Printable View
It is possible with XXP to create a web page with no text and just pictures as I have done with my son at http://www.historyofwarfare.net/
This was a first attempt and not completed.
Looking at the source code there is nothing that a search engine could find.
So there is trap for developers using XXP if they want search engines to find there web site!!
Its a steep learning curve.
Peter
Hi Peter,
Firstly, XXP html export is not really designed for developers.
It is most suitable for mockups and for some fairly simple (but cool) pages.
However, you can do three things to improve your site.
[1] Don't group text with anything, make sure it's in a text area and export the page retaining the text. OK, the CSS will break up sentences, but keywords will still be searchable.
[2] Manually add meta data in the head, eg:
[3] Create a ror.xml sitemap.HTML Code:<head>
<meta name="XAR jpegs" content="2"/>
<meta name="XAR pngs" content="23"/>
<meta name="XAR Pages" content="3"/>
<meta name="XAR Page 1" content="index.htm"/>
<meta name="description" content="History of Warfare Games">
<meta name="keywords" content="War, warfare, rules, capaigns, war rules, war history">
Hope this helps :)
Ok, no text I could see..Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Prewett
With just pictures, there would be little for a search engine to find.Quote:
Looking at the source code there is nothing that a search engine could find.
Yes, but it's not a new trap. Type "search engine" into talkgraphics search box..Quote:
So there is trap for developers using XXP if they want search engines to find there web site!!
I'm not sure exactly what point you're trying to make or question you're trying to ask.Quote:
Its a steep learning curve.
Peter
XXP certainly has SEO problems and avoiding text in web pages won't help.
Paul
I think the point Peter is making is that for a novice, creating a nice looking 'page' in Xtreme is fun and straight forward. Exporting it to html is easy, and putting it online is acheivable.
But because the output might be all image (due to grouping and generally having fun with the design process), there's nothing that a search engine bot can read.
The 'trap' I think he is pointing out, is that many newcomers to html might fall into an 'all image' website and then wonder why it never turns up on Google.
Thing is, even with plenty of text, many people miss the entire SEO process *post production*. Simply having a website doesn't automatically mean it will be indexed by all major search engines. You gotta tell 'em it's there ;)
You can include an ALT statement in the image HTML as well (although I don't know if Xara has the provision to do that so you might have to add it manually)
However all that's likely to happen is that you'll have the images turn up on Google Images, which often means that loads of people will come and help themselves to your images. Not a problem if they have no commercial value to anyone.
Search engines will pick up the Page Title, Description and Keywords though, as Sledger points out above.
You are correct much better than I could put it:-(Quote:
Originally Posted by sledger
It comes back to "Jack of all trades and not master of one'
And we need to be a master of all (from the start) to get a web page that looks good and now we are provided with tools that only go part the way without knowing that there are pitfalls, which I have fallen into.
I think I was pointing out that this is not easy as it seems and trying to tell others where I had been 'trapped' into thinking it was.
Your comments are appreciated.
Peter
Nothing beats a page with the code hand slung (No I don't want to start an argument - Guys). They load faster, are indexed better etc, etc... You just have to know lots to make it work.
I have used Xara for over 10 years to build the graphics for web pages. Xara works great for that.
I think like pdf export it's advisable to keep the text on it's own separate layer, best below a graphics layer if you want repelling text. Using this method ensures the text remains as such and is therefore SE friendly.
See the attached xar. (Save it and export as an html file). On export to html the text remains as text, all be it broken into individual lines but apparently to SE's this doesn't make a difference.
Hi Peter,
The conversion of the grouped text to images is necessary to give user control over this process. So that you can explicitly do this if you like. This is documented. It's all about reading one page in the help. Is it too steep for you? Do you know something better?Quote:
Its a steep learning curve.
John Rayner,
As you see, Peter is unhappy with Xtremes learning curve. How is it possible that your proposition would suit him? ;)Quote:
Nothing beats a page with the code hand slung
Oh thanks for those comments that makes my day!!Quote:
Originally Posted by covoxer
That is not at all, yes I can read help files if they are well written and understandable with not to much background to have to start with.
We are all beginners at some time and when we are given a new tool that only partly does the job as I found out, and that is what I was commenting on.
The point I was trying to make that was that it was not only trying to learn XXP and web design and html programming and designing model railway layouts and computer management and etc. etc. all at the same time.
Peter
John,
I am not knocking your export filter. For what it does it works great. Hand slung programming is better (although a real pain for most to learn). Xara without the html export works great also.
You name it, you can do it with xara when it comes to web graphics.
