New Evolution Education Website [Archive]

View Full Version : New Evolution Education Website

EvoEdu

6th March 2009, 01:34 PM

Yuri Nalyssus

6th March 2009, 03:28 PM

Hey, guys. I'm the webmaster at the evolution education website EvoEdu.com. I've been lurking here for a while (without registering), and I thought you folks might be interested. EvoEdu explains evolution in a way that a layman can actually understand. We go over what evolution is and how it works, some of the evidence for it, and whether the arguments against it hold up. We've also got this material available in MP3, and we're doing regular updates. Just thought you might be interested!
Good website and it seems to have some sound, basic info. There's a real need for this sort of stuff to be out there in the public domain, I admire your energy!

The main page looks a bit wierd on my browser (IE6) though.

Yuri

666

6th March 2009, 03:34 PM

Hi Tristan. Nice clean-looking site. LINKY (http://www.EvoEdu.com)

LarianLeQuella

6th March 2009, 04:34 PM

Thank you for your work

Prepare for your Irony Meter to get pegged though: CENTAF blocks this site because it is considered "Educational"... WTF, the AF doesn't want me exposed to education? :rolleyes:

EvoEdu

7th March 2009, 11:17 AM

Good website and it seems to have some sound, basic info. There's a real need for this sort of stuff to be out there in the public domain, I admire your energy!

The main page looks a bit wierd on my browser (IE6) though.

Yuri

Yeah. Looks truly bizarre in IE6. Not sure why – I'm not much of a programmer. Looks fine in IE7, though, so I'm not particularly concerned.

Thank you for the kind words, all, and be sure to tell your friends!

Yuri Nalyssus

7th March 2009, 01:54 PM

Yeah. Looks truly bizarre in IE6. Not sure why – I'm not much of a programmer. Looks fine in IE7, though, so I'm not particularly concerned.
Well you should be concerned if you want to get your message across.

Any half decent web designer should have tested their site against all current varieties of browsers, microsoft or not, latest releases or not and might consider showing concern rather than dismissal when constructive criticism is offered.

Yuri

Travis

7th March 2009, 08:29 PM

athon

7th March 2009, 08:54 PM

Well you should be concerned if you want to get your message across.

Any half decent web designer should have tested their site against all current varieties of browsers, microsoft or not, latest releases or not and might consider showing concern rather than dismissal when constructive criticism is offered.

Yuri

While I can appreciate the criticism (I also run a web-based science education program, and agree it's important to have the material run well on all formats), I also think this was a little judgemental. Phrasing it nicer might have won a little more favour.

EvoEdu, I run a science e-newsletter here in Australia aimed at kids and teachers. If I have room in the next few weeks, I'll tout it. Nice site. It might pay to reconsider Yuri's advice, though; there's a lot of people (and, importantly, schools) that use older browsers.

Athon

Wowbagger

7th March 2009, 09:02 PM

Reads like a good, solid first draft!
Two suggestions:
1. Some of the wording could be altered to make it easier for religious folks to swallow. For example, you could mention that evolution is functionally agnostic whether god exists or not. God might not be necessary for evolution, but that does not necessarily mean that god could not possibly exist.
And, I could probably come up with a few more areas where the wording could be improved. I think some folks won't "buy" some of the stuff you've written, the way you have written.

2. One of the best ways to know if a science is accurate or not, is to see if any technologies that rely on it work or not. You might want to summarize areas where evolution has made a substanial impact on our lives, like this site: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=47

EvoEdu

9th March 2009, 12:37 AM

Well you should be concerned if you want to get your message across.

Any half decent web designer should have tested their site against all current varieties of browsers, microsoft or not, latest releases or not and might consider showing concern rather than dismissal when constructive criticism is offered.

Yuri

I'm surprised I've gotten it up and running in FF, let alone IE7. To ask me to figure it out in IE6, while it would be nice, is asking too much. To ask me to fix it would be well-nigh asking for a miracle.

