Is the end of HTML as we know it?

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

On Nov 10, 7:20 pm, "André Gillibert" ....

I fail to see what's "fundamentally wrong" with that.

It is impossible, that's why.

It is a basic graphic design principle.

For paper, perhaps. On the Web, you _cannot_ know exactly how a
page will look in every browser, not even in all copies of the
same browser.

When you design a magazine or newspaper for example, every page should
look the same in terms of structure.

The Web is not paper.

You can play with the headers, image positioning, etc. but all pages
should follow the same pattern.

Which, on the better sites, they do.

That's why you use Templates and grids.

Exactly.

And if CSS was better implemented and was easier to use by every web
designers, you will get even less bad stuff.

That's like trying to make a car that cannot go through a red light,
that cannot exceed the speed limit, that cannot have a misaligned
mirror, etc.....

I beg to differ.

Differ from what?

Many of those tags are useless and not recommended,
so why on Earth are they allowed?

Who is going to disallow them? And how?

There are many tags that are deprecated or not allowed in HTML
4.01, for example, but browsers still support them because of the
millions of legacy pages on the WWW.

Could you please tell me what's the use of, for example font-size:
10px; ?

To make the text unreadably small (or too large).

Even if you have a CSS license you can easily go wrong.

Just as in a car.

....

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

On Nov 10, 7:20 pm, "André Gillibert"

I fail to see what's "fundamentally wrong" with that.
It is a basic graphic design principle.
When you design a magazine or newspaper for example, every page should
look the same in terms of structure.
You can play with the headers, image positioning, etc. but all pages
should follow the same pattern.
That's why you use Templates and grids.

Ah! But that reveals the root of your error concerning web design and I
am an artist and graphic designer. The web is not paper. An overused
statement but none the less true. With magazines, newspapers, posters,
or whatever, there is one constant...the paper. As the designer in such
media the "viewport", the dimensions of the piece of paper, is known and
unchanging. It is is integrally part of the design process, if you are
any good ;-) You have a static canvas upon which to build your design.

With a webpage you have no such constants, no matter how much you (the
big universal 'you') wish to deny it. Holding you breath. Tantrums on
the floor. Jumping and screaming will not change that fundamental fact
that if the content is on the web, as the designer, you have no control
over the size of the viewport used by the users. Additionally, nor what
fonts your page is rendered in. Or in what color depth your images with
display or if your image will be seen at all! Or even if your text is
displayed at all for it might be a screen reader.

Now you can try and make your page "work" only for the parameters that
you have narrowly defined hence making it difficult for conditions
outside your constraints. But all that will accomplish is deny access,
"closing the book" for some users that might have been potential
customers, which is usually contrary to the original purpose of
"publishing" the page on the Web.

 

[Jerry Stuckle]

It is impossible, that's why.


For paper, perhaps. On the Web, you _cannot_ know exactly how a
page will look in every browser, not even in all copies of the
same browser.


The Web is not paper.


Which, on the better sites, they do.


That's like trying to make a car that cannot go through a red light,
that cannot exceed the speed limit, that cannot have a misaligned
mirror, etc.....


Differ from what?


Who is going to disallow them? And how?

There are many tags that are deprecated or not allowed in HTML
4.01, for example, but browsers still support them because of the
millions of legacy pages on the WWW.


To make the text unreadably small (or too large).


Just as in a car.

...

Forget it, Chris. He has absolutely no idea what he's talking about and
is just trying to raise hell. My recommendation is to ignore any of his
posts.

And maybe one of these days his mommy will find out what he's doing and
take his computer away from him.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
(e-mail address removed)
==================

 

[Jerry Stuckle]

Ah! But that reveals the root of your error concerning web design and I
am an artist and graphic designer. The web is not paper. An overused
statement but none the less true. With magazines, newspapers, posters,
or whatever, there is one constant...the paper. As the designer in such
media the "viewport", the dimensions of the piece of paper, is known and
unchanging. It is is integrally part of the design process, if you are
any good ;-) You have a static canvas upon which to build your design.

