R
rf
SpaceGirl said:
Why design for 5 years AGO?
Cheers
Richard.
Why design for 5 years AGO?
Cheers
Richard.
L
Luna
William Tasso said:
Yeah, tables worked last century, and surprisingly, they still work just
fine in a lot of cases. Tables are one tool available for layout, and just
because there are other tools available doesn't mean you have to throw out
all the old tools. The photos section of my site uses tables, for example,
and it accomplishes what I want.
S
SpaceGirl
rf said:
I'm not. I design for the market that's there right now.
S
SpaceGirl
Leif K-Brooks said:
We can discuss this tomorrow
it's 2am and I just got off the phone with arock star (I'm not kidding). Somethings just aren't important
M
Mark Parnell
"My screwdriver is available for putting nails into wood. Just because I
now have a hammer doesn't mean I have to throw my screwdriver out."
You're right of course. But it means you can stick to using it for what
it was designed for.
R
rf
No you do not. There is a rapidly growing proportion of people using the web
right now with their mobile phone (cell phone). Do your pages degrade
gracefully for them or are you going to wait 5 years till mobile phones have
800x600 resolution?
I can only assume you come from the graphics group cause you sure as hell
don't represent the regulars at alt.html.
BTW next time you post trim a little of the rubbish will you?
Cheers
Richard.
O
Owen Jacobson
Foreword: I'm a current Redhat user, on Redhat 9 with apt-get from the
Fedora project to keep it up to date and find new software.
That's to be expected. The majority of the content around for pretty much
every OS is trouble reports and missing drivers and so on. There's a
natural human tendancy to highlight the negative way more than the
positive.
In well-standardised areas open-source applications frequently interact
with each other much more politely than commercial closed-source
applications. Certainly the body of HTML user agents available for linux
are of much higher quality than the one most Windows users "enjoy";
similarly, the various graphics utilities tend to support standard formats
(GIF, JPEG, PNG, and more and more SVG lately, as well as others)
extremely well.
This is not to say that there are no freakish internal data formats used
by open-source software. One look at The GIMP's internal format should be
enough to prove that.
It's been my experience that, generally, once something is supported at
all, that support is of extremely high quality.
Owen
P.S.: Oh, not this thread again.
Fedora project to keep it up to date and find new software.
That's to be expected. The majority of the content around for pretty much
every OS is trouble reports and missing drivers and so on. There's a
natural human tendancy to highlight the negative way more than the
positive.
In well-standardised areas open-source applications frequently interact
with each other much more politely than commercial closed-source
applications. Certainly the body of HTML user agents available for linux
are of much higher quality than the one most Windows users "enjoy";
similarly, the various graphics utilities tend to support standard formats
(GIF, JPEG, PNG, and more and more SVG lately, as well as others)
extremely well.
This is not to say that there are no freakish internal data formats used
by open-source software. One look at The GIMP's internal format should be
enough to prove that.
It's been my experience that, generally, once something is supported at
all, that support is of extremely high quality.
Owen
P.S.: Oh, not this thread again.
L
Leif K-Brooks
SpaceGirl said:
Assuming "surfs the net" means "explores the web", Linux can easily do
all of those things. What's the problem, exactly?
B
Bernhard Sturm
Toby said:
why? text size, typography and text-flow are important pillars of any
design. you as a designer should know that. if a designer says: "I want
the people to see my page with this particular font size, because it
fits to the overall layout of the page". Would that be a bad designer? I
think it depends on your design and the purpose of your site. If your
target audience is extremely broad , and you present content that is of
interest for a wide range of people, then you might consider thinking of
a resizable font feature (with CSS this is not a big issue), however,
from my point of view, I wouldn't stretch this too far. text flow is
part of the design as well, and I - as a designer - hate it to see
people re-sizing the fonts of my design.
B
Bernhard Sturm
Mark said:
my goodness... should we go back, and say: 'sorry folks we just
realised, that there are people out there looking at a site on their
mobile phones browser (I do that from time to time) with a resolution of
128px x 128px let's design our sites for this resolution.'
I don't think you will be very flexible with such an approach. Designing
websites is always a trade-off between the best possible design solution
and the most common viewing practices of your audiance. Designing for
the minimum will result in a minimum-desing.
bernhard
R
rf
Bernhard Sturm said:
Yet another bloody graphic artist.