I did not intend to simply dismiss you - if you got that impression I'm sorry. All I'm saying is that most folks use IE7, and I'm not troubled if it doesn't work in IE6.

six7s

9th March 2009, 02:47 AM

All I'm saying is that most folks use IE7, and I'm not troubled if it doesn't work in IE6.I see on your friends page (http://www.evoedu.com/friends.html) that you link to freewebsitetemplates.com, and guess that layout was a significant issue in the development of your site, which is well done :)

However, focusing on the 'current most popular' (ie IE) is a recipe for never-ending maintenance :(

Instead, I suggest you focus on HTML (20 errors) (http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.evoedu.com%2F&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0) and CSS (5 warnings) (http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.evoedu.com%2F&profile=css21&usermedium=all&warning=1&lang=en) standards; an approach that will optimise the chances of your content being presented in a way that works on all formats (browsers, phones, printers, screen-readers, etc (http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/media.html#media-types)) past, present and future :D

If templates are your bag, you might find it worthwhile to at least have a look at ClevaTreva's CSS Source Ordered 1-3 Columned Page Maker v2.90 (http://www.positioniseverything.net/articles/pie-maker/pagemaker_2_9_home.html)

Features:

Source Ordered Layout (Content First).
Substantial x-browser support in one design.
100% page height design (except MAC IE 5.x, which is fluid height instead). Fluid height version soon.
No images used to make layout (unless you add your own 3D effects).
Fully customisable by user from online form (makes the css for you).
Heavily commented css and source code to explain design.
User can select from various Doctypes to use.
On line Tooltips to explain the form.
Uses source code ideas from Paul O'Brien, Big John, and loads of others, plus lots of ideas of my own!
Allows multiple header and footer rows.
Centered/Left Aligned fix-width design (fluid width design may come later), user sets the widths of all columns.
Top and Bottom margins (shows background color) now possible within the 100% height.
It's FREE.

ETA:
You might like to read Why most of us should NOT use XHTML (http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum21/12026.htm), too

Yuri Nalyssus

9th March 2009, 09:42 AM

I'm surprised I've gotten it up and running in FF, let alone IE7. To ask me to figure it out in IE6, while it would be nice, is asking too much. To ask me to fix it would be well-nigh asking for a miracle.

I did not intend to simply dismiss you - if you got that impression I'm sorry. All I'm saying is that most folks use IE7, and I'm not troubled if it doesn't work in IE6.
OK, then this has been a misundrestanding and I'm sorry to have "gone off on one" on the basis of a perceived slight which wasn't intended.

I still think you should take the advice about IE6 though :D.

Yuri

Morrigan

9th March 2009, 10:28 AM

IE6 can die in a fire. I don't blame the webmaster for not wanting to support that old, outdated piece of crap.

six7s

9th March 2009, 12:32 PM

Klimax

10th March 2009, 02:09 AM

IE6 can die in a fire. I don't blame the webmaster for not wanting to support that old, outdated piece of crap.

Sadly,there are still ITs who are keeping it alive though IE7 is out for a longer time and IE8 will be soon released as well.
(IE6 was not bad,quite stable,but not updated for standards)

Blame corporations...

Morrigan

10th March 2009, 07:45 AM

Old, outdated piece of crap that accounts for 18.5% of the geek market (http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp)

Heh, on my own site at least, usage of IE6 is minimal - well below 10%. Firefox usage was up to 40% at some point, and Opera got as high as 5%. Perhaps it helps that I discreetly plug Firefox on my main page? Who knows. All I know is that as I am developing my site's v2, I am NOT supporting IE6, and I don't care if I lose some visitors. My site is incredibly useful to my visitors so they'll upgrade or they'll get lost. :)

six7s

10th March 2009, 12:09 PM

My site is incredibly useful to my visitors so they'll upgrade or they'll get lost. :)Or, depending upon where you and/or they live, maybe they'll just sue your arse...

WebAIM: Introduction to Laws Throughout the World (http://www.webaim.org/articles/laws/world/)
Something to Think About...

