1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

Do I need HTML5 ?

Discussion in 'HTML & Website Design' started by Karolwf, Oct 15, 2013.

?

Do I need HTML5 ?

  1. Yes

    52.2%
  2. No

    47.8%
  1. #1
    Do I really need HTML5 code for pages like that one?
    www.wood-furniture.biz/V/Valenzuela_KITCHEN.htm

    Thanks for your opinion.
    Karolwf, Oct 15, 2013 IP
  2. deathshadow

    deathshadow Prominent Member

    Messages:
    5,980
    Likes Received:
    827
    Best Answers:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    395
    #2
    No, but some CSS3 wouldn't hurt to implement a responsive layout.

    5 or 4 STRICT, that page has the trifecta of /FAIL/ at web design -- the inaccessible fixed width layout, illegible undersized px metric fonts, and color contrasts far below minimums. Under the hood it's got static CSS inlined in the markup, non-semantic markup, tables for layout, and a whole host of other decade and a half out of date coding practices -- hence the 17k of markup to deliver 2.5k of plaintext, 15 content images and one form, anywhere from two to three times the code that should be there.

    Of course your first line proudly proclaims why it's got problems -- Transitional. Which is to say it's in 'transition' from 1997 to 1998 coding practices.

    Do you need HTML 5 on that? No. I would forget that steaming pile of an ALLEGED specification even exists as it offers little if anything of value. I would however at least drag it kicking and screaming into MODERN coding practices in at the very least a RECOMMENDATION doctype. (4 Strict or XHTML 1.0 Strict)

    I would suggest you read the series of articles I posted on a friends forum about "what's wrong with your website" -- the link is in my signature. Most everything there applies to your site. As to your topic, you can read the other link about HTML 5 for why I don't think it serves any legitimate purpose.
    deathshadow, Oct 15, 2013 IP
    ryan_uk likes this.
  3. Strider64

    Strider64 Member

    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    13
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    25
    #3
    Just another piece of advice (or opinion), if you go with HTML5 Doctype, just try to treat it like 4 Strict. By that I mean don't be a lazy programmer for HTML5 will allow you to get away with murder when it comes to validation. I had an instructor teach HTML5, but taught us the HTML4. Her reasoning is HTML5 wasn't ready for prime time (if it will ever be). I have to admit I seen some crazy sh*t that one can get away with HTML5 and all that is does is lead to sloppy coding practices.
    Strider64, Oct 16, 2013 IP
    ryan_uk and deathshadow like this.
  4. deathshadow

    deathshadow Prominent Member

    Messages:
    5,980
    Likes Received:
    827
    Best Answers:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    395
    #4
    Which is PRECISELY what I mean by undoing the progress of the past decade and a half, and the 'loosening of structural rules' that for all intents and purposes lets people sleaze out code any old way.

    Right now there's this noodle-doodle idiotic BS you get from developers that having loosened rules and relying on error correction instead of doing things properly somehow makes things harder... as if clear simple rules and following them -- basically letting the specification handhold you through development and let you know when you are doing things right and when things are being done wrong -- is a bad thing.

    Really makes me wonder just what the **** is in the Kool Aid.

    Though of course with the artsy fartsy PSD jockies taking over the industry with their very pretty but ultimately useless to users BS, it's hardly a shock -- since they not only have no interest in 'staying between the lines', none of them grasps the simple concepts of accessibility, usability, or sustainability, much less the limitations of the medium.
    deathshadow, Oct 16, 2013 IP
  5. Rakshith Daniel

    Rakshith Daniel Active Member

    Messages:
    103
    Likes Received:
    5
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    53
    #5
    No you don't need HTML 5 to that.... a simple HTML and CSS program is enough to design that page....
    Rakshith Daniel, Oct 17, 2013 IP
  6. ElMaZaGaNgI

    ElMaZaGaNgI Active Member

    Messages:
    106
    Likes Received:
    2
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    95
    #6
    You don't "need" HTML5 to do that. But using HTML5 will let you do it much better.
    ElMaZaGaNgI, Oct 20, 2013 IP
  7. deathshadow

    deathshadow Prominent Member

    Messages:
    5,980
    Likes Received:
    827
    Best Answers:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    395
    #7
    Depending on your definition of 'better'... For me "better" in reference to HTML 5 is a Montoyaism... You keep on using that word...
    deathshadow, Oct 20, 2013 IP
  8. ketting00

    ketting00 Active Member

    Messages:
    297
    Likes Received:
    4
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    58
    #8
    Yes, I definitely need it. Without HTML5, how do you build sophisticated web apps. Which the increasingly usage of mobile devices, why do you think you don't need HTML5?

