SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 119
  1. #51
    SitePoint Zealot lutrov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    159
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    This thread is starting to look like the juvenile mess we sometimes see on IMDB boards, with pointless point scoring, personal attacks, vitriolic responses and other annoyances, which is a real shame.

    Anyway, going back to the original topic and the reason this thread even exists. I'm some of you would be aware of this - in a recent article, Jakob Nielsen states:

    > "Good mobile user experience requires a different design than what's needed to satisfy desktop users. Two designs, two sites, and cross linking to make it all work."

    http://useit.com/alertbox/mobile-vs-full-sites.html

    Based on usability testing of hundreds of sites, he recommends:

    1. build a separate mobile optimised site
    2. cut features, cut content and enlarge interface elements
    3. redirect mobile users to your mobile site
    4. offer a clear link from your mobile site to your desktop site

    Nielsen has been criticised by some designers, that's true. But a lot of what he says is based on research using real people and I have absolutely no reasons to doubt his insight.

    His study confirms that mobile users are only interested in relevant data and getting that data quickly. If mobile is important to your business, then you must optimise for speed and for exactly what your users want to do. And "responsive design" doesn't solve these problems. A well designed mobile website does.

  2. #52
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    892
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    @lutrov
    Quote Originally Posted by lutrov View Post
    As I said, it works for mobiles just fine. In this country, "mobiles" means mobile phones, not tablets.
    Let me be perfectly, crystal clear: it doesn't. In this country, iPhone means mobile phone. I gave you proof for mobile phones first. I mentioned tablets later, to show you those are out of the question also.

    After our chat, you've sneakingly gone
    - from this: http://i1054.photobucket.com/albums/...iphone-bad.jpg
    - to this: http://i1054.photobucket.com/albums/...till-bad-1.jpg

    Not much of an improvement since the menu is now TOTALLY MISSING and, on mobile, I have nowhere to go from the landing page. Unless you consider the still-broken-for-mobile original home page.

    I don't see how this is helping your users in any way. Remember your first post?
    Quote Originally Posted by lutrov View Post
    Your visitors DON'T CARE if your site is responsive. They DON'T CARE if it's a separate mobile site. They DON'T CARE if it's just a plain old desktop site. But they DO CARE if they can't get done what they need to get done. They DO CARE when interactions are awkward and broken.
    [...]
    Your goal should be to do whatever is necessary to create a great user experience.
    And this first post of yours in this thread, pretty much qualifies as a "juvenile mess we sometimes see on IMDB boards, with pointless point scoring, personal attacks, vitriolic responses and other annoyances", with those big caps "DO/DON'T CARE" that triggered the response in the first place, along with some other ones like these:

    Quote Originally Posted by lutrov View Post
    Oh, and if I were interviewing someone for a web development job and if they mentioned that browser sniffing relies on Javascript, they wouldn't get the job because I know that real browser sniffing is done on the server.
    Quote Originally Posted by lutrov View Post
    If we disregard the gaggle of "gurus" singing the praises of "responsive" design

    <hr>


    Anyway, going back to the original topic and the reason this thread even exists. You still don't get these:

    The first thing you need to understand: responsive design it's not to conditionally control resource download. Media queries are not conditional comments. Like the name says, they are queries.

    <hr>

    So, it has nothing to do with serving lesser content or different version of the same page.
    The reason you build a m.* version has nothing to do with media queries or responsive design, it has to do with resources.

    But even if you build a m.* version of your site, it still has to have to be based on MQs, simply because mobile nowadays comes from 240px up to 1200px wide.
    While you believe the sole purpose of responsive design is as an alternative to building mobile websites, none of the authors you quote makes the same confusion. And I've repeatedly stated, responsive design is for desktops (big screen, high resolutions, whatever) too!!!

    What the last author does though, is he's trying to sell. And this should be your very first clue that it's fishy. This, and the fact that he even goes as far as recommending a third variant for a website: for tablets. Big BIG question marks!!!

    Nevermind the fact that he, like Ethan Markotte, he never opposes the responsive web design with mobile web sites!!!

  3. #53
    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)
    Was someone asking if there was something new? Well. There's something new.

    I kept hearing people talk about responsive images, but this time with a <picture> tag.

    There is no <picture> tag, Neo. Instead, please welcome our new srcsset overlords.

    Quote Originally Posted by whatwg
    <h1><img alt="The Breakfast Combo"
    src="banner.jpeg"
    srcset="banner-HD.jpeg 2x, banner-phone.jpeg 100w, banner-phone-HD.jpeg 100w 2x"></h1>
    Letter explaining.

    So when's the party?