...With the Internet becoming a more important part of society throughout the world, many countries are recognizing and acting upon the need to ensure access to the web for people with disabilities.

It seems as if each nation is taking a slightly different approach to the problem of Internet access for people with disabilities. Some have established laws that provide human or civil rights. Others, like the United States, have addressed the access issue through the technology procurement process. One fairly common approach throughout the world is for nations to support and adopt the Web accessibility guidelines (WCAG 1.0) created by the WAI.

The following sections of this article cover key laws, documents, and events that relate to web accessibility in many countries and regions throughout the world.

w3.org/WAI/ Policies Relating to Web Accessibility (http://www.w3.org/WAI/Policy/#Introduction)
Introduction

The Web's emergence as a pivotal form of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) raises interesting questions about application of existing laws and policies to this new medium, and the importance of all members of society, including people with disabilities, being able to access this information medium.

There is a growing body of national laws and policies which address accessibility of ICT, including the Internet and the Web. There is also great variety of approaches among these laws and policies: some take the approach of establishing a human or civil right to ICT; others the approach that any ICT purchased by government must be accessible; others that any ICT sold in a given market must be accessible; and there are still other approaches.

The links on this page provide a starting point for locating information on government policies relating to Web accessibility in different countries around the world. Information linked from this page may include laws, regulations, policies, directives, government-related standards or guidelines, or implementation guidance which relates to Web accessibility, as well as government speeches, press releases, etc. <snip/> Since legal practices, and terminology regarding legal practices, vary from country to country, categorization of information on this page is approximate, not definitive.<snip/>

LarianLeQuella

23rd March 2009, 08:21 PM

I still like the site in the OP.

Wonder what my site looks like in crap browsers? I know that it looks great in FireFox. I just could never get that transparency to work on IE.

six7s

23rd March 2009, 08:35 PM

Wonder what my site looks like ...Check out browsershots.org (http://browsershots.org/)

Mission Statement
In our dreams, the web looks good for all users. So we let web designers view screenshots of their pages in different browsers, at different screen resolutions and with different plugins. We're trying to make this service easy to use, open for all (including access to the source code) and 100% free, as in free beer.

The problem: cross-browser incompatibilities

This project is concerned with a favorite problem of web designers: websites look different in other browsers. Testing a new site in many browsers can be quite time-consuming. Not everybody has a farm of legacy machines with older OSes and browsers. There are online services that offer screenshots of websites in different browsers for considerable fees. For the hobbyist and for open source projects, these fees may be prohibitive.

The solution: community cooperation

The idea behind this project is to distribute the work of making browser screenshots among community members. Everybody can add URLs to the job queue on a central server. Volunteers use a small program to automatically make screenshots of web pages in their browser and upload the results to the server.<snip/>

Klimax

25th March 2009, 01:05 AM

I still like the site in the OP.

Wonder what my site looks like in crap browsers? I know that it looks great in FireFox. I just could never get that transparency to work on IE.

It's possible to include:
-ms-filter:"progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.Alpha(opacity=50 )";

Will be parsed only by IE8 and should be closest to CSS3 opacity
More:
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2009/02/19/the-css-corner-using-filters-in-ie8.aspx
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2008/09/08/microsoft-css-vendor-extensions.aspx

Not best,but should work well.(Other browsers should ignore)
And be sure to set CompatibilityMode to IE8(force it)
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2008/06/10/introducing-ie-emulateie7.aspx
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2009/02/16/just-the-facts-recap-of-compatibility-view.aspx

six7s

25th March 2009, 10:58 AM

Klimax

25th March 2009, 12:50 PM

I see that the 'home page' is now valid XHTML 1.0 Strict

However... there are still unresolved bugs...
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri evoedu.com/learn.html : 24 Errors (http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.evoedu.com%2Flearn.html&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0&user-agent=W3C_Validator%2F1.606)

http://www.evoedu.com/

@EvoEdu:
In my post above, I gave you what I thought was an unambiguous 'heads up' by linking to a WebmasterWorld forum discussion (http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum21/12026.htm) on Ian Hickson's Sending XHTML as text/html Considered Harmful (http://hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml)

