Opinion: Do web standards matter?

[Lauri Raittila]

The sites are: http://www.loreal.com/ and

Hurts my eyes and is very bad indeed.

http://win04.startlogic.com/infinica/ (yes I know the text is too small,
but the site owner demanded it despite many warnings)

Unfortunaltely can hardly be called good example of CSS layout. The good
thing about CSS is that you can do lots of things with it that you can't
do with table layouts. The bad thing is the same.

Show him and yourself this screen cap:
http://www.student.oulu.fi/~laurirai/crap/screen.png

To fix it so that design don't break I had to:
- disable my general userstylesheet (line-height 1.5)
- disable my current font size userstylesheet (was something like 16px)
- disable my min font size thingy (it was 12px)
especially the last one I never use normally, I'm in user mode before
that.

Anyway, the problem is in sites coding. (the 3col layout is IMO stupid
idea anyway) It would be possible, of course, to make it not break, even
using current CSS.

 

[Toby Inkster]

Why do sites built using pure CSS look so similar?

These all look similar?
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/
http://hardcandy.org/
http://examples.tobyinkster.co.uk/bestgallery2/
http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile=/154/154.css&page=0
http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile=/153/153.css&page=0

spread all the way across my 19" monitor?

If you don't want a site to spread across the entire width of your screen,
then drag the bottom right-hand corner of your browser up a bit and to the
left.

There -- you see *you* have the choice of the site's width!

 

[Lauri Raittila]

These all look similar?
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/
http://hardcandy.org/
http://examples.tobyinkster.co.uk/bestgallery2/
http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile=/154/154.css&page=0
http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile=/153/153.css&page=0


If you don't want a site to spread across the entire width of your screen,
then drag the bottom right-hand corner of your browser up a bit and to the
left.

Or use userstylesheet.

P {max-width:60ex;}

 

[Richard Brooks]

[snip]

I think a lot of Web designs follows the HiFi system analogy. Okay, we
can put a 24-band graphic equaliser but do we really need it. We guys
use our ego's too much in most media. We could add Flash, Javascript,
ActiveX, XML, VML,VBScript and anything else on one page but are we
selling ourselves or the client's product.

In the UK we had a classic case of one TV advertising producer who got
so wild with showing his own talents (the last of the series of adverts
being a family car being driven through a post-apocalyptic world, you
know the sort of thing! Ball bearings being rolled over the road, a man
in a gimp mask with nails poked out of it, solarized colour with the
advert ending with a piano being thrown over a bridge) the customer
ended up not knowing what the name of the product being sold was.
Richard.

I agree and your points are valid. I would add that in my experience the
client (or employer) will only allow that which they find appropriate.
Signed,
me

That's if the customer is strong enough! Some years ago I was asked by
the young friend of a friend with great enthusiasm who had inserted some
Java routine that had the letters from their company flying around the
screen before settling in the centre. They asked me to sit down and
watch the pages events unfold. When some of the combination of finally
slowing letters read "poo" (for those outside the UK "poo" is a rather
cute name for shit) for a brief moment I mentioned it in passing and
things went downhill from there. It was funny though but did it help
their brand new partnership ?


Richard.

 

[Richard Brooks]

[snip]

I think a lot of Web designs follows the HiFi system analogy. Okay, we
can put a 24-band graphic equaliser but do we really need it. We guys
use our ego's too much in most media. We could add Flash, Javascript,
ActiveX, XML, VML,VBScript and anything else on one page but are we
selling ourselves or the client's product.

In the UK we had a classic case of one TV advertising producer who got
so wild with showing his own talents (the last of the series of adverts
being a family car being driven through a post-apocalyptic world, you
know the sort of thing! Ball bearings being rolled over the road, a man
in a gimp mask with nails poked out of it, solarized colour with the
advert ending with a piano being thrown over a bridge) the customer
ended up not knowing what the name of the product being sold was.
Richard.

I agree and your points are valid. I would add that in my experience the
client (or employer) will only allow that which they find appropriate.
Signed,
me

I'd just remembered the old tag that I hadn't heard in years and
encapsulated the male standard of "F*ck you, I'll do it my way!" (and
I've seen a couple of planes crash at airshows because of that
attitude.) At least we're safer down here on the ground with broken code.

BTW, it's called "techno-wanking!"

Richard.

 

[Richard Brooks]

What does that mean? Are you referring to painters & sculptors? Musicians?

Carla

Funny you should mention that! I was thinking of the western musical
scale when reading the previous post then I thought about the ties
between Bach and Avril Lavigne, expressing themselves differently but
from the same basic jumping board.

