Tutorial 1 was definitely an eye opener to me as to how the web is actually designed. I did not ever even pay attention to how much actually goes into designing even the most basic webpage. I can't even imagine what goes into the design of an extensive webpage. It really was interesting to become more familiar with Microsoft expression web and see learn the basic tags and how they affect how things are displayed in a web browser. I think that there still is a good future for web developers in the commercial design for companies. I think personal webpage design is becoming easier and more user friendly even for people who have no clue about web design with the new web design softwares that have been and are being created. The average Joe then doesn't have to have a clue about the HTML tags because the software will enter it for him. Now to the extent of what one can do with their webpage by simply using that software I'm sure is very limited. But I do think that those types of softwares have cut into a percentage of business for web developers. I know of several people myself who have dabbled in designing their own website by "easy software" for their small business, rather than pay hundreds of dollars to have one professionally done. But I do think there will always be a good demand within larger companies and their constant need for web creation and maintenance by a professional web developer.
Tutorial 2 was even more interesting as it started to show how you can link multiple pages together within your website as well as images to links, and external websites to links. It was fun to dabble around and be able to create a link within an image. The one thing that I found frustrating is I still don't have a clue how to control image size. I mean I understand the tag lines for the heighth and width ratios but I still don't know what numbers to choose for such and also how to do proper placement to get the image to display on a specific part of the screen to where you want it. But I am sure in time that will come.
From the research I have been looking at it states that HTML began as a simple way to transfer data across the internet for scientists and researchers with no publishing experience. As time went on presentations of the pages became more and more important and therefore more tags were created for the increasing complexity of the web pages. As www.yourhtmlsource.com states "Ideal HTML would be purely structural, with every element concerning how a page is displayed being controlled by a stylesheet." The W3C have made this more of the case by installing XHTML. As I read further to summarize what I learned, the previous versions of HTML had compatability issues with web browsers where with XHTML and its strict tag guidelines and strict language guidelines this has not been a problem. XHTML really took care of alot of those issues of people still using deprecated tags and really making up their own tags as they so desired. It's funny because as I looked to see the what articles were written on the future of XHTML I found it split almost kind of like a Apple vs Microsoft feeling. I found some developers say that HTML5 is the future and then others say that XHTML2 will be the future so to me I really could not get a good idea of which one would take a backseat to the other or if not at all.
In tutorials 3 and 4 I learned more about what CSS is and how it is a major benefit within the web designing world. The main benefit I see to CSS and what it entails as far as style sheets is that if you have a website with alot of pages it would be completely ufeasible to have to edit every page directly when you wanted to change things within the entire layout of the website. CSS allows you the ability to just change the styles within the CSS file which will then apply to all pages that have been linked to the CSS file. This is a very practical way to change things like colors, headings, font sizes and styles, borders, and much more within a website. In HTML you can assign a style to an individual element where CSS can be on a higher scale. The way I understand it HTML is the language in which the browsers will read things, and CSS is just a part of that language to apply changes within on a mass scale. From what I could find while researching on the interent CSS 2.1 is the current version that is readable by most browsers while there are plans in the future for a CSS 3.0 version.
I have enjoyed learning what I have learned so far about HTML and CSS but I must admit that within this realm I find much of the tags and coding to be overkill and I have had a hard time understanding why some of it is to made as complicated as it is. For example the "strong" tagline is to make something bold. Why couldn't they make it more of a simpler layout like Microsoft Word where there is just a simple "bold" button to click for all things wanted in bold. I am just using that as an example, and I am sure there is a reason to all of the madness, I just seen some of the reasons yet. But nonetheless, I have found things to be very interesting.
I guess what I took away from the article the most is that there is a lot more into web design than most people realize especially if you want to make a really good website. The author tries to encourage the reader by saying that one does not necessarily need to be an artis to design a website but I disagree. Unfortunately with the standards being set so high in today's web browsing world to make a a truly professional looking website, it does take quite a bit of artistic ability. The designer needs to not only be an expert with web code but also how to profesionally use photo editing and design programs such as Adobe because that is where the photos and art are created and edited. So you can have all the knowledge in the world about HTML and CSS, javascript, and such but unless you know how to also design really nice backgrounds and images and how to properly lay them out within the page then your website isn't going to look very good. At the same time that I did find all that he said is entailed in designing a good website I also found some of it not so interesting because I think the author emphasizes too many things to make the "perfect" page which I think could be narrowed down to a certain handful of things to remember instead when designing.
I guess what I took out of this article the most is the fact that within the field of web design there may be too much of a "perfectionist" personality required in order to be really good at professional website design. This is a quality that I must admit I do have with some things but then with other things I don't because I lack the patience to do so. When it goes into detail about the grid features and how the author mentions how his professor was the "grid nazi" that over emphasized perfection, that became a turn off to me. To me I think websites that I could design that aren't so technical would be much more of a preference than something of this sort. I would find myself cursing until the mid-morning hours trying to design something that technical for someone. Which I guess is why I've never really had any interest in architectural design which is quite similar in nature to what this article was emphasizing.