With a webpage you have no such constants, no matter how much you (the
big universal 'you') wish to deny it. Holding you breath. Tantrums on
the floor. Jumping and screaming will not change that fundamental fact
that if the content is on the web, as the designer, you have no control
over the size of the viewport used by the users. Additionally, nor what
fonts your page is rendered in. Or in what color depth your images with
display or if your image will be seen at all! Or even if your text is
displayed at all for it might be a screen reader.

Now you can try and make your page "work" only for the parameters that
you have narrowly defined hence making it difficult for conditions
outside your constraints. But all that will accomplish is deny access,
"closing the book" for some users that might have been potential
customers, which is usually contrary to the original purpose of
"publishing" the page on the Web.

Ah, Jonathan, but you don't understand him. He claims he's a graphics
designer. But the only real proof he has presented is the idea he can
control every aspect of the visitor's experience. But then again, that
is normal for poor graphic designers. They have to control the
experience, instead of enhancing it.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
(e-mail address removed)
==================

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Ah, Jonathan, but you don't understand him. He claims he's a graphics
designer. But the only real proof he has presented is the idea he can
control every aspect of the visitor's experience. But then again, that
is normal for poor graphic designers. They have to control the
experience, instead of enhancing it.

Unfortunately I do understand him. It is a pervasive and problematic
attitude among many who claim to be web designers. I was only hoping to
give one last shot at having him consider a different perspective on
"how the web works".

 

[1001 Webs]

Ah! But that reveals the root of your error concerning web design and I
am an artist and graphic designer. The web is not paper. An overused
statement but none the less true. With magazines, newspapers, posters,
or whatever, there is one constant...the paper. As the designer in such
media the "viewport", the dimensions of the piece of paper, is known and
unchanging. It is is integrally part of the design process, if you are
any good ;-) You have a static canvas upon which to build your design.

With a webpage you have no such constants, no matter how much you (the
big universal 'you') wish to deny it. Holding you breath. Tantrums on
the floor. Jumping and screaming will not change that fundamental fact
that if the content is on the web, as the designer, you have no control
over the size of the viewport used by the users. Additionally, nor what
fonts your page is rendered in. Or in what color depth your images with
display or if your image will be seen at all! Or even if your text is
displayed at all for it might be a screen reader.

Now you can try and make your page "work" only for the parameters that
you have narrowly defined hence making it difficult for conditions
outside your constraints. But all that will accomplish is deny access,
"closing the book" for some users that might have been potential
customers, which is usually contrary to the original purpose of
"publishing" the page on the Web.

Then, the way I see it, percentages are the only parameters that
should be ever used, at least from a graphic designer's point of view.

Since you are a Graphic Designer I assume you know about basic
principles of Graphic Design, such as Balance, Rhythm, Proportion,
Unity, etc.
I assume that you also know how to apply the Rule of Thirds by which
you divide the working area with a grid of nine sections with two
evenly spaced vertical lines and two evenly spaced horizontal lines.
The only way to do that in a flexible way, would be using percentages.
And since percentages are also the only measurement that works well
for other tags, such as font-sizing, that's the only attribute should
be used under any circumstances.

No one tells you about this, you know, not even w3.org. If you have a
look at their very own style sheet, http://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/home-import.css,
you'll see things like:
font-size: small;
margin-bottom: 0.3em;
margin-top: -6px;
etc.

And that's precisely my point, that CSS is confusing, hard to learn
for the wrong reasons, frustrating and badly implemented.
And that's NOT the designer's fault

 

[Kevin]

Then, the way I see it, percentages are the only parameters that
should be ever used, at least from a graphic designer's point of view.

Since you are a Graphic Designer I assume you know about basic
principles of Graphic Design, such as Balance, Rhythm, Proportion,
Unity, etc.
I assume that you also know how to apply the Rule of Thirds by which
you divide the working area with a grid of nine sections with two
evenly spaced vertical lines and two evenly spaced horizontal lines.
The only way to do that in a flexible way, would be using percentages.
And since percentages are also the only measurement that works well
for other tags, such as font-sizing, that's the only attribute should
be used under any circumstances.

No one tells you about this, you know, not even w3.org. If you have a
look at their very own style sheet,http://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/home-import.css,
you'll see things like:
font-size: small;
margin-bottom: 0.3em;
margin-top: -6px;
etc.

