What is Digg?Sponsored by Gilt Man
It's a Gilt Man's world view!
giltman.com - Get gear and gadgets at up to 70% off. Shop like a guy, dress like a man. You're invited.
42 Comments
- zephc, on 10/12/2007, -8/+23Dear omgthatwaslame,
oh my god, that was lame.
Love,
The Universe - fjvwing, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16He addresses that at the bottom.
It ends up being a standard ALA article:
"Here's the trick, it is really short and sweet.
Here's the trick for a liquid layout, it just takes two abstractions more.
Here's all the work-arounds for the browsers in which it doesn't work, it requires hacks A, B, and F, maybe C if you want to handle it there.
Here's the final text for this minor effect: just include this 20Kb CSS file and add five tags that do not describe the content-structure at all for every box you see."
Stupid lack of browser compliance and bugs leads us to this. There comes a point at which, as a developer, maybe you just need to push back to the art department and say "This design will take forever to code and be a pain to debug and maintain. Simplify it" instead of being the slave to whatever some graphics weenie with a Photoshop gradient fetish comes up with for their 'Vieweing Experience'. - armbar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Unfortunately, it's the