  4. #54
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    892
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Not going to stick. Not with (enough) authors anyway.

    The problems is not HTML, the problem is not CSS, so why make it?

    Width 100% for images is the right way to go with responsive. The problem is with raster graphics.

    Solution: browsers should have better DSP algorithms in place for raster graphics resizing up and down... or a better compression algorithm for raster images be available at server sides.

    Newest browsers would have this added feature/engine. Older browsers would display uglier, but would still display. The images remain the same.

    THE END.

    EDIT: Why not an alternative engine to the better DSP above, to transform raster to vector? Take a JPEG and make it a SVG. This could be an option for the user in the browser, something like "smoother, scalable graphics" as, I guess, it would impose on the device performance.

    Why I'm not trusting the solution of srcset? Because it takes whatever the author may do wrong about images and willingly put's it in the browser's backyard, in the markup, of all places. And because it's full of cryptic w's and nx's, that the authors would gladly stay away from as to not be accused of industrial espionage.

    EDIT EDIT: Anyway, the images problem is a false problem, to begin with. The simple SVG solution, which should be the obvious choice, will never be viable since no author or graphic artist would gladly give up hard worked and well payed graphics and graphics effects for the others to easily steal and reuse. That's where multiple-versions-of-the-same-image root problem stands. So don't try and fix it, it's fixed already. It's just not "economically viable".

  5. #55
    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 Mitică
    Width 100% for images is the right way to go with responsive. The problem is with raster graphics.
    No, the problem is file size and sh*tty internets. If it were just a display/design issue, yes, letting images scale themselves within their containers would be the Obvious Best Answer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitică
    Solution: browsers should have better DSP algorithms in place for raster graphics resizing up and down... or a better compression algorithm for raster images be available at server sides.
    I was reading some IRC logs where jpeg2000 and a hypothetical "bandwidth MQ" is discussed... interesting (http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/whatwg/20120515#l-1849).

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitică
    EDIT: Why not an alternative engine to the better DSP above, to transform raster to vector? Take a JPEG and make it a SVG.
    Even if the image is content, that doesn't necessarily mean we want to add to the DOM. Would be nicer to simply have vectors as an image option in browsers, but right now SVG==markup. And if there's automatic conversion, that means robots-writing-markup. We all know a popular robot who tries to write markup.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitică
    And because it's full of cryptic w's and nx's, that the authors would gladly stay away from as to not be accused of industrial espionage.
    This is one of the strongest arguments against srcset. The spec-writers have countered that one of the other strong proposals, <picture>, was "too much markup".
    Maybe they over-estimate how much new syntax we're capable of learning correctly, lawlz.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitică
    The simple SVG solution, which should be the obvious choice, will never be viable since no author or graphic artist would gladly give up hard worked and well payed graphics and graphics effects for the others to easily steal and reuse.
    That and we don't yet have camera that take vector photos yet :) (I stole that from someone else).

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitică
    So don't try and fix it, it's fixed already. It's just not "economically viable".
    Economics (what people pay for bandwidth and batteries) seems to be the root of the "responsive images" problem.

    I suppose even if hardware vastly improved (better compression and as you mentioned easier/quicker decompression and rendering... and then improved battery technology to deal with more CPU and GPU use), there's still latency, bandwidth and lack of state problems (someone may start out on a decent network, go through a tunnel, come out in a crappy network... should the device keep track of that? The browser? The server? Server shouldn't, in my opinion).

  6. #56
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    892
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    No, the problem is file size and sh*tty internets. If it were just a display/design issue, yes, letting images scale themselves within their containers would be the Obvious Best Answer.
    OK.

    The problem is with raster graphics resize, which, for some, warrants big/different images for the same purpose.

    <hr>

    One other thing I find to be questionable, is, how, all of the sudden, responsive images are stars, but the sprites issue is still being overlooked. I mean, for me, sprites are far more important, and I'd expect something to be done for this first.

    Nevermind the fact that responsive images, as we've seen in this thread too, have hijacked the responsive web design concept, being the core of responsive for some, making it an argument against going responsive.

  7. #57
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    892
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    And, if you account for one of the most common browsing technique, zooming, you realize why even having different images for the same purpose will fail and why, in some cases, CSS3 graphics solution are desirable.

  8. #58
    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)
    Zooming, dpi, css pixels, resolution and the like were also mentioned in the discussion. For example, if the mobile user zooms in... should there be another request for a higher-rez version? etc...

  9. #59
    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 Stomme poes View Post
    So when's the party?
    Why is there a party after the public execution?

