SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 41
  1. #1
    om nom nom nom Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,271
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Extra Extra! Web Developers Jump On 1 Preferred Rendering Engine, Take 2

    Well, it's official: webkit is the new IE.

    Back in the so-called Bad Old Days, you built for IE and then if you felt like it, you built for Everyone Else.

    Today, everyone has great hatred for IE. The way it didn't (and still sometimes doesn't) follow "web standards", the way it forced many of its proprietary tags/attributes/features onto everyone, the way we're still dealing with JScript vs Javascript, the way we're still dealing (sometimes) with people new to web development wondering how they can change the colours of scollbars like they can in IE...


    It sure is easy to blame IE, isn't it? They created all these neat-o (for the times) features, and it was a dominant browser, and everyone piled on. Clients want promised magical features, so developers want features, and features only need enough implementation in the wild to become part of the standard, or at least the "standard" of "what everyone is building". But who's fault is it really?

    Isn't it also the fault of web developers deciding they like some vendor-specific feature so much, they are willing to use it (whether it's experimental or not; whether it's still in testing phase or not; most importantly, whether there are any plans for anyone else to have that feature or not) to the point that, there are so many implementations in the wild that now all other vendors must deal with it?

    You know what the mark of a "hip, modern web page" is? Besides that it's written more in new Javascript APIs than actual markup, I mean?
    The big sign that your site is hip and modern is the "BEST VIEWED IN LATEST WEBKIT" statement you've place on there.

    Sound familiar?

    Well, folks, after the past few years of "mobile? that means webkit!" and iWhatevers claiming the most hype (if not actually the most numbers of actual users/visitors/customers), it seems the other browser vendors have found themselves in a pickle. And it's because people are building for webkit, the exact same way they used to build for IE. Why is the latter so wrong and horrid while the former is Teh Most Awesome Thing Since Sliced Bread?? I don't understand. They are both wrong. They both encourage monocultures. Monocultures suck (they are easier to develop for, sure, but they are more vulnerable to security problems and remove user choice, which yes I realise many developers would love to remove user choice, but as a card-carrying hippy I am for user software choice and diversity... am I the only one??).

    But so anyway, for those of you who care, here is an interesting discussion that's going on now: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/...2Feb/0313.html just do a ctrl-f a few times for "vendor prefix" to get to that part of the discussion. Yup, the non-webkits are actually considering adding -webkit vendor prefixes.

    Here's a bit of the beginning for those too lazy to click the link. First, imagine the discussion going on in a secret lair.

    That'll help you stay interested if you're easily bored.
    The bolded emphases are all mine.
    Quote Originally Posted by csswg
    glazou: Title is: Why and How to Implement Other Vendors' Prefixes
    tantek: This is a specific subtopic of vendor prefixes
    tantek: The problem statement right now, and this is a problem for
    Mozilla and any other non-WebKit browser
    tantek: Sites have webkit-specific content, and serve backup content to
    everyone else. Specifically for mobile content.
    tantek: Non-WebKit browsers face prisoners dilemma
    tantek: similar to quirks in 2003 or so
    tantek: At this point we're trying to figure out which and how many webkit
    prefix properties to actually implement support for in Mozilla
    plinss: Zero.
    tantek: Currently we have zero. Zero is no longer an option for us.
    Florian, Sylvain: Zero is not an option for us anymore either.
    tantek: We're doing an analysis of what properties we need to consider. I
    want to minimize this.

    glazou: A long time ago, Mozilla had an Evangelism team that would call up
    the website owners and ask them to change.
    Florian: Opera has a large and active one, but it does not scale.
    Florian: I found on the rough analysis of top 1000 websites, several percent
    use webkit prefixes without a fallback for others
    .
    Florian: Regardless of how we ended up here, if we don't support webkit
    prefixes, we are locking ourselves out of parts of the mobile web.
    sylvaing: -webkit-text-size-adjust was implemented in IE. So we pulled it
    out and asked that it be submitted for standardization. But it
    wasn't.
    Oh yeah, and making UA strings lie (like they always needed to, since developers are sniffing):
    Alan: Or are there other complications where they're doing browser-sniffing
    or otherwise wouldn't work even if you implement these prefixes?
    Alan: I'm wondering about the efficacy of implementing webkit prefixes.
    tantek: None. We will also need to send a webkit-tricking UA string.
    tantek: Just like WebKit sent "like Gecko" in its UA string, we have to do
    the same thing again
    Yikes. Well. This is what we get for sniffing and blocking. This is what we deserve. However, having seen instances where sniffing (for Device mostly) was the only reasonable option for something mobile, this tells me we have a bigger problem. Our servers need to know more of certain things, and the UA needs to send this info on first request.
    And yet, anything anyone develops will immediately be compromised by the same people coming to these forums and going on Stack Overflow and Quora and other places asking "how can I write just for Browser X" or, what's more fashionable nowadays, "how can I write just for iDevice version X?"

