Levels of HTML knowledge | 456 Berea Street
Popularity Report
![]() |
|||
![]() |
|||
![]() |
|||
![]() |
|||
![]() |
|||
![]() |
URL Tag Cloud
Bookmark History
Saved by 13 people (3 private), first by anonymouse user on 2006-07-24
- Bashford on 2008-03-27 - Tags css , funny , html , meme
- Elviscai on 2007-12-28 - Tags del.icio.us , design , html , imported
- Zomigi on 2007-08-21 - Tags funny , html , markup , webstandards , xhtml
- Pristine on 2007-08-15 - Tags no_tag
- Markpea on 2007-03-27 - Tags css , imported delicious , webdesign , webstandards , xhtml
Public Sticky notes
HTML Level 4
This level is where people start intentionally using doctypes. The first step is almost always a transitional doctype, often XHTML 1.0 Transitional. XHTML is more recent than HTML after all, so it’s got to be better, right? People at this level are also the biggest fans of XHTML 1.1, since they think a higher version number has to be better.
After hearing from someone that you shouldn’t use tables for layout, a lot of Level 4 people use div elements to recreate a table-like structure. This of course leads to tag soup being replaced by div mania, and a lot of presentational markup, classitis, and inline CSS are produced by people at this level.
Most web developers who have reached Level 4 are willing to keep learning, and they understand that there are advantages to the methods being promoted by web standards oriented blogs and books. But they haven’t yet grasped why those methods are better.
Typical quote:
How can I create a data table with divs and spans instead of tables?
Highlighted by pristine
I've read that there are 4 levels of competency for any subject:
- unconsciously incompetent
- consciously incompetent
- consciously competent
- unconsciously competent
Highlighted by pristine
In reality, there's a divergent track starting at Level 4 for web developers who deliver what their customers want instead of being slaves to purist expectations and producing perfect "semantic" code that almost nobody will appreciate. It's all about what your site looks like and how people use it. If people like your site and keep coming back, you've got a great site--there's no way around this. On the other hand, being technically perfect doesn't guarantee anything if your content sucks and there's nothing "sticky" on the site.
MySpace is a great example of what many designers would call a poorly designed site, but it delivers the goods and people seem to love it.
If you want to consider how technical enhancements to your site will really improve it, consider first how to 1) provide clear, contextual navigation around your site (difficulty of navigation is the #1 problem of websites in my experience); 2) enhance SEO as much as possible (multiple techniques for this); 3) give people something to do with other people (interactivity!). Perfect semantic markup is #99 or thereabouts.
Highlighted by pristine
The higher up the chain you get, the more boring your content gets and the more your "design" looks like a pained attempt at minimalism. "HTML knowledge" to me is not the goal, although it clearly is to a lot of "designers" -- it supplements more important issues.
Also, where's the soul? I looked at peoples' linked web sites and didn't find any.
Highlighted by pristine


Public Comment