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

[dorayme]

That was my not so good momentary attempt at being a bit cynical!


I'll certainly agree that validators are essentially limited to to verifying
that a site's code adheres to established rules and not on the quality and/or
neatness and such of the code. But they do provide a hint at how well the
code will process on standards conforming browsers.

Perhaps a hint taken along with other background information and
knowledge. On its own, it will basically just pick up formal
mistakes and tell you very little. Before you were being very
pessimistic. Now I am saying your are too optimistic. I feel I am
picking on you T... <g>

Validator found mistakes can trigger earthlings to realise that
there are other confusions in their presentation.

 

[Steve Hix]

Why do we put up with web design software? Nobody makes a PDFs by
writing Postscript in Notepad, but that is what designer's working for
the web are expected to do. That is how far web design has come.
Postscript is a page description language like HTML

HTML is *not* a page description language.

 

[TaliesinSoft]

HTML is *not* a page description language.

Are we perhaps getting into "micro-semantics" as from Wikipedia we find.....

HTML, short for HyperText Markup Language, is the predominant markup language
for the creation of web pages.

 

[Dave Balderstone]

Are we perhaps getting into "micro-semantics" as from Wikipedia we find.....

HTML, short for HyperText Markup Language, is the predominant markup language
for the creation of web pages.

Markup language != page description language by a long shot.

 

[TaliesinSoft]

[responding to quoting from Wikipedia]

Markup language != page description language by a long shot.

Could you perhaps give a short definition of each.

 

[Dave Balderstone]

[responding to quoting from Wikipedia]

Markup language != page description language by a long shot.

Could you perhaps give a short definition of each.

HTML as a markup language describes parameters for a multitude of
possible interpreters rendering a page, based on what can be fairly
vague instructions, so that an instruction like 'font size="-2"' will
display different absolute results depending on the client doing the
interpretation (IE/Safari/Firefox/Omniweb/etc).

Postscript, OTOH, is a specific description language based on a known
and consistent interpreter, where an instruction such as '90 rotate 0
-612 translate' will do *exactly* the same thing no matter where it is
interpreted (HP/Agfa/Harlequin/etc), and display *exactly* the same
result.

I've coded both. Coding PS, I can be pretty damned confident that
whoever executes the code I write will see exactly what I see.

Coding HTML, I do not have that luxury.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Incidentally, the W3C Markup Validation Service found 0 errors with the
Freeway site but 19 with the Adobe site. Oops, I forgot, validation is
apparently useless. But isn't it adherence to standards that should bring
about uniformity in presentation of a website amongst all browsers?

It may validation does not necessarily mean *good* design.

 

[Ed Seedhouse]

Are we perhaps getting into "micro-semantics" as from Wikipedia we find.....

HTML, short for HyperText Markup Language, is the predominant markup language
for the creation of web pages.

A "web page" is not the same thing as a "page". A "web page" is more
precisely a document, and probably shouldn't even be called a "page" at
all, though it is undoubtrly far too late to change it. But when did
you ever see, for example, a book whose every page was a different size?

 

[Helpful Harry]

[responding to quoting from Wikipedia]

Markup language != page description language by a long shot.

Could you perhaps give a short definition of each.

HTML as a markup language describes parameters for a multitude of
possible interpreters rendering a page, based on what can be fairly
vague instructions, so that an instruction like 'font size="-2"' will
display different absolute results depending on the client doing the
interpretation (IE/Safari/Firefox/Omniweb/etc).

Postscript, OTOH, is a specific description language based on a known
and consistent interpreter, where an instruction such as '90 rotate 0
-612 translate' will do *exactly* the same thing no matter where it is
interpreted (HP/Agfa/Harlequin/etc), and display *exactly* the same
result.

I've coded both. Coding PS, I can be pretty damned confident that
whoever executes the code I write will see exactly what I see.

Coding HTML, I do not have that luxury.

That's not quite 100% true ... only about 99.9%. )

HTML code is often "broken" by incompatibilities in (usually) Internet
Explorer.

Postscript code is often "broken" by incompatibilities in non-Adobe
versions of Postscript - the so-called "postscript compatible" found in
some printers for example. For example, some printers thrown tantrums
about printing a shaped with a fill colour of "white". Thankfully you
don't often hit these problems.