    So long as we insist on writing per device, per UA, per some-feature-nobody-else-even-has, the more the reliability of detection goes down the drain.

    Some people believe vendor prefixes are evil in and of themselves and we should get rid of them. But instead I agree with whoever it was (Meyer? I know others also agree with having prefixes) who pointed out that having vendor prefixes when any particular feature is still being tested, and not yet ironed out is great, since once the browser can deal with the feature correctly and natively, then any (possibly/likely buggy) vendor-specific implementations can be easily left out.
    The option to not being able to leave out vendor prefixes because the vendor has a sh*tty implementation? That's right, hacks. Lots and lots of juicy, fugly, likely-to-break-when-the-next-version-comes-out-in-6-weeks hacks. And now that the average web page, even the simple ones, have multiple javascripts, multiple stylsheets (possibly not even written in real CSS but any of the hipster pre-processors, meaning m0aR files), that means we as visitors to any particular website get the joy of bandwidth-sucking extra bloat-code in the form of hacks. Yay. And more maintenance work for us as developers. Yay yay.

    Now imagine webkit implements something new and crappy. It won't be crappy when they finally get it right, but initially, it's crappy (let's say, due to a webkit-specific bug... lord there are plenty of those). Meanwhile, Mozilla and Opera manage to implement the same feature and it's way less crappy because they don't have the webklit bug.

    With vendor extensions, you could test out the new feature just for the ones who Got It Right (here, Mozilla and Opera), and leave out the -webkit version because it's hairy donkey balls. And vice-versa: a working -webkit something that breaks in Mozilla due to a Gecko bug (lord knows there are plenty of those), same thing. Great, use the -webkit version and leave the -moz version out until they get their sh*t together. This is all great and wonderful



    and little forest creatures gather around the white beautiful young singing heroine in sympathy for her horrid fairy-tale plight


    while multicultural children hold hands in a circle around her and sing kum-ba-ya....

    but now if -webkit-badassery-level: awesome++; starts (sorta) working in IE, now what? Yes, we are all screwed. Or, I mean, we lose the probably single redeeming value of vendor-specific prefixes, don't we? We might as well go back to no prefixes and just let everyone send out their buggy implementations and let us do dirty dubstep hacks around it like we did in the Good Bad Old Days.

    Remember these? Were they not fugly?


    Why do we want them back? Do we?


    So I ask: maybe, just maybe, we as web developers should stand up and take a little responsibility? Maybe we shouldn't just blab about progressive enhancement or feature-detection. Maybe we shouldn't let our employers put out job ads stating things like "cross-browser" and "web standards" when those don't even mean anything. How about we either put our code where our mouths are, and stop trying so hard to break the web to make some Apple-drooling corporate customer happy cause now he can see his FaceSpace iWhatever App thingie yay, OR we should just stop lying to each other about following these so-called web standards and just be brutally honest with everyone else:
    We don't write for older browsers, we don't write for non-Apple mobile devices, we don't actually do that progressive-enhancement thing, and we sniff UAs because it's freaking awesome and lets us send one set of code to iPhone 4's and another set to iPad2's. Back in the CSS War Room, this is what the numbers are showing.

    And then when UA sniffing stops working because everyone's UA string is going to claim it's "Apple Webkit Something Something", we'll whine and b*tch and complain about not being able to send out our specific version of code. (instead of, I dunno, lobbying that the vendor with the offending code fix it right away? or, if we're C++ devs, fixing it ourselves?)