Less subtly:
You are wasting your time and energy trying (needlessly) to serve up your site as XHTML

As your site is still quite small, converting to HTML4 STRICT will be relatively quick and easy (note: br and img tags are not self-closing in HTML4)

I read part of referenced text,but as far as I have seen from IE7 to IE8 there is no problem as browser partially ignores MIME type and looks into content and attempts to decide what it is,then and only then if it fails it will use MIME type.There is in advanced configuration switch to choose behaviour,but default is content guess.And both do support XHTML with text/html.
And as long as site validates and scripts are properly done,no problem is be expected.(apart from browser bugs.)

So I'd keep XHTML so long as nobody cares about outdated browsers.(I have dropped IE6>=)Support for it will be so or so dropped and it's fault of user/IT staff...

six7s

25th March 2009, 01:23 PM

So I'd keep XHTML Serious question: why?

Klimax

25th March 2009, 02:05 PM

Serious question: why?

If done correctly (and from your comment,looks so) there is no problem at this time.Users of FF,Opera and Safara moved on new version and IE7 and 8 are there as well,they only miss official support for xml+xhtml,but display and process xhtml just well and original author recognized that it is bit outdated,so I wouldn't base my decision on that text.
(And validator is very strict,using XML parser,so I think he is safe in that regard!)

six7s

25th March 2009, 02:13 PM

Eos of the Eons

25th March 2009, 10:23 PM

Love the site. I find the brown font on the brownish background a little hard on the eyes though. Or is it grey font on brownish background? I'm going to copy and paste it into word though... We need more information like this on the internet. It should be there for the public. I had to pay tens of thousands of dollars in the nineties to find this stuff out in college. I need this refresher though, thank you.

Eos of the Eons

25th March 2009, 10:26 PM

Hey, you should post a new thread here the next time you start a new contest, I'm sure it would get some attention.

Klimax

26th March 2009, 01:38 AM

Ermmmm....

OK..........

But, bearing in mind that there seems to be absolutely no need nor attempt to eXtend the HTML, why advocate persisting - erroneously - with XHTML, when HTML is the obvious doctype to use?

Well,XHTML 1.1 is not that much extension as xml version of html.
My counter question,why obviously?

It has one advantage for browser,they don't have to parse bad code,but instead they have xml parser and then it is easier to understand and display such page.

No,if it shows on IE7+,FF,Opera,... then no need to use html.(And you can try switching MIME type for tests to se if there will be problem,maybe meta tag htttp-equiv?)

six7s

26th March 2009, 10:42 AM

My counter question,why obviously?Its written in HTML
Its delivered as HTML
Its parsed (poorly) as HTML
Its rendered (badly) as HTML

There is NO eXtensibility used
There is NO eXtensibility required

It has one advantage for browser,they don't have to parse bad code,but instead they have xml parser and then it is easier to understand and display such page.Huh? If you really do know what you are talking about here, please do rephrase your words
(No offense intended when I say that I don't understand and can't tell if its simply bollocks and/or there's some subtle points being lost in translation, so to speak)

No,if it shows on IE7+,FF,Opera,... then no need to use html.You really do have this back to front

Have you actually read Ian Hickson's Sending XHTML as text/html Considered Harmful (http://hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml)?

I know I keep banging on about his 'advocacy' article, but I think that I am not resorting to a fallacious Appeal to Misleading Authority, simply because - in my eyes - Hickson's CV (http://ian.hixie.ch/career/resume.html) reads like an idealistic job description

And...

Even if I'm mistaken about Hickson's credentials...

