What does your implementation process look like?

[Daan]

A question for the regulars / experts in this group: what does your
implementation process look like? I mean: when you need to make a
page, do you work with a designer and 'implement' his design? Do you
design and code the page yourself? Do you have a lot of influence on
the design / implementation of the site, or very little? (I'm
interested in the design / layout / usability aspect of the process,
not the content of the site).

The reason I ask is that often advice is given against e.g. the use of
frames, against adjusting font sizes or use of particular fonts, or
all kinds of 'general' best practices, but I can imagine that your
designer, your client or your boss might disagree.

So, how often can you implement all of the best practices?

Regards,
Daan

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

The reason I ask is that often advice is given against e.g. the use of
frames,

"Frames are evil." ..and a general nuisance to maintain as well. There
is reason for all the numerous pages describing why. Such as:
http://www.html-faq.com/htmlframes/?framesareevil

against adjusting font sizes

No, against *setting* font sizes. Let the visitor decide.

or use of particular fonts,

There is no point in assigning an oddball font that your visitors will
not have on their computers. Browsers will attempt to fill in with
something the computer *does* have, which may be completely different
than what you envision. (Or they may screw up really bad if you didn't
specify a fallback family.)

or all kinds of 'general' best practices,

...such as accessibilty, useability...

but I can imagine that your designer, your client or your boss might
disagree.

If your 'designer' disagrees with the practice of following standards,
you need a new one. The boss .. well .. try to explain why his wants are
contrary to good web practices.

 

[Daan]

"Frames are evil." ..and a general nuisance to maintain as well. There
is reason for all the numerous pages describing why. Such as:http://www.html-faq.com/htmlframes/?framesareevil


No, against *setting* font sizes. Let the visitor decide.


There is no point in assigning an oddball font that your visitors will
not have on their computers. Browsers will attempt to fill in with
something the computer *does* have, which may be completely different
than what you envision. (Or they may screw up really bad if you didn't
specify a fallback family.)


..such as accessibilty, useability...


If your 'designer' disagrees with the practice of following standards,
you need a new one. The boss .. well .. try to explain why his wants are
contrary to good web practices.

The point of my post was not debating the advices given. I think they
are all good practices that any web developer should follow. I just
wonder how often the 'experts' or professional web developers in this
group face a situation where they meet resistance when it comes to
applying those advices.

 

[dorayme]

"Frames are evil." ..and a general nuisance to maintain as well. There
is reason for all the numerous pages describing why. Such as:
http://www.html-faq.com/htmlframes/?framesareevil


No, against *setting* font sizes. Let the visitor decide.


There is no point in assigning an oddball font that your visitors will
not have on their computers. Browsers will attempt to fill in with
something the computer *does* have, which may be completely different
than what you envision. (Or they may screw up really bad if you didn't
specify a fallback family.)


..such as accessibilty, useability...

Not sure what above has to do with OP's question? I reckon you
just simply could not resist the spiel. It must feel too good to

If your 'designer' disagrees with the practice of following standards,
you need a new one. The boss .. well .. try to explain why his wants are
contrary to good web practices.

Now you are talking. I can add to the above good advice that if
you are having insurmountable difficulty in a commercial
situation (where you have a boss) getting cooperation on such
things then you might consider becoming an independent
contractor. That way, you call the shots much more. If you are in
control of the whole process, well... Bob is a closer relative
than he might be, he could even be your uncle.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Not sure what above has to do with OP's question? I reckon you just
simply could not resist the spiel.

What????
Accessibility and usability are not general best practices?

It must feel too good to give it. <g>

That too. <lol>

 

[dorayme]

What????

What you said was correct but not really relevant to OPs
question. His question assumed the employee/author knew this
stuff.

Accessibility and usability are not general best practices?

They are. You are right. But it is not relevant. I know,
amazingly, what is best practice is not always spot on relevant

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Scripsit dorayme:

What you said was correct but not really relevant to OPs
question. His question assumed the employee/author knew this
stuff.