    Because right now, we are encouraging that "breaking the web" thing everyone's always whining about. We're breaking it in favour of webkit today, and who knows what tomorrow. If we can't trust vendor-specific prefixes to be vendor-specific, then they are broken and we might as well get rid of them entirely.
    Ideally,


    yeah, ideally,


    (uh-oh, there's that hippie left-wing rhetoric that reminds us of Utopia, lawlz)

    new features would be looked at by all vendors and bugs and implementation ideas worked out and then added to the standard, so that it's in the specs and we can all use them correctly and other vendors can look up how to implement it correctly and everything can be happy unicorn puke and double rainbows.

    unicorn puke++

    The browser vendors are just reacting to what we do on the web. Guess what? There are a crapload more of us than there are of them. Who has the power here? I mean, yeah, it's fun to blame Apple or webkit but that's like blaming IE for *our* earlier behaviour isn't it? Or we can just blame uneducated clients demanding stupid things... stupid things some developer promised them. Or, I dunno, doesn't every web developer out there have a blog about nothing somewhere nowadays? Didn't they all rally around stopping that sh*tty SOPA law just a month ago (after that, everyone was happy cuz like, "teh evil SOPA is gone and now we can go back to our entertainment cuz it's not like there aren't 5 other bills doing the same thing as SOPA except we don't care" blah blah)? If we're done patting our backs for that, why not a similar effort to spread the word and convince web developers to watch what they're doing when throwing all these -webkit-this and -webkit-that all over the place??

    Otherwise, the War Room's gonna do one of these

    Yeeeeeeeeeee haaaaaaaaaawwwww!! -webkit-webkit-webkit-webkit
    badger badger badger badger
    mushroom mushroom
    badger badger badger badger
    SNAAAAAAAKE

  2. #2
    It's all Geek to me silver trophybronze trophy
    ralph.m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, AU
    Posts
    24,113
    Mentioned
    448 Post(s)
    Tagged
    8 Thread(s)
    Nice post, poes. Crikey, if the other browser vendors are thinking like that, why don't they just quit and admit defeat?
    Facebook | Google+ | Twitter | Web Design Tips | Free Contact Form

    Forum Usage: Tips on posting code samples, images and more

    Forrest Gump: "IE is like a box of chocolates: you never know what you're gonna get."

  3. #3
    SitePoint Addict sdleihssirhc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    387
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Just a couple of small things.

    1. This instantly reminded me of PPK's vendor prefix article from 2010. His actual stance (abolish all vendor prefixes) (at least, that's the stance in that one article) is less important than this terrifying/hilarious snippit:

    The most idiotic example comes from the mobile world. Opera has implemented a touchscreen media query in the Vodafone widget manager, and called it -o-touchscreen.

    When Samsung started to work on its WebKit-based widget manager, it was notified of the existence of this media query and promptly copied it. To the letter.

    Thus, we now have a WebKit browser reacting to -o-touchscreen.

    And this is just the beginning. It’s going to get much, much worse.

    Eventually Opera will discover that plenty of sites use -webkit-transition, but not -o-transition. Will Opera start to support -webkit-transition, too?
    Spooky.

    2. Playing devil's advocate, doesn't the new approach to updating mean that it's a little better than it was with IE? We still (depending on the project, of course) need to test our sites in IE6, more than a decade after it was released.

    On the other hand, Chrome 4 (which came out less than two years ago) had no support for inline SVG. But when people bemoan the fact that we still can't embed SVG straight into our HTML, which browser(s) are they probably talking about? (Okay, so it's a contrived example :/ )

    Bugs, mistakes, and failed ideas never, ever go away on the Internet. But this new automatic, behind-the-scenes, nigh-unstoppable update scheme seems to minimize their effect, doesn't it?
    I'm the web overlord for Graphic Business Systems

  4. #4
    om nom nom nom Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,271
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    But this new automatic, behind-the-scenes, nigh-unstoppable update scheme seems to minimize their effect, doesn't it?
    For Grandma? Maybe. For those browsers who do update every 15 seconds. Which IE doesn't.

    For enterprise? Those who went boldly and left IE for Firefox have started coming back to true old IE, simply because sysadmins revolt against the idea of adminning 1000's of machines every 6 weeks because Mozilla sez "yo dawg we heard you like apps..."


    It's hard enough work clamping those browsers down by hand so the users don't click on those stupid shoot-the-monkey, win-the-boobs sidebar flash games and download craploads of virusses... got IE? Dayum, that shizzle can stay on your systems for decades. Lawlz.