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

 

[Steve Hix]

Are we perhaps getting into "micro-semantics" as from Wikipedia we find.....

HTML, short for HyperText Markup Language, is the predominant markup language
for the creation of web pages.

"markup language" is not the same as "page description language".

HTML markup doesn't specify *how* information is to be displayed, but
the relationships between information components.

 

[Helpful Harry]

"markup language" is not the same as "page description language".

HTML markup doesn't specify *how* information is to be displayed, but
the relationships between information components.

Since when is [strong] a "relationship between information
components"?!?!? It's telling the browser that the following text
shoulld be rendered in bold until it finds a corresponding [/strong]
tag.

HTML code simply tells a browser how to render a page on-screen.
Postscript tells a printer (usually) how to render a page to print to
paper.


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

 

[Adrienne Boswell]

Why do we put up with web design software? Nobody makes a PDFs by
writing Postscript in Notepad, but that is what designer's working for
the web are expected to do. That is how far web design has come.
Postscript is a page description language like HTML or CSS. By now we
should have a Quark Xpress or Indesign for the web, but the only
morsel the software industry has thrown designers after a decade of
the web is CSS coding and a choice of Georgia or verdana. It's beyond
the joke.

There is a significant point to be made here - a browser is not a piece
of paper. Authors know for the most part, what sizes paper comes in,
and they know that paper cannot be resized. A browser is an entirely
different creature - the user has control, can resize the browser,
disable graphics, disable client side scripting, change the size of the
font, even use his or her own styles.

The problem is that an author looking at his screen, is never going to
know what his audience is going to see (or hear for that matter). Yes,
he can make an educated guess, but unlike paper, it's a real crap shoot.

 

[Toby A Inkster]

But isn't it adherence to standards that should bring about uniformity
in presentation of a website amongst all browsers?

Not really -- as I stated earlier, HTML is not a document presentation
format; it's a language for marking up the *meaning* of the document.

Once the browser has interpreted the meaning of the document, it should
convey that meaning to the user. Different browsers will use different
methods of conveying meaning to the user: that's kind of the whole point
of even having different browsers. If different browsers displayed things
the same, why would we need more than one browser per operating system?

How are Firefox, the Nokia browser, Lynx and Jaws *ever* going to achieve
"uniformity in presentation"? It's ridiculous to even suggest that they
should try.

--
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!

 

[Toby A Inkster]

My understanding is that story is apocryphal. The space pen, which
both use, was developed by a private company.

Indeed, though there is an element of truth in it. The private company was
based in the USA, and presumably invested a lot of time and effort into
the development of the "space pen". After it was developed, NASA did use
it, despite the fact that normal ballpoint pens work well in space. The
Russians used ballpoint pens[1]; pencils were always deemed a fire risk.
(Graphite dust and wood shavings are both flammable.)

____
1. http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM9YN7O0MD_index_0.html

--
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!

 

[Toby A Inkster]

Since when is [strong] a "relationship between information
components"?!?!? It's telling the browser that the following text
shoulld be rendered in bold until it finds a corresponding [/strong]
tag.

No -- STRONG specifies that the enclosed text is more important than the
surrounding text. That is a relationship between information components.
To quote from the HTML 4.01 Recommendation:

| EM: Indicates emphasis.
| STRONG: Indicates stronger emphasis.

STRONG is not necessarily rendered in bold, it may be rendered instead in
italics, underline, red text or some combination of those. Text-only
environments may present STRONG text by prepending and appending asterisks
*like* *this* or by transformation to UPPERCASE.

It is valid to use STRONG to emphasise text in headings, even though
headings are ususally already in bold:

<h1>I Asked You <strong>Not</strong> to do That!</h1>

As STRONG indicates that something is emphasised more than the surrounding
text, it is often desirable to use STRONG within STRONG to emphasise a
particular word or phrase more strongly than some surrounding, already
strongly emphasised text:

<p><strong>Beware! To touch these wires is
<strong>instant death</strong>. Anyone found

HTML code simply tells a browser how to render a page on-screen.

This is totally wrong in so many ways. Some browsers don't even *have*
screens.

--
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!

 

[Dylan Parry]

which reminds me of the story of the americans who spent millions of dollars
making a pen that worked in zero gravity, the russians just used a pencil.

