What's Going On With Apple's Web Design?
I noticed that Apple's new iPod pages are DocTyped as XHTML 1.0 Transitional. They are the only pages on Apple's site that claim to be XHTML. The pages, however, are ridiculously invalid. Does Apple think they can just put an XHTML DocType on their pages and have their rugged HTML be valid XML? I thought they hired Jeffrey Zeldman to work on their site -- that guy knows what he is doing.
I am wondering if you guys think Apple is slowly building a standards compliant site or if they just used XHTML on their new page because they thought it was needed to do their fancy (useless) CSS color switcher?
I am ashamed of the incompetency of 99% of the world's web developers.
-Chris
I am wondering if you guys think Apple is slowly building a standards compliant site or if they just used XHTML on their new page because they thought it was needed to do their fancy (useless) CSS color switcher?
I am ashamed of the incompetency of 99% of the world's web developers.
-Chris
Comments
examples such as in the developer section, that even sport older styles such as "apple garamond" as the main typeface, and it was only a few weeks ago when someone finally realized that the "delete order" button of the apple store was still a glossy little aqua button, instead of the new, flat colored style.
little bits like that will take a long time to root out, and they can rarely, if ever, take down large chunks of the website offline to do overhauling. that's the problem with managing a website -- once you open for business, good luck trying to close it.
Originally posted by rok
examples such as in the developer section, that even sport older styles such as "apple garamond" as the main typeface, and it was only a few weeks ago when someone finally realized that the "delete order" button of the apple store was still a glossy little aqua button, instead of the new, flat colored style.
Which is really strange, because there should be some easy way for them to review all of their graphics, at least for the applestore.
Originally posted by New
Which is really strange, because there should be some easy way for them to review all of their graphics, at least for the applestore.
Actually, one of the whole points of moving to a modular standard like XHTML+CSS is that it becomes easy to do things like that. Presentation-only HTML is a huge bear to manage precisely because it's difficult to generalize or analyze information within any given page, let alone across pages.
Once Apple's made the transition their site should become a lot easier to manage and update than it is now.
Originally posted by Amorph
Actually, one of the whole points of moving to a modular standard like XHTML+CSS is that it becomes easy to do things like that. Presentation-only HTML is a huge bear to manage precisely because it's difficult to generalize or analyze information within any given page, let alone across pages.
Once Apple's made the transition their site should become a lot easier to manage and update than it is now.
True, but I would have expected Apple to already have a lot of quality testing and management of their site. They probably do, but some of the stuff they let pass amazes me.
I am sure they are just taking their time to get the design right which is extremely difficult because of a certain, pissy browser *cough*Internet Explorer*cough*. It really is quite a big problem, though, because IE's CSS implementation is so broken. Especially now since it appears that IE will NEVER be fixed *gasp*.
If all browsers implemented the specs, web design would be a cinch. I think some people don't want to see CSS take over because it will deprecate their "skills". It really is a shame because CSS is a beautiful thing and is so much easier to design for and saves so much bandwidth.
I am just shocked at how unprofessional Apple's website is. Their front page doesn't even validate as HTML. It looks nice, but it really is poorly implemented.
-Chris
Here is a layout for a web application I am writing (I am not going to give you guys a link to the actual App
This page looks best in Safari (because it has png transparency support) and great in any Mozilla based browser. IE, however, bwwwwt.
The potential of what web applications can be with CSS is infinitely greater than anything being done now. Yet I can't decide whether to aim for a great user experience with my applications or go for compatibility and a crappy user experience. So. Horribly. Frustrating.
Whateva
Originally posted by rageous
Using an XHTML DocType is not the same as putting a validation link on the page. They are not claiming to be XHTML compliant, they're just getting their foot through the door.
A DocType is just that, a claim to conformity. It serves no other purpose. It is not a step in the door -- just an oversight I suppose. One that I am blowing way out of proportion. Oh well.
<META NAME=generator CONTENT="Hammerhead 3.0">
Hammerhead? Tried googling for such as a web editor, found bupkus. Anyone?
Originally posted by Kickaha
Okay, so who knows what HTML editing app this is? From a new Apple Developer Page:
<META NAME=generator CONTENT="Hammerhead 3.0">
Hammerhead? Tried googling for such as a web editor, found bupkus. Anyone?
an Apple web dev application?... could they be working on one?
Originally posted by MacUsers
an Apple web dev application?... could they be working on one?
That was my thought, but... 3.0?
No idea.
A DOCTYPE is most certainly a claim to validation: It tells the parser that the document conforms to the given DTD. If the document doesn't, the parse fails and the browser can bail out completely if it wants to.
The little W3C banners are just (much needed) advertizing and exposure for the standards, aimed at the human reader. But the DOCTYPE is a claim of standards compliance aimed at the browser (meaning whatever application is reading the document - it could be iTunes, or a Java bean, or a Perl script, or what-have-you).
Originally posted by Amorph
They don't have to release every application they develop, you know.
Oh I know, it could be just an in-house app, but why oh why do they tease us so, in that case?
Bastiches! Bastiches I tell you! We hates the bastiches!
Somehow this really bugs me...