Web Design: Would you design a PDF by writing Postscript in Notepad?

[Ed Seedhouse]

HTML tags are [...] they are a way to
tell a browser how to render a page on-screen.

Not for 10 years they haven't been.

Yep, so a browser makes it up as it goes along, completely ignoring
HTML tags ... that makes sence, NOT! (Except perhaps in the case of
Internet Explorer.)

Of course HTML tags tell the browser how to render a page. That's what
the HTML was designed to do. \

And the inventor of HTML, who disagrees with you, is obviously an idiot.
You, who apparently don't even understand the difference between a tag
and an element, are ever so much smarter than him, so you must be right.
HTML was originally designed to mark up the meaning of content, period.
In it's latest versions it has gone back to that original vision, no
matter how often you say it hasn't.

If html tags are intended to tell a browser how to render an element,
why does CSS exist?

 

[Ed Seedhouse]

The original person said Postscript defines a page while HTML defines a
"relationship between information component" - complete nonsense. Both
are designed to render a page, one on a printer (usually) and one on a
web browser.

Say it a thousand times, or a million times if you like. You'll still
be just as wrong as you are now, which is completely.

 

[Ed Seedhouse]

Your contention (or implication) that the standard is absolute is not
valid. The further statement that "... HTML tags tell the browser how to
render a page ..." is only partially true, and that's what I pointed
out: The HTML standard is ambiguous on many points, NOT mandating what
a compliant browser should do, only /suggesting/ a possibly preferred
method of rendering.

Actually HTML tags only delimit HTML elements. What rules there are
about how things might be rendered apply to the elements, not the tags.

 

[Helpful Harry]

Helpful Harry wrote:
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 12:11:10 +1300, Helpful Harry

The sound of the point going right over your head. )
Over _yours_ more like.

HTML tags are [...] they are a way to
tell a browser how to render a page on-screen.
Not for 10 years they haven't been.
Yep, so a browser makes it up as it goes along, completely ignoring
HTML tags ... that makes sence, NOT! (Except perhaps in the case of
Internet Explorer.)

Of course HTML tags tell the browser how to render a page. That's what
the HTML was designed to do. \
You're almost right but, no, you don't fully understand.

Look at it this way. Suppose you are setting out to create a browser
from scratch. You want it to be "standards compliant." You read the
standards. You find many parts that "suggest" how a particular HTML tag
is rendered. However, the standard does not "mandate" how that tag is
rendered. So. You could, for instance, design your browser to render
<blah> as suggested by the standard: Italic-Bold-Sans-Serif. Or not.
You might choose: Monospace-Big-Red. You would not be violating the
standard because the standard doesn't mandate how a browser renders <blah>.

Yes, I know different browser sometimes render tags differently, but
that's completely off the point.

Not in context of what you said (see below).

The original person said Postscript defines a page while HTML defines a
"relationship between information component" - complete nonsense. Both
are designed to render a page, one on a printer (usually) and one on a
web browser.

I was prompted to respond not by the OP's statements but by yours,
vis-a-vis: "... so a browser makes it up as it goes along, completely
ignoring HTML tags ..." My remarks were in response to that statement,
nothing else. Browsers (at least well-designed ones) do NOT make up
anything as they go along. They look to the standard as a guideline
and, where possible, adhere to it. Where the standard is ambiguous
they, rightfully so, make a decision as to what will be "good (in the
minds of the designers)."

Your contention (or implication) that the standard is absolute is not
valid. The further statement that "... HTML tags tell the browser how to
render a page ..." is only partially true, and that's what I pointed
out: The HTML standard is ambiguous on many points, NOT mandating what
a compliant browser should do, only /suggesting/ a possibly preferred
method of rendering.

Life is messy. Sex is messy. So are Web standards. But they're all
kinda fun, eh?

As above, my reply was nothing to do with web standards, how tags are
interpreted / rendered, etc., etc. I never said "all browsers display
<strong> as bold text" - that was something you read between the lines
of my actual words and replied to something you THINK I said (I do wish
people wouldn't do that) that was never actually the point at all. \

I was purely giving an example to contradict the nonsense that HTML is
a "relationship between information components" and not a page
description language like Postscript. HTML is like Postscript, albeit
and extended type of format to cope with things like clicking links. In
fact, HTML and the latest version of the Postscript-deriative PDF are
almost exactly the same in terms of what their designed to do.

Yes, HTML does display differently on different browsers, and
Postscript does behave differently on different printers (especially
the so-called Poscript-compatible ones), so again they are very
similar, even though the actual commands are totally different.

I won't be wasting any more time on this silliness of trying to explain
yet again what I've already said about three times.

