R
rf
Spartanicus said:
Not just restricted to the web. Happens everywhere. I know a very good
architect who is quite dangerous when nails and hammers are nearby.
Which results in? Fancy *and* accessible
Not just restricted to the web. Happens everywhere. I know a very good
architect who is quite dangerous when nails and hammers are nearby.
Which results in? Fancy *and* accessible
T
Travis Newbury
Well because they seem to be on the web. For the most part, the fancier
there site gets, the more inaccessible it gets. If you can supply a
link to a fancy accessible site, please do.
Look at the examples given here. Most (not all) CSS sites look plain
jane and boxy. Sorry, but it is reality.
It is not that fancy and accessible are mutually exclusive, but there
seems to be a lack of knowledge how to do it. I want them to be joined
at the hip.
CSS is the way to go, but we need to get the graphics people on board to
make it really fly.
K
Kevin Scholl
Henry said:
That comment alone shows that you don't really know of what you speak.
Comparing Web design to DTP is like comparing apples to oranges ... two
completely and wholly different mediums with unique requirements and
methodologies.
Let's hope not, given the accessibility and usability issues currently
inherent in Flash.
....who have to have enough knowledge of usability and accessibility to
allow for proper coding aspects. The Web isn't all about aesthetics.
--
*** Remove the DELETE from my address to reply ***
======================================================
Kevin Scholl http://www.ksscholl.com/
(e-mail address removed)
H
Henry
Kevin said:
You are contradicting yourself here.
"Comparing Web design to DTP is like comparing apples to oranges"
So they are very close to each other. Different medium and technology
but goals exactly the same. To attract viewers.
Just observe, like your hope will go down the tube!
With ADSL andsome 10x faster (or even 100x faster) networks Flash is getting more
popular, nearly equally with popularity of broadband.
Let's say I have now 10x faster ADSL. 1.5 MB x 10 = 100 MB most likely
wireless
Today I'm loading an average Flash page in 15 seconds.
10x faster would 1.5 sec! It still can be 100 time faster in 15 years.
Than html, css and java for mere preserving bandwidth... gimmie a break man.
In 10 years from now they will be all like an extinct dinosaur and no
one will be interested with them.
Flash or something similar will be the king of the net.
Maybe some code will generate real in time web rendering, done by your
incredibly powerful graphics card, sitting on 1 Terabyte machine with
10 T RAM and no hdd at all.
It's all temporary technology which will be almost gone in 10 years.
And that technology is crap anyway.
Ever heard a sentence: "One picture is worth thousand ow words?"
That's how it works. TV works like that and Web will get closer and
closer to TV standards as soon as bandwidth will permit that.
Pictures, moving pictures and animations.
Ever seen than movie?
http://www.phi11ip.com/viewmovie.php?movie=pentagon.swf
You could write hundreds of pages about the subject and still you would
be not able to get the message across the way that this little movie does.
That's why is used and TV industry knows well what is working to get the
message across.
Forget bloody 3px bug in IE! No one will remember and care.
Forget IE hacks.
HTML and current coding are needed NOW because Internet is to slow at
this moment.
It's temporary thing which will be gone soon, very soon.
IMHO is not worth to go to deep because is just a waste of the time.
Think about near future, a little further than the next weekend.
You want to be a hero in web design?
Make something faster than Flash.
HTML and css are dying quickly, before their bugs are removed.
OPEN YOUR MIND
H
Henry
Henry said:
Of course 1.5 x 10 = 150
M
Mark Parnell
Got news for you - dialup will be around for a lot of years yet.
N
Nik Coughin
Henry said:
http://www.nrkn.com/boxedArtCss/
No hacks.
http://www.nrkn.com/boxedArtCss/
No tables.
http://www.nrkn.com/boxedArtCss/
....and that example is very far from perfect, (CSS is much too verbose for
starters) -- it was knocked up VERY quickly. The bit that took the longest
was ripping the graphics off their site and fixing them.
R
rf
Henry wrote
There is no point in viewing an apple. You have to get youself outside it.
There is no point in viewing an apple. You have to get youself outside it.
B
Big Bill
H
Henry
Nik said:
NICE JOB!
T
Travis Newbury
Very nice job.
H
Henry
Travis said:
Actually nice CSS job but design was still done by BoxedArt.
Nik has converted all gif's into png and has made css layout.
I've saved it all (css as well!) and... it's hard to edit and display is
not the same like on the web.
Some trick here used.
I've noticed that Nik has used <li> to put these buttons.
Now argue that one
<li> should be use for a list
as opposite
tables should be used for a tabular data
Sounds stupid? Of course! Use whichever way you feel will work.
In other words, css is much harder to learn and use and while is
possible to do it if you can scratch your head a lot, the benefit is so
little and the question remains, it's worth it?
Also, the end result is the same, just different methods are used, one
relatively easy and one definitely not.
I would argue a lot which method is better. I'm able in few hours make
a complete design in Adobe a similar quality and if I will try harder,
my pics will be very small and using tables I,ll bet that I will have no
trouble to put it together with some help of css for text.
When you compare a source, is a similar size and contains... black
characters. Result - magic on screen.
That's why life is interesting because different people love different
things.
Still I can't see a single valid reason why tables are bad.
