But they're not as standards compliant generally - athough Macromedia are moving in that direction. Don't know what the new 2004 version has in that line though.
I think Flash has a whole accessability inspector of some kind. I'm almost positive.
Well, I think in the context of what I've read so far, we can expect a change in aesthetics that will employ more modern development methods. The problem you mention that Microsoft will have because IE is a far cry from W3C compliant... I wouldn't be surprised if they started to take some initiative to change that a bit. The problem is that, and will be for a few years, we still have a large install base of older browsers that are most definitely not standards compliant. The problem is that we usually design for the lowest common denominator. I think we're on the verge of being able to get away with losing tables in favor of CSS. I wouldn't do it for 60% of my clients, but I could see Apple doing it.
Death to tables! Long live compliance!
I am an amateur web designer and have tried to get behind the web standards movement as much as possible. My primary site?http://www.FrodosNotebook.com?uses not a single table. It scales beautifully from 640x480 up to 1152x768, or wherever else you want to take it. It's not perfect of course; I am still learning. I tend to take A List Apart's stance on designing for antiquated browsers: tough luck, upgrade. And actually the site doesn't look too bad in Netscape 4.7 (which, ironically, probably means I'm doing something wrong ).
Anyway, Apple designing there site using web standards will be a great thing for the movement. Long live Apple!
I am an amateur web designer and have tried to get behind the web standards movement as much as possible. My primary site?http://www.FrodosNotebook.com?uses not a single table. It scales beautifully from 640x480 up to 1152x768, or wherever else you want to take it. It's not perfect of course; I am still learning. I tend to take A List Apart's stance on designing for antiquated browsers: tough luck, upgrade. Ands actually the site doesn't look too bad in Netscape 4.7 (which, ironically, probably means I'm doing something wrong ).
Anyway, Apple designing there site using web standards will be a great thing for the movement. Long live Apple!
(Okay, I'm done now)
Egad...one tjhing that you can change on that site is how the background doesn't scroll with the text...when I scroll it makes me nauseus. Otherwise, great site.
(How bout putting a semi-opaque white square where the text scrolls over, for readability?)
I think Flash has a whole accessability inspector of some kind. I'm almost positive.
I am pretty sure you are right. But, while I think Flash definitely has its place (witness Homestarrunner.com), I think it would be better for Apple to avoid it. It just doesn't seem necessary.
Egad...one tjhing that you can change on that site is how the background doesn't scroll with the text...when I scroll it makes me nauseus. Otherwise, great site.
(How bout putting a semi-opaque white square where the text scrolls over, for readability?)
I've always been a fan of the static background myself, but a semi-opaque background for the text is a good idea, and pretty easy to do. Thanks for the input. Anyway...back to topic...
Long live tables! (because they actually work reliably)
Standards are great. Everyone should have their own...
Lest we let multiple organizations dictate new, poorly-specified standards every year.
So far, Apple seems to have made the right tradeoffs between browser-comptibility and eye-candy. Flash and other high-level toolkits are 'neat'. Yet, if the same effect can be acheived with simpler, more reliable technologies, apple should choose that route. Rarely am I turned off from a product because a web site is too simple. However, it seems routine that I simply close the window of an overly complex site, which, in it's attempt to look impressive, fails to work reliably.
Sure, the <center> tag maybe depricated, but at times, it is the only reliable solution... screw the standards.
Tables aren't an unrealiable layout format when done correctly. I used a successful tables/css combo on my site, and it works perfectly to this point. Check it out if you'd like at rageous.us. (I won't link it so as to avoid any spam accusations)
Note: The navigation can difficult to find at first, but I use the site for experimentation and to display work not in my portfolio or shown to prospective client.
Tables aren't an unrealiable layout format when done correctly. I used a successful tables/css combo on my site, and it works perfectly to this point. Check it out if you'd like at www.rageous.us. (I won't link it so as to avoid any spam accusations)
Note: The navigation can difficult to find at first, but I use the site for experimentation and to display work not in my portfolio or shown to prospective client.
Tables aren't an unrealiable layout format when done correctly. I used a successful tables/css combo on my site, and it works perfectly to this point. Check it out if you'd like at rageous.us. (I won't link it so as to avoid any spam accusations)
Note: The navigation can difficult to find at first, but I use the site for experimentation and to display work not in my portfolio or shown to prospective client.
That would be incredibly easy to do in CSS with a lot less code and make it work in a lot more browsers/devices
Comments
Originally posted by segovius
But they're not as standards compliant generally - athough Macromedia are moving in that direction. Don't know what the new 2004 version has in that line though.
I think Flash has a whole accessability inspector of some kind. I'm almost positive.
Originally posted by LoCash
Well, I think in the context of what I've read so far, we can expect a change in aesthetics that will employ more modern development methods. The problem you mention that Microsoft will have because IE is a far cry from W3C compliant... I wouldn't be surprised if they started to take some initiative to change that a bit. The problem is that, and will be for a few years, we still have a large install base of older browsers that are most definitely not standards compliant. The problem is that we usually design for the lowest common denominator. I think we're on the verge of being able to get away with losing tables in favor of CSS. I wouldn't do it for 60% of my clients, but I could see Apple doing it.
Death to tables! Long live compliance!