When we know that the implicit assumptions of a question are wrong, then it
is surely relevant to address them. You might decide not to answer at all,
but if you do, why would you answer under assumptions that are known to be
wrong?

It is virtually certain that the employee or author does not know "this
stuff". If you read the original question with open eyes, this should become
obvious.

 

[asdf]

Scripsit dorayme:


When we know that the implicit assumptions of a question are wrong, then
it is surely relevant to address them. You might decide not to answer at
all, but if you do, why would you answer under assumptions that are known
to be wrong?

It is virtually certain that the employee or author does not know "this
stuff". If you read the original question with open eyes, this should
become obvious.

for once, i agree with jukka ) Nice one!

 

[Neredbojias]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 26 Sep 2007 05:32:39
GMT asdf scribed:

for once, i agree with jukka ) Nice one!

I'll bet it doesn't become a habit...

 

[Travis Newbury]

A question for the regulars / experts in this group...
hmmmm....

what does your
implementation process look like? I mean...

The "best practices" are completely dependent on the project.

So, how often can you implement all of the best practices?

Well since they can change with every project, we implement them every
time. Don't look for a set of rules that you use every time no matter
what the situation. Each project in unique, and the "best practices"
for that project are equally unique.

 

[Andy Dingley]

A question for the regulars / experts in this group: what does your
implementation process look like?

I work with several processes, depending on the client.


Work with a "web dezyner" who wears trainers and glasses far more
fashionable than anything I own. They provide a Photoshop PSD that
looks good 1. At one resolution, 2. For perfect vision, 3. On a Mac
display.

I then code this, and bludgeon the design until it can be persuaded to
look approximately like the original (sometimes I simply lie and swap
the old PSDs for new screenshots. They never notice...). I try to
achieve this with the least compromise for accessibilty, validity and
general good working practices. None of these are rewarded in the
typical world of "design", because they're simply not understood.

Then we spend the final hours (often very many hours) breaking both
the design and the implementation to meet the last minute
requirements: more ads on the page until it's unreadable. Sponsor's
official colour schema of octarine and tetragrammaton. Making a font
_exactly_ a bit bigger than 10 pixels, and a bit less than 11 pixels.
And that old favourite, making it render perfectly and identically on
the CEO's only two browsers, IE5/Mac and NS4.


Secondly I work in Java shops. Why use two lines of CSS when a 100
lines of JSP will do the job instead? After all, "web design doesn't
really count as proper coding" so why learn about worthless trivia
like accessibility, standards-validity and cross-platform support.
After all, the contract specifies "IE6 only", so if the customer
suffers an IE7 auto-update in the future and the site crashes, that's
their fault.


Sometimes I even work in the charitable sector, where a well-meaning
semi-retired polytechnic lecturer with a ripped-off copy of
FrontPlague can destroy a well-designed site because: they've infinite
9-5 time to spend on it (drinking their part-time employer's coffee
between lectures), when you're trying to scratch a few hours after
midnight, when you can. You can't even mention this, because "we
mustn't upset the volunteers".

 

[William Gill]

When we know that the implicit assumptions of a question are wrong, then
it is surely relevant to address them. You might decide not to answer at
all, but if you do, why would you answer under assumptions that are
known to be wrong?

OK, I'll bite. I have tried to read it with open eyes, and though it
raises serious questions, I can't find the confirmation. What am I missing?

I agree, it surely is relevant to challenge them, rather than ignore them.

It is virtually certain that the employee or author does not know "this
stuff". If you read the original question with open eyes, this should
become obvious.

At least the OP is aware that "this stuff" exists. It's even possible
the OP does know, but lacks the confidence to make a successful argument
in their favor.

If I were to try to guess anything, I'd guess frustrated, feeling
powerless, and probably unhappy, but I'm not qualified to make such
guesses, and none of them have anything to do with CSS or HTML.

 

[dorayme]

Scripsit dorayme:


When we know that the implicit assumptions of a question are wrong, then it
is surely relevant to address them. You might decide not to answer at all,
but if you do, why would you answer under assumptions that are known to be
wrong?