John I don't thing other John thought you were having a go at the HTML export feature of Xtreme. He was asking why you though Peter could handle your 'hang slung' comment when he has trouble even understanding wizzywiged html.
If the understanding of html wizzywig export is (almost) beyond his current understanding, then understanding how to write html code by hand using only a text editor would be like running up a waterfall.
It was a matter of perspective in the context of the topic.
That is not the case I would be quite capable of programming HTML as I have been programming BASIC since 1983, machine code in 1956 also C and C++ just not started on HTML as there has been other things in my life to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by sledger
So do not put me down.
Thanks to everyone for there comments.
Peter
Peter it was certainly not my intention to put you down in any way whatsoever. I apologise if this came across this way. :o
Accepted.Quote:
Originally Posted by sledger
I will go out and buy a book on HTML and study/practice and add it to my claim of being a jack of all trades and master of none.
There are some people that need a web site and cannot justify/afford employing someone to do it and are provided tools that only do part of the job that is the 'trap' I fell into.
It is easy to use XXP to create a web site but it needs a lot more experience and expertise to make it 'professional' product.
Peter
Hi Peter,
I have purchased books on the subject and downloaded pages from the net. I found the net is easier to reference and "free". If you are interested I can provide you with some decent stuff I downloaded and use as a reference all the time...
Just PM me... or email me from the link on my site.
I have tried most of the WYSIWIG programs, and I quit using them 5 minutes after I start playing with them. They do the job, but... It is like having somebody paint your picture for you. You never have complete control. When you need precise control, you need to just do it yourself.
The main trap when looking for site authoring training materials is to plump for the biggest, brightest book in the shop. More pages may mean better value to some, but it'll be a worse learning experience!
(Although HTML is not really programming as such, it's similar to the case with C: you can buy any number of huge 'for dummies' or 'learn C in 21 days' tomes, but the original and very concise K&R is still the best.)
Today's modern [X]HTML is not difficult or complicated; your markup should be as minimal and simple as possible, with external CSS and JavaScript added where needed. But many of the books out there on the shelves will instead be "comprehensive", talking you through a million non-standard presentational tags, how to nest tables ten levels deep, and compatibility nonsense that only concerns Netscape 4 or IE5, browsers that have been dead for ages.
LOL, if only that were true.. ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by BobInce
Well... I think it pretty much is now. Netscape 4 really is dead and buried... thank God, as its incompatibilities and bugs were so much deeper than any other popular browser. IE5 has been (at least in my stats) well under 1% for some time, so except for unusual situations like XP-on-first-setup and a few way-behind-on-updating corporates it's not worth worrying about.Quote:
Originally Posted by pauland
Luckily if you target IE6-standards-mode upwards, IE5[.5] doesn't tend to break too badly... the layout often goes wonky, but the site will still generally work... more than you could say for Netscape 4, which would happily crash on the faintest whiff of anything from this century...
I was actually thinking more about current browsers and CSS - the box model for example, where workarounds still rear their ugly head..
if a browser has been released to the public, you can bet your bippie that someone is still using it. Long ago I got the idea out of my head to only design for the latest and greatest browsers. The first time your clients rake you over the coals cause they lost a possible sale because of the fancy stuff in the site, you too will learn.
Keep it simple, Design for the lowest common demoninator. Anything else is hurting your clients.
No way.Quote:
Originally Posted by raynerj1
Pretty much impossible I would have said. I just looked at the stats for one of my fairly busy sites for the last thirty days. From nearly 4000 visits they broke down like this:Quote:
Originally Posted by raynerj1
1. Internet Explorer 72.14% (of which 77% were IE7 and 22% IE6)
2. Firefox 22.74% (65% were FF2, 30% FF3)
3. Safari 2.47%
4. Opera 1.31%
5. Mozilla 1.08%
6. Konqueror 0.10%
7. NetFront 0.05%
8. Netscape 0.05%
9. Camino 0.03%
10. Playstation 0.03%
I personally check my sites in IE, Firefox, Safari and Opera and that's where I draw the line.
Best place is the original instead :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Prewett
Hey John (neodeist).. Just curious why you often use tinyurl for your links when the original link is quite acceptable here?
A habit I got into for emails, now not needed because I use Thunderbird which, as on TG, allows the use of a word to be a link. I'm just not good at kicking habits :o
Fair enough - though (from memory), rich text (html) email editors have always allowed html refs to be applied as a link to a single word.
