Do I need HTML5 ?

What is usually done on small resolutions with H1 is h1 span {display:none / background:none} and h1 {text-align:center}.

However, as a ground rule of accessibility, responsive websites and 3rd party ads just don't go hand in hand. The reason being that you cannot control their behavior AT ALL in most cases. If I had to use google ads on my responsive websites, I would choose not to display them on handheld. And all that combined should solve your problem.

--edit--

I noticed you have your width fixed on your site title. The text it contains cannot be centered if your block-level element doesn't stretch all the way. Lose the with on handheld, and give it a try.

 

FYI, this (^) post isn't referring to Deathshadow's, the post I was talking about got deleted.

 

Yeah, you added **** there I wouldn't have on the page in the first place.... that isn't even showing up here for me to test since I have advertisements BLOCKED. This LOOKS like a page to hock wares, WHY THE DEVIL would you put an advert in there to hock someone elses? Again, marketing 101, don't advertise other people's stuff on your own advert. Not that I would EVER put advertisements on a website since I trust online advertisers as far as I could throw the big stick!

That said, in the media query you need to kill the floats on the h1 and #google1 so the advert will appear before the H1...

Though you might want to flip their order so the first thing on the page is the h1... or maybe even display:none #google1 since having the first content on the page being an advert is just going to piss off users... though generally speaking that is what adverts on websites are for, pissing off visitors. ...can you feel the love tonight...

 

Yes, that's the trick. Thank you for your HELP !!!!
I'm ready to go online with this page.
Best Regards.

 

You do not need to learn html5 because this page is make in simple html and css. And the image gallery here is use i think it pretty image gallery which is the best pop-up gallery . HTML5 introduced some new feature which help you and save your time. For example html5 introduce new input type for example input type="email" if you write this in your html5 form you do not need for form validation.

 

While this may be generally true for client side validation (which is an embellishment, not a necessity), it is absolutely not true for the server side. Client supplied data are never trustworthy, and for security/safety's sake must always be validated at the server.

This is not to derogate your point regarding html5 elements and attributes, only to note that the particular "benefit" was poorly chosen.

cheers,

gary

 

Meanwhile, I would belittle the view of so called "new features that save time" bull in regards to HTML 5, and that's another stunning example of why. It deludes people into that sort of thinking. "It gives me validation" -- BULLSHIT. All client side input is suspect and you HAVE to validate it server-side... at which point wasting time adding code client side ... any code, is usually more compensating for bad instructions (lack of labels, using placeholders as labels, not knowing how to design a form) than it is anything that would save bandwidth.

... that's the trap of client side validation; the only reason to do it is the whole "pageloads are evil" crap (same thing the ajaxtards piss all over websites with); but if you are rejecting enough form requests that come from a legitimate HTTP send (as opposed to bots and crackers bypassing the form) there is probably something disastrously and horiffyingly wrong with the form... and when there's something wrong like that throwing more code at it is rarely the correct answer, but seems to be the first one people dive for out of ignorance, apathy and wishful thinking.

Though I will say that the various INPUT attribute values are one of the few things from HTML 5 I think actually does anything of value, particularly since they gracefully degrade into the default of type="text" on non-supporting browsers.

 

Your HTML code are going to looks professional if you use HTML5.

 

Read this gibberish pointless "me too" post, and all I could think of was Master Yoda. "Stopped they must be; on this all depends."

 

You don't need to use HTML5, and when you do make sure you understand how it works since it's not even finalized yet and some older browsers may have troubles. But, there are still popular sites using HTML4... yikes...

But, yes HTML5 is the future so the sooner you get using it the better. I'm still stuck in the XHTML mindset... tricky breaking myself out of it.

 

You are fine. The html5-tards are the ones that are stuck -- in 1997's ass that is.

 

Wiicker95's being polite about it

Every time someone calls HTML 5 "the future" all I can do is go "REALLY?!? Looks like pre-strict 1997 to me!" since it undoes pretty much everything STRICT was about by introducing pointless redundancies.

 

I can definitely understand why it's the next version, though - XHTML tried to undo many of the problems inherent in HTML4 - notably FONT tags and other screwy stuff that brought design into markup. HTML5 has no actual design tags - it's simply for marking up text that can more easily be controlled by CSS or scripting.

So, I understand it I just think it might be premature to jump long into like a lot of developers are doing. I mean, start tooling around with it and stuff but for Pete's sake, it's not even official yet!

HTML3 and 4 were hard to look at.. I hated them. HTML5 has a simplicity that I like... if it's clean. Not many clean coders out there...

 

That was HTML 4 STRICT that tried to fix those things, NOT XHTML. Admittedly, XHTML 1.0 STRICT inherits that... What you are thinking of is HTML 3.2, all of which was allowed in 4 Transitional... remember, HTML 4 Transtional (and XHTML 1.0 Transitional) quite literally means "in transition from 1997 to 1998 coding practices". Transitional was for the people who still wanted all that outdated halfwit crap; and really wasn't supposed to be used to build any NEW websites -- that of course is why people continue to this DAY to sleaze out HTML 3.2 and until recently were slapping 4 tranny around it. Now they slap 5's lip-service doctype on the same halfwit outdated broken methodologies, and then slap each-other on the back for their 'brilliance'.

Which is PRECISELY what HTML 5 is with the loosening of structural rules, pointless idiotic redundancies like SECTION, NAV and FOOTER, pissing all over logical document structure with the halfwit idiotic "Let's just make everything a H1", and inherently presentational nonsense like ASIDE. 99% of it from a semantic markup point of view is redundant to *SHOCK* just using numbered headings and horizontal rules properly!!!

Worse the scripting only elements, which if they are scripting only shouldn't even HAVE tags! Or the absolute garbage of allowing EMBED into the spec, and introducing all new redundancies like AUDIO and VIDEO that were EXACTLY the type of crap HTML 4 STRICT was trying to get rid of by putting EVERYTHING into OBJECT. Hell, even IMG was supposed to be on the chopping block!

I cannot fathom what the blue blazes they are thinking with this halfwit bloated steaming pile of garbage, apart from introducing a new sick buzzword for halfwits to bandy about without understanding what it means, let authors who never pulled their heads out of 1997's backside slap a new cover on their books filled with the same outdated broken methodologies of a decade and a half ago.

It sure as shine-ola has nothing to do with cleaner, simpler, easier to develop accessible markup! Like a great number of halfwit garbage that's become popular of late, I literally cannot fathom how anyone is DUMB ENOUGH to see anything resembling merit in the spec. (Well, apart from maybe the RUBY stuff). The only GOOD parts actually have nothing to do with writing markup, and as such have nothing to do with the HTML specification itself; I am of course referring to CSS3 and the new javascript stuff which people CALL HTML 5.... and news flash, it isn't!

 

It's not necessary, but CSS3 would help a lot in making your design better.

 

I don't see why you wrote a "but" between the two statements. HTML5 and CSS3 are NOT linked in ANY way!

 

If you're talking strictly about standards, they're linked by common use - you can't separate content from design using HTML5 without using CSS. But, yes, the statement was rather naive.