It is virtually certain that the employee or author does not know "this
stuff". If you read the original question with open eyes, this should become
obvious.

First, understand that I did not mean to imply that B did
anything real bad in so responding. Just that the details of
accessibility were not what were particularly relevant. The
crucial sentence of the OP was:

"The reason I ask is that often advice is given against e.g. the
use of frames, against adjusting font sizes or use of particular
fonts, or all kinds of 'general' best practices, but I can
imagine that your designer, your client or your boss might
disagree.

So, how often can you implement all of the best practices?"

Which very much looks like how to deal with folk who need to be
dealt with in the construction of a web site. B (and I) did
address this a little too.

It is irrelevant whether the OP does or not know what best
practice is in the actual finished pages. So it does not matter
if the post was read with open eyes or half closed ones. It still
does not make it relevant to write about the actual rules of good
website construction.

Just by the way, the OP himself followed up soon after my post
and said as much....

(I see his post was before mine in time now that i dig it out of
this on-line reader):

"The point of my post was not debating the advices given. I think
they all good practices that any web developer should follow. I
just wonder how often the 'experts' or professional web
developers in this group face a situation where they meet
resistance when it comes to applying those advices."

Hoy ASDF! in my search for original posts, I see yours.

"for once, I agree with jukka ) Nice one!"

Please revise this and have an agreement with JK something to
look forward to in the future. You are backing the wrong horse
here.

I have booked a Supreme Court venue to thrash this super
important matter out further. We will all gather and talk and
speak to motions. Then we will all rush off to the pub and get
drunk, followed by some informal soccer on the beach at Coogee.
And then a dunk in the water to sober up.

 

[Daan]

I work with several processes, depending on the client.

Work with a "web dezyner" who wears trainers and glasses far more
fashionable than anything I own. They provide a Photoshop PSD that
looks good 1. At one resolution, 2. For perfect vision, 3. On a Mac
display.

I then code this, and bludgeon the design until it can be persuaded to
look approximately like the original (sometimes I simply lie and swap
the old PSDs for new screenshots. They never notice...). I try to
achieve this with the least compromise for accessibilty, validity and
general good working practices. None of these are rewarded in the
typical world of "design", because they're simply not understood.

So the interesting part is: what is "approximately" and what is "least
compromise"? If the 'dezyner' wants the body font smaller, do you
agree and adjust the css template (using em, not pt of course), or do
you argue to keep the font size 100%? If the dezyner insists on using
Verdana, do you specify Verdana or stick with another font? If the
dezyner has created a fixed width layout, do you implement it as such,
or make it fluid / liquid?

I don't ask these questions to get them answered, but to indicate that
it is difficult to find the right balance there. With my original
question, I intended to find out whether the majority on this groups
says "always stick to the absolute best practices", "see the best
practices as guidelines and apply them appropriately, when possible"
or "guidelines are nice, but I just do as the designer / boss / client
tells me to do".

 

[Andy Dingley]

If the 'dezyner' wants the body font smaller, do you
agree and adjust the css template (using em, not pt of course), or do
you argue to keep the font size 100%?

I don't recall every having this issue (exactly as you describe).

A designer who understands "pt" can be educated to understand that
"em" are more appropriate. They sometimes insist on aiming below .67em
for "legalese", but I let that slip as no-one using the site will
care. If they've got this far though, you can usually get across the
concept that "bodytext" (not necessarily <body>) should be at the
users' chosen defaults.

The problem is with the ones who can only think about pixels and have
_no_ understanding of web platform accessibility. The "must look
identical everywhere" advocates.

To be honest, I'd rather just not work with these people. Leave them
to it. If they think that the web is the same as printed paper, then
leave them to stew in it. The site content is probably just trivial
marketing crap anyway. Let them use Flash, they'd be happier that way.
That site's effective absence from the accessible web just isn't a
measurable loss to the sum total of human knowledge.