It goes the same for Web page design too.


Richard.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Why do sites built using pure CSS look so similar? Why do they, almost all
that I've seen where it was brought to my attention that they were built
with CSS, look boxy, boring and spread all the way across my 19" monitor?
Including the text! Don't those authors care about usability (as opposed to
accessibility)? Most people can comfortably read only 400 pixels across at a
stretch.

The main reason is that graphic artists have yet to embrace css. When
this happens you will start to see less boxy looks. And I completely
agree with you, they all look alike.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Eh? Haven't you discovered windowing systems yet? No web page gets
to spread itself "all the way" across my monitor!!!

So to hell with those that use their browsers full screen eh?

(Possibly they didn't reckon with you choosing a ridiculously wide
browser window /and/ using a browser that doesn't implement max-width)

Wait a second! Who's browser is it? It is mine, so it is NOT
ridiculous for me to have it full screen!

I drink to flexibility of design.

And to hell with people who make their browser full screen!

 

[Travis Newbury]

These all look similar?
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/
http://hardcandy.org/
http://examples.tobyinkster.co.uk/bestgallery2/
http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile=/154/154.css&page=0
http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile=/153/153.css&page=0

Actually they do all look boxy and similar.

If you don't want a site to spread across the entire width of your screen,
then drag the bottom right-hand corner of your browser up a bit and to the
left.

So now you are telling me how to use my browser?

You say "if you don't like it, then change the size of your browser."
Fixed width says "If you don't like it, then change the size of your
browser."

How are these different?

There -- you see *you* have the choice of the site's width!

But I say about your design "It looks like hell at the width I choose."
You tell the fixed width person "It looks like hell at the width I choose"

They sound the same to me. They both are less usable at the size we have
chosen for our browsers. So why is one better than the other?

Mind, I am NOT trying to start an argument, I would really like to hear
how you think these statements are different. It seems to me like it is
all a matter of personal preference. I prefer my browser to be full
screen. I am bothered less by a fixed width than flexible. Sure I
sometimes have a hue space on the right, but the content is all usable
to me. This is not so with flexible, it is way too wide to read. You
think the opposite. In both cases if we change the size of the browser
we can see everything perfectly. So in both cases the designer has
decided how we are to use our browser.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Or use userstylesheet.

P {max-width:60ex;}

Does that work in IE?

 

[Uncle Pirate]

Mind, I am NOT trying to start an argument, I would really like to hear
how you think these statements are different. It seems to me like it is
all a matter of personal preference. I prefer my browser to be full
screen. I am bothered less by a fixed width than flexible. Sure I
sometimes have a hue space on the right, but the content is all usable
to me. This is not so with flexible, it is way too wide to read. You
think the opposite. In both cases if we change the size of the browser
we can see everything perfectly. So in both cases the designer has
decided how we are to use our browser.

I can't speak for Toby, but I see that both can be flexible to a point.
As a developer, I must make the decision of what will be a max size
and a minumum size. My reasoning of not using table layout is that it
is more difficult to work with than simple headings and paragraphs for
text, and all the fancy stuff separated with divs.

I disagree with your last statement in that the designer/developer isn't
deciding how you use your browser; he/she is deciding a max and min
*ideal* viewing size. It's still up to you (in either type of page)
whether to view it within the ideal conditions.

I understand (especially teaching at a college) how most people use a
browser (most any application) in full screen mode. The majority of
these people also don't understand the convenience of having more than
one application/window open on the screen at a time either. They will
most always close one before opening another. Teaching HTML and CSS, I
sometimes have a hard time getting students to have a browser window
open and a text editor saving the file and then refreshing the browser
to instantly see your changes. And that process is a whole lot easier
with windows that you can see parts of at the same time. I very rarely
ever have any application full screen as I usually have many things
going at once switching from one to another.

--
Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate" http://stanmccann.us/pirate.html
Webmaster/Computer Center Manager, NMSU at Alamogordo
Coordinator, Tularosa Basin Chapter, ABATE of NM; AMA#758681; COBB
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) http://motorcyclefun.org/Dcp_2068c.jpg
A zest for living must include a willingness to die. - R.A. Heinlein

 

[kchayka]

And to hell with people who make their browser full screen!

What's the point of having a full-size window if you aren't going to use it?

Maybe this is why so many deezyners make fixed-width layouts - because
they haven't figured out how to change their browser window size to
something reasonable for the content they happen to be viewing?