    If you're a mediocre web developer, no, you definitely don't need it.
    ketting00, Oct 20, 2013 IP
  9. deathshadow

    deathshadow Prominent Member

    Messages:
    5,980
    Likes Received:
    827
    Best Answers:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    395
    #9
    If by sophisticated you mean bloated, slow, annoying and quite possibly blocked on my system -- and by 'increasingly usage of mobile' (laugh) you mean battery draining scripted garbage that in 90%+ of the cases serves no legitimate purpose... and of course has NOTHING to do with HTML 5. I'm sorry, I thought web apps were scripting, NOT markup!

    There's only one real thing in HTML 5 in terms of 'web apps' that has ANYTHING to do with even belonging in a markup specification -- MANIFEST -- Pretty much everything else for doing web apps that people CALL HTML 5 has jack **** to do with actually writing markup, and as such isn't even HTML 5! There's NOTHING stopping you from using most of the new scripting or CSS3 in the older document specs. ONE attribute and a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with writing markup does a HTML specification make! Again, 90%+ of the crap people sleaze out in HTML 5 could be done more efficiently without it, and in general reeks of inaccessible script-tard ineptitude mated to having one's cranium firmly wedged up 1997's rectum!

    While there are legitimate uses, the vast majority of what people seem to be doing with it is the same as most of the crap people are doing with things like jquery on websites... taking a dump on the carpet then grinding it in with golf cleats from a speed, accessibility, usability or sustainability standpoint. See how things like 'web applications' are making more and more users run away from webmail and back to mail clients.
    deathshadow, Oct 20, 2013 IP
  10. kk5st

    kk5st Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,906
    Likes Received:
    191
    Best Answers:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    190
    #10
    Do keep in mind that HTML 5 has only recently become a candidate for release (Aug 2013). Why isn't it the current specification? Simple, it requires two user agents (browsers) to have implemented the candidate. As of yet, that hasn't happened. There are several sections, not necessarily the same among vendors, that simply don't work yet. It may be that what you want does work everywhere, in that case all is well. But the recommendation as a whole is still iffy.

    Keep deathshadow's comments in mind. There are a bunch of redundancies and other examples of silliness in the spec. They are there for a good reason, believe it or not. The html spec is not written for authors, i.e. web developers, it is written for the vendors. No vendor was going to drop support for an existing element, so the specs define how those elements should be supported so everyone is on the same page. And that's why we have the embed element in html 5 which had never been part of html, but is widely supported.

    Authors have asked for a more granular set of semantic tags, which the spec provides. This offers up some of the redundancy ds alludes to, e.g. nav, menu, audio and video. Others include article and section, which upon study, make sense to me.

    The other area that's new in v5, are the elements that support client side applications. The original intent for html was text documents. This is being expanded in order to use the browser as a platform for web based applications.

    Take home? Study and thoroughly learn html 4. Study html 5, and determine for yourself which new elements make sense for your documents, and which elements are widely supported. Remember to provide for graceful fail-over where your use is unsupported.

    cheers,

    gary
    kk5st, Oct 21, 2013 IP
    ryan_uk likes this.
  11. kk5st

    kk5st Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,906
    Likes Received:
    191
    Best Answers:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    190
    #11
    I'd very much like to see the web application(s) you've written that raise you above mediocrity.

    g
    kk5st, Oct 21, 2013 IP
  12. deathshadow

    deathshadow Prominent Member

    Messages:
    5,980
    Likes Received:
    827
    Best Answers:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    395
    #12
    ... and that's where we differ -- I lean towards NOT... but:

    ... and that is where I disagree with HTML 5 philosophically -- as it then CEASES to be a specification, it's documentation. There's huge difference. HTML 4 STRICT was a specification -- authoritative document saying what things should be used, how to use them, and why. TRANNY was the documentative version that we were ALL SUPPOSED to stop using 15 years ago.