    Since it looks like that specific example are presentational images, so they don't even belong in the HTML in the first place

  10. #60
    SitePoint Zealot lutrov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    159
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by itmitica( View Post
    Let me be perfectly, crystal clear: it doesn't. In this country, iPhone means mobile phone.
    Did you read what I wrote? Again, just for you: In this country, "mobiles" means mobile phones, not tablets. The iPhone IS a mobile phone. So are all the other mobile phones. So what were you trying to say?

    Quote Originally Posted by itmitica( View Post
    Not much of an improvement since the menu is now TOTALLY MISSING and, on mobile, I have nowhere to go from the landing page.
    The result you got below is CORRECT, assuming you used a mobile phone:

    http://i1054.photobucket.com/albums/...till-bad-1.jpg

    If you got something else (like you suggest), then I can only conclude you were using some other device (or a different configuration maybe) the first time around. As for you having "nowhere to go from the mobile landing page", that's not correct either. Maybe you were in a big hurry?

  11. #61
    SitePoint Zealot lutrov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    159
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevie D View Post
    The other factor to consider when looking at media queries is that they don't allow you to optimise your site for mobile users. They don't allow you to serve smaller low-bandwidth images, or to strip out unnecessary scripts or hidden content that might slow down mobile browsers. If you build a separate mobile site – one that is optimised for mobiles, and only serves the content and styling that they really need – you can get a better ROI and improve the user experience at the same time.
    Spot on. As I've said before, this is the important thing when building a site that normal people will use, instead of making a showcase so other designers can hopefully admire you and your work.

    Also, as I've said before but feel it's necessary to say once again, for exactly the same reasons:

    As a consumer, I don't care whether your site is "responsive". I don't go to your site to admire your design, I purely go there because of your content. I want a site optimised for speed. I want text that I can read without zooming, "pinching" or much scrolling. I want less text. I only want to get stuff done on your site and then move on to more important things in my life.

  12. #62
    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 crusty
    Why is there a party after the public execution?
    Same reason there's a wake after a funeral.

  13. #63
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    892
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    @lutrov
    I'll play along.
    Quote Originally Posted by lutrov View Post
    If you got something else (like you suggest), then I can only conclude you were using some other device (or a different configuration maybe) the first time around.
    This is the first time around, on my iPhone:

    Quote Originally Posted by itmitică View Post
    I believe responsive design would certainly help you and your site with some fundamental issues on mobile.

    http://i1054.photobucket.com/albums/...ca/lutrov1.png
    http://i1054.photobucket.com/albums/...ca/lutrov3.png
    There are no special settings involved. Clearly, it's broken. For mobile. As in "it's not working just fine".

    Since then, you've changed a few things, in an attempt to FIX IT! and you "forgot" to mention that. But that's OK.

    Look what I got now, today, May 16th, 2012, at 16:58 UTC+2, on the same iPhone:

    The landing page for mobile: http://i1054.photobucket.com/albums/...iphone-bad.png
    Following the *ONLY* link available (the menu is MISSING): "View the standard version of this website", I land here on mobile: http://i1054.photobucket.com/albums/...iphone-bad.png
    Pressing the back button on Safari, I get this: http://i1054.photobucket.com/albums/...iphone-bad.png
    ... and portrait: http://i1054.photobucket.com/albums/...iphone-bad.png

    You'll notice how lutrov.com on mobile now has two "designs": one for when you land the first time and one for when you go back from a previous page?

    Quote Originally Posted by lutrov View Post
    As for you having "nowhere to go from the mobile landing page", that's not correct either. Maybe you were in a big hurry?
    As showed above, my *ONLY* option, on mobile, is to go to the same broken-for-mobile home page.

  14. #64
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    892
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    Zooming [is] also mentioned in the discussion. For example, if the mobile user zooms in... should there be another request for a higher-rez version? etc...
    If the mobile user (or any other user, for that matter) zooms in, and another request is made for a higher-rez version, wouldn't that same image, even higher-rez now, still be... zoomed in? A thing completely defeating the purpose of the request for higher-rez?

    Unless the browser will only choose to zoom in on some objects and not zoom in on others. Deep deep waters, dear Mallory. Specifically taking the control from the user, when he explicitly asked for it.

  15. #65
    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 Mitică
    Unless the browser will only choose to zoom in on some objects and not zoom in on others. Deep deep waters, dear Mallory. Specifically taking the control from the user, when he explicitly asked for it.
    *shrug* take it up with the spec writers then.

    And I know you love fuzzy blown-up images, but they make me physically sick. Which is why I will continue to stick with a browser who lets me enlarge text without zooming. I'll probably never be able to use a phone that zooms everything unless it's got a screen reader in it.

