FIRST, if you cannot do that, you probably shouldn't be adding scripting to it."

 

This is why a good web developer/designer will do a wireframe.
'Wire frames are simple line drawings of website layouts that will allow you and I to focus on placement of elements rather than color and type. This is extremely helpful as it determines what content deserves the most focus and what percentage of the space on the page. Without being distracted by other visuals elements, the approved wire frames will provide the framework of the design(s).'

 

... and just how many 'wireframes' are you going to make in the world of responsive layout? That's just another wasted step that could be time better spent actually making a WORKING layout in CSS instead of dicking around in some paint program. ANY "visuals first" approach is 100% grade A farm fresh manure since visuals is NOT what every user gets or really the point of using HTML to build a website.

Logical document structure and content order will go a hell of a lot further than any "visual percentage of the page" nonsense... particularly if you bother designing proper accessible pages that are elastic, semi-fluid AND responsive... where you might have dozens or even thousands off different possible appearances off one HTML and CSS pairing.

That's the same nonsense as WYSIWYGs, since this is the Internet -- with the plethora of screen sizes, resolutions, OS metrics, zoom levels, browsers, automatic browser behaviors on mobile -- much less people (or engines) who aren't even going to get the "screen layout" -- the only thing that's for certain is what you see is NOT what everyone else is going to get! That's why fixed width layouts are crap, that's why fixed metric fonts are crap, that's why non-semantic markup and failing to separate presentation from content is crap. It's why WYSIWYGs are crap, why dicking around in Photoshop (or visio, or pixel, or gimp, or paint) before you have a working responsive CSS is crap, why failing to use a proper MEDIA stack on your CSS link is crap, why using media="all" is crap, and why using the STYLE tag and attributes are crap (with the rarest of exceptions on the latter).

Hell, most of that is why 4 STRICT and CSS came into being in the first damned place -- but again most people never embraced strict or proper site building (even most folks writing valid 4 strict never grasped the point of it), and continued instead to sleaze out HTML 3.2 and slap 4 tranny on it... today they wrap 5 lip-service around the same halfwit outdated 1990's style practices and have the cojones to call it the future.

When again, every time someone calls HTML 5 "modern" or "the future" I go "REALLY? Looks like 1997 to me!".

 

So then, what do you suggest?
Isn't it very convenient to be able to show the customer how the website is SUPPOSED to look? So he can give some feedback?

 

Hogwash, first of all creating a wireframe can simply be done on a napkin and there are other programs out there other than "paint" programs. You're so blinded about people actually taking the time to actually think before for they jump right into coding. No wonder people are writing bad code, for you want people to jump right in without thinking about how the layout is actually going to be. I also wonder how you go about talking to a potential client? "Gee, I don't have anything for you, for I think people who take the time to see how it is going to look is a waste of time and that was done in the 90s." Or how you reply back - "Looks like 1997 to me!" Pffffft

 

I just like to add I think I would show a potential client a design they like faster than you would by creating a simple wireframe even if was only done on a napkin.

 

No, you missed it. I consider playing around with layout before coding to be a failure to think. Why you might ask? Simple, that layout is NOT what everyone is going to get or even the point of HTML in the first place.

Since the entire POINT of HTML is device neutral content delivery -- originally that meant letting the UA auto-adjust the appearance to the capabilities of the device (which is why bold doesn't MEAN bold, it means it might/would be bold in professional writing). Today, that is expanded by being able to send CSS to specific media targets, and even further enhanced by device capabilities detection via media queries.

That "layout" you draw on a napkin, or in visio, or in Photoshop, or whatever other means comes to mind is simply NOT what everyone is going to get, nor should it... and really if you WERE to put the cart before the horse like that you should be thinking layoutS -- plural; since once you have semi-fluid elastic responsive layout (yes, all three, anything else is ignorant halfwit sleazeball bull) you should have multiple layouts off a single codebase -- you might add more columns on widescreen, you might remove columns for mobile, you have the content areas auto-adjusting, the font-size not being fixed either since everything should be able to handle 75% to 250% scaling. (72dpi to 240dpi as minimums, particularly with win 7 & 8 defaulting on some setups to 120dpi and 144dpi without even asking now)... meaning your one codebase by the time all that figures in may work out to dozens, hundreds or even thousands of layoutS thanks to different word-wraps, content heights (which is why fixed height containers are usually rubbish too).

But that doesn't even cover the people who browse without CSS (to save bandwidth, see our Canadian and Australian friends on their metered connections, people in places like Coos county NH where 33.6 dialup is still a good day), user agents that don't see CSS (screen readers, search engines) and all the other different ways of accessing a website where semantic markup and logical document structure is far, FAR more important than one goofy screen layout

Again, accessible content is far, FAR more important than the "what it looks like on a desktop screen and **** anything else" nonsense the people who start out with layout seem to be doing... since people visit websites FOR the content, NOT the layout or any goofy graphics hung on said layout. The ONLY reason people seem to go that route is ignorance, and in general being susceptible to flash over substance "wow" factor. (See how people are somehow dumb enough to waste money on Apple products)

Of course with HTML 5 pissing all over logical heading orders and sensible document structures -- what with the WhatTFWG saying "people are too stupid to use anything more than a H1" and pissing all over document structure with their presentational tags they somehow claim are semantic, and the W3C shrugging it's shoulders and going "sure, lets throw the past fifteen years progress in the trash since the vast majority of developers are too stupid for STRICT" -- that's the REAL cause of garbage code and people's heads being wedged up 1997's ass.

Yeah, crazy old uncle Ron talking about "unsustainable wars"... Crazy me for thinking that content and logical document structure is more important than what it will look like within a narrow range of device capabilities not everyone is even going to get, and advocating 'crazy' and 'radical' (decade and a half old) concepts like separation of presentation from content, progressive enhancement, and so forth.

I would explain to them the most important thing about a website is NOT the layout or the graphics hung on the layout, it's the CONTENT. Which is why we are going to sit down and figure out what's going ON the site first, what you want for separate pages on the site, and then we'll code a style-less mockup of several of the pages to make sure we have an accessible page -- then and only then will we start in on the layoutS (again, PLURAL!!!) and any presentational graphics for that layout since that's just window dressing.

Since if you look at the big success stories of the Internet -- even those with major accessibility failings -- like facebook, e-bay, amazon, slashdot, they're not exactly a visual tour-de-force; and there's a reason for that. All the goofy layout crud and heavy graphics serve no purpose if you have content of value, apart from wasting bandwidth; basically ending up little more than dumping a can of shellac on a pile.

Because at the end of the day content should dictate markup thanks to document structure; document structure should dictate layout -- NOT the other way around. Dicking around with layout first usually just results in an inaccessible mess where you're shoe-horning content into a layout it wasn't meant for... quite often with design concepts that have ZERO business on a website in the first place like multiple equal-height equal width elements across a page, fixed content areas thanks to some stupid fixed size image background that's too big to even be on a website in the first place, etc, etc...

 

CSS is very important for the website designing. Generally people consider good designing first, yes it is true but if you want business from your website then you should go with designing with capable contents which can carry whole website alone.