There's absolutely NO reason to suggest that the OP's site should be written in anything other than HTML

ravdin

26th March 2009, 12:20 PM

I took a look at the source and the HTML seems to be well formed (no missing end tags, for example). I think the problem is in the way the div tags are arranged on the page. The rounded corners just below the menu are in the HTML just before the left side of the content (with the picture), followed by the content itself. The CSS seems to be hacked together to make it work, which IE7 and Firefox know how to deal with but IE6 can't.

If you want it to work with IE6, I'd probably redo the entire layout. Divide the left side of the page and the right side of the page into separate parts, and do each part individually (that way, you won't have to do anything weird to make your rounded corners appear in the right place).

As for the content itself- cool site, very nice!

Klimax

26th March 2009, 01:18 PM

Its written in HTML
Its delivered as HTML
Its parsed (poorly) as HTML
Its rendered (badly) as HTML

There is NO eXtensibility used
There is NO eXtensibility required

I SAID XHTML is HTML in XML!
And XHTML strict is nearly same as HTML strict.Only few more tags were depreciated and few more rules were added,but none of them makes XHTML undisplayable (with text/html) or makes problems with transition to app/xml+xhtml.

Huh? If you really do know what you are talking about here, please do rephrase your words
(No offense intended when I say that I don't understand and can't tell if its simply bollocks and/or there's some subtle points being lost in translation, so to speak)

I said that browser(agent) does not have to employ various methods for understanding often badly done code.In fact that was main reason for XHTML in the first place!Look at history of HTML and proprietary extensions by MS and Netscape and absolute atrocities by would-be coders!(and tools)

You really do have this back to front

I meant.Does it show as intended?Is it valid as XHTML 1.1?Is any browser from IE8+,FF3 and Opera able to render it correctly?Then there is no problem.
(text/html is compatibility for IE as IE ignores MIME and does not recognise app/xml+xhtml)

Have you actually read Ian Hickson's Sending XHTML as text/html Considered Harmful (http://hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml)?

Just one thing:
Preface
-------

This document is somewhat out of date, and has been somewhat overtaken
by events, though the core message (don't send XML as text/html) still
holds. My recommendation now would be to just use HTML5; it's simpler
to use (e.g. the DOCTYPE is just "<!DOCTYPE HTML>"), it has allows
XML-like syntax in the same places that XHTML 1.0 Appendix C did
(e.g. you can say <br/> instead of just <br>), and it has well-defined
processing rules, unlike earlier versions of HTML and XHTML.

Some of problems can exist,but only if coder is bad and will not check against validator.As far as I can say:In chapter Myths first three points are no longer valid as MS fixed it in IE7.No problem.
Next chapter:No tag-soup in IE.Strict mode applied.

I know I keep banging on about his 'advocacy' article, but I think that I am not resorting to a fallacious Appeal to Misleading Authority, simply because - in my eyes - Hickson's CV (http://ian.hixie.ch/career/resume.html) reads like an idealistic job description

And...

Even if I'm mistaken about Hickson's credentials...

There's absolutely NO reason to suggest that the OP's site should be written in anything other than HTML

Something looks wrong with linked "test" site in his document.(I suspect that few more lines are missing.)However I cannot get validator to check it.(404)

Well,it is your opinion and I have mine and in this field and with comparsoin between HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.1 it is just pointles debate.

--
Addenum:
Looks like I had some comprehension problem.It looks like IE7&8 renders XHTML document as HTML-compatible in strict mode.So there I was bit wrong.(fuzzy memory enhanced by lessons at uni...)

However as I said as long as validator is good with it,take it and xml will keep you "honest" even you use text/html with ability to switch into xml+xhtml mode.

FTW:I use at sites I maintain recomended decl.:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="windows-1250"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">

Crap.Just noticed that I was going about XHTML 1.0 not 1.1 ...
(Looks like I have worse memory then is usual :o )

Sight.Majority of my points vanished during check... Hopefully I did not leave anymore of them.

