Anyone still hand-coding web sites?

[Bertilo Wennergren]

Re: Workable,, not the same (Re: Anyone still hand-coding web sites?)

Stan Brown wrote:
[color=blue]
> So _much_ effort is wasted trying to get pages to look the same in
> different browsers, when the only one who will know is the author.[/color]

Wrong. The paying clients will know it. They are the ones who ask for
it, even demand it. (It's still crazy, of course.)

--
Bertilo Wennergren <bertilow@gmx.n et> <http://www.bertilow.co m>

[Barbara de Zoete]

Re: Workable,, not the same (Re: Anyone still hand-coding web sites?)

Stan Brown schreef:
[color=blue]
> Jonathan Snook wrote:
>[color=green]
>>My requirement in running my personal site is that it "works" in all
>>browsers but doesn't have to look the _same_ in all browsers.[/color]
>
> This should be emblazoned on the forehead of every Web designer.
>
> So _much_ effort is wasted trying to get pages to look the same in
> different browsers, when the only one who will know is the author.
> With the possible exception of people who review Web sites for a
> living, no user who is trying to get information cares what the site
> looks like in a browser other than the one she happens to be using -
> - provided the browser she's using can display the information.[/color]

Too bad it is much to long for a sig :-) Like every message should start
and or end with this.
I've never seen it explained so clearly before. Thank you for this reminder.

--

Barbara

http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/weblog.html *Dagboek*
http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html *Zweefvliegen*?

[Salagir]

Re: Anyone still hand-coding web sites?

On 4 Oct 2003 22:55:06 -0700, in comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html,
d2003xx wrote:[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > >too complex (hundreds of tables in one page)[/color]
> > If the page is big enough to contain "hundreds of tables", isn't it
> > big enough to split up into sub-pages? It must take forever to load.
> > And of course I assume these are real tables, not <table> used for
> > mere layout purposes.[/color]
> heh, they're just for layout purposes. :)[/color]

So it takes forever to load, it uses all the ressources for calculating
the tables, and it's very static, and must explode if I increase the
font size.

Nice.

--
++++++++ Zelda, Dragon Ball, Mana and my (art)work at www.salagir.com ++++++++
"Take away hope, then give them guns." -+- Jeff Gibbn, www.michaelmoore.com -+-

[Eric Bohlman]

Re: Workable,, not the same (Re: Anyone still hand-coding web sites?)

Bertilo Wennergren <bertilow@gmx.n et> wrote in news:blr9c2$m2v $05$1@news.t-
online.com:
[color=blue]
> Stan Brown wrote:
>[color=green]
>> So _much_ effort is wasted trying to get pages to look the same in
>> different browsers, when the only one who will know is the author.[/color]
>
> Wrong. The paying clients will know it. They are the ones who ask for
> it, even demand it. (It's still crazy, of course.)[/color]

That all depends on what the client is paying for, doesn't it? If the
client is paying for a trained monkey, there's not much hope, but if the
client is paying for an expert, one would hope that part of the expertise
involves being able to *show* (not tell) the client why that doesn't matter
and why changing the requirement from "looks the same in all browsers" to
"looks great in all browsers" will do a better job of meeting the client's
*real* requirements (the "X" in the "XY problem").

[Jonathan Snook]

Re: Anyone still hand-coding web sites?


"Kris" <kristiaan@xs4a ll.netherlands> wrote in message
news:kristiaan-AEA188.10112606 102003@news1.ne ws.xs4all.nl...[color=blue]
> Ehm.. wasn't it clear that I was pro CSS?[/color]

Oh it was clear. :) Just didn't understand the context of your question. I'm
pro CSS. Which often isn't clear because I like to argue "carte blanche"
statements.

[Kris]

Re: Anyone still hand-coding web sites?

