New version of my website!

[aether]

Check it out..:)

http://www.blakedesigngroup.com (http://www.blakedesigngroup.com/)

[TheKing]

joomla sites and their templates are amazing

though as a designer, I would recommend to another designer to actually...design their site.

[aether]

joomla sites and their templates are amazing

though as a designer, I would recommend to another designer to actually...design their site.
I agree with what you are saying to some extent. From a developers standpoint, the power of the CMS is outstanding and very fluid. Having everything server side is great and very flexible. There is still a lot of design involved in the site, even though it starts its life as a template. Most clients will appreciate the speed and flexibility that they get with a CMS, rather than being charged for someone to create a true 'backend' dynamic site.

Ben

[wilebill]

Are you going to start your own forum?

[TheKing]

you can design your own template to use in joomla

yes the CMS is amazing.....

you dont even have to know php...

theres a few templates out there where you can just redesign the CSS and make the site look however you want...you just have to get the right template that is fully dependent on the CSS for its style information

ill look for you in a while and see if i can find it for you

[aether]

Are you going to start your own forum?

probably not, I have my hands full as it is. I will leave the forum up to the goings on here...:)

[Sir Mickey Mouse]

aether,

Everything looks great. I REALLY like the restaurants page!

[B.T. Justice]

Check it out..:)

http://www.blakedesigngroup.com

Hey, that's my web guy! Looks great Aether. Hope mine looks just as good.

[Buggy]

It doesn't validate. (http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blakedesigngroup.com)

[TheKing]

most sites dont validate these days

dynamic content is tough to make happen like that

[aether]

neither do:

www.google.com (http://www.google.com)
www.foxnews.com (http://www.myhattiesburg.com/forums/www.foxnews.com)
www.yahoo.com (http://www.myhattiesburg.com/forums/www.yahoo.com)

just to name a few....

my point is...its almost impossible to get full functionality, cross browser compatibility and usability out of a site and it fully validate through W3C...:)

software competition and a constantly evolving industry and technology will always cause this to occur somewhat.

[B.T. Justice]

It doesn't validate. (http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blakedesigngroup.com)

Help the technologically challenged. What does this mean?:smt102

[aether]

Help the technologically challenged. What does this mean?:smt102

A website 'validates' when it meets standards set by an international consortium, or the W3C (http://www.w3.org/). This presents a real problem for developers because corporations also formulate their own version of standards. For example: The Document Object Model or DOM for short is an integrated standard for how basic web languages, like javascript, interact with elements of a site. While the standard DOM is useful, companies like microsoft have their own DOM that is supported in IE, and you guessed it, some features of their DOM only work in IE. This is typical for most technologies across the board. Throw in a constant interpretation between server/browser and dynamic content and the mix gets even worse.

In short, to have a site 'validate' simply means that it meets the conventions set forth by the W3C, but doesnt allow for other technologies or server side technologies. That is why 'Most' sites do not validate. IMO to have a site fully validate would be to have some type of shortcoming in that site, either in the way of usability, functionality or efficiency, but on the other hand it will meet a strict standard.

Just my .02!

[aaron]

As a designer, you should always strive to get your pages as close as possible to the W3C standard. As far as businesses are concerned, they shouldn't be worried if they're pages don't validate. Just like every dog doesn't have to be AKC registered for it to function as a dog. It's more about how you portray yourself as a web designer and wanting to insure that every web site you design meets the highest of standards. At some point though, a designer has to decide between using something that has not cleared W3C or not using it. So, there are exceptions to the rule. Google, for instance, serves up billions of pages per day, so they cut their page size down to the bare minimum. This breaks them from the W3C standard. This is not something that 90% of businesses have to worry about though. Their main concern should be that their web site displays the same across all browsers, which is what the W3C strives to get in place.

[aether]

Their main concern should be that their web site displays the same across all browsers, which is what the W3C strives to get in place.

I agree with what you are saying, but with all browsers still not fully conforming to the W3C, total validation is almost impossible on a dynamic site.

Like this one (http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.myhattiesburg.com%2F) for example...

There is still too much in the way or transitional information and technology evolution that constantly occurs...

[aaron]

I agree with what you are saying, but with all browsers still not fully conforming to the W3C, total validation is almost impossible on a dynamic site.

Like this one (http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.myhattiesburg.com%2F) for example...

There is still too much in the way or transitional information and technology evolution that constantly occurs...

Well, for one thing, I didn't design this page. This is the default provided by the forum, plus a header that I designed, that does validate. I'm not going to correct the errors, because I would have to correct them after every upgrade, and this is not a site that I call my business home to. Next, validation has nothing to do with whether a site is dynamic or not. If I program dynamic code for a site, I tell it what to output. If I insure that this output validates, then I have no problem with validation. Yes, there are exceptions because a lot of web designers today use software that was designed by someone else. But, I would not explain the W3C like you explained it. The web would be a better place if everyone adhered to some standard. Firefox already strives to do this. If Internet Explorer did so also, then there would be a lot fewer problems viewing web sites.

[aether]

The web would be a better place if everyone adhered to some standard. Firefox already strives to do this. If Internet Explorer did so also, then there would be a lot fewer problems viewing web sites.

well said my friend...very well said, but I do not ever see this happening.

[aaron]

well said my friend...very well said, but I do not ever see this happening.

It will happen sometime in the near future. 100 million downloads of Firefox has sent it well on the way. IE7 adheres to more W3C standards than any previous version. It's up to the designers to continue putting pressure on MS to go even further so we don't have to continue designing for 50 different browser versions. I've been doing web design for a quite a while now, so I'm a little jaded about this subject.

[wilebill]

The great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.