    But yeah that might be a saving grace: if this decision were temporary enough that newer browsers would replace this duct-tape idea. You can see from the csswg record that some believe this will haunt us for decades... like that great-aunt we offed for the insurance money whose poltergeist keeps throwing things at the new baby

  5. #5
    gingham dress, army boots... silver trophy redux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Salford / Manchester / UK
    Posts
    4,838
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ralph.m View Post
    Nice post, poes. Crikey, if the other browser vendors are thinking like that, why don't they just quit and admit defeat?
    the same way all browsers also admitted defeat when IE managed to win the internetz and kill off netscape?

    why is there this lazy obsession from certain developers that all browsers should just use the same engine (and just looking at webkit-specific fragmentation, even that isn't the be all and end all)? sigh...
    re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
    [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
    WaSP Accessibility Task Force Member
    splintered.co.uk | photographia.co.uk | redux.deviantart.com

  6. #6
    SitePoint Addict sdleihssirhc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    387
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by redux View Post
    (and just looking at webkit-specific fragmentation, even that isn't the be all and end all)
    More PPK goodness: The Great WebKit Comparison Table

    On this page I compare 21 WebKits in order to prove that there is no “WebKit on Mobile”...
    I'm the web overlord for Graphic Business Systems

  7. #7
    padawan silver trophybronze trophy markbrown4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    4,107
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Back in the so-called Bad Old Days, you built for IE and then if you felt like it, you built for Everyone Else.
    Makes sense to me, they were building for the vast majority of their users first.

    I agree with you that building for Chrome and then complaining about the rest is a trend that is becoming more prominent and those developers need reminding to build stuff for users and not browsers.

    Opera is the little guy who will most likely miss out, lucky for him he gets it right nearly always so if you build things correctly you shouldn't have to do too much extra.

    Web standards won, things should work in FF, Chrome, Safari, Opera, IE9+
    IE6-8 should also work if the user share warrants it (which it does)

  8. #8
    om nom nom nom Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,271
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Opera is the little guy who will most likely miss out, lucky for him he gets it right nearly always so if you build things correctly you shouldn't have to do too much extra.
    Opera is the one fretting the most (see comments by Florian in the link... represents Opera). Mobile is their big market, and webkit is their largest competitor really (leaving out that big proxy browser that almost controls China).

  9. #9
    om nom nom nom Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,271
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    a CALL TO ACTION:
    http://www.glazman.org/weblog/dotcle...-NEEDS-YOU-NOW

    Where's the T-shirt? Or Occupy Webkit tents.

    For the too-lazy-to-click (bold mine, ellipses where I've removed stuff):
    Quote Originally Posted by glazou
    I am asking all the Web Authors community to stop designing web sites for WebKit only, in particular when adding support for other browsers is only a matter of adding a few extra prefixed CSS properties.

    I am asking all the Web Authors community to remove immediately and stop implementing WebKit-based browser sniffing in web sites. You own such a web site? Show your support for the Open Web and remove that browser sniffing immediately after you finish reading this call for action.

    I am asking the Web Design and Web Users community to stop recommending web sites that require one single browser while they could be open to multiple ones. Don't link them, mention them only to let the community know they fail serving the Open Web. Don't feed the trolls; blacklist them, whatever is the coolness of the service they provide.

    I am asking the Web Authors community to update their online services to support the other browsers if these other browsers offer a level of CSS support they did not offer in the past. Do that NOW! Very little effort, big effect.

    I am asking the whole Web community, all Users, to ping Web Authors and complain if their web sites work only for one rendering engine while it could work for many...

    I am also asking the browser vendors behind WebKit... to submit ... complete technical proposals for the proprietary CSS-like properties they have let the whole world use in iOS and Android devices, harming the Open Web...

    I am finally asking you to relay that call for help.
    That's us. Ya'll do that social-media whatsit stuff, right? Spread the word. Fix your sites. Stop offering your customers an "iWhatever app" automatically instead of seeing if a responsive web site for ALL browsers/devices would work better (even if utlimately, then does end up being your client's best solution... at least you considered other possibilities). Edjumacate your clients that mobile != iPhone/Pad.

  10. #10
    padawan silver trophybronze trophy markbrown4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    4,107
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Occupy Webkit
    Opera. Code for the 1%

  11. #11
    om nom nom nom Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,271
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Remy Sharp's take: http://remysharp.com/2012/02/09/vend...t-to-go-south/

    tl;dr: "Bat sh*t crazy."