Nope. The Russians didn't use pencils. Have you ever got a bit of pencil
in your eye? I can tell you that it isn't very nice. Now try writing in
zero-gravity with bits of graphite breaking off and floating around. A
nightmare to say the least.

The Russians used good-old-fashioned ballpoint pens, which work fine in
zero-gravity as they only rely on the flow of ink, which will occur
regardless of which way you hold a pen in space. Which is the opposite
of what happens on Earth, ie. hold the pen upside-down and gravity will
cause the ink to stop flowing. No gravity == no problem.

--
Dylan Parry
http://electricfreedom.org | http://webpageworkshop.co.uk

Programming, n: A pastime similar to banging one's head
against a wall, but with fewer opportunities for reward.

 

[Dylan Parry]

Since when is [strong] a "relationship between information
components"?!?!? It's telling the browser that the following text
shoulld be rendered in bold until it finds a corresponding [/strong]
tag.

No it isn't. <strong> tells the browser that the following text should
be strongly emphasised until it finds the corresponding </strong> tag.
The specs might /suggest/ that browsers render this in bold, but
browsers are not *required* to do so.

--
Dylan Parry
http://electricfreedom.org | http://webpageworkshop.co.uk

Programming, n: A pastime similar to banging one's head
against a wall, but with fewer opportunities for reward.

 

[Andy Dingley]

If Freeway Express or Freeway Pro are capable of the WYSIWYG production of
webpages to the complete satisfaction of the author then how is it that "it
misses the poiint entirely?"

Because of clueless or clue-deprived authors. As a clueful author will
likely be working directly on HTML through a text editor, then the
beginner market is important for a WYSIWYG tool.

Most web authors do _not_ understand the web and that's why it's
incumbent upon a "good" authoring tool to assist them in getting
things right despite this ignorance. A tool that easily and quickly
builds web sites that still break some fundamental principles of good
web authoring is not a tool to recommend.

Freeway does page layout in absolute pixels, not document-centric
authoring. That's what's wrong with it.

 

[Andy Dingley]

I find it interesting, er, uh, amusing, that Adobe, the marketers of not one,
but two high priced website development tools, GoLive and Dreamweaver,
apparently don't use either to develop their own website.

I find it irrelevant.

Whether Dreamweevil is good or bad has _no_ influence on whether
Freeway is good or bad.
Nor does whether Adobe have a good or a bad site.

Incidentally, the W3C Markup Validation Service found 0 errors with the
Freeway site

Like I said, it's competent at doing the wrong thing. It makes valid
HTML, but its use of CSS is still inflexible and page-layout style,
not good web practice.

Oops, I forgot, validation is apparently useless.

That's a straw man argument that you've created yourself. No-one else
claims this, or claims that Freeway's validity isn't a positive
feature.

But isn't it adherence to standards that should bring
about uniformity in presentation of a website amongst all browsers?

It's useful, but still far from a sufficient condition for this!

Secondly, why _should_ websites look the same amongst all browsers? If
you don't understand that yet, you have a vast amount of web design
fundamentals to learn about.

With Freeway I can design a trivial site with "a short word in a small
coloured box." On my desktop this sits as a tiny box up near the top
of the page, just as I intended. On my phone (200px screen) it fills
the whole display and is far bigger than the contained word. This is
_not_ what I intended to happen. Freeway takes this bogus concept of
"pixel identical rendering in all contexts" and forces it across the
web, even to devices where it's inappropriate to do so (the font size
in pixels varies widely between my desktop and my phone). Just try re-
sizing the font or changing browser window size in a Freeway-designed
site!

 

[Eric Lindsay]

There is indeed software, available now for the Macintosh, that allows one to
construct a website using WYSIWYG methods and with no requirement that the
user should have any knowledge of such as HTML. That software is Freeway
Express and Freeway Pro. Freeway works much like InDesign in that the website
author concentrates on appearance and action and not upon the underlying code
that makes things happen. As an aside, the resulting HTML of a Freeway
generated website is quite good, usually passing the strictest of code
verification.

Unacceptable product. Web site uses transitional HTML instead of Strict.
Uses tables for layout of a non-table text. Getting the code to validate
is one thing. Getting it to be acceptable is another. Can you point me
to any page done with Freeway that doesn't have these problems?