So far the I'm using the best of both worlds, tables and css and...
thinking about serious Flash work, because will take over sooner or later.
Cheers...
BTW. Nik - you are good with css! I mean it!
W
Wÿrm
And what do you think those "buttons" are? Gee, lemme see, unordered
__LIST__ of navigation links to other pages perhaps?
So usage of <li> isvery apropriate on them.
<snip>
M
Michael Winter
[snip]
Not at all. Without CSS, it will render as a list of links to different
parts of the site. How is that a misuse of list elements?
[snip]
Mike
Not at all. Without CSS, it will render as a list of links to different
parts of the site. How is that a misuse of list elements?
[snip]
Mike
R
rf
Henry
Oh my, how sad.
Good luck in your new vocation. Prehaps in the print media?
Oh my, how sad.
Good luck in your new vocation. Prehaps in the print media?
L
Lauri Raittila
Very close, on one hand, and completely different on other. You don't
make apple pie or cider out of oranges. You can make juice from both
though...
Most people try to attract *readers*.
Just observe, like your hope will go down the tube!
some 10x faster (or even 100x faster) networks Flash is getting more
popular, nearly equally with popularity of broadband.
It has nothing to do with bandwith
Who cares. With 100MB line, I still had to wait for ages. (I had one of
those, btw, at home, degraded to 10MB as that is free). That is becasue
there is alwasy narrow spots here and there.
Who cares.
Might be, but that is irrelevant. How the hell would you use web
consisting of flash? Think about possibility to search flash.
Bandwidth don't solve anything. And anyway spammers and P2P people use
most of it anyway.
Exactly. Nobody cares about supercool flash web, if it is not possible to
use it.
That is true on special cases only. Think about TV . 42 pictures a
second.
Maybe. but some things are much easier to descripe using text.
I wouldn't say TV gets any messages across.
M
Mr Bean
Lauri said:
I would.
Since TV is called an idiot box... definitely works on... you.
N
Neal
Is it a list? Yes. Therefore list markup is correct.
Is it comparing data in tables and rows? No. Therefore it is not a table.
Sounds stupid? Of course! Use whichever way you feel will work.
As it is not atable, but is a list, table does not work. See?
Gee, practicing medicine is hard to learn too. Shall we let the patient
die, or use some magic incantation we can just read out of a book?
Listen to yourself. "Hard to learn" does not mean "not worth it".
End result is NOT the same.
In IE, you'll never see it. But download Opera. It has a feature to
disable stylesheets and emulate a text browser - this is reasonably close
to what a speech reader will do, and what a search bot will encounter.
View both examples in regular (author) mode and text (user) mode. See the
difference in how they degrade in a no-CSS environment.
If you wish to design for just IE, well that's easy. If you want to design
for the WWW, you need to accomodate a lot more than IE.
Tell you what - getting good at CSS for all text presentation is
challenging enough, but well worth learning first. But learning layout in
CSS is, in a way, a little trickier. I'll grant you that.
If you give it enough thought, you'll see that the CSS version is no worse
in a graphic browser, and far superior in other environments.
Each page in the table layout version carries all the table bulk. After
the first CSS-layout page is loaded, each successive page is lighter
because the layout is cached.
Web design is not about what you love - it's about what your user needs.
You want to love something, get a puppy.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!! Have you even been listening??
Table layout is bulky, will not degrade gracefully in text environments,
and that's all besides the fact that it makes the data table less robust
in UAs since most uses of that markup are NOT tables.
Oh jebus.
Flash is OK but is misused terribly. Until dialup goes the way of the
dodo, it cannot be considered a viable means for designing a website.
N
Nik Coughlin
Henry said:
Yes, I just wanted to show you that CSS is not in any way limited when it
comes to making these sorts of designs.
Yeah, png is a lot more efficient than gif. I also flattened a lot of the
dithering in their pictures because dithering doesn't compress well.
You mean some WYSINWYG editor doesn't like it?
Try using a text based editor then. It's a shitload easier to read than
something buried inside 10 said:
I think this has been explained to you already. It would have been easier
*not* to put them in a list.
I didn't have to scratch my head at all to do that. Luckily my hair is
entirely free of vermin. I don't even consider myself to be half as good at
CSS as some of the people who post here. There are a few inconsistencies
across browsers that could be cleaned up, but like I said, it was a quick
job. The next step, which I'm not going to undertake, because it's not my
design and I'm bored with it anyway, would be getting rid of microfonts and
making the site more fluid.
Just as easy to implement, but harder to learn. It really is worth it, but
I have doubts that you'll ever be convinced. Just continue to write us all
off as idiots instead.
With your table based layout, you want a different look and feel, you have
to make the whole site again from scratch. I can take my CSS site, make
some new graphics and a new CSS file, leave all of my content intact and
voila, a new look and feel.
Try viewing my version with a text browser. Try viewing their version with
a text browser. After all, that's how Google sees your site.
R
Robert Frost-Bridges
Henry wrote:
[...]
Yet you're quite capable of learning to create flash sites.
Opening macromedia flash and notepad side by side soon tells me which is
easier to learn.
[...]
[...]
Yet you're quite capable of learning to create flash sites.
Opening macromedia flash and notepad side by side soon tells me which is
easier to learn.