EvoEdu

29th March 2009, 11:35 PM

All this talk about HTML, XHTML, this that and the other thing... I have no idea what any of it means. None. Period. I cobbled this site together using a book written in the 90s. I am barely literate in HTML, and am shocked that I got this far. Honestly, virtually everything pertaining to code above me is complete and utter gibberish to me. I'm sorry. I know folks have put a lot of work into those posts. I know folks mean well (especially six7s), but they're just not helpful.

As for color issues, you're the first person who's mentioned them, but I have both .doc and .rtf files available at the top of the page.

And just as a "yay me!" statement: 195 downloads of my audio versions so far! It's not much by internet standards, but it's enough to make me feel that it's been worth the time and effort.

six7s

30th March 2009, 12:05 AM

EvoEdu

30th March 2009, 12:09 AM

Hiya!

I'm sure you know - but I'll say it anyway - I think that your content is superb - so good it merits reaching as wide an audience as possible - and adhering to standards is the most efficient approach to realising that goal

If there's an affordable web-geek in your midst, find them and engage them to work on your presentation, whilst you focus on content

*Thinks hard* That's actually a really good idea. This has been a one-man show for approaching a year now (most of that time spent writing the Learn page). It never really occurred to me to find a buddy who knows coding and say "Hey! You want to help something cool?"

EvoEdu

3rd April 2009, 09:19 AM

*wonders if a double post counts if there's a week between posts*

I want to increase my site traffic (hell, doesn't everybody?) and I think a good way to do this is through Google ads. However, I'm on a student's budget – I'm splurging by paying for necessities like bandwidth. Does anybody know of any micro-grants that I might qualify for? I figure somebody's gotta have money available for popularizing science.

six7s

3rd April 2009, 11:17 AM

I want to increase my site traffic (hell, doesn't everybody?) and I think a good way to do this is through Google ads.I think you've got the cart before the horse...

Ads generate revenue

High quality content generates in-bound links and word-of-mouth, both of which increase site traffic

High quality content and in-bound links increase SERP rankings (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&q=serps+%22content+is+king%22+%22linking+is+queen% 22&btnG=Search)

Get it right and you spiral up to the point where implementing ads is a viable proposition; although ads can be annoying, they can also be acceptable if they are unobtrusive on a site with high-quality content

Klimax

3rd April 2009, 10:18 PM

I think you've got the cart before the horse...

Ads generate revenue

High quality content generates in-bound links and word-of-mouth, both of which increase site traffic

High quality content and in-bound links increase SERP rankings (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&q=serps+%22content+is+king%22+%22linking+is+queen% 22&btnG=Search)

Get it right and you spiral up to the point where implementing ads is a viable proposition; although ads can be annoying, they can also be acceptable if they are unobtrusive on a site with high-quality content

I think EvoEdu wants to advertise not to have on-site ads.

six7s

3rd April 2009, 10:31 PM

I think EvoEdu wants to advertise not to have on-site ads.Ahaaa! Now that I re-read his post, I reckon you might be right

:o

If so, I'd suggest caution: Speculate to accumulate doesn't apply here

Paying for advertising can be money well spent... if you're in a competitive niche

However, as www.evoedu.com (http://www.evoedu.com/) currently has nothing for sale, such expenditure won't be (directly) recouped

EvoEdu

4th April 2009, 02:17 PM

Ahaaa! Now that I re-read his post, I reckon you might be right

:o

If so, I'd suggest caution: Speculate to accumulate doesn't apply here

Paying for advertising can be money well spent... if you're in a competitive niche

However, as EvoEdu currently has nothing for sale, such expenditure won't be (directly) recouped

The point is not to make money. The point is to increase traffic. The more traffic is increased, the more people will tell their friends about the site, the more people will read it, and the more people will get educated.

six7s

4th April 2009, 02:38 PM

The point is to increase trafficAnd my (clumsy) point is that, for the moment, it might be best to assign a low priority to the issue of advertising, which is a complicated business transaction - requiring frequent evaluations

How about trying to find a sympathetic philanthropist? A simple you give me $X and I'll do my best to spend it wisely with no strings, no expectations of them making a financial return on investment...