Log in

View Full Version : Tutorial Sites


slyredfox
07-17-2007, 05:27 PM
Hi All,

I was curious if people could post some good Tutorial websites for Javascript.

For Instance -- for Flash I use:
Flashkit.com
Actionscript.org
gotoandlearn.com
Ultrashock
etc.

Are there any good "Tutorial" javascript sites that I can check out? TY!
Twey
07-17-2007, 10:45 PM
http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/
chechu
07-18-2007, 11:18 AM
http://draac.com
In Dutch: http://www.handleidinghtml.nl/
Twey
07-18-2007, 11:32 AM
For text you wish to resize that are not headings.
You would use these font tags.
These tags are used in pairs.

<FONT SIZE="1"> and </FONT>
There are two types of text breaks.
That will break the text to the next line.
First is text break tag <BR>
This will break the text to the very next line.
This can also be used to break an image
to the next line. The <BR> can
be used as many times as you like
to get the desired spacing between items.

<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Dit is mijn eerste homepage</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

</BODY>
</HTML>*wince* Avoid.
chechu
07-18-2007, 02:53 PM
The first one, I agree, but the two other ones are fine by me.
In this forum I read a lot of experts (like you), mostly probably pro's, and sometimes they say that f.ex. tables are bad and should be changed into div's. But why change something if it is still valid, easy to use and above all, looking good ?
Do you need to throw a way 'old technics' because new ones came up ?Sometimes I wonder if all the new stuff that comes up, is really better than the old stuff... Just my thoughts ...
chechu
07-18-2007, 02:55 PM
Like on that site http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/ I see
<em> and <strong>
why not <b> and <i> ? Works fine for me !
jscheuer1
07-18-2007, 03:14 PM
Might as well throw in my current boiler plate on this:


See:

http://www.dynamicdrive.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15425

and:

http://www.dynamicdrive.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21570

This is one good site that I am not sure if it is covered in the above discussions:

http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/abdesign.html

Other than that, it really depends upon your style of learning. If you are more comfortable in the classroom, take a course. However, that will probably only get you the basics and may or may not be the best source of accurate and/or up to date information. The same is generally true of books. O'Reilly's books are generally fairly good and you can look at:

http://online-books.oreilly.com/

and:

http://www.oreilly.com/

to help you decide if they are for you.
Twey
07-18-2007, 03:24 PM
<em> and <strong> and <b> and <i> differ in purpose. <em> and <strong> specify the semantics of the document. <em> states that "the text between these tags is emphasised." How that actually happens (by default, of course it may be overridden by stylesheets) is up to the browser. If it's a screen reader, for example, it might read emphasised text in a louder voice, or with more stress. <b> doesn't tell the browser any of that; it just says "this text should be bold" without giving a reason why. Screenreaders probably shouldn't read the text any differently, since the boldening may be purely for stylistic purposes. This is one of many disadvantages of presentational markup.
The first one, I agree, but the two other ones are fine by me.Why? The <font> tag is at least valid HTML Transitional, but the document without the DOCTYPE isn't even that. The second is worse than the first. The third is as bad as the first, using presentational markup, plus it's actually abusing a semantic element in order to do it. Still not as bad as the second though.
In this forum I read a lot of experts (like you), mostly probably pro's, and sometimes they say that f.ex. tables are bad and should be changed into div's.Semantic markup plays a big part here too. Tables aren't meant for layout; it's a reasonable assumption by the browser that a table will contain tabular data. Of course, with tables there's a fairly serious slowdown in loading speeds to consider as well, and increased bandwidth usage, although that's often only a problem on very high-traffic or low-budget sites.
But why change something if it is still valid, easy to use and above all, looking good ?It's not valid. The automated validator is not a conclusive examination; it's incapable of concluding whether markup is semantic or not, due to the limitations of computers. Semantics have, by definition, to do with the meaning of the page, and the validator has no idea about the meaning of the content you're feeding it. However, non-semantic markup is still against the standards.