And that's precisely my point, that CSS is confusing, hard to learn
for the wrong reasons, frustrating and badly implemented.
And that's NOT the designer's fault

Ok I am so tired of reading all the same topics and arguments on
forums and groups as to why write to the international standard. Why
use CSS instead of tables. The list goes on and on. The postings tend
to do one thing they separate the Professionals from the want to be
professional web designers and developers in general. You can read
peoples postings and determine their level of competency when it comes
to css and HTML or XHTML.

Almost always it comes up that the standards are only suggested
guidelines as well. If it was a matter of only being suggested we
would not have corporations here in America such as Target that are
being sued in multi million dollar class action lawsuits for not being
compliant.

I ran across a neat document online published by the W3C I believe it
would benefit everyone here to read. It does not say anything about
suggestions it does say requirements though several times.

http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/07/WebAgency-Requirements

I think that part of the problem is so many people out there claim to
be web designers and developers which indicates an advanced level of
expertise in coding which they do not possess. A great example of that
is the field of graphic arts. Have you ever asked yourself when if
ever you found a Graphic Artist that did not advertise themselves as
being a web designer or developer? That decision is not made by their
skill level at coding is is solely made on their abilities to work
with pictures.

There are very few people that possess the ability to do all three
things you need in a successful website. A successful website needs to
be appealing to the eye (graphic arts), contain great content
(professional copy writing) that is keyword rich and solid
professional coding and programming.

 

[1001 Webs]

Ok I am so tired of reading all the same topics and arguments on
forums and groups as to why write to the international standard. Why
use CSS instead of tables. The list goes on and on. The postings tend
to do one thing they separate the Professionals from the want to be
professional web designers and developers in general. You can read
peoples postings and determine their level of competency when it comes
to css and HTML or XHTML.

Almost always it comes up that the standards are only suggested
guidelines as well. If it was a matter of only being suggested we
would not have corporations here in America such as Target that are
being sued in multi million dollar class action lawsuits for not being
compliant.

I ran across a neat document online published by the W3C I believe it
would benefit everyone here to read. It does not say anything about
suggestions it does say requirements though several times.

http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/07/WebAgency-Requirements

Requirements such as "Use SVG and PNG for graphics"
and "Use techniques to make your content accessible"
http://www.w3.org/WAI/Resources/#te
How many web developers that you know of fulfill those requirements?

I think that part of the problem is so many people out there claim to
be web designers and developers which indicates an advanced level of
expertise in coding which they do not possess. A great example of that
is the field of graphic arts. Have you ever asked yourself when if
ever you found a Graphic Artist that did not advertise themselves as
being a web designer or developer? That decision is not made by their
skill level at coding is is solely made on their abilities to work
with pictures.

Funny, because I've met far more many webmasters claiming to be
Graphic Designers as well.

There are very few people that possess the ability to do all three
things you need in a successful website. A successful website needs to
be appealing to the eye (graphic arts), contain great content
(professional copy writing) that is keyword rich and solid
professional coding and programming.

Agreed.

 

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

On 2007-11-11, 1001 Webs wrote:
....

Then, the way I see it, percentages are the only parameters that
should be ever used, at least from a graphic designer's point of view.

If that's all you use, why should the availability of other
measures concern you?

....

I assume that you also know how to apply the Rule of Thirds by which
you divide the working area with a grid of nine sections with two
evenly spaced vertical lines and two evenly spaced horizontal lines.
The only way to do that in a flexible way, would be using percentages.

You are still thinking paper. Yes, you can use evenly spaced
vertical lines; you cannot use evenly spaced horizontal lines.

The Rule of Thirds is one of many grids that work for design on
paper. You cannot reduce graphic design to a single formula (even
on paper).

And since percentages are also the only measurement that works well
for other tags, such as font-sizing, that's the only attribute should
be used under any circumstances.

For font sizes and column widths, ems also work well, and
sometimes better. Often the best solution is a width set in
percent and a min-width in ems.

No one tells you about this, you know, not even w3.org. If you have a
look at their very own style sheet, http://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/home-import.css,
you'll see things like:
font-size: small;
margin-bottom: 0.3em;
margin-top: -6px;
etc.

What's wrong with that? (BTW, which page uses that stylesheet?)