In article
<Ljcgb.40636$ko %.12633@news04. bloor.is.net.ca ble.rogers.com> ,
"Jonathan Snook" <goto_www.snook .ca@snook.ca> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
> > Ehm.. wasn't it clear that I was pro CSS?[/color]
>
> Oh it was clear. :) Just didn't understand the context of your question. I'm
> pro CSS. Which often isn't clear because I like to argue "carte blanche"
> statements.[/color]

I can't even remember what the topic was about. But maybe that is
because you also like 'carte blanche' quoting. :)

--
Kris
kristiaan@xs4al l.netherlands (nl)

[Bertilo Wennergren]

Re: Workable,, not the same (Re: Anyone still hand-coding web sites?)

Eric Bohlman:
[color=blue]
> Bertilo Wennergren <bertilow@gmx.n et> wrote in news:blr9c2$m2v $05$1@news.t-
> online.com:[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>>Stan Brown wrote:[/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>So _much_ effort is wasted trying to get pages to look the same in
>>>different browsers, when the only one who will know is the author.[/color][/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>>Wrong. The paying clients will know it. They are the ones who ask for
>>it, even demand it. (It's still crazy, of course.)[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> That all depends on what the client is paying for, doesn't it? If the
> client is paying for a trained monkey, there's not much hope, but if the
> client is paying for an expert, one would hope that part of the expertise
> involves being able to *show* (not tell) the client why that doesn't matter
> and why changing the requirement from "looks the same in all browsers" to
> "looks great in all browsers" will do a better job of meeting the client's
> *real* requirements (the "X" in the "XY problem").[/color]

True. But it's still a fact that most of the pressure to do sensless
control freak pixel-perfect-in-both-browsers design comes from the
clients. They want it. They ask for it, or even take it for granted. If
you try to tell them that they really don't want it, they'll take their
business somewhere else.

Sad...

--
Bertilo Wennergren <bertilow@gmx.n et> <http://www.bertilow.co m>

[Eric Bohlman]

Re: Workable,, not the same (Re: Anyone still hand-coding web sites?)

Bertilo Wennergren <bertilow@gmx.n et> wrote in
news:blsa82$68f $03$1@news.t-online.com:
[color=blue]
> Eric Bohlman:[color=green]
>> That all depends on what the client is paying for, doesn't it? If
>> the client is paying for a trained monkey, there's not much hope, but
>> if the client is paying for an expert, one would hope that part of
>> the expertise involves being able to *show* (not tell) the client why
>> that doesn't matter and why changing the requirement from "looks the
>> same in all browsers" to "looks great in all browsers" will do a
>> better job of meeting the client's *real* requirements (the "X" in
>> the "XY problem").[/color]
>
> True. But it's still a fact that most of the pressure to do sensless
> control freak pixel-perfect-in-both-browsers design comes from the
> clients. They want it. They ask for it, or even take it for granted.
> If you try to tell them that they really don't want it, they'll take
> their business somewhere else.[/color]

As I said, telling won't work. You have to *show* them. That still might
not work, but it's got a far better chance. You have to make the idea
concrete, not abstract, to them.

[Eric Jarvis]

Re: Workable,, not the same (Re: Anyone still hand-coding web sites?)

Eric Bohlman wrote:[color=blue]
> Bertilo Wennergren <bertilow@gmx.n et> wrote in
> news:blsa82$68f $03$1@news.t-online.com:
>[color=green]
> > Eric Bohlman:[color=darkred]
> >> That all depends on what the client is paying for, doesn't it? If
> >> the client is paying for a trained monkey, there's not much hope, but
> >> if the client is paying for an expert, one would hope that part of
> >> the expertise involves being able to *show* (not tell) the client why
> >> that doesn't matter and why changing the requirement from "looks the
> >> same in all browsers" to "looks great in all browsers" will do a
> >> better job of meeting the client's *real* requirements (the "X" in
> >> the "XY problem").[/color]
> >
> > True. But it's still a fact that most of the pressure to do sensless
> > control freak pixel-perfect-in-both-browsers design comes from the
> > clients. They want it. They ask for it, or even take it for granted.
> > If you try to tell them that they really don't want it, they'll take
> > their business somewhere else.[/color]
>
> As I said, telling won't work. You have to *show* them. That still might
> not work, but it's got a far better chance. You have to make the idea
> concrete, not abstract, to them.
>[/color]