I am an amateur web designer and have tried to get behind the web standards movement as much as possible. My primary site?http://www.FrodosNotebook.com?uses not a single table. It scales beautifully from 640x480 up to 1152x768, or wherever else you want to take it. It's not perfect of course; I am still learning. I tend to take A List Apart's stance on designing for antiquated browsers: tough luck, upgrade. And actually the site doesn't look too bad in Netscape 4.7 (which, ironically, probably means I'm doing something wrong
Anyway, Apple designing there site using web standards will be a great thing for the movement. Long live Apple!
(Okay, I'm done now)
Originally posted by SledgeHammer
Death to tables! Long live compliance!
I am an amateur web designer and have tried to get behind the web standards movement as much as possible. My primary site?http://www.FrodosNotebook.com?uses not a single table. It scales beautifully from 640x480 up to 1152x768, or wherever else you want to take it. It's not perfect of course; I am still learning. I tend to take A List Apart's stance on designing for antiquated browsers: tough luck, upgrade. Ands actually the site doesn't look too bad in Netscape 4.7 (which, ironically, probably means I'm doing something wrong
Anyway, Apple designing there site using web standards will be a great thing for the movement. Long live Apple!
(Okay, I'm done now)
Egad...one tjhing that you can change on that site is how the background doesn't scroll with the text...when I scroll it makes me nauseus. Otherwise, great site.
(How bout putting a semi-opaque white square where the text scrolls over, for readability?)
Originally posted by Placebo
I think Flash has a whole accessability inspector of some kind. I'm almost positive.
I am pretty sure you are right. But, while I think Flash definitely has its place (witness Homestarrunner.com), I think it would be better for Apple to avoid it. It just doesn't seem necessary.
Originally posted by Placebo
Egad...one tjhing that you can change on that site is how the background doesn't scroll with the text...when I scroll it makes me nauseus. Otherwise, great site.
(How bout putting a semi-opaque white square where the text scrolls over, for readability?)
I've always been a fan of the static background myself, but a semi-opaque background for the text is a good idea, and pretty easy to do. Thanks for the input. Anyway...back to topic...
Long live tables! (because they actually work reliably)
Standards are great. Everyone should have their own...
Lest we let multiple organizations dictate new, poorly-specified standards every year.
So far, Apple seems to have made the right tradeoffs between browser-comptibility and eye-candy. Flash and other high-level toolkits are 'neat'. Yet, if the same effect can be acheived with simpler, more reliable technologies, apple should choose that route. Rarely am I turned off from a product because a web site is too simple. However, it seems routine that I simply close the window of an overly complex site, which, in it's attempt to look impressive, fails to work reliably.
Sure, the <center> tag maybe depricated, but at times, it is the only reliable solution... screw the standards.
Tables aren't an unrealiable layout format when done correctly. I used a successful tables/css combo on my site, and it works perfectly to this point. Check it out if you'd like at rageous.us. (I won't link it so as to avoid any spam accusations)
Note: The navigation can difficult to find at first, but I use the site for experimentation and to display work not in my portfolio or shown to prospective client.
Originally posted by rageous
Yeah, what's all this table bashing I hear!?
Tables aren't an unrealiable layout format when done correctly. I used a successful tables/css combo on my site, and it works perfectly to this point. Check it out if you'd like at www.rageous.us. (I won't link it so as to avoid any spam accusations)
Note: The navigation can difficult to find at first, but I use the site for experimentation and to display work not in my portfolio or shown to prospective client.
You linked it.
It looks cool, but where the hell do I click?
Originally posted by CubeDude
You linked it.
It looks cool, but where the hell do I click?
Mouse over the "scales". It's a rollover thing. ( I hate sites that don't show text until you mouse over a certain hotspot)
Originally posted by Placebo
Mouse over the "scales". It's a rollover thing. ( I hate sites that don't show text until you mouse over a certain hotspot)
Like I said, it is completely experimental and I'd never consider doing something like this in anything other than that.
But you hate the entire site because of that?
Originally posted by rageous
Like I said, it is completely experimental and I'd never consider doing something like this in anything other than that.
But you hate the entire site because of that?
Your Raphaels are quite excellent? uh, but they can't compare to your beautiful tables (trying to stay on topic).
Originally posted by MacsRGood4U
Refreshing the site is a good idea. Also, current design is a few years old. Change is good.
You worked on the 'new coke' campaign, right?
Change is NOT inherently 'good'.
\\m/
Originally posted by JRC
You worked on the 'new coke' campaign, right?
Change is NOT inherently 'good'.
You worked on the Hershey's chocolate campaign, right?
Originally posted by rageous
Yeah, what's all this table bashing I hear!?
Tables aren't an unrealiable layout format when done correctly. I used a successful tables/css combo on my site, and it works perfectly to this point. Check it out if you'd like at rageous.us. (I won't link it so as to avoid any spam accusations)
Note: The navigation can difficult to find at first, but I use the site for experimentation and to display work not in my portfolio or shown to prospective client.
That would be incredibly easy to do in CSS with a lot less code and make it work in a lot more browsers/devices
Originally posted by segovius
Zeldman might have something to say about that....
You mean Jacob Nielsen I guess, Zeldman is not against Flash