    Right now there's this whole movement towards quite literally "go ahead, sleaze things out any old way" -- and it's really why to me, HTML 5 is just as bad as using 4 tranny. It's the new transitional, where the hell's my new STRICT?

    Which is the poster child for extactly what's wrong with 5 -- and EXACTLY what I'm talking about with 5 undoing everything 4 STRICT was about! Undoing the intent of 4 STRICT is NOT a postive step forward, it's a step backwards a decade and a half... and the ONLY reason most people can't see that is the failure to embrace 4 STRICT, separation of presentation from content, accessibility norms, or all the other IMPORTANT bits of progress of the past fifteen years.

    Apart from MANIFEST, what exactly would those be? Since client side crapplets are pretty much by definition SCRIPTING, what the blue devil does any of that have to do with a markup specification?!? Why the blue blazes does any of that even belong IN a markup specification?!?

    That's really what I don't get about the entire idiotic mess -- and why it REALLY reminds me of the worst of HTML 3.2; which also adopted all the stuff "The vendors were doing" and had to be undone for the real HTML 4. (as opposed to the tranny crap most people continue to sleaze out to this day)
    deathshadow, Oct 21, 2013 IP
  13. kk5st

    kk5st Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,906
    Likes Received:
    191
    Best Answers:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    190
    #13
    @ds: the html specs were written from the beginning for the browser. The authors simply used the browser "rules" to guide them for their own use. The browser wars added new elements to gain a competitive edge, and they are never going away. HTML 5 does more than "document", it also takes steps to standardize those elements' rendering, and most importantly, how to include them in the DOM. A whole hell of a lot is going on under the hood that we never see nor would we likely understand unless we were involved in a browser's development.

    A lot of work is ongoing in the area of the javascript language and the script interpreter. For example, Google Chrome's interpreter has been made very fast and server side usable to the point of being its own web server. Make your own a/v chat application that runs directly in the browser without plugins.

    Face it, the browser is outgrowing its origins as a document platform. That doesn't mean we can't still make web sites that are accessible and UA agnostic. It just means that the copy/paste "developers" won't be any worse than they ever were. Has anyone ever shamed a Flash site builder enough to quit that crap?

    g
    kk5st, Oct 21, 2013 IP
  14. deathshadow

    deathshadow Prominent Member

    Messages:
    5,980
    Likes Received:
    827
    Best Answers:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    395
    #14
    Tell that to TBL... and the entire REASON HTML even exists -- device neutral. The tags exist to let authors say what things are, so how they are presented can be ENTIRELY up to the user agent.

    Tell that to HTML 4 STRICT, the entire point of which was to remove redundancies, browser specific garbage from the wars, and return to the original concept of semantic markup and device neutral content delivery.

    ... and that has WHAT to do with a MARKUP specification exactly?

    That's the biggest problem I have with all this **** -- calling things like the nice neat new scripting or the new styling capabilities part of a markup specification! 90%+ of the crap people call HTML 5 has jack **** to do with markup, HTML, or even HTML 5!

    No, we just shamed them into doing "HTML 5" crap (that has nothing to do with markup) that has all the same shortcomings -- ending up being just about as stupid as all the dipshits who started throwing scripting into markup to replicate TARGET because it was 'deprecated', completely failing to understand WHY that **** has no business on a website in the first place.