  16. #66
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    892
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Mallory, do you really think it's wise to reveal your kryptonite?

    http://i1054.photobucket.com/albums/...ormal-1900.png
    http://i1054.photobucket.com/albums/...ownup-1900.png


    But, if I were you, I'd forget about the barf bag:

    http://i1054.photobucket.com/albums/...00-cropped.png
    http://i1054.photobucket.com/albums/...900-croped.png

    It's really not that bad.

  17. #67
    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)
    Nice and sharp: http://stommepoes.nl/zooom.png
    too bad the layout is total shyte, but the image is NOT BLURRY and the headaches of my youth which were solved with glasses, until the point came where I was told within a few years glasses could not be manufactured to correct my vision... I had surgery but now, a little more than 10 years later, the eyes are starting to go bad again.

    A blurry image in and of itself isn't so much of an issue, but having it next to text where my eyes are moving around and reading it, while something blurry sits on the edge of my vision... that's just nasty. Just as there are some folks who can't have something dancing on the edge of their vision (like an animated ad banner next to content text).

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitică
    Mallory, do you really think it's wise to reveal your kryptonite?
    Wait
    Are you saying you're some kind of...
    evil Romanian Lex Luthor?

    ...notices the hair...

    ZOMGNOWAI!!

  18. #68
    SitePoint Zealot lutrov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    159
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by itmitica( View Post
    Since then, you've changed a few things, in an attempt to FIX IT! and you "forgot" to mention that.
    Wrong. Nothing's changed at my end. I know that because I manage the site.

    Quote Originally Posted by itmitica( View Post
    You'll notice how lutrov.com on mobile now has two "designs": one for when you land the first time and one for when you go back from a previous page?
    Partially right. There are two designs, one for mobile and one for desktop. The mobile landing page offers a "view the standard version" link. If you click that link, you're on the desktop version of the site. You seem to be confused.

  19. #69
    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 itmitică View Post
    Unless the browser will only choose to zoom in on some objects and not zoom in on others.
    Which is EXACTLY the behavior Nyetscape 4 had, and why up until they made the pathetic half-assed attempt to mimic Opera, I continued to call Firefox the "sweetly retarded cousin" of Netscape 4. (well, alongside it being completely unstable and slow as molasses even compared to IE6)

    A behavior SOME users (like Mallory) still turn back on, even though it's off by default and is allegedly on the chopping block for some future version... THOUGH, with image resizing improving since we can use GPU's to add anisotropic filtering and some new tricks with media queries. In firefox you just go into view, and choose ... wait... Hey Mallory, where did they hide it in the newer versions of FF? I can't even find zoom controls anymore. (shows how often I use FF for anything more than testing). Wow, I can't even find a indicator of how much your zoomed in, a control other than keyboard to reset the zoom... ah, turn the 'menu bar' back on... so menu bar off they don't even bother giving you a zoom control anymore? That's... pathetic. Menu bar on, go into view -> zoom, and choose 'zoom text only' -- and you get the "resize only text and nothing else" that for me always resulted in broken, garbage useless pages -- since when I zoom USUALLY I want the page to get wider too instead of being a crappy little stripe... hence why I find zooming only the text USELESS -- and don't understand why you'd want to hunt that down -- oh noes, images that have nothing to do with content might get a little blurry -- here's a tip, use a browser that doesn't botch resizing images.

    Though admittedly, I'm the same way about IE8/newer ignoring the system metric and instead starting out at 125% zoom as 'default'... I switch that *** back instantly... wait, no I don't, I just use a browser that actually cares about accessibility instead.

  20. #70
    It's all Geek to me silver trophybronze trophy
    ralph.m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, AU
    Posts
    24,109
    Mentioned
    448 Post(s)
    Tagged
    8 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by deathshadow60 View Post
    when I zoom USUALLY I want the page to get wider too instead of being a crappy little stripe... hence why I find zooming only the text USELESS
    If a site is well designed (width in ems or %) the whole design expands as you increase font size only. I still use text-only zoom ... and the stripe thing doesn't bother me anyway. I don't want to read like I'm watching a tennis match. I'd be really sad if they got rid of the text-only zoom.
    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."

  21. #71
    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 ralph.m View Post
    If a site is well designed (width in ems or %) the whole design expands as you increase font size only. I still use text-only zoom ... and the stripe thing doesn't bother me anyway. I don't want to read like I'm watching a tennis match. I'd be really sad if they got rid of the text-only zoom.
    If they design it right you'd have a semi fluid or fluid layout, meaning it wouldn't increase past the sides of the page.... (though don't tell that to IE8 which apparently doesn't resize the min/max-width on zoom) Most of the time you need to zoom it's crappy PX metric layout with px fonts in the first place... so that zooming only text breaks.