You also need to know how to sell an idea. I do NOT make flexible web
sites that can cope with most situations. I make liquid sites that
automatically offer a design adapted to make best use of the user's
browsing environment. They don't need to know that largely means I don't
add a batch of moronic fixed size specifications. They need to know that
it is a feature of the design process that the marketing manager's iMac
sees something different to the CEO's 1600px wide flatscreen PC and the
tech manager's brand new handheld.

Don't sell it as avoiding problems in different situations. Sell it as
personalising the site for the user.

--
eric

https://www.ericjarvis.co.uk

all these years I've waited for the revolution
and all we end up getting is spin

[Andy Dingley]

Re: Workable,, not the same (Re: Anyone still hand-coding web sites?)

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 19:56:26 +0200, Bertilo Wennergren
<bertilow@gmx.n et> wrote:
[color=blue]
>True. But it's still a fact that most of the pressure to do sensless
>control freak pixel-perfect-in-both-browsers design comes from the
>clients.[/color]

I disagree (based on my experience working (briefly) for a bunch of
classic despisable Nathans, back in early 2000)

The production process began with the web shop doing layouts in
Photoshop. One large bitmap, representing the page. It was basically
the print advert design process, transferred unchanged to the web (I
can't express how much I despised these pointy-bearded fucktards)
From that point on, "design" was complete and "implementation " was the
process of reproducing every pixel exactly, using whatever misbegotten
rag-bag of <FONT> and Flash could be dragged into it. Truly these
people were devoid of clue, yet ample of scooters.

It wasn't the client's fault. Now the client, late in the process, did
start to compare pixels and whine about differences. But this was as a
direct result of being told that _that's_how_you _did_ "web design" by
the web shop.


--
Die Gotterspammerun g - Junkmail of the Gods

[Barry Pearson]

Re: Workable,, not the same (Re: Anyone still hand-coding web sites?)

Stan Brown wrote:[color=blue]
> In article
> <X%Wfb.232202$L nr1.219290@news 01.bloor.is.net .cable.rogers.c om> in
> comp.infosystem s.www.authoring.html, Jonathan Snook
> <goto_www.snook .ca@snook.ca> wrote:[color=green]
>>My requirement in running my personal site is that it "works" in all
>>browsers but doesn't have to look the _same_ in all browsers.[/color]
>
> This should be emblazoned on the forehead of every Web designer.
>
> So _much_ effort is wasted trying to get pages to look the same in
> different browsers, when the only one who will know is the author.
> With the possible exception of people who review Web sites for a
> living, no user who is trying to get information cares what the site
> looks like in a browser other than the one she happens to be using -
> - provided the browser she's using can display the information.[/color]

I expect my pages to look the same on my PC in my test-set of browsers used at
their default setting, or at least I want to know why not. (And, typically,
the latter is "because Mozilla Firebird is a bit peculiar"). My test set is IE
6, Opera 7.2, and Firebird 0.6.1. All on W2000. That is all I have the
resources for at the moment.

There are various valid reasons for this policy:

- I care a lot about the presentation of my pages. (I don't need to justify
that attitude, neither is it negotiable. I am my own client).

- I have found that when differences appear, there are often important reasons
for it. Sometimes it is because of peculiarities in certain browsers that I
needed to be aware of. (And can often easily correct with valid code/CSS).
Sometimes it is because I have got the HTML or the CSS wrong and one browser
is "trying to tell me".

- Once things are published, things get uncontrollable. But if someone queries
what they see, I want to be able to understand it. So by "controllin g the
controllables", I have reduced the variety, and can sort out problems faster.

As the proportion of older browsers with non-compliant behaviour reduces, I
expect it to become far easier to have the same look across my set of test
browsers at their default settings.