And that's precisely my point, that CSS is confusing, hard to learn
for the wrong reasons, frustrating and badly implemented.
And that's NOT the designer's fault

It _is_ the designer's fault if he codes badly. If you think that
only percentages should be used, whose fault is it if you use
other measures as well?

 

[1001 Webs]

On 2007-11-11, 1001 Webs wrote:
...


If that's all you use, why should the availability of other
measures concern you?

Because I had been using them an they didn't produce the results that
I expected.
It's kind of frustrating when that happens to you, you know?

You are still thinking paper. Yes, you can use evenly spaced
vertical lines; you cannot use evenly spaced horizontal lines.

Why not?
You can set a guide at 30% of the height of the page, can't you?

The Rule of Thirds is one of many grids that work for design on
paper. You cannot reduce graphic design to a single formula (even
on paper).

It was just an example.
BTW, the Rule of Thirds works even better for Video

For font sizes and column widths, ems also work well, and
sometimes better. Often the best solution is a width set in
percent and a min-width in ems.


What's wrong with that?

Pixels and ems that don't render equally across different browsers.

(BTW, which page uses that stylesheet?)

Their very own front page:
http://www.w3.org

It _is_ the designer's fault if he codes badly. If you think that
only percentages should be used, whose fault is it if you use
other measures as well?

My mistake seems to be then trusting the developers at http://www.w3.org

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

On Nov 10, 11:33 pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <[email protected]>
wrote:

Then, the way I see it, percentages are the only parameters that
should be ever used, at least from a graphic designer's point of view.

No I wouldn't say that. I would say it depends on the design criteria.

If th block is containing a fixed element, i.e. an image then I would
tend to use "px" and make the adjacent block fill the space. If it must
also contain text, then I would make sure that the text wrap will work
okay. Usually it is not friendly to scaling the text, but should
accommodate some range without breaking.

If the block is a menu, or a pull quote with limited text and the
words-per-line is part of the design then "em" would be my choice. That
way the block will scale with the text, and since this this type of
situations the block is also floated, I let the regular body text fill
the available space.


If the design has visual regions, like a 2/3 to 1/3 side bar column then
"%" may be my choice. Some folks like to use "%" for headers with logos
and footers, but personally I prefer em's and link the height to the
text scale unless the logo is a fixed graphic.

I guess my point is there is no "written in stone" rule which to use.
But, and this is a big one, web design is a flexible no fixed canvas and
your design should take that into consideration. Too many sites are
"designs in denial" and unnecessarily fail with accessibility.

If you find yourself stuck with a fixed design element, I say stop and
think. Is there another way to approach the design that would no
required the box. Many, many times the answer is yes,

Since you are a Graphic Designer I assume you know about basic
principles of Graphic Design, such as Balance, Rhythm, Proportion,
Unity, etc.
I assume that you also know how to apply the Rule of Thirds by which
you divide the working area with a grid of nine sections with two
evenly spaced vertical lines and two evenly spaced horizontal lines.
The only way to do that in a flexible way, would be using percentages.
And since percentages are also the only measurement that works well
for other tags, such as font-sizing, that's the only attribute should
be used under any circumstances.

No one tells you about this, you know, not even w3.org. If you have a
look at their very own style sheet, http://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/home-import.css,
you'll see things like:
font-size: small;
margin-bottom: 0.3em;
margin-top: -6px;
etc.

Yes you will for minor topical text like: p.hpmt-testimonial. You do not
see: body { font-size: small; }. No one here is suggestion that you
*never* use small font sizes, the crime is using it for your base font
size!

And that's precisely my point, that CSS is confusing, hard to learn
for the wrong reasons, frustrating and badly implemented.
And that's NOT the designer's fault

Actually the bulk of it is not. Floats are the sticking point, and
having to deal with the badly broken IE browser is not helping. Also it
is a developing technology and will change. Bbut I can say this, if you
properly separate your presentation with CSS from your markup HTML then
when the changes come and IE begrudgingly follows you should *only* have
to change your stylesheet to transform a whole website. This is NOT the
case with table-layouts and embedded presentational attributes and
elements within the design. Ask anyone who has had to update vintage
DHTML 90's website!

 

[1001 Webs]

No I wouldn't say that. I would say it depends on the design criteria.