    Only time what you describe would apply is for "elastic only" layouts... Which IMHO are just as broken as declaring the width in PX.

    Semi-fluid FTMFW.

    Though Opera has this really nice option called "fit to width" -- sometimes it breaks good layouts, but it often fixes really bad ones when zooming.


    These are old examples, but really this is what I'm used to seeing websites do when zooming using the Netscape 4 style 'text only' rubbish.
    http://battletech.hopto.org/images/firefux/FF_Zoom.jpg

    While this is what I want to happen... and does happen with Opera. Has happened with Opera for almost a decade now.
    http://battletech.hopto.org/images/f...Opera_Zoom.jpg

  22. #72
    It's all Geek to me silver trophybronze trophy
    ralph.m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, AU
    Posts
    24,109
    Mentioned
    448 Post(s)
    Tagged
    8 Thread(s)
    I know zooming text only breaks a lot of sites, but I have most sites I visit (where there's a lot of reading to do) set to bigger sizes permanently (Firefox remembers the zoom setting). Wikipedia, for example. I don't really care if the site is broken, as long as I can read the main text. I'm in the process of weaning myself off FF, though, so not sure what the future holds.
    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."

  23. #73
    SitePoint Zealot lutrov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    159
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    James Pearce said a few sensible things about this around 18 months ago, when the whole "responsive" thing was starting to make a lot of web designers salivate:

    > One gets the sense that those promoting and using "responsive web design" in its current form secretly hope that this is all they will have to do to be able to call their sites "mobile-ready":

    http://tripleodeon.com/2010/10/not-a...320px-wide-one

    > But this may give us a clue why so many others seem desperate to will the current implementation of "responsive web design" into being as the sole way to develop services for mobile users: it's all client-side, and requires nothing more complex than a few extra tricks in existing CSS files. It may be that many web designers are daunted by the thought that they may be required to think about mobile device detection and conditional logic on the server-side, and are clinging to the hope that they can claim to support mobile users without having to do any, well, programming.

    Especially take note how the St Paul's School "responsive" site fails to be truly responsive to mobile users needs.

  24. #74
    It's all Geek to me silver trophybronze trophy
    ralph.m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, AU
    Posts
    24,109
    Mentioned
    448 Post(s)
    Tagged
    8 Thread(s)
    There are some good points there, but I think that a bigger issue is still being missed generally, and that's what content should be on any version of a site, and how it should be organized.

    I don't think the mobile web is as different from the desktop web as TV is from radio. The difference is more like that between a fixed landline and a mobile phone. I, at least, find that I do pretty much the same on my mobile as on my desktop. I'm just as likely to want directions or dates when viewing the desktop version of a site as when I'm in the car checking the mobile. It's it's hard to find that information on either device, then the designer has failed.

    The real revolution will be when we let go of pretty graphic sites with a ton of pointless junk on them and start the see the web (be it desktop or mobile) as a tool for delivering content in a clean and efficient way. Sadly, we seem to get further and further away from that, but this mobile revolution is causing a major rethink of that. Talking about building separate sites is to bury our heads in the sand and avoid the real issue.
    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."

  25. #75
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    892
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    Nice and sharp: http://stommepoes.nl/zooom.png
    too bad the layout is total shyte, but the image is NOT BLURRY
    Yeah, it appears that you belittle me and that the cat ate some of the text from the right side of my profile...

    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    ...notices the hair...

    ZOMGNOWAI!!
    ...and maybe some of my hair too!

    <hr>

    It seems that on interwebs things are turning my way: not a markup problem/solution. And boy, what an avalanche it was with "Responsive design" in the whatwg mail list!

    It's starting to look like raster may suffer some mutations too. They bring up a better use of progressive JPEG. Which pretty much comes close to the vector graphics concept: one file, multiple good looking sizes.

    Anyway, overall, multiple images for the same purpose seems to really look like a bad idea for most. As it should. ...in my opinion. Having multiple src's for an image is similar to AJAX for content. Why is it a good idea to have a default AJAX for images but not for content, beats me.

    <hr>

    What this should be, it's a behavior strictly related to the zoom event or with the change in display size (i.e. display turning from landscape to portrait and vice-versa). And it should be an option in CSS not in source attribute in markup. Like the multiple backgrounds CSS. Ring a bell anyone?

    And all this since without style, it's pretty much senseless to even think about responsive images. And yes, I know img is content, background is not.


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
  •