 

[Els]

So now you are telling me how to use my browser?

You say "if you don't like it, then change the size of your browser."
Fixed width says "If you don't like it, then change the size of your
browser."

How are these different?

a) fixed width doesn't leave an option for users on a smaller screen.
It's one thing to change your window size to larger or smaller to your
liking, but it's another to have to change your screen resolution to
be able to fit a fixed width document in it.
b) fixed width doesn't let me choose a smaller window when I like to
use 500px wide windows for instance.

But I say about your design "It looks like hell at the width I choose."

Then it will most likely (in your opinion) look like hell at any width
;-)

You tell the fixed width person "It looks like hell at the width I choose"

They sound the same to me. They both are less usable at the size we have
chosen for our browsers. So why is one better than the other?

The fixed width doesn't give you any other option than that particular
width. How is the author gonna know what your preferred width is?

Mind, I am NOT trying to start an argument, I would really like to hear
how you think these statements are different. It seems to me like it is
all a matter of personal preference. I prefer my browser to be full
screen.

It's the same as with money. Those who have it, don't have a problem
with it. Not everybody /has/ a large screen (or /wants/ to use the
browser full width).

I am bothered less by a fixed width than flexible. Sure I
sometimes have a hue space on the right, but the content is all usable
to me. This is not so with flexible, it is way too wide to read.

So, you have the option to
a) use a narrower window
b) use a user stylesheet that says max-width:800px;margin:auto;
c) deprive yourself of options by using IE... ;-)

You
think the opposite. In both cases if we change the size of the browser
we can see everything perfectly. So in both cases the designer has
decided how we are to use our browser.

Nope, in the fixed width case, a lot of people have no option than to
adapt to the author's intended width or wider, and a lot don't even
have that, as they are limited to 14inch screens.

In the flexible case, everybody has any option they like.

 

[c.thornquist]

The main reason is that graphic artists have yet to embrace css. When
this happens you will start to see less boxy looks. And I completely
agree with you, they all look alike.

You may be right. My background is in fine arts (painting & sculpture). The
sites I've seen built with CSS are so repetitive in design, it makes me
wonder if it's caused by CSS. But CSS makes sense to me. You make an error
in coding on a large site built w/o CSS & they are a pain to fix. I do have
a couple small errors on a large site I recently completed & must use search
& replace on every page. But that's a scary proposition. Here's the site:
http://www.srfc.com It's 270+ pages & every page must be fixed. Luckily (or
not) the browsers are forgiving. I realize the nav bar on top won't work as
it should (the long drop downs don't scroll) for those not using IE, so I
added the two main categories, which need scrolling) again on the left nav
bar.

Anyway, I think you are right, I just haven't seen enough variety in CSS
built sites. But, that will come. Right? Like I said, CSS makes more sense
to me. Still, I enjoy working with tables.

Re the site above, I need help learning to create secure forms (any forms!).
The customer has a Cobalt server, if that helps. Any tutorial links would be
appreciated.

Carla

 

[Toby Inkster]

Actually they do all look boxy and similar.

No more so than table-based designs. After all, a table is a table -- a
grid of boxes.

 

[Alan J. Flavell]

Alan J. Flavell wrote:

[attribution reinstated:]

So to hell with those that use their browsers full screen eh?

Not at all; but if they insist on using a browser window that's
inappropriate for purpose, and their browser fails to apply any
relevant max-width suggestions, they might not get the best result
possible.

Wait a second! Who's browser is it? It is mine, so it is NOT
ridiculous for me to have it full screen!

Well, it wasn't me who was complaining about the results. It's a
well-established principle of web design that the final decision about
the presentation is taken by the reader; the author can only make what
seem to be appropriate proposals.

Making those proposals flexible, in the various ways which CSS allows,
can make a page which adapts itself more comfortably to variations in
the presentation situation. But if the reader takes that to extremes,
then the occasional sub-optimal result isn't so very surprising. At
least, to my way of thinking, it's better for the reader to have the
option of choice, as opposed to getting tiny fixed-size text cramped
into a narrow fixed-width column on an otherwise empty wide screen.
So which would *you* prefer?

 

[c.thornquist]

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, c.thornquist wrote:

[overquotage snipped...]

Eh? Haven't you discovered windowing systems yet? No web page gets
to spread itself "all the way" across my monitor!!!

No, I haven't discovered "windowing". I just want to open my browser & go.
Here's an anology: I want to get in my car & drive without having to adjust
things under the hood depending on my destination (stole that analogy from
the 'webmasters newsgroup). So, what's "windowing"?

