Thanks for your comments and suggestions.
Nice site. I like the clean, simple design. The more Atari sites the better, and I like your idea of quality over quantity.
I'm glad to hear you say that about the design, because those are two of the things I'm trying to achieve.
If you are learning html/css, I have a few suggestions :
- I'd go straight to html 5.
- Rather than using html for presentation (example : <br><br><br>) I would use CSS. It's best to seperate content from style.
- I'd avoid using frames. Web developers have been trying to banish frames from the world for years (though sometimes they're still needed).
- I would add width and height attributes to your IMG tags.
- Use this : https://validator.w3.org/to see errors in your underlying code.
I suppose you're suggesting HTML 5 because it's the future. In general I agree with that, because eventually some things in 4 that aren't being carried over to 5 may not be supported. I've paid attention to that as I've designed, but this design basically grew out of a simple design that I started with, having little background. The good thing is that my main reference ended up being w3schools.com, which always gives tips on what won't be carried into HTML 5, etc.
My site started off as all HTML, but then -- as I started learning all the benefits of CSS -- all the formatting got migrated over to separate CSS documents. So you will find that my formatting is all in a main CSS doc, and then the menu code has a local CSS definition section <STYLE> </STYLE>, and the banners have their own separate CSS document. You won't find any <BR><BR>... in my code, except in content sections where it's needed for hard-breaks. In fact the only place it's needed is where the icons have their filenames that need to be broken to equal out some of the formatting. All other spacing is defined in the CSS documents, to space between the various sections/elements.
I read about some of the frames controversy before and during the site's creation. In fact, there are many things that I dislike about how frames have been used down through the years (particularly frames with their own scrollbars, which I can't stand). I also know the alternatives and how to achieve the same layout that I have (now -- I didn't when I first started out) without the use of frames. I did an evaluation of my site (after its creation) in light of what I later learned, and came to the conclusion that there were some distinct advantages to using frames as well as some disadvantages.
So I do know how to convert my current site to eliminate frames, but I won't be doing it. I may switch over to not using them on my next site. The main advantages I see to using frames are: code separation and less code duplication (in this particular instance). The frames being: Menu, Banner, and Content -- I don't have to look at menu and banner code while I'm working on content. Additionally, menu content doesn't need to be duplicated across each content page -- it's defined once in it's own document and that's it. Each different banner needs it's own doc though, so there is no code savings there.
Also, it was an exercise for me in working with something a little complex to begin with, and at least getting to grips with how it all works (frames that is). I actually carried it a step further than most people would too -- based on my design idea -- because I reference multiple framesets in order to have a single link open up two frames simultaneously. Achieving this was somewhat of a curiosity, and I used it all as a tool for learning. In my eyes, I can see no great advantage to losing the frames, other than to satisfy current trends.
I don't think my current application of images will derive any benefit from specifying width and height attributes for my IMG tags. But I can look into it a little further. Is there a reason you can give -- considering my application -- that it would make it a benefit, or is this just a measure to pass standard validation?
Thanks for the link to the validator, I'll check that out. I hadn't really looked into anything like that yet.
Edited by MrFish, Sat Jan 23, 2016 2:19 PM.