I'd just like to add my agreement to the suggestions that using the free resources on the web is the best way to learn basic html. I don't do much anymore, but what worked for me was to pick apart examples to see what broke and work out why.
There are some good books I'm sure, though the problem is you cannot copy'n'paste from a book... :o
It used to be fun - but now my attention is elswhere.
Yeah, that's what I'm talking about: that's an IE5 bug only, and even if you don't bother work around it for the last fraction of a percent of still-extant IE5 users, the layout is probably only going to go a wee bit wonky; it's not going to break your site's functionality.Quote:
Originally Posted by pauland
(This is assuming you're making new sites in Standards Mode for IE users. But then why wouldn't you be?)
[Incidentally as an unrelated note w3schools.com aren't anything to do with 'the original' W3C organisation. Not that I'd advise trying to learn HTML from their raw specification documents, obviously!]
Sorry to mislead, I thought they were :o Good introduction to html though I found :)Quote:
Originally Posted by BobInce
I have found that a good HTML dictionary works about the best for me. Once you learn what the tags do, then it is easy enough to just view the source and find out how one page or another is built. Unless you have an unkind author who lays his code out bad.
I try and make mine easy to read. Makes it easier to change it in 6 months when the client needs an edit.
I have nothing against making a fancy site, if the clients wants it, I do it. I just have to explain to them it costs more (takes longer to make it fancy) and they are gonna have to answer questions from their customers why the can't see the fancy stuff with their version of mosaic.
It all depends on the clientale. If they are younger and computer literate, then you can do fancier things. If your want your sites to be seen by the average computer user (who couldn't tell you what a browser is). Then you keep it simple. Ask you mum to find open a browser and you will loose them 9 out of 10 times.
You have a a singular sense of humor John :pQuote:
Originally Posted by raynerj1
Why? The last version of Mosaic in fact is IE6. ;)
not then in fact here?
http://vaxa.wvnet.edu/vmswww/vms_mosaic.html
Ok, whilst there is an element of truth hidden away there, that's not what John was saying now was it.:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by covoxer
Besides, even if IE6 was a really the latest version of Mosiac (it's not, it's just based on bits of it) - then the 'fancy stuff' would be fine right ? :D
Here's the About IE6 Blurb for anyone curious:
Quote:
Based on NCSA Mosaic. NCSA Mosaic(TM); was developed at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Distributed under a licensing agreement with Spyglass, Inc.
Contains security software licensed from RSA Data Security Inc.
Portions of this software are based in part on the work of the Independent JPEG Group.
Multimedia software components, including Indeo(R); video, Indeo(R) audio, and Web Design Effects are provided by Intel Corp.
Unix version contains software licensed from Mainsoft Corporation. Copyright (C) 1998-1999 Mainsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Mainsoft is a trademark of Mainsoft Corporation.
Warning: This computer program is protected by copyright law and international treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this program, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law.
The reason MS controls 90+% of the browsers is that 70+% of the folks using it couldn't find the answer the following question.
Please select your browser?
a. Intenet Explorer
b. Netscape Navigator
c. Microsoft XP
d. Microsoft windows 3.01
You can't upgrade what you don't know. I doubt there are many computers out there with the original version of mosiac on them because it didn't come stock. I would be willing to bet that half the old computers still around have the original version of a browser. Those are the demographics of customers visiting most web sites.
This is getting a tad OT me thinks.Quote:
Originally Posted by raynerj1
90%+ seems a bit generous nowdays. Current usage is cited as from Net Applications:
Internet Explorer (73.81%)
Mozilla Firefox (18.43%)
Safari (6.14%)
Opera (0.71%)
Netscape (0.62%)
Other (0.29%)
or from W3Counter;
Internet Explorer (61.43%)
Mozilla Firefox (29.02%)
Safari (2.02%)
Opera (1.13%)2
Other (6.4%)
They are huge differences, so who really knows the real figures?
None the less in my work most standard users have no idea what a 'browser' is. They simply call it the 'Internet' as that's what the blue 'picture' (what's an icon??) on the desktop says.
If I were to ask them to open their web 'browser' and they have no idea what I mean, tell them to open the 'internet' and they are fine.
I also find that most standard users actually do update IE because they always say 'yes' to prompts that tell them they need to install new Windows updates. More and more XP based PC's are coming in to me which now have IE7 as the default web browser ( "because Microsoft told me I needed to update so I pushed yes". )
You can only do so much when creating a site, if it works equally in the three top browsers, then leave it at that. You can't write for last century browsers and keep your clients business site looking modern & up-to-the-minute at the same time.. well I couldn't/wouldn't.