It's the biggest search engine, and one of the biggest internet companies in general, in existence.  It's revered as one of the most innovative and powerful means to information.  Heck, it's even become a verb.

Google.  No, no, this isn't a big plug for Google.com.  This is, however, a post to hopefully reveal just how powerful those <H1> tags really are, and how Google rates them up there with sliced bread.

It's no secret that Google uses a lot of measures to ensure the integrity of the pages that are linked by them.  At the very least, the pages that are seemingly the most pertinent to your search query are listed at the top of your results.  How does it do this?  Well, according to Google's Technology Overview:

"Google's search engine also analyzes page content. However, instead of simply scanning for page-based text (which can be manipulated by site publishers through meta-tags), Google's technology analyzes the full content of a page and factors in fonts, subdivisions and the precise location of each word. Google also analyzes the content of neighboring web pages to ensure the results returned are the most relevant to a user's query." (link)

Meta tags are a thing of the past.  Many of us have been guilty of fudging tags in order to get more visits.  Even things like saying, "Los Angeles Bakery, LA Bakery, Bakery in Los Angeles, Bakery in LA" and the like could be viewed by Google as a ruse.  Instead, Google ranks your pages by content, and furthermore, by how your content is arranged.

It's a tale as old as timer controllers.  In virtually any scripting language (with few exceptions) clean code is a necessity.  It allows you, not to mention anyone else misfortunate enough to muck through your code, to follow the structure more easily.  It also affords you the ability to more easily visualize the outcome of your code more often than not.  Clean code is a win-win situation, really.

Not to say there aren't draw backs.  Some people consider extra indentations and carriage returns to be inefficient and a prime example of, "wasted space".  I, on the other hand, find clean code, although it may add a few bytes to the file size of your text files, to be well worth this drawback.  If I can open mine, or someone else's, html code and follow the structure as easily as I wouild if I were looking at it rendered in a browser I would be very, very thankful.

I've been perusing TemplateMonster.com for just over a year now.  I usually just check out the flash templates and then go on my way, but recently, my favorite buzz word of all time caught my eye - CSS.

I actually get an e-mail from them anywhere from twice a day to once a week outlining the new templates that have made their way onto the product line.  You can, as with any Template Monster template, either purchase a copy of the template for a cheap price, or pay more to purchase the template itself (disallowing anyone else from purchasing it).  It was here that I first saw mention of the new CSS Based Templates.

Assuming you're in a room with fellow CSS Geeks (also assuming you're lucky enough to actually know other CSS Geeks, we're far between and few), ask any of them which browser should be used to render CSS correctly.  Most will say Firefox.  Few will say Opera, Safari or a handful of other browsers.  In this case, we'll yet again assume that the majority rules.

Mozilla Firefox has been put on the map for several reasons:

1. It's not Microsoft.

2. It's being updated regularly.

3. It supports all the things that IE doesn't.

4. It renders CSS almost perfectly.

It's true that it doesn't render perfectly.  Firefox isn't an absolute truth (sorry to break the news for those of you who have built Firefox shrines in your basements).  It does, however, boast a great deal of CSS prowess.

Well, the (arguably) best just got (arguably) better.  Riding on the whisps of wind caused by the wings of a bluebird are rumors of Deer Park Alpha 2.  It sounds like an elaborate military operation, but is, in fact, just an alpha of the next release of Firefox.

Hello, all.

Things have finally let up for me.  Sorry for the absence.  Welcome David Chartier!  It's nice to have a collegue with the CSS blog!

Anyhow - onto business.

With Firefox 1.0 being released and offering incredibly easy access to RSS (Real Simple Syndication) feeds (treating them like bookmark lists, where you can see each post in chronological order, and jump to any feed with a single click) and with Tiger's Safari now offering, "Safari RSS" that will render any XML / RSS feed as html (fully searchable, etc., definitely worth a look for you Mac Folks), everyone seems to want to get in on the RSS bandwagon.

Hmmm… it seems we're still looking into finding someone to help pick up the slack here at the css weblog.  I've been phenominally busy, trying to organize all the things in my day-to-day schedule and I think I may finally have a solution to keep posting on here.  It would still help tremendously to have someone else help out with the blog, though.  Keep your finger crossed.