Design for nothing, then you will please everyone from the minimum to the
maximum.
Cheers
Richard.
B
Bernhard Sturm
Leif said:
that's exactly the reason why I design for 4096x2048, because I want my
pages to be perfect in the future, too. Who cares about those lamers
still using old iMacs (800x600res)? I don't! I design mostly for beamer
projections, because, that will be the way people will see my pages in
the future!
I always do it right in the first place, because I know what the future
will be.
(I haven't introduced the <irony> tag, but that would have bee a good
oportunity ;-)
B
Bernhard Sturm
rf said:
hope you are not wrong in your judgements. I am merely a programmer
(PHP/MySQL) who does some design.
reduce to the max.
bernhard
S
Steve Pugh
SpaceGirl said:
It is not. If it was they wouldn't need Betsie.
There are several options within the template system the BBC uses;
these give overall widths of 590, 600, 760, 770 or 100%. The only
constraint is that pages "MUST render acceptably at a width of 770
pixels", the behaviour at smaller or larger widths is up to individual
project teams.
Steve
W
Whitecrest
Well I disagree. Design for nothing and you lose me, and millions of
others to your competition who designs for me (and millions of others)
This is why there is not one type of every product. Different things
turn on different people. One size does NOT fit all.
R
rf
Whitecrest said:
Ah, You address me. This is a first.
Well I totally disagree with you and with everything else I see you posting
here in this thread and indeed in this whose newsgroup. So be it. We must
agree to disagree
Cheers
Richard.
F
Firas D.
I - as a designer - hate it to see
Oh. My. God.
That kinda creature still exists?
*poke* *poke*
"mommmmmyyyyyyyyyyy! i just saw a dinosaur!"
Oh. My. God.
That kinda creature still exists?
*poke* *poke*
"mommmmmyyyyyyyyyyy! i just saw a dinosaur!"
S
SpaceGirl
I would hope *not*. The technology will have changed so much in TWO
Nawww daft bugger. That's what XML is for: it contains the data for your
site. The average web site is not visible on hand-held devices. Why should
it be? It's a different platform. You can provide the same *data* (content)
via XML and user different front ends depending on the platform. Regardless
how good your web site is NOBODY is going to bother looking at your nice web
site full of pictures of your fave band, with nice interactive animations
etc on a 220 x 300 pixel display (for example). They would spend forever
scrolling!
Nawww daft bugger. That's what XML is for: it contains the data for your
site. The average web site is not visible on hand-held devices. Why should
it be? It's a different platform. You can provide the same *data* (content)
via XML and user different front ends depending on the platform. Regardless
how good your web site is NOBODY is going to bother looking at your nice web
site full of pictures of your fave band, with nice interactive animations
etc on a 220 x 300 pixel display (for example). They would spend forever
scrolling!
S
SpaceGirl
Bernhard Sturm said:
I'm struggling with some of the arguments in this thread; currently our main
client is one of the worlds largest music publishers. We were hired to
develop sites for one of their artists. The target market is MTV-generation;
mostly broadband, but also includes music press and casual surfers. The
*image* of the band is as important (if not more so) than the content of the
site. Also we have to keep in mind that *other* band sites in the same genre
have a "coolness" about them, which forces us to compete on some level. So,
while we will make sure these new sites are XHTML with the look and feel
dictated via CSS, we cannot get away from using Flash & DHTML. We can't
design for 300x300 displays either; It would make the sort of "creative"
designs that are demanded impossible.
Also brings me to another point; We are being asked if we can do more and
more video work for the web. I'd be interested to see how some of the people
arguing in here can find a solution to scaling THAT content to a tiny
screen.
More examples: Take a look at most movie promotion web sites. They tend to
be fairly slick, while fairly simple on the content side of things. They
almost without exception tend to be fixed sized.
The reason for this? The market, the target audience. If we were designing
purely information distribution web sites (a news site, a research site, a
blog) then of course you probably want to hit the largest range of browsers
possible. But for most *commercial* sites you aim for the young, affluent,
MTV-generation (after all, they all grew up, bought computers, and are now
having kids of their own and have money to spend).
S
SpaceGirl
Bernhard Sturm said:
mehehheh
Why design for computer screens at all? In the furture we willbe using projected holographic displays.