Lay off W3Schools

Except w3schools isn't approachable and it isn't for beginners. It's jargon loaded and filled with a bunch of information that means <i>nothing</i> to beginners.<p>Let's look the page for explaining 'div': <a href="http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_div.asp" rel="nofollow">http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_div.asp</a><p>"The &#60;div&#62; tag defines a division or a section in an HTML document.<p>The &#60;div&#62; tag is used to group block-elements to format them with styles."<p>Oh, I get it. Its for grouping block-elements(??) to format them with styles(??).<p>The above is followed by this fantastic tip: "Tip: The &#60;div&#62; element is very often used together with CSS, to layout a web page."<p>Looking at their "examples" its an in-browser html editor with un-annotated code that makes a table suitable for the web circa 1995.<p>Then it trails off in to sparse definitions of the attributes for the div tag with an excessive amount of discussion about web standards compatibility.<p>Normally I wouldn't gripe about an awful tutorial site but w3schools consistently ranks high in google queries for questions about html tags. Personally I've never left w3schools with an answer to the question that led me there. That signals to me that it is indeed a failure.

&#62; "...Some folks have started voicing hostile opinions..."<p>A little late to the game, there.<p>This post ignores two important points:<p>1. There <i>are</i> a lot of much better sites out there (linked to from W3Fools, even). Selectively highlighting a single post is misleading.<p>2. W3Fools is not so much for the benefit of W3Schools, but for people who <i>link</i> to W3Schools as reference in blog posts, SO answers, etc. There are lots of great reference sites (MDN!) that provide much better material, but circumstances have given W3Schools a lot of GoogleFu. That needs to change.

&#62; <i>W3Schools has already announced that it's content should be used at the user's risk, which means they waive all responsibility for inexperienced users. It is not their job to babysit developers, since it is the developer's job to research other sources and improve his understanding through rigorous practice and peer feedback.</i><p>That's awful advice for beginners, who have no idea why some things are good and others are dumb.<p>Some people will validate their pages. Some of those people will know what the errors mean, but decide that it's okay to have those errors. Other people will get a bunch of errors, and not really understand what's going on, and will just publish anyway because "it works in the browsers I tested on".

w3schools is not the best resource, but 90% of the time, when it shows up as the top result on Google, it tells me exactly what I want to know.<p>Some common examples:<p>- What values does CSS attribute white-space take? #1 result on Google for "css white-space" is <a href="http://www.w3schools.com/cssref/pr_text_white-space.asp" rel="nofollow">http://www.w3schools.com/cssref/pr_text_white-space.asp</a> which has exactly what I need to know.<p>- What members does the Array object in JavaScript have? For the query "javascript array", the first result is an overview of what an Array is, but the second result is the object reference which is exactly what I need.<p>When learning, looking things up is one of the most common actions. Whenever w3schools comes up, it doesn't necessarily make me smile but it's reliable^Wconsistent so I know what to expect. It maintains a lot of utility, unlike good ol' experts-exchange.

The first time i wanted to learn HTML and CSS,i happened to come across the W3fools page.So i followed their advice and their recommended resources.What do i get?Tons and tons of STORIES about secure code,best practices,patchy examples,and some sections clearly marked "This notes are out of date".Man,i have barely learned to switch on a computer.What are you talking about??

Not sure if you're serious or just trolling (you seem to be posting snippy responses to everyone's comments here), but there's a big difference between something like O'Reilly's Missing Manual or Head First series and w3schools. As demonstrated on the w3fools site, some of the information on w3schools is inaccurate or just plain wrong. The O'Reilly books have a much higher degree of accuracy yet remain approachable, beginner-level texts.

Yeah, how dare we as developers criticise a website disseminating wrong information like W3Schools. It's not their fault they get tonnes of Google traffic and have made no effort whatsoever to bring their site inline with other equally great resources.<p>The first Google result for the query, "div tag" is a W3Schools page. The page then cringefully displays a sample piece of code with an inline style colour attribute that probably would have been acceptable in 2002. Don't get me wrong, as a developer I think W3Schools can serve a purpose, but I've often found myself on a W3Schools reference page and not leaving a single useful piece of information.<p>It feels like W3Schools hasn't changed since it launched. I'm guessing the software company that runs it has better things to do and doesn't really care whether or not they're miseducating people.<p>And by the way, I think the author is about 7 years too late on the W3Schools hate train, the article reads like hating W3Schools is a new thing.

<i>I suspect that sources like W3Schools, the O'Reilly Missing Manual series and DirectXTutorial.com leave out good practices to avoid overwhelming the reader.</i><p>This idea is sometimes called Wittgenstein's ladder: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie-to-children" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie-to-children</a> - "My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has used them - as steps - to climb beyond them. He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it."

W3Schools is not perfect but it is the best HTML/CSS reference that I've seen. The W3Fools effort is sort of well-intentioned but overly disrespectful. The supposed alternatives linked from W3Fools are hideous.<p>W3Fools energy would be _MUCH_ better spent on developing an alternative.

&#62; It is unrealistic to expect beginners to learn what good code is before what code is in the first place. Aspiring programmers do not yet understand the nuances of their trade, and often overlook security concerns and the importance of formal documentation.<p>That's no excuse for ignoring even the basics. Some of the w3schools tutorials are like starting a teenager's first driving lesson with "run down as many pedestrians as you want, we'll teach you how to not drive on sidewalks later".

To be fair, W3Schools is simpler, cleaner and more organized than the alternatives suggested by W3Fool. It is still the fastest way to start learning about a web technology. But perhaps it would be best if they wikify it.

I agree. I've been developing web stuff since '98 or so, and w3schools is quick, easy, and I've never run into an accuracy problem that affected a real, production site. Most are academic.<p>Sure, there's better sites out there, but sometimes you just have to trust the Google.<p>If the site shows up #1 for 90% of web stuff you're looking for, then others obviously found it useful too.

I think the important point is, that there <i>ARE</i> better alternatives out there. There's just no point in defending a mediocre and potentially harmful[0] learning platform. There's no need for hostility, just move on.<p>[0]<a href="http://en.w3schools.com/php/php_ajax_database.asp" rel="nofollow">http://en.w3schools.com/php/php_ajax_database.asp</a>

Step 1: Log into Google.com<p>Step 2: Block w3schools at <a href="http://www.google.com/reviews/t" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/reviews/t</a><p>&#62; Sites will be blocked only for you, but Google may use everyone's blocking information to improve the ranking of search results overall.

I have learnt/used as reference way more from w3schools than I ever will from the people who created w3fools.<p>So kudos to them for criticizing the crap out of the site? (I do also see what they are doing as valuable, but I'd agree it's needlessly hostile).<p>I of course didn't learn exclusively from w3chools (I doubt anyone does), it's just a resource. Not perfect, but it's useful.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

domain: w3fools.com created: 08-Jan-2011<p><a href="http://whois.domaintools.com/w3fools.com" rel="nofollow">http://whois.domaintools.com/w3fools.com</a>

From the w3fools I learned the valuable trick that if you add "mdn" to your Google search you are likely to get a link pointing to Mozilla Developer Network.

"Some folks have started voicing"... How old is the article!?

W3 is killing it in the SEO department though. It'd be nice to buy those guys and use that google-juice for the forces of good.

What is it 2008?

nice url structure you got there