If the site has real content and the designer is a fixed-pixel
obsessive, then I blatantly lie and cheat to fool them. Code it at
100% as it ought to be, demonstrate it as paper printouts only with a
carefully-chosen default size to make it "fit", and never allow a
meeting to happen in a meeting room that has a working browser in it.
Block their laptop's IP from the web server if you have to.

It's surprisingly easy to do this. If they're dumb enough to still
think that fixed pixel design is a good idea, they're dumb enough to
hoodwink.

If the dezyner insists on using
Verdana, do you specify Verdana or stick with another font?

I don't recall a dezyner who used Verdana (Macs!). Verdana is the
province of the self-taught PC-user web designer who's blindly copying
examples pulled from the web without any understanding. If you point
out that there _is_ a probelm with it, they're generally educable.
Otherwise just slip Trebuchet (AFAIR) in, because the typeface glyphs
are indistinguishable apart form the sizing issue.

If you're feeling particularly arsey, stick your prototypes under a
project directory named /tschichold/ and only tell them the name
verbally. If they've got any right to be looking, they'll know how to
spell it.

If the
dezyner has created a fixed width layout, do you implement it as such,
or make it fluid / liquid?

Fluid. Every time. Show them paper snapshots of a dead website iif you
have to, or flip your desktop resolution to 800x600 for the meeting's
duration so that they never notice it also works perfectly well at
other resolutions. Full-screen your browser and they'll not even try
to change the window size. Those smart enough to do that will have
understood the benefits of a fluid design.

I don't ask these questions to get them answered, but to indicate that
it is difficult to find the right balance there.

I'd like to know why these idiots still have jobs.

 

[William Gill]

The problem is with the ones who can only think about pixels and have
_no_ understanding of web platform accessibility. The "must look
identical everywhere" advocates.

It's been my experience that the computer monitor is too similar to the
little box in so many family rooms (TV). Some people are used to total
control of the medium in print, and the TV screen is just electronic
paper. So I begin by emphasizing that the web is a new medium,
requiring a new standard.

Even my least tech savvy clients can grasp the concept that each
individual custom builds every web page that they view, consciously or
not, through their choice of display dimensions, color depth, etc.
Without numbing their brain (too much), I show how these differences are
not like the difference between a 17" TV and a 54" TV. I usually say
that HTML is contains a set "suggestions", but the individual has the
final say.

To be honest, I'd rather just not work with these people.

Who does? Some of us have the luxury of not working with people we
don't always see eye to eye with. I doubt that is universal.

If the site has real content and the designer is a fixed-pixel
obsessive, then I blatantly lie and cheat to fool them. Code it at
100% as it ought to be, demonstrate it as paper printouts only with a
carefully-chosen default size to make it "fit", and never allow a
meeting to happen in a meeting room that has a working browser in it.
Block their laptop's IP from the web server if you have to.

It's surprisingly easy to do this. If they're dumb enough to still
think that fixed pixel design is a good idea, they're dumb enough to
hoodwink.

I guess that's one approach, though it strikes me as a bit extreme. Not
to mention what says about my relationship if I have to "hoodwink" my
client, or their agent.

I usually point out that they wouldn't select content that could
alienate, or even offended potential customers, why use design
techniques that could. If I'm unsuccessful, or if I feel we can't come
to an amicable understanding, I'm back to "I'd rather just not work with
these people." It doesn't do me, or them any good to do something that
I believe is against their best interests. My professional integrity is
part of why the hired me in the first place.

My biggest challenge comes from third parties who's artistic intent is
in conflict with the medium. From the client's perspective we just have
a difference of opinion. I've even had one of these "artists" use
javascript to resize the browser window "to maintain the proper aspect
ratio." Talk about a rude entrance to a website!

I haven't gotten to the point of "give me fluid design, or give me
death" (my apologies to Patric Henry fans). I can come to terms with
some "semi-fixed" layouts, as long as they don't have to declare "best
viewed in..., or on..., or with...", and as long as the inherent
negatives don't overwhelm the positives. I've even seen some
interesting discussions on the effect line length on perception and
usability. That might argue in favor of a more fixed layout, at least
in it's outer envelope.