    But your right, people are just going to sleaze things out any old way -- seems to be what the W3C is telling us is completely acceptable behavior. Damn glad these folks aren't making "specifications" for construction or manufacturing since this current crew wouldn't know a specification if it reared up and bit them like a snake in a DaVinci fresco.
    deathshadow, Oct 21, 2013 IP
  15. Erin Catorina

    Erin Catorina Member

    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    5
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    33
    #15
    For this page, simple Html and CSS can work perfectly, but it is preferable to use HTML 5. Because for an IT professional, it is necessary to move with the latest trends.
    Erin Catorina, Oct 23, 2013 IP
  16. deathshadow

    deathshadow Prominent Member

    Messages:
    5,980
    Likes Received:
    827
    Best Answers:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    395
    #16
    Methinks we have different definitions of the word "professional".
    deathshadow, Oct 23, 2013 IP
  17. Karolwf

    Karolwf Member

    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    20
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    35
    #17
    Tried to use 4 Strict and XTML 1.0 Strict doctype. Got 2 errors:
    1. target="_blank" - to open link in new tab or window
    2. input ( in site search form)

    WC3.org validator says - use Transitional or HTML5. Since major websites like Google, Yahoo, CNN, MSN use HTML5 - I'm going to use HTML5 for this simple page.

    Created a new one with HTML5 and:
    1. W3C html validator : Passed - No errors
    2. GTmetrix - Page speed grade: A - 96%
    BTW - GTmetrix still uses: doctype">Transitional

    Here is that new HTML5 page:
    www.wood-furniture.biz/S/skyline_Lab_Kitchen_1.htm

    What do you think ? Are code, layouts correct?

    Thanks for opinion (advice).
    Karolwf, Oct 25, 2013 IP
  18. deathshadow

    deathshadow Prominent Member

    Messages:
    5,980
    Likes Received:
    827
    Best Answers:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    395
    #18
    Unless you have framesets, TARGET has no malfing business on ANY website written after 1998. Bad usability, you shouldn't be forcing a new window down the user's throat. that's WHY it was deprecated in STRICT.

    Likely you didn't have a proper block-level container inside the form -- like a proper FIELDSET, so you had a non-semantic and incomplete form.

    Welcome to another reason I say HTML 5 is undoing the past decade and a half of progress... Instead of saying "stop doing things that suck" like strict did, it says go ahead and sleaze things out any old way. Transitional LITERALLY means "in transition from 1997 to 1998 coding practices" -- so if it's telling you that 5 allows things 4 Strict doesn't... there's only one real conclusion. HELLO 1997!

    Well it starts out with the trifecta of /FAIL/ -- fixed width layout, fixed metric (px) fonts, and questionable if not possibly illegible color contrasts.... #8D8D8D on white? I think not. 11px or 12px fonts ... not good. Design-wise, it's got problems.

    Under the hood, I see that stupid malfing idiotic bloated "let's wrap the HTML tag in five IE conditional comments to cover up developer ineptitude" crap Paul Irish somehow convinced people was a good idea, DIV for nothing inside a list (as if there weren't enough containers in there), endless pointless classes for nothing (likely that off the shelf gallery solution being garbage code), broken/gibberish use of numbered headings, a complete lack of graceful degradation with things like the empty LOGO div (which should REALLY be a H1 wtih TEXT inside it). I see no media types on the scripting LINK, DIV and NAV around a UL that really shouldn't need either, an incomplete form, and a host of other things that... well... Let's just say it's ENTIRELY what I've come to expect from HTML 3.2 masquerading as 4 tranny or 5 lip-service... reeking of "accessibility, what's that?", "Semantics, what's that?" and on the whole feeling -- to me at least -- like the worst of 1998 coding practices in action.
    deathshadow, Oct 25, 2013 IP
    wiicker95 and ryan_uk like this.
  19. gregdbowen`

    gregdbowen` Member

    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    33
    #19
    Yes, by all means build in HTML5 and VSS3. You will be building for the future.
    gregdbowen`, Oct 25, 2013 IP
  20. hanady

    hanady Member

    Messages:
    45
    Likes Received:
    3
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    33
    #20
    I would say that html5 offers something new and trendy. If you wouldn't mind I would say that your website needs a little bit more life added to it and I think this could be done using html5 and css3. It would make your website a piece of art because I like the pictures and the way things are divided so if you could add a better way to switch between pictures (There are amazing ideas out there). Also I would go with a darker color with the font to make it clearer.
    hanady, Oct 26, 2013 IP