  12. #12
    padawan silver trophybronze trophy markbrown4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    4,107
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    One valid option is to use just use Compass' CSS3 modules.
    Code css:
    .magic   {
      @include border-radius(4px);
    }

  13. #13
    Under Construction silver trophybronze trophy AussieJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    776
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    What would be nice is if instead of creating all these vendor prefixes in their rendering engines, IF THEY ACTUALLY IMPLEMENTED THE FEATURE WITHOUT THE PREFIX.

    Of course, that would require the spec to be clear on how a feature needs to be implemented and that all browser vendors all implement it the same way. You know, so we don't end up with 4 different ways to do transitions.

    In the immortal words of someone on my twitter feed:

    OH: "That's why we call it a 'Spec', because we 'spect it to work that way."
    ~@lazycoder


    Now, I'll be the first to admit that I use these vendor prefixes for a bunch of features (border-radius repeated a bazillion times, anyone?). But I do try to be as inclusive as possible here. (i.e. use -webkit -moz -ms -o and of course one last entry without the prefix)

    I was going to make a further point, but I forgot. I think it may have had something to do with vendor prefixes starting out as implementations of things that are not yet in the spec or are experimental or something. Maybe someone (who is more knowledgeable than me in this area) can elaborate on that?
    var details = {
    . . web: "afterlight.com.au",
    . . photos: "jvdl.id.au",
    . . psa: "usethelatestversion.com"
    }

  14. #14
    om nom nom nom Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,271
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by markbrown4
    One valid option is to use just use Compass' CSS3 modules.
    Certainly if you're using any of the preprocessors that do this, there is zero excuse to be only writing -webkit prefixes... except when you are using one that only exists as -webkit in the first place.

  15. #15
    Non-Member bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Keene, NH
    Posts
    3,760
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    In other words, everything I've been saying the past SIX YEARS... the saying about "those who forget history" is cute, but it's outright depressing to see it in action. Deploying draft specifications in incomplete implementations? Browser specific code? Implementing new 'standards' before the old ones are even completely implemented?

    As I've said a billion times here, "What is this, 1998?!?"

    Though I'm starting to think that's unfair -- to 1998... as for me at least, the web was more useful THEN than it is now. All those wonderful new tools and specifications that were supposed to make it more usable, has been abused by people who have no business even making websites to the point that many sites I used to visit every day, I've stopped visiting due to jumping the gun on idiocy like HTML 5, bloating out the pages for nothing with broken/half-assed scripting, and letting the PSD jockeys piss away all the bandwidth. (or in the case of jquery/mootools, completely-assed scripting)

  16. #16
    Under Construction silver trophybronze trophy AussieJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    776
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by deathshadow60 View Post
    In other words, everything I've been saying the past SIX YEARS... the saying about "those who forget history" is cute, but it's outright depressing to see it in action.
    You've been saying stuff? Whoops, I cleared my browser cache and erased my memory

    Quote Originally Posted by deathshadow60 View Post
    and letting the PSD jockeys piss away all the bandwidth.
    I'm going to try to paraphrase you in the next project I work on that has some ridiculous design. I work in advertising, so that should be fairly soon.
    var details = {
    . . web: "afterlight.com.au",
    . . photos: "jvdl.id.au",
    . . psa: "usethelatestversion.com"
    }

  17. #17
    SitePoint Enthusiast Belsnickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chico, CA
    Posts
    68
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by AussieJohn View Post
    You've been saying stuff? Whoops, I cleared my browser cache and erased my memory



    I'm going to try to paraphrase you in the next project I work on that has some ridiculous design. I work in advertising, so that should be fairly soon.
    It's funny actually, his are the views that got me to join the forums. It's nice to have a voice for minimalism and functionality to think on as a reminder of some of the reasons why the types of behavior this thread talks about should be professionally abhorrent. Especially when so many people around the web have a tendency to want to code on the "cutting edge" even though users/readers don't actually care to the extent that it doesn't really improve anything for them.

  18. #18
    Non-Member bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Keene, NH
    Posts
    3,760
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Belsnickle View Post
    Especially when so many people around the web have a tendency to want to code on the "cutting edge" even though users/readers don't actually care to the extent that it doesn't really improve anything for them.
    Or worse, makes it less useful -- see jQuery for nothing, AJAX for nothing, and massive code bloat resulting in broken layouts, inaccessible layouts, broken keyboard navigation, pages that don't even TRY to be accessible... we've been given all these tools and given tons of recommendations -- HTML itself is a very SIMPLE specification if you take more than half a second to try and understand it and *SHOCK* bother to learn ALL the tags...