Anyhow - if you don't know yet, you should.  IE7 IS going to ship, and it is going to make the web development/design community very happy.  I mean, not because you'll actually USE IE7, but with Windows Update delivering IE7 to everyone's doorstep automatically we can all finally let out a collaborative sigh of relief.  Can you imagine?  Alpha support with 24-bit PNG's, CSS2 compliance (which we can deal with until CSS3 comes out, then we'll all start complaining again).  Remember all those posts I made about hoping and wishing that M$ would take the hint and focus on how the browser renders, not just that it does securely?

Security is a big deal, yes, and blah blah blah, blah blah … blah blah!  Let's face it, we want to be able to spend more time desiging and less time holding IE's hand through simple CSS procedures!

So, this is tremendous news.  When is it shipping?  Well, you'll have to tune into Chris Wilson's Official IE Blog to keep up to date.  Suffice to say, it will happen long before Longhorn.

Talk to you guys real soon.

Until next time!

Resource: here.

"ARG!" you're thinking, "Where is the CSS Weblog???"

Well, the answer is simple… Weblogs Inc. is bringing on someone else to help out with this blog.  My schedule doesn't permit me to post as often as they need me to.  I will still post as often as I can, but they're looking for someone to take up the slack and keep things running smoothly.  The CSS Weblog may soon be similar to Engadget, Autoblog and many many others where multiple contributors keep the weblog running smoothly.

I know it's really inconvenient having to wait as long as you guys have for consistent posts.  I have no interest at all in dropping out of helping run this blog, I simply need someone to help keep it going and keep new content coming!

In the mean time, I want to make sure you guys have plenty to wet your CSS appetites, and every once in a while, give you a three course meal.  Well, the hearty meal is coming soon, but here's an appetizer:

Recognition of the Adobe / Macromedia merger / takeover.

One of the things that makes CSS so great is the way you can swap out your color scheme with one, simple file change.  It's definitely not a new concept, but it's one of the most used ones for sure.

The only problem with the technique is that you often have to change many different properties in order to change your color scheme.  If you have a header and a footer that are the same color, for instance, you'll usually have to change the color of both elements' backgrounds.  That is, of course, unless you use the color coding technique.

Let's start from the beginning, though.

What color coding really entails is changing your perspective on your elements.  It's not so much a matter of which element is which color, but what color code you specify for them.  You can setup a class of, "red", for instance, and anything that refers to that class will have that background color.  You can have multiple elements refer to the same color.

It seems like an overly elaborate way to take control with CSS over a site you have no control over, but then again, the sheer concept is enough to make a brave man weep.

Gmail.  Google.  The big, "G".  Not synonymous with Web Standard layouts at all.  It's pretty sad, really, that sometimes they even make it LOOK like a site is CSS-Based without actually making it CSS Based.  They want to keep their stuff clean, fast loading and low bandwidth, but they still insist on cluttered code and <TABLE>s, <TABLE>s and more <TABLE>s.  It's sad, really.

At least, in one way, we can take back the G.  Many of us have been enjoying GMail for quite some time (those of us with friends who had invitations).  We've learned to wield our GMail address like a yuppy wields their iPod.  We were proud to give out the address, regardless whether it was personal or professional.  We wanted everyone to see that we were in the know.  We are one of THEM.

I try not to refer to too many of these sites (CSS experimentation sites), but sometimes I come across one that's just too good to keep to myself.

It not exactly famous, but it's not exactly unknown.  Which site am I refering to?  Newt Edge.

What sets it apart, for me, from all the others is the originality of it all.  A lot of CSS Experimentation sites focus on the same basic things: pushing the envelope to see how far it will go.  Not that this isn't incredibly interesting and exciting, but we often find ourselves asking about practicality.  These envelope pushing experiments are often left just as that, due to incompatibility with all major web browsers… and for good reason, that's the point of them!

However, when a site like Newt Edge comes around, where it pushes new, practical concepts into the limelight, people have to stop and take notice.  Not selling you on the idea?  Let me name some examples:

1. 32-bit PNG degradability in IE (without CSS hacks or Javascript)

2. Hiding email address from spambots

3. CSS based banner ads (low bandwidth, low impact, etc.)

See?  Very innovative and interesting topics.  The site caters to Beginners and Veterans because it doesn't feautre extreme CSS code, it simply features extreme ideas delievered by simple CSS.  It's pretty incredible.

I'd be very much surpised if you walk away from their site not raising an eyebrow or two.

Until next time!

Resource: here.