Someone asked me for help learning HTML today. I turned to my trusted traditional source, the good old primer at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois, but alas, it has finally been removed after all these years. This was one of the major how-to guides in the early years of the web, and it's the very guide that I used to teach myself HTML one weekend in 1996, from which this very site you're reading has since evolved. I was surprised it lasted so long, but over the years I have recommended it to a great many people interested in web development, including as recently as this past spring. It had such a comfortable lay-terms approach while most other guides are hopelessly technical, and that's silly since HTML is a very accessible, easy-to-use language and anybody should be able to pick it up, but maybe I only think that because I had a good guide to teach me. Thanks for everything, NCSA.


Two Replies to So Long, NCSA Primer

Amy Austin | August 30, 2006
Hm, that's too bad -- but there are three re-directs offered, which leads me to wonder how your estimation of these alternatives compares to your Old Faithful...

Scott Hardie | August 30, 2006
W3Schools has always been my second recommendation. It's highly technically specific and you can find the precise syntax requirements you need – but they're just not good at explaining it on a conceptual level so that someone just starting out can see the forest for the trees. php.net has the same problem for the php language: Technically precise, but almost zero context that would foster understanding.

As for the others, I guess I'll have to get familiar with them so I know other good places to send someone from now on.


Logical Operator

The creator of Funeratic, Scott Hardie, blogs about running this site, losing weight, and other passions including his wife Kelly, his friends, movies, gaming, and Florida. Read more »

Flow Charts

Meet the marriage of rap music and Microsoft Office: (link) Why do I have the feeling Herbert Kornfeld made some of these? Thanks, Marlon. Go »

Upsetting the Pace

Gen. Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on homosexuality (link): "I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts... I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way." Go »

Eschew Obfuscation

For any FIN players wondering where in the hell the game is: I used my little free time over last weekend writing a mini-post – three whopping paragraphs – and at the end of the weekend I just couldn't bear to publish it so short. (The title of this post was the planned title of that post.) I have now rearranged my social so that weekends are more free, and one thing I plan to do with the time is resume writing FIN, starting this weekend by expanding my three paragraphs into more like three pages. Go »

Difficult Should Be a Walk in the Park

They say that a bone marrow biopsy is the most painful kind of biopsy that you can get, but I found one that's worse: Starting a bone marrow biopsy, stopping partway through because the power went out, lying there for thirty minutes until the lights come back on, then resetting and starting all over again from the beginning. Zero stars, would not recommend. I'm hobbling around today. Go »

Windbag

I don't know what Polaroids he has of whom, but somehow Tom Skilling has elevated himself to some kind of all-important weather-broadcasting god. When I grew up in Chicago, I watched him gradually get a bigger and bigger budget for his animated graphics, and gradually get a larger and larger timeframe to deliver his dull reports. By the time I left town, he had a whole 20 minutes of the hour-long midday newscast for the fucking weather, and boy did he find trivia to fill it: Average dew points across Cook County on this day in 1854, theta-e temperature predictions for every Cubs home game next season, you name it. Go »

All King and No Kubrick Make Jack a Dull Boy

I recently got to talking with friends who liked The Shining, both Stephen King's novel and Stanley Kubrick's film adaptation of it, but who were unaware that King has always loathed the movie, despite its reputation as one of the best horror films ever made. It's hard to imagine that a writer doesn't know his own work better than someone interpreting it, but I think this is one of those rare cases where the writer is just too close to the story to get it. Here are three reasons why I think Kubrick's film better understands the material, and is better overall, than King's novel: 1) In King's version, Jack Torrance is a fundamentally decent man who wouldn't hurt a fly, but who is down on his luck and desperate. Go »