Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 19th Dec 2007 21:48 UTC, submitted by RJop
Internet Explorer "As a team, we've spent the last year heads down working hard on IE8. Last week, we achieved an important milestone that should interest web developers. Internet Explorer 8 now renders the 'Acid2 Face' correctly in IE8 standards mode." Insert freezing and hell joke.
Thread beginning with comment 292256
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: why?
by Arakon on Wed 19th Dec 2007 22:36 UTC in reply to "why?"
Arakon
Member since:
2005-07-06

You know there are options in most browsers to over-ride fonts and colors of text.

The point is, that sites are "designed" ie they are made too "look" a certain way. Much like a picture. You don't go to the Museum with a bucket of finger paints to make every picture look the way you want it to... This is not a freedom of choice issue, the user has the freedom to choose not to ever return to that site or even look at it. As a designer it is "MY" choice on how that site looks and if "I" make bad choices and no one wants to look at it performs like crap on other people's machines, then that is on "ME".

See how that works? Your choice to or not to visit the site, My choice, how it looks because I made it.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: why?
by CaptainPinko on Wed 19th Dec 2007 23:37 in reply to "RE: why?"
CaptainPinko Member since:
2005-07-21

I believe you are missing the point. I think the GP was referring to a time where HTML was just for content and people didn't futz around with making it "look" a certain way. After all, all academic papers look the same. It's about making it about the written content with HTML only being used to help mark out which part of the text files are what.

Now while I empathise with the GP's position, I concede that it is your site and you can (sadly) do whatever you want with it and that's your right. But please don't misrepresent their point.

As an aside: I hate how when people want to "learn to make webpages" they mean all that glitzy shit and formatting and animations and flash and want to skip over semantic mark-up which (arguably) is what HTML is really about. And because of the over-abundance of crap and under-abundance of semantic information, scrubbing HTML for data is much harder than it should be.

To see how seriously I take this just have a gander if you will at these notes I made myself just for class http://tiny.cc/0AL0T . Have a gander at the HTML and think would you rather write a Perl script to search that or a Dream Weaver mess.

Edited 2007-12-19 23:38

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: why?
by dagw on Thu 20th Dec 2007 00:08 in reply to "RE[2]: why?"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

After all, all academic papers look the same

Totally untrue. They differ greatly from subject to subject, journal to journal and year to year. Two papers published in the same journal on the same year probably look similar (assuming it's one of the journals where the author cannot typeset their own paper), but beyond that there is nothing that says they have to even look vaugely the same. I also know plenty of academics who have gotten into massive fights over exactly how their paper should and shouldn't look when printed.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: why?
by siride on Thu 20th Dec 2007 13:22 in reply to "RE[2]: why?"
siride Member since:
2006-01-02

Oh all that semantic stuff is bullshit given the technology. Unless you want your site to look like 1994, you have to mix presentation with content...at least if you can't use technologies like XSLT and XSL-FO. CSS alone is NOT powerful enough to carry the burden of being the presentation "layer".

Your website is fine...but it's very simple content that doesn't require much in the way of formatting (i.e. a toy website)...and it looks like 1994. What if I want to make a website that looks nice and is dynamic and has much more complicated info? Good luck doing that with purely semantic XHTML plus some CSS.

I'm making (yet another) internal web application at work, and although I strive to make the HTML very simple, it's still not possible to actually produce semantic-only HTML. If I did, I'd have to start sacrificing functionality and the appearance would suffer as well.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: why?
by rajj on Thu 20th Dec 2007 01:41 in reply to "RE: why?"
rajj Member since:
2005-07-06

And you, sir, represent the antithesis of the web. The entire premise behind it is to be inter-operable between different hardware architectures, operating systems and client output capabilities.

If you're so concerned about how it looks --going back to the picture in a museum analogy--, just present a giant raster graphic. It'll be inefficient and lack any semantic information, but it doesn't seem like you care about any of that.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: why?
by Quag7 on Thu 20th Dec 2007 09:34 in reply to "RE: why?"
Quag7 Member since:
2005-07-28

It's not an issue of whether or not you have a right to design a site that is completely flashy, barely usable garbage, it's a matter of whether or not such sites are crap.

Sites which utilize, for example, Flash-only animation, or have text over-running and overlapping borders and other text because I don't run at some ridiculous short bus 1995 era resolution that can make use of tiny fonts (and therefore have to increase the minimum allowable font size in my browser settings), just *suck*. And this happens to a fair number of sites I visit - the sites are designed with inelastic widths, ridiculously miniscule text sizes (clearly designed with a "recommended resolution" - or worse yet, the resolution the designer happens by sheer chance to be running on their own workstation), so that they look like utter crap on my monitor.

Maybe some people like women with tons of makeup, music videos, advertising, and other such forms of flashy form-before-function "expression," but I don't. You have every right to design that kind of pretentious stuff, but we're just discussing whether this is something good or not, and I say that it absolutely is not.

If with the flick of a switch right now I could basically revert the whole Web back to flexible HTML which displays properly on almost any browser or device but has no bling and requires few or no plugins, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

No offense and nothing personal.

On a semi-related note, I run this "Noscript" plug-in in Firefox. It's fascinating. Basically I have it set to disable all scripts, and then I manually allow scripts to run as needed. On the sites I browse, on average one out of every four scripts that web pages try to run is actually required for the page to display properly. I've had a good time watching scripts *not* run as they were intended. So much web design displays nothing so much as the egos and excesses of web designers and the suits (who clearly don't use the internet much) that they pander to.

I'm not opposed to the judicious use of CSS, javascript, and other such things, but I swear sometimes I think people use them just to use them.

Function before form. Substance before style. Information before flash. It's not a matter of rights; it's a matter of wankery vs. usability.

You know what looks great on my monitor? Wikipedia. More of that. Less allmusic.com.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: why?
by siride on Thu 20th Dec 2007 13:25 in reply to "RE[2]: why?"
siride Member since:
2006-01-02

I agree about the font thing. It can be done without losing your pretty website. With a thoughtful use of CSS and HTML, you can actually make a website that scales up and down with the font size. You might have to throw in a little JavaScript to get it to work, but that's how the web is these days.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: why?
by angryrobot on Thu 20th Dec 2007 14:34 in reply to "RE[2]: why?"
angryrobot Member since:
2006-04-26

Oh I SO agree with you. I use noscript as well, and it's absolutely astounding how many sites are unusable or even give you a blank screen when you browse without Javascript. Now, clearly there aren't a huge number of people browsing without Javascript, but that is no excuse.

I'm a web developer and I develop all my sites to degrade so that you need neither Flash or Javascript to see all the content. I only use Flash and Javascript to add to the experience. Not only does this allow the sites to be viewable on the widest range of platforms, it's helpful for search engine optimization and accessibility.

Reply Parent Score: 1