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

This just goes to show that you either don't understand (which is obvious by the posts that you make) or still think that a person can just shovel content on a website without understanding HTML. However, from the posts that you make I would say it's the first one. Content should be the key and I think that something that we both agree upon, but where we differ is the approach. You want to create working LAYOUTS (don't want to get into trouble with the grammar police) without even thinking about the layout(s). Granted a person learning HTML/CSS or anything web related should learn the proper way first (the proper way how to use HTML tags and proper CSS styling), but once they have a solid foundation under their belt(s) then a rough layout or layouts should be a least plan out. Even if it is a rough wireframe, otherwise they will be brought into bad habits that you so hardheartedly endorse. Granted once you have a few websites under your belt you will have previous material that you could draw upon or can easily come up with a plan that a client might agree upon. However, I would guess most potential clients still would like to see what their website will look like before spending huge amount of money for it. However, you would do great if Skynet ever became a reality.

 

WOW, did you even READ a single word I've posted, or are you just going "Wah, wah wah, he's badmouthing the layout first approach!" -- I say this because the entire latter half of that first sentence by it's mere PRESENCE means you have failed to comprehend ANYTHING I have said... since the first step is what? Content with logical structure set by the markup. You know what markup is, right? As in "Hypertext MARKUP Language"?!? HOW tHE ***** IGNORANT HALFWIT HELL could you even say "still think a person can shovel content on a website without understanding HTML" when every single one of my posts is about applying and having working semantic HTML BEFORE YOU EVEN THINK ABOUT CSS AND LAYOUT!!!

HERPAFREAKINGDERP!!!

Englisc, mōdor wyrter! Gedōn ēow cweþan hit!?!

 

@Strider64

Wow! How in hell can you visualize, much less design boxes for a product you've never even seen. Like laying out a garden before you know what the wife wants to plant.

 

css is nothing. just start with basic tutorial. you can learn it in just 10 minute.

and you can make advance web page.

you can download some sample web page and see codes that how actually they work.


just open page in chrome and inspect element and edit css. you can see live change in web page.

 

Well it's also obviously you don't pay attention to what I write either, for you think another person or client can read the developers mind without seeing anything visual. I never said you didn't say a person shouldn't know HTML, what I am trying to convey is the impression that I'm getting is that you want to develop total working semantic HTML before you get any input from the person as you would say developing for (I call it designing, I know that's a bad word for you ). Two different things in the design/development process in my opinion. What I am trying to say is that it doesn't take long to make a short wireframe or maybe a better way of putting (since this seems to be an area of major disagreement) would be, having a visual aid in what the website will look like before actually putting it down in code. Ok, I admit might have missed the "semantic" portion of the your phrasing (one word if missed can change the meaning and people have gone to wars over misunderstanding or no WMDs ), but if you still mean by having an actual a TOTAL working HTML website before a client even sees it then I still disagree. What's to say a person has something different in mind and you spend all that time going in a different direction? You wasted all that time and effort doing it that way. Now if you mean just to showcasing, making that person understand that you know HTML, or even showing a client what you have in mind without going to far in a different direction *GULP* I agree with you , btw I proud of you that you know what HTML means. Now, I agree after you get approval of the design in general I see nothing wrong in doing it working semantic HTML way if that's how you like to (drum roll please) ....DESIGN...LOL However from you have been preaching and what seems like a total dismissing of people taking even the shortest amount of time to design I don't think that is the case.

 

I never said a person should design or develop before knowing what the client or person wants (Which also means getting to know history/background of the company). I would never layout a garden until finding out what the wife wants until she tells me what she wants (and even the general area where she wants it) and then after that then I can draw a rough sketch that shouldn't take too long where the veggies should go. Then show it for her approval.

 

Thank you for the garden analogy, as it is a stellar example of everything WRONG with that approach -- in particular it reminds me of something Dan Schulz said to me shortly before his passing (lemme dig through my trillian logs... ah, there it is):
"One of the hardest things in web design is that you shouldn't be designing for the client, but instead should be designing for the client's clients. The trick is either convincing them of that, or tricking them into not realizing you're pretty much ignoring them."

Your example of a Garden for the missus is a perfect example of everything wrong with that approach because the a website isn't actually FOR the client -- strange as that sounds, but think about it -- a website's primary purpose is to meet the VISITORS needs. A website is not like designing a 6x8 plot held in with railroad ties in the back yard, it's more like trying to make a garden kit that works for everything from a window planter up to a two acre field. You're goofy little backyard design is going to leave the person with acreage underwhelmed, and most likely overwhelms the person with the two gallon planter in their hallway...

Underwhelmed... overwhelmed... why isn't anyone ever just whelmed?!? -- Dick Grayson (Robin)

Even in it's little fixed backyard container are you plants going to magically get 25%, 50% or 100% larger just because someone different is looking at it? That's what as web designers following the entire reason HTML and CSS even exists are supposed to be doing! Be it 192x256 up to 4096x2560, be it 14px/72dpi up to 30px/240dpi, be it 2" wide to 72" wide, a good design should ADAPT.

That's why fixed width layouts are CRAP, that's why fixed metric (px) fonts are CRAP, that's why starting from a goofy fixed drawing is CRAP! It's also why those of us who actually have been paying attention using semantic markup, logical document order, logical document structure with semi-fluid elastic layouts are able to adapt our existing sites with a few dozen lines of CSS and no major changes -- while the dipshits sleazing out HTML 3.2 and slapping 4 tranny on it or 5 lip-service around it from their goofy PSD drawings struggle to grasp the concepts, have broken half-assed pathetic attempts at using it, and often rely on sleazy broken bloated halfwiit shortcuts like 'frameworks'. See the steaming piles of manure known as blueprint, YUI, bootstrap, etc, etc...

If anything, websites are like Soda... you want it fizzy, tasty, and it needs to adapt to 8oz and 12oz cans, 16oz, 20oz, 1 litre and 2 litre bottles, etc, etc... Kind of like..

"You must be shapeless, formless, like water. When you pour water in a cup, it becomes the cup. When you pour water in a bottle, it becomes the bottle. When you pour water in a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Water can drip and it can crash. Become like water my friend.” -- Bruce Lee

After all, that's why we call it fluid design... it's why we have elastic design... and now it's why the next logical step is responsive design -- and people SHOULD be using ALL THREE!!!

Something dicking around drawing pretty pictures is not going to give you -- unless of course you want to sit there drawing several hundred concepts as rough examples of what it MIGHT look like, and most likely won't.

In fact most of the actual advancements in development since 1998 have centered around NOT doing the dipshit "what it looks like on my desktop, **** everyone else" approach to design -- which is why the people sitting around drawing goofy pictures while having the giant brass monkey balls to call themselves "designers" pretty much have it all wrong! At best it's ignorance, at worst it's preying on the ignorance of the average client.

Just like 90%+ of what people call SEO, the halfwit trash known as HTML 5, the idiotic garbage that are 'frameworks', and all the other sleazy shortcuts and outright scams that have become common practice in the industry -- typically out of comfort, blindness, and wishful thinking...

 

Yes you must need to learn css to make a good looking web site. If your css is good then your web site will looking good. And you also need to learn html to make your web site eye catching. HTML and CSS are the two basic and must need step to make a website. I suggest you the website you can learn Css from this www.w3schools.com.