Helpful Harry
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)

 

[I V]

The original person said Postscript defines a page while HTML defines a
"relationship between information component" - complete nonsense. Both
are designed to render a page, one on a printer (usually) and one on a
web browser.

How does your theory account for HTML clients that don't have any pages
on which to render anything?

 

[G.T.]

I won't be wasting any more time on this silliness of trying to explain
yet again what I've already said about three times.

Thank you for stopping.

Greg

 

[Paul Sture]

I could be wrong but I think it may involve a planetfriend from Beta
Seven. And the term "shake down a fever thermometer" now begins to take
on a rather interesting meaning. Especially in zero gravity. (Ok, I
just amazed myself after reading that. Apparently I am being seduced by
this concept of aliens, thermometers, and lack of gravity.) HTML is
beginning to become much more interesting to me!

But how do we work time travel into this?

 

[Andy Dingley]

The cleaners take turns to lead the government,

Hey, we do that on Earth too! America does it, and even here in England
we let ships' bar stewards pretend to be Deputy Prime Minister.

Once we let a scientist run things though, because they'd been clever
enough to invent a way to make cheap ice cream from fish-heads and glue.
That went _very_ bad though, we shouldn't do that again.

 

[Bergamot]

I
am not saying it is not a good thing to practice and improve,
especially if it is an activity someone enjoys, just that what
you said was over optimistic.

Some innate talent is always a plus, of course, and as with anything
else I suppose there are some people will never "get it". So I'll revise
my belief slightly: with enough study and practice, just about anyone
can become skilled in CSS. It will just take longer for some than
others. It still requires effort, regardless.

 

[TaliesinSoft]

[commenting on my Ansel Adams website found at

1) bloats the bandwidth of the document

Agreed that having the text rendered as images as opposed to text does
increase the bandwidth of the document. But doing so allows me to have
absolute control over the appearance of the page, something important to me.
I have compared the download time with a great many websites such as those
from Apple, Adobe, and Microsoft, and it compares favorably.

2) provides no info for search engines

I have set the "alt text" property in Freeway Pro for each of the text blocks
in the site. The description in the Freeway Pro help states....

It is good practice to set meaningful alt (or alternative) text for each of
the graphics on your site. This is displayed to users who choose not to
display the graphics, and provides information that can help your site get
indexed by search engines.

3) provides no way to scale text for visually impaired, your can be
impaired but still like to look at photos! As text once can zoom it and
since your use pale grey on white. Viewing with style disabled would mean
text would be default black on white and more legible, but AH! You're page
is all images as text! AND all pixel perfect absolute positioned mess that
when the style is disabled degrades to a complete mess

Trying to accommodate the visually impaired with actions directly provided by
the browser in response to constructs in the website to me is the wrong
solution to a right intent. In my mind it would be far better for the needs
of the visually impaired to be addressed directly within the receiving
computer's operating environment. Apple has made a good start with the
ability to magnify an modify the received image. What I would like to see in
addition is what I'll call a floating magnifying glass which follows the
cursor about the screen, the size of the glass and the degree of modification
within being under the user's control. As for enlarging text within the
browser it seems that every website that I've tried that uses this technique
does not apply it to all text and the text to which it is applied falls apart
into a useless array of clutter if the degree of magnification becomes too
large.

As an aside, having been married for over 40 years to a person with severe
physical disabilities, accommodating such is something to which I'm
especially sensitive.

4) limited eye-sighted folks may use a screen reader to assist, but ditto
on above!

See my comment above.

Use text, find a handful of possible fonts that are likely to be on
visitors systems and use that...A logo, maybe use graphics to match a font
but not for the page's text...

Again see my comment above.

 

[Toby A Inkster]

Once we let a scientist run things though, because they'd been clever
enough to invent a way to make cheap ice cream from fish-heads and glue.
That went _very_ bad though, we shouldn't do that again.

Do what again? Making a scientist leader; or making ice-cream from fish
heads and glue?

I'd certainly be against the latter.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
Geek of ~ HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python*/Apache/Linux

* = I'm getting there!

 

[Bergamot]

[commenting on my Ansel Adams website found at
<http://homepage.mac.com/taliesinsoft/Adams/>]

The description in the Freeway Pro help states....

It is good practice to set meaningful alt (or alternative) text for each of
the graphics on your site. This is displayed to users who choose not to
display the graphics,

That's a misleading statement. The alt text is used for any situation
where the image is not seen, whether by choice or not. Anyway, in the
case of your page the alt text on the photos is not meaningful, nor is
the text "inset".

and provides information that can help your site get
indexed by search engines.

That's a big "maybe". Search engines tend to *not* index alt text,
except *possibly* for images that are links.

As for enlarging text within the
browser it seems that every website that I've tried that uses this technique
does not apply it to all text

Sounds like you have a faulty browser.

