|
|
Unit 15
May 15, 2016 19:39:10 GMT -8
Post by alincoln0761 on May 15, 2016 19:39:10 GMT -8
URL: gc.palomar.edu/32950/32950alincoln0761/project/index.htmlSo as you can see the layout and color scheme is different from the plan. This is the basic layout that is still lacking in terms of style, however it provides the basics such as the header, main content and footer. Footer will likely be adjusted in the future. |
|
|
|
Unit 15
May 17, 2016 22:06:55 GMT -8
Post by Judy Fontanella on May 17, 2016 22:06:55 GMT -8
Oh - so sad. You are supposed to be doing your own layout with html and css - not using a framework or premade design. We've spend an entire semester studying how to do our own css for a layout. This is supposed to show that you know how to do that.
|
|
|
|
Unit 15
May 17, 2016 22:20:21 GMT -8
Post by alincoln0761 on May 17, 2016 22:20:21 GMT -8
I'm not using any framework or premade design...how did you come to that conclusion? I've been using the same tools as I've been using since the beginning of the semester.
|
|
|
|
Unit 15
May 17, 2016 22:24:31 GMT -8
Post by alincoln0761 on May 17, 2016 22:24:31 GMT -8
I've been looking at other sites for ideas and trying out a layout I thought would look semi-professional, using colors I found.
|
|
|
|
Unit 15
May 17, 2016 22:28:14 GMT -8
Post by Judy Fontanella on May 17, 2016 22:28:14 GMT -8
I came to that conclusion because of the CSS. I looked it up on the Web. It says it's a framework.
|
|
|
|
Unit 15
May 17, 2016 22:30:12 GMT -8
Post by alincoln0761 on May 17, 2016 22:30:12 GMT -8
That's probably because of the icon CSS used - ionicons.com/. Does that count against me for using icons? I'm not sure. EDIT: OK, so I looked again and the only framework being used is for icon assets (which is supplemental like images). I have proof all my code is mine aside from that. If using icons was not allowed, I wasn't aware and I apologize. I'll remove them if necessary. This is a really simple misunderstanding and I hope we can resolve this. |
|
|
|
Unit 15
May 18, 2016 11:38:18 GMT -8
Post by Judy Fontanella on May 18, 2016 11:38:18 GMT -8
Yes. Just remove the ionicons.min.css file and be sure to do everything else on your own. That should be fine.
I noticed that you used the main element for your content. I haven't used it much, because w3schools.com says that it's not supported until EI 12. I just tested in IE 11.*** and the page looked OK. If you are going to publish this site, I'd be careful to test in versions of IE that are still out there. I think that the other browsers have supported it for awhile.
I do like the look of your site, by the way. Looking good.
|
|
|
|
Unit 15
May 18, 2016 14:44:36 GMT -8
Post by alincoln0761 on May 18, 2016 14:44:36 GMT -8
While I don't see the harm of having icon CSS (which are technically only custom fonts), I have removed them per your request. I want to try to keep my HTML as semantic as possible (hence the use of main), supporting the last two versions of IE (11, and 12). I understand that main is not supported in IE11 as of yet, however according to the docs once the role attribute is implemented it should be able to understand the semantic meaning. See below. According to the MDN doc: (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/main) The <main> element is widely supported. For Internet Explorer 11 and below, it is suggested that an aria role of "main" be added to the <main> element to ensure it is accessible (screen readers like JAWS, used in combination with older versions of Internet Explorer will be able to understand the semantic meaning of the <main> element once this role attribute is included). I also looked at stackoverflow and found a quick workaround for the <main> tag to be styled correctly: stackoverflow.com/questions/20094276/ie11-is-missing-user-agent-style-for-main-element-display-block. I added both the role attribute and the default style. I'm going to re-submit the assignment for a re-check as I hope I can get credit for my work. |
|
|
|
Unit 15
May 18, 2016 20:31:42 GMT -8
Post by Judy Fontanella on May 18, 2016 20:31:42 GMT -8
Super. Your page looks great. You're good to go there. I didn't mean for you to have to defend using the main element. I agree that it's much more semantically correct that what we've had so far. Great to have. I just meant that if you are going to use it for a real site, it would be prudent to test carefully in all of the browsers in current use. Better to be safe than embarrassed.
|
|