--
Barry Pearson

http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/

http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/

http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/

[d2003xx]

Re: Anyone still hand-coding web sites?

Barbara de Zoete <b_de_zoete@hot mail.com> wrote in message news:<blr8p9$fd 5fa$1@ID-52872.news.uni-berlin.de>...[color=blue]
> d2003xx schreef:[color=green]
> > Barbara de Zoete wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> >>d2003xx schreef:
> >>
> >>>Kris schreef:[/color][/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >>>>d2003xx schreef:[/color][/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >>>>>Hmmmm... I code php to produce html pages.... (not embedding php in
> >>>>>html) I started to use this because the layout of html pages becomes
> >>>>>too complex (hundreds of tables in one page). And it can improve
> >>>>>maintainab lity a lot.
> >>>>
> >>>>Replace as much of the presentational HTML by CSS and you will be
> >>>>cheering. PHP/CSS/Structural HTML is a very good combination.
> >>>
> >>>I tried, but CSS is badly supported. :(
> >>
> >>Now this is news to me. Why do you think "CSS is badly supported" ?[/color]
> >
> > For example, "display: block" and "position: absolute"... Try to use
> > them to control the layout on different browsers and you will see.[/color]
>
> All of my pages have a two colomn layout (except for one, which has
> three colomns). To get the colomns in place I use position:absolu te;
> (and display:block; if necessary, which is rare).
> As far as I can see, using various browsers (IE6, OP7.11, NS7.1, Moz1.4,
> Firebird0.6, Avant8.02, Konqueror) none of the newer browsers have any
> problem with that what so ever.
>
> So what are the problems you encountered?[/color]

I forgot the detail (have given up css for a long time..), but the
problem is mainly about "display: block".. For example, put a big
image on the background (by "<img>", to fit the size of browser
window), then put text or other things on it.

[Barbara de Zoete]

Re: Anyone still hand-coding web sites?

d2003xx schreef:[color=blue]
> Barbara de Zoete <b_de_zoete@hot mail.com> wrote in message news:<blr8p9$fd 5fa$1@ID-52872.news.uni-berlin.de>...
>[color=green]
>>d2003xx schreef:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Barbara de Zoete wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>d2003xx schreef:
>>>>>I tried, but CSS is badly supported. :(
>>>>
>>>>Now this is news to me. Why do you think "CSS is badly supported" ?
>>>
>>>For example, "display: block" and "position: absolute"... Try to use
>>>them to control the layout on different browsers and you will see.[/color]
>>
>>All of my pages have a two colomn layout (except for one, which has
>>three colomns). To get the colomns in place I use position:absolu te;
>>(and display:block; if necessary, which is rare).
>>As far as I can see, using various browsers (IE6, OP7.11, NS7.1, Moz1.4,
>>Firebird0.6 , Avant8.02, Konqueror) none of the newer browsers have any
>>problem with that what so ever.
>>
>>So what are the problems you encountered?[/color]
>
>
> I forgot the detail (have given up css for a long time..), but the
> problem is mainly about "display: block".. For example, put a big
> image on the background (by "<img>", to fit the size of browser
> window), then put text or other things on it.[/color]

With fitting an image to the size of the browser window, one should
encounter problems ;-) One doesn't know the size of the browser window
of the visitor, now does one?
I found that if I couldn't get things working one way around, I could
always change the order of the content in my html source. Like put the
text in normal <p> tags and at the end of the source place whatever
blocks I need to be positioned absolute. Ofcourse giving a logical
z-index to make one appear over the other.

So

<h1>test page</h1>
<p>some text</p>
<p>some more text</p>
<img src="image.jpg" alt="foo">

with a style applied to the image (position:absol ute; top:0; left:0)
works for me. z-index On <p> say 100; z-index on image say 10.
Also putting the image in the background of the body could be helpful if
it is meant to be a background image :-)

Give CSS another try, if you are still willing. It is really making life
so much easier.

--

Barbara

http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/weblog.html *Dagboek*
http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html *Zweefvliegen*?