(Possibly they didn't reckon with you choosing a ridiculously wide
browser window /and/ using a browser that doesn't implement max-width)

What's wrong with 100% width on a 19" monitor set at 1024 X 768? Most sites
look fine at that setting. The CSS sites, like w3.orgs, have text running
all the way across the screen. It makes reading tiring. Look at the opening
paragrah on their homepage. And it's like that throughout their HTML section
( http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/ ). They don't care about usability issues and
they should, especially on a site that requires so much reading.

That depends on the pixel density of the display! On my desktop
display, that's less than 3 inches, and represents a -very- short line
of text.

A 3 inch column is very small in large font (see w3.org's site), but still,
4 inches is max. for comfort in reading. Think of what is comfortable in
print.

This is truly perverse. You want to take a badly-engineered product,
and use good engineering to mimic it? You'd rate to finish up with
many of the disadvantages of both, and few of the benefits. No wonder
you're disappointed.

I meant presentation, not structure.

But you seem to be doing your worst to put CSS in a bad light,
while "proving" that table layouts enjoy a superiority that IMHO they
don't deserve.

I'm not saying tables are superior, just different and legit. On the other
hand, CSS supporters claim the superiority of CSS over tables.

More to the point, why is your perception of them so different from
mine?

Probably because I focus more on presentation than what the w3c deems
correct coding.

The problem with table layouts is that they stubbornly insist on
"working" in situations where they're completely inappropriate.

CSS can be more flexible than that.

If tables work to present the content where you want it, how is that
inappropriate?

Which web browsers are not; so the bets are off.

I drink to flexibility of design.

I try to view my sites in FF, Opera & IE. All view the same way in each.
There are problems with presentation, though, if I change my browser's font
size settings. No overlapping, but they look terrible. But, I need to learn
more about font settings & stop using fixed sizes for fonts.

I drink to learning CSS

Carla

 

[c.thornquist]

Re the site above, I need help learning to create secure forms (any
forms!). The customer has a Cobalt server, if that helps. Any tutorial
links would be appreciated.

Carla

Now I'm even more confused. I just changed the font sizes in IE on a site
I've maintained for 5 years & on pages with the original coding IE can
change the size & they look fine. But on the newer pages in which I used
style tags, IE can't do a thing re sizes. Did everyone know that about style
tags? How does CSS address font sizing by the user's browser? Now I'm
wishing I had never started using style tags (or whatever they are called.
Embedded CSS?)

I checked a site last week in FF & some of the fonts changed size, while
others did not.

Maybe I'll seek a new career. I'm too old for this stuff.

Carla

 

[Lauri Raittila]

You may be right. My background is in fine arts (painting & sculpture). The
sites I've seen built with CSS are so repetitive in design, it makes me
wonder if it's caused by CSS.

I believe the reason is that most of those sites you have seen is of
people writing here. (not the sites they create, but their own)

Thise people are generally not graphic designers, but CSS and HTMl
experts...

CSS is not too used fao layout yet.

It's 270+ pages & every page must be fixed.

Of course, if it is systematic error, it is matter or search and replace,
so 10 minute job...

Anyway, I think you are right, I just haven't seen enough variety in CSS
built sites. But, that will come. Right?

CSS zen garden has some graphical designed CSS. It used to be better
(there were no 100 examples of same stuff, but different approaches), and
of course those are mostly very flaky, as design is retrofitted

 

[Travis Newbury]

I understand (especially teaching at a college) how most people use a
browser (most any application) in full screen mode. The majority of
these people also don't understand the convenience of having more than
one application/window open on the screen at a time either.

I (having taught computer science for 5 years at Central Texas College)
Also understand how most people use most applications full screen. I
don't think it is so much "don't understand the benefits of multiple
windows" as it is a I, and others, just like my applications full
screen. Currently, I create SCORM learning content (mostly based in
Flash)

I do not argue the benefits of web standards, accessibility, or the use
of css over tables for design of a site who's main goal is sales or
information meant for a generic audience. Our website does them all as
our audience is teachers and learning services at corporations. (sigh,
we are fixed width though). Our applications on the other hand are all
flash based, and if connecting to a SCORM LMS require javascript.
Speaking of which, Don't you find it interesting (as an educator) that
the Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL) SCORM standards (which are
probably more accepted as standards from their respected communities,
than w3c is with html and css) REQUIRE a browser with javascript AND if
using Flash, require IE (because of live connect). When the education
community got together and came up with a set of standards fr building
learning content, they decided this was the best way to go.