 

[Adrienne Boswell]

A question for the regulars / experts in this group: what does your
implementation process look like?

I have a boss that I have been "working" with for many years. From
someone who wanted to have pop-unders (http://tinyurl.com/ysnmf8) to
someone who sent a list of validation errors the "deziner" for one of
her charities, it's been a long, slow ride.

She still uses IE6, and I think she feels like it's like an old pair of
slippers, comfortable for her, but full of holes and threadbare. Still
insists that any link off site has to be opened in a new window. I'm
gradually weaning her over to FF (Opera is just too confusing for her at
this point), and when I do, I will introduce mouse gestures - new
windows for off site links will then disappear.

She understands that sites are not going to look exactly the same across
browsers. She has a really good eye for color and balance. She thinks
that I'm too concerned about Everyone being able to use a site - she
says that who ever you are trying to reach is all you have to worry
about, and that the percentage of others is too low to worry about.

When doing a site, I usually get colors from her. Then I make a lorum
ipsum page with the CSS in the style element. We go back and forth
until we both agree it looks good, and then I start doing the back end.
Depending on the complexity, a few more days of development and testing,
and then time for one more approval before it goes onto a production
server. She's happy, and proud to tell others that her site works
across browsers, doesn't have validation errors, and thanks to her,
looks good.

 

[SpaceGirl]

I don't recall every having this issue (exactly as you describe).

A designer who understands "pt" can be educated to understand that
"em" are more appropriate. They sometimes insist on aiming below .67em
for "legalese", but I let that slip as no-one using the site will
care. If they've got this far though, you can usually get across the
concept that "bodytext" (not necessarily <body>) should be at the
users' chosen defaults.

The problem is with the ones who can only think about pixels and have
_no_ understanding of web platform accessibility. The "must look
identical everywhere" advocates.

To be honest, I'd rather just not work with these people. Leave them
to it. If they think that the web is the same as printed paper, then
leave them to stew in it. The site content is probably just trivial
marketing crap anyway. Let them use Flash, they'd be happier that way.
That site's effective absence from the accessible web just isn't a
measurable loss to the sum total of human knowledge.

If the site has real content and the designer is a fixed-pixel
obsessive, then I blatantly lie and cheat to fool them. Code it at
100% as it ought to be, demonstrate it as paper printouts only with a
carefully-chosen default size to make it "fit", and never allow a
meeting to happen in a meeting room that has a working browser in it.
Block their laptop's IP from the web server if you have to.

It's surprisingly easy to do this. If they're dumb enough to still
think that fixed pixel design is a good idea, they're dumb enough to
hoodwink.


I don't recall a dezyner who used Verdana (Macs!). Verdana is the
province of the self-taught PC-user web designer who's blindly copying
examples pulled from the web without any understanding. If you point
out that there _is_ a probelm with it, they're generally educable.
Otherwise just slip Trebuchet (AFAIR) in, because the typeface glyphs
are indistinguishable apart form the sizing issue.

If you're feeling particularly arsey, stick your prototypes under a
project directory named /tschichold/ and only tell them the name
verbally. If they've got any right to be looking, they'll know how to
spell it.


Fluid. Every time. Show them paper snapshots of a dead website iif you
have to, or flip your desktop resolution to 800x600 for the meeting's
duration so that they never notice it also works perfectly well at
other resolutions. Full-screen your browser and they'll not even try
to change the window size. Those smart enough to do that will have
understood the benefits of a fluid design.

What about Flash developers? Fluid has a completely different meaning
inside Flash (you can work in pixel, if you wish, but everything is
fluid inside Flash).

 

[Andy Dingley]

I guess that's one approach, though it strikes me as a bit extreme.

That's not extreme.

Extreme is when my hand-forged steel clueiron really is leaning
against the side of my desk as I type this.

 

[William Gill]

Extreme is when my hand-forged steel clueiron really is leaning
against the side of my desk as I type this.

I did say "a bit"! However, I prefer a wood. :-D