Don't you just love overly verbose inane html code?

mord

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
377
I recently took over a somewhat large website to maintain, and update. It was created with a mix of technologies. Most of the design was done with fireworks, then sliced up and implemented through a CMS.

The site is full of stuff like this:

Code:
<table border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
  <tbody>
        <tr>
            <td class="tableRowHeader">
                <span class="paragraphTitle">
                  <strong>
                     text
                  </strong>
                </span>
             </td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
            <td bgcolor="#ffffff"></td>
        </tr>
   </tbody>
</table>

The tablerowheader class makes the font larger then the default, sets text color black.
the paragraphtitle class aligns the text to the left, and sets the text color to black.

I have seen no alignment other then left. All pages are set to default black text and a white background, though some tables/cells do have background colors.

So... all that code is pretty much the same as:
Code:
<h3>text</h3>


/sigh. There are a large number of pages. They are not paying for a redesign/rework, just updates to existing content and adding new pages. I hate to use the existing table templates and existing CSS (almost all CSS classes designate a width that is larger then the fixed width layouts, but are bound by parent table cells). I prefer CSS layout design. How would you feel about making a second CSS file for the new pages (same look) and leaving the old stuff as is? If it was 3-4 pages I might redo them no cost as part of the work, but this is 100+ existing pages.
 

Langford

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
1,339
The large original code is more primitive and unsightly, but in their defense, it probably displays reliably in old browsers.
 

mord

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
377
Yeah, I understand the idea of why the CMS works as it does. To bad it doesn't actually achieve that goal. It seems someone thought it would be neat to add in, up to date modern CSS in with the tables. The pages look good in IE 6 and 7. IE 5 and 5.5 have issues with the CSS. Firefox draws all kinds of borders all over the place. Older IE on MAC is a disaster. When the original website was done it was tested on IE6, and nothing else.

One of the update issues I did fix was the Firefox borders issue.
 

ameoba

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 9, 2001
Messages
6,413
Most of the design was done with fireworks, then sliced up and implemented through a CMS.

1st part is the source of your problem. 2nd part is where it should've been fixed.
 

mord

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
377
yeah on fireworks. It has its place, but the primary and soul design tool for a website would not be my first choice.

I don't claim to be an expert by any means. So far though I have gotten along pretty good using GIMP, paint.net, Nvu, and TopStyle lite. Though I do 95% in some plain text editor like Gedit or notepad.

O and I love Web developer toolbar and firebug for firefox. Though I have ran into bugs with firebug... no pun intended.
 

pedant

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
3,266
Are you being paid for maintenance?
If so, you should mention to 'them' that it requires a reworking & this will take time/money, however, it will allow faster development in the future & easier cross-browser compatability.
If they aren't willing to set aside budget for this, don't bother modify existing code unless it is small refactoring to ease your work.
It might take longer to get new stuff done, but you still bill at the same rate eh?
Seriously though, there is no point in putting loads of hours in to fix the site & then getting in trouble/having people shout at you because something isn't working or appearing as it should & it wasn't even an area you should have been working in.

Large refactorings/modifications have to be treated as separate task or series of tasks by all parties.
 

mord

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
377
O yeah, I bill hourly on this job. I am working at a slight discount since they agreed to commit to a set min hours per month contract.

I am lucky in that their is very little to no tie in from new pages back to the old pages except menu additions. Thats in mostly javascript and I can work with it easy enough.

I think I will leave the old pages as is, and do all the new pages with CSS based layout using a new CSS file.
 

jen4950

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 25, 2001
Messages
9,873
Are you being paid for maintenance?
If so, you should mention to 'them' that it requires a reworking & this will take time/money, however, it will allow faster development in the future & easier cross-browser compatability.
If they aren't willing to set aside budget for this, don't bother modify existing code unless it is small refactoring to ease your work.
It might take longer to get new stuff done, but you still bill at the same rate eh?
Seriously though, there is no point in putting loads of hours in to fix the site & then getting in trouble/having people shout at you because something isn't working or appearing as it should & it wasn't even an area you should have been working in.

Large refactorings/modifications have to be treated as separate task or series of tasks by all parties.


I agree- sounds like an add-service to me.

Gotta link to the existing site?
 

tskiller

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 16, 2005
Messages
1,075
You wanna see verbose inane html code? Make a simple page in microsoft publisher. You will have nightmares for weeks once you take a look at the source it spits out.
 

maxpower1119

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
151
You wanna see verbose inane html code? Make a simple page in microsoft publisher. You will have nightmares for weeks once you take a look at the source it spits out.

I have no web designing experience and made a page for my friends tv show in publisher. I am experiencing those nightmares now.
 
Top