If th block is containing a fixed element, i.e. an image then I would
tend to use "px" and make the adjacent block fill the space. If it must
also contain text, then I would make sure that the text wrap will work
okay. Usually it is not friendly to scaling the text, but should
accommodate some range without breaking.

If the block is a menu, or a pull quote with limited text and the
words-per-line is part of the design then "em" would be my choice. That
way the block will scale with the text, and since this this type of
situations the block is also floated, I let the regular body text fill
the available space.

If the design has visual regions, like a 2/3 to 1/3 side bar column then
"%" may be my choice. Some folks like to use "%" for headers with logos
and footers, but personally I prefer em's and link the height to the
text scale unless the logo is a fixed graphic.

I have to say that this has to be the most illustrating explanation I
have read so far on how to use the different parameters.

Thank you.

 

[Bergamot]

Pixels and ems that don't render equally across different browsers.

Neither of those have anything to do with the browser.

Pixel sizes are determined by the individual screen settings, not the
browser. Em sizes are determined by the font being used.

Both are set (consciously or not) by the individual user, as it should be.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Ah! But that reveals the root of your error concerning web design and I
am an artist and graphic designer. The web is not paper.

This is where we disagree, while you are right, the web is not paper,
the fact is there is nothing wrong with designing a web page so it
tried to simulate a structured design. Just a different way to design
for the web. Neither design style is any more right or wrong than any
other.

I can easily design a flexible design. But sometime I want a specific
look and feel to the page. And while it may not work on everyone's
configuration, I am confident that the visitors that fall out because
they can't see it is statistically insignificant when the designer
knows the audience.

 

[Travis Newbury]

I think that part of the problem is so many people out there claim to
be web designers and developers which indicates an advanced level of
expertise in coding which they do not possess.

No the problem is many web developers can not see there are more than
one way to skin a cat.

 

[dorayme]

I am confident that the visitors that fall out because
they can't see it is statistically insignificant when the designer
knows the audience.

By putting in the last phrase, you cover everything. Well done
again, Mr. Master of the Motherhood Statement.

 

[Travis Newbury]

By putting in the last phrase, you cover everything. Well done
again, Mr. Master of the Motherhood Statement.

Common sense dictates as much

 

[Kevin]

No the problem is many web developers can not see there are more than
one way to skin a cat.

Well I don't know about any of you in here but I have to say it was my
opinion that the term "webmaster" by definition implied no specific
level of knowledge. The term Web Developer however implies a large
programing skill set. The term web designer was used to refer to the
people that would create the IMAGE of the web site on paper or
electronic file and turn it over to the web developer to make into a
functioning website.

Therefore I think web developers being of the programming nature
probably know far more ways to as you put it skin a cat then any non
programing personnel. IMHO There are far more graphic artists out
there claiming to be web designers and web developers then there are
the other way around. You can go get a college degree in graphic arts
without even taking a programming course at all.

Maybe we should be more like they are in Texas with the term Engineer.
There in order to advertise your self as any type of engineer you must
possess an engineering degree. Similarly, if you want to promote
yourself as a web developer you should have a degree that has a heavy
web programming curriculum. Another point if you want to promote
yourself as a designer you should be proficient in the minimum skills
(HTML, XHTML, CSS, JavaScript) to design dynamic web pages without the
use of WYSIWYG editors. You should also be able to write any of these
following the International STANDARDS.

I know that for some people learning CSS may be difficult but it is
far superior then HTML 4.01 when it comes to managing larger groups of
web pages. People resist change in general but when you think about it
CSS has been out for 11 years now. That is more then enough time to
learn it if you were willing to send any time at all trying to learn
it. It is now a part of the international standards and we should be
prepared for customers to require compliance with those standards on
our web projects now and in the future.

Anyone who cannot write compliant code should not be advertising
themselves as web designers or developers. They just do not have the
skills to do the job on a professional level.

Graphics artists that disagree should stick to doing what they do best
creating logos, images, fliers, catalogs, etc.. for print on paper,
and vinyl and other physical media. Web work requires the knowledge of
web languages both markup and programming. It is hard enough to try to
make a living building web pages and having to compete with foreign
programmers willing to bid out web design work at 5 dollars an hour.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Well I don't know about any of you in here but I have to say it was my
opinion that the term "webmaster" by definition implied no specific
level of knowledge....