    But you still get people using tables for layout, blissfully unaware of half the tags that should be in tables or forms when using them properly -- we're still dealing with browser makers who are rushing into new DRAFT specifications when they still have decade plus old gaping holes in the old ones -- we have people writing PHP who don't even understand HTML, which is what it's supposed to output -- at which point what in blue blazes qualifies them to do a blasted thing in PHP?

    I keep saying "setting it back a decade or more" -- maybe that's not an accurate assessment either since it seems like the majority of developers out there and resources for nubes to learn from have never actually pulled their collective heads out of 1998's tuchas.

    See HTML 5 -- welcome to 1998. Mr. Peabody and his boy Sherman would be proud.

    Quote Originally Posted by AussieJohn View Post
    I'm going to try to paraphrase you in the next project I work on that has some ridiculous design. I work in advertising, so that should be fairly soon.
    Just remember the number one thing you have to tell the art f... art f... art folks...

    THE WEB IS NOT PRINT!!!

  19. #19
    Under Construction silver trophybronze trophy AussieJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    776
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by deathshadow60 View Post
    Just remember the number one thing you have to tell the art f... art f... art folks...

    THE WEB IS NOT PRINT!!!
    I wish I had a gold medal for every time I said that around here. You wouldn't believe (well, maybe you would) some of the crap that comes across my desk.

    Anyone want to take bets on how many times I've been asked if we can do video in email?
    var details = {
    . . web: "afterlight.com.au",
    . . photos: "jvdl.id.au",
    . . psa: "usethelatestversion.com"
    }

  20. #20
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Augusta, Georgia, United States
    Posts
    4,139
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    You can complain all you like but reality is no one is going to change what they are doing.
    The only code I hate more than my own is everyone else's.

  21. #21
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Augusta, Georgia, United States
    Posts
    4,139
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes
    That's us. Ya'll do that social-media whatsit stuff, right? Spread the word. Fix your sites. Stop offering your customers an "iWhatever app" automatically instead of seeing if a responsive web site for ALL browsers/devices would work better (even if utlimately, then does end up being your client's best solution... at least you considered other possibilities). Edjumacate your clients that mobile != iPhone/Pad.
    Responsive design is not the end all solution to problems faced with mobile. Most people who do advocate it are dealing with fairly small sites. However, sites that have a purpose beyond delivering simple content almost always would best served with dedicated mobile work flow based on the context which the site is being used. There are actually a considerable amount of things in modern mobile webkit that can not be easily replicated in other browsers without significant performance issues. Especially, in regards to JavaScript.
    The only code I hate more than my own is everyone else's.

  22. #22
    om nom nom nom Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,271
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Responsive design is not the end all solution to problems faced with mobile.
    My point was, don't think "oh yeah what about mobile?" and jump immediately to "oh, that means make an iSomething app and we're done."

    I've heard too many developers at large media bureas say just that (the latter).

  23. #23
    It's all Geek to me silver trophybronze trophy
    ralph.m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, AU
    Posts
    24,113
    Mentioned
    448 Post(s)
    Tagged
    8 Thread(s)
    Plenty of others are weighing in on this discussion.

    http://www.brucelawson.co.uk/2012/on...fixes-problem/
    http://codepo8.github.com/prefix-the-web/
    http://www.glazman.org/weblog/dotclear/index.php?

    'Twill be very interesting to see where it all goes.
    Facebook | Google+ | Twitter | Web Design Tips | Free Contact Form

    Forum Usage: Tips on posting code samples, images and more

    Forrest Gump: "IE is like a box of chocolates: you never know what you're gonna get."

  24. #24
    Community Advisor silver trophybronze trophy
    dresden_phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Madison, WI
    Posts
    2,791
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    On the "plus" side ... mozzila wants to drop their prefix ( or at least support webkit) . To me this kinda kills the one and only good reasons to have vendor prefixes... but hey.

    vendor prefix draaaaaaaamah!

  25. #25
    Non-Member bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Keene, NH
    Posts
    3,760
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I don't understand why if there's going to be a prefix, there should be one for every vendor. A single unified prefix like say "-development-do-not-use-in-production-sites" or something


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •