Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

CIW/Website Design

Comments

  • #2
    Baz_
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,660 ✭✭✭Baz_


    This is in fact the right board, and if you do go ahead with that course, an auld review would be much appreciated, as I don't remember seeing anything about it here before.


  • #3
    smeggle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 519 ✭✭✭smeggle


    This course covers how to create and manage Web sites with tools such as Macromedia Dreamweaver 4.0 and Flash 5.0, FrontPage 2000,

    em what happened to doing it correctly in 'Notepad'?

    quote is from there site designer course

    quote src

    My advice? Learn it the correct way :)

    edit: just looked over there modules which include talk about frames, tables and a load of other junk. Looks to me like there still stuck in the ruts of the last 7 or so years and I wouldn't go near any of the progs they mention for web-design, Dreameweaver, Frontpage or paint shop pro for image work?!! (Use Adobe - far superior).

    From what I can see of this course your going to learn every thing that is making such a mess of W3C standards. They don't even mention anything about correct standards or the standards organizations untill the seventh module. So you learn 6 modules and then are told about standards? Kinda figures.

    As for 'Organiizations'? There is one (and only one you should follow). W3C . Still headed by Sir Tim - the guy who invented html in the first place. I'll follow what he says is correct before I listen to any bunch of html 4.0 rubbish like being presented in that course.

    Sorry brief lookover gives it a big thumbs down in my book.

    btw I may be an unqualified webmaster but I junked 90% of what there offering to teach you a couple of years or so ago now. Especially Tables and Frames - ***desolves into fits of hilarity***

    anyway frames are one of the most incorrectly used solutions in webdesign and really are only needed for dns forwarding and iframes are now depreceated under W3C guidelines.

    Jesus Christ - don't these people keep ip with the standards they say they do? As OI say, I've only had a brief lookover but from what I've seen so far I wouldn't (personally) touch that thing with a barge pole..

    Whats the course duration? 6mnths probably - took me 3 years just to learn the basics correctly.

    Oh and as for this
    Identify the features of CSS2.?

    ok - as long as your using xhtml 2.0 which is essentially what css 2.0 is for allthough it can be utilised for xhtml 1.0/1.1 but strictly being shouldn't be. Also, although css can be implemented with html 4.01 (Where it's developement first began inline) it should be used with xhtml and as a 'srced' object not inline.

    Finally an anylasis of there own web page there
    <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">

    here dtd html 4.01 transitional (Also known as 'Get by Coding') and 8 years old and so outdated as to be a jk if a webmaster is still using the stuff.

    validation of there page there (@ W3C)
    Result: Failed validation, 8 errors
    results link

    There really going to be teaching you well when they can't even get simple 'Get by' coding correct.
    They also have the java script in there header incorrectly positioned though the validator doesn't show this.

    As I say personally I wouldn't go near a course like this.


  • #4
    Goodshape
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,488 ✭✭✭Goodshape


    What do you mean by 'website design'?

    Design (the look and feel of the site) can be done with any Photoshop type graphics program or maybe a wysiwyg html editor (dreamweaver etc.).

    [one example - Photoshop Web Design Tutorials]

    If you want to actually make the sites, learn some HTML and CSS from an online tutorial.. plenty of links in this thread. That FAS course seems a bit redundent with its emphasis on Dreamweaver, Frontpage and Flash. All expensive and unnecessary programs (notepad should be all you need really).


  • #5
    smeggle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 519 ✭✭✭smeggle


    Goodshape wrote:
    That FAS course seems a bit redundent with its emphasis on Dreamweaver, Frontpage and Flash.

    The progs they mentioned are all outdated as well - Frontpage 2000? Dreamweaver 4.0? and who wants to use flash anyway (YuK)....

    emm FP 2003? Dreamweaver 7.0?

    Notepad/xhtml/css :up: :D


  • #6
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 41,235 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    I have lectured on a number of CIW courses and basically they are a load of shíte. Thy cover very little over the time involved. Fair enough, you will have a piece of paper at the end but you won't know much!


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    heggie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,879 ✭✭✭heggie


    said it before and i'll say it again, tables still have their uses, and frames, while I generally avoid them still have to be taught. It seems like a general enough course, If I were you, concentrate on which you want to be - a designer, or a programmer, and pick a course accordingly. If you're going down the design route, try doing a basic enough web course and then some sort of design course, theres two sides to web design.


  • #8
    smeggle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 519 ✭✭✭smeggle


    heggie wrote:
    tables still have their uses,

    only bloody good use they have is to eat your dinner at. for websites? there a bloody nightmare and so inferior to divs..


  • #9
    Goodshape
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,488 ✭✭✭Goodshape


    The 10 Best Resources for CSS on SiteProNews. Some good sites listed.

    Including this one - css Zen Garden - which really shows of the beauty of CSS.

    I almost wish I was learning afreash these days.. when I started frames and tables were still new and exciting. These days it feels like admiting to once having bought the Vanalla Ice album* :eek:


    *I never bought the Vanilla Ice album!


  • #10
    heggie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,879 ✭✭✭heggie


    smeggle wrote:
    only bloody good use they have is to eat your dinner at. for websites? there a bloody nightmare and so inferior to divs..

    listen mate, when u ever design sites, then you can talk to me.


  • #11
    smeggle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 519 ✭✭✭smeggle


    heggie wrote:
    listen mate, when u ever design sites, then you can talk to me.

    em are you sure you don't want to take that back? or would you rather I post you a few links?

    I've been doing it for over four years now and give up on frames and tables (and all other html 4.0/4.01 garbage) over two years ago.

    I design exclusively in xhtml 1.0/1.1/css 1.0 as set out by W3C. I don't need to worry if my sites are compatible across browsers and need hacks or crap loads of java to make them work in all browsers nor do I need to worry wether or not, that my sites are accessible by the disabled unlike the designer who has the problem of (most) speech synthesis software borking up and talking utter gibberish because it's ended up trying to read table and frame code because some lazy arse git of a coder can't be bothered to get there act together and stop using 8 year old bloody coding standards that even Sir Tim Berners Lee admits was a nightmare.

    He's the guy who invented the ability to write html mark up in the first place btw.

    point in case is if you click my sig. Allthough I use a blogging software, some of the templates are mine. There xhtml. I generally use xhtml templates though one or two (that come with the software do need upgrading).

    Now do you want egg with that or will just chips do :p :rolleyes:


    edit: and yes I know about the css faults on that page - haven't time to fix it till next month but they are only a minor issue. The xhtml is perfectly valid though.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Baz_
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,660 ✭✭✭Baz_


    smeggle wrote:
    and yes I know about the css faults on that page

    :rolleyes:


  • #13
    heggie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,879 ✭✭✭heggie


    i dont have to worry about cross compatibility either, im not saying frames and tables are the foundation of a good site these days I'm simply saying u cannot totally right them off, as certain situations may require them, oh and btw, I said DESIGN sites. Some programmers have no artistic ability!


  • #14
    Eoin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,263 ✭✭✭✭Eoin


    smeggle wrote:
    only bloody good use they have is to eat your dinner at. for websites? there a bloody nightmare and so inferior to divs..

    I don't agree at all. I admit I am guilty of using them for layout, but the next site I do will use divs for layout. However, they are useful - and the correct element to use - if you are displaying tabular data (e.g. a list of contacts, match fixtures etc)


  • #15
    smeggle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 519 ✭✭✭smeggle


    Originally Posted by smeggle
    and yes I know about the css faults on that page
    Baz_ wrote:
    :rolleyes:

    :p lol ;)


Advertisement