My point is there are many different web design philosophies. None
more right and the other.

 

[1001 Webs]

Well I don't know about any of you in here but I have to say it was my
opinion that the term "webmaster" by definition implied no specific
level of knowledge. The term Web Developer however implies a large
programing skill set. The term web designer was used to refer to the
people that would create the IMAGE of the web site on paper or
electronic file and turn it over to the web developer to make into a
functioning website.

I think you are a bit confused here.
As is often misunderstood by the layperson, a Web Developer does not
always create graphics, logos, or identity, or create written, video,
or audio content for a website, however some do.
Web Designers, Web Copy Editors and Web Content Creators are different
from Web Developers.

A web developer is a software developer or software engineer who is
specifically engaged in the development of World Wide Web
applications, or distributed network applications that are run over
the HTTP protocol from a web server to a web browser.

Although many web developers are also skilled in web design,
information architecture, usability engineering, web content
management systems, web server administration, and search engine
optimization, many of them are not, and the final result are superbly
coded sites that are horribly looking, never show up in search engines
and lack any real-world useful functionality.

Therefore I think web developers being of the programming nature
probably know far more ways to as you put it skin a cat then any non
programing personnel. IMHO There are far more graphic artists out
there claiming to be web designers and web developers then there are
the other way around. You can go get a college degree in graphic arts
without even taking a programming course at all.

Fine argument.
And you can go get a college degree in programming without even taking
a graphic arts course at all.

Maybe we should be more like they are in Texas with the term Engineer.
There in order to advertise your self as any type of engineer you must
possess an engineering degree. Similarly, if you want to promote
yourself as a web developer you should have a degree that has a heavy
web programming curriculum. Another point if you want to promote
yourself as a designer you should be proficient in the minimum skills
(HTML, XHTML, CSS, JavaScript) to design dynamic web pages without the
use of WYSIWYG editors. You should also be able to write any of these
following the International STANDARDS.

Neither XHTML nor JavaScript are required to design websites nowadays.
The International Standards, specially when it comes to CSS
implementation across different browsers, are anything but Standards.

And by that same argument, if you want to promote yourself as a web
designer, you should have an extensive Graphic Design background

I know that for some people learning CSS may be difficult but it is
far superior then HTML 4.01 when it comes to managing larger groups of
web pages. People resist change in general but when you think about it
CSS has been out for 11 years now. That is more then enough time to
learn it if you were willing to send any time at all trying to learn
it. It is now a part of the international standards and we should be
prepared for customers to require compliance with those standards on
our web projects now and in the future.

CSS has been out for 11 years now, but real implementation of CSS in
web design, hasn't caught on until recent years, due to its horrendous
implementation.

Anyone who cannot write compliant code should not be advertising
themselves as web designers or developers. They just do not have the
skills to do the job on a professional level.

Anyone who is unable to understand and put into practice the most
basic principles of Graphic Design should not be advertising
themselves as web designers, ever.
They just do not have the skills to do the job on a professional
level.

Graphics artists that disagree should stick to doing what they do best
creating logos, images, fliers, catalogs, etc.. for print on paper,
and vinyl and other physical media. Web work requires the knowledge of
web languages both markup and programming. It is hard enough to try to
make a living building web pages and having to compete with foreign
programmers willing to bid out web design work at 5 dollars an hour.

A Web page consists of information for which the Web site is developed
and in that sense, a website might be compared to a book, where each
page of the book is a web page.

There are many basic design concerns such as:
* The content: The substance, and information on the site should
be relevant to the site and should target the area of the public that
the website is concerned with.
* The usability: The site should be user-friendly, with the
interface and navigation simple and reliable.
* The appearance: The graphics and text should include a single
style that flows throughout, to show consistency. The style should be
professional, appealing and relevant.
* The visibility: The site must also be easy to find via most, if
not all, major search engines and advertisement media.

Many web developers who call themselves also web designers fail to
acknowledge these basic design aspects.
The result is that pages created by web designers rank usually higher
than pages created by web developers who lack understanding and
training in the field of Graphic Design.