 

[TaliesinSoft]

[responding to my having stated]

Sounds like you have a faulty browser.

Well I get encounter the same problem in Safari, Firefox, Camino, Opera, and
iCab. So which is the "faulty" one.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

[responding to my having stated]

Sounds like you have a faulty browser.

Well I get encounter the same problem in Safari, Firefox, Camino, Opera, and
iCab. So which is the "faulty" one.

Which site? I have no problem scaling *any* text on *any* website, that
is if it is really text!

 

[TaliesinSoft]

[responding to my having stated]

As for enlarging text within the browser it seems that every website that
I've tried that uses this technique does not apply it to all text
Sounds like you have a faulty browser.

Well I get encounter the same problem in Safari, Firefox, Camino, Opera,
and
iCab. So which is the "faulty" one.

Which site? I have no problem scaling *any* text on *any* website, that
is if it is really text!

I stand corrected here. I didn't properly state what I was meaning to say.
What I should have stated more clearly is that there are a great many sites
that use both graphics and text to convey textual information and that when
the enlarge/reduce text action is taken only the text changes size and not
the graphic. Furthermore, on literally every site I've visited enlarging the
text eventually produces a complete hodge-podge. That's why I think the
proper solution is to have services directly in the operating system itself
to serve the special needs of the visually impaired.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Furthermore, on literally every site I've visited enlarging the
text eventually produces a complete hodge-podge.

Then they are poorly done. Just because there are many examples of
poorly designed websites does not justify continuing the practice.

That's why I think the
proper solution is to have services directly in the operating system itself
to serve the special needs of the visually impaired.

The OS cannot increase the contrast of your low contrast grey on white
"image" text, but if your site had *real* text it is a simple matter of
(a)disable your stylesheet, or (b)Set the browser with an over-riding
preference stylesheet to improve contrast.

The web is not a magazine, it is a flexible media, which your design
ignores.

 

[Bergamot]

What I should have stated more clearly is that there are a great many sites
that use both graphics and text to convey textual information and that when
the enlarge/reduce text action is taken only the text changes size and not
the graphic.

Well duh, that's because that feature of the browser only targets plain
text. Page zoom is something else entirely. If that's the result you
want, then stick with Opera or whatever other browser gives you that.

Furthermore, on literally every site I've visited enlarging the
text eventually produces a complete hodge-podge.

That's due to poor web design, often caused by designers who think a web
page should behave the same as a printed page. That's incorrect thinking.

That's why I think the
proper solution is to have services directly in the operating system itself
to serve the special needs of the visually impaired.

Not everyone shares that opinion. There are varying degrees of
"impaired" and no one-size-fits-all solution. I just need a little
larger than average text size, not some full-blown magnifier. Text zoom
is all I want.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

TaliesinSoft wrote:

Not everyone shares that opinion. There are varying degrees of
"impaired" and no one-size-fits-all solution. I just need a little
larger than average text size, not some full-blown magnifier. Text zoom
is all I want.

Another related point is one cannot guarantee that they will be on
*their own* computer! Maybe they found your site at the library or at
school!

 

[dorayme]

Some innate talent is always a plus, of course, and as with anything
else I suppose there are some people will never "get it". So I'll revise
my belief slightly: with enough study and practice, just about anyone
can become skilled in CSS. It will just take longer for some than
others. It still requires effort, regardless.

OK, let me just again add a rider to the "skilled". Skilled in a
workmanlike way is often possible. But there is something else, I
am not sure if I am getting this idea across: touch, mastery, a
bit of elegance. If you want a stark quite closely related
analogy, listen to a very industrious indefatigable taker of
piano lessons for 20 years who was not born with a certain
natural sense of touch. Compare it with someone who has it but
has had nowhere near the experience. The latter might be very
imperfect but has the ability to bring a lump in the throat in
certain passages of a sensitive listener. It is not a matter of
magic or anything, it is plain to see all around us in every
field, including the one that is the subject of this ng.

It all started out well before the competition on the plains of
Africa under the eye of a most unjust god.

Before all the "all men are born equal" crowd and sympathisers
get going, please remember I have drawn few implications from all
this. Don't put ones in my mouth, you are likely to be wrong.

 

[dorayme]

Agreed that having the text rendered as images as opposed to text does
increase the bandwidth of the document. But doing so allows me to have
absolute control over the appearance of the page, something important to me.

I predict you will come to lose that desire for absolute control
as you come to appreciate the order of difficulty you face. You
do not have anything like the control over the variety of devices
out there that are used to receive your content as you do over
your own. The difficulty is one of being reasonably satisfied
that your devices are accurate representatives of the devices
used by others. And so hard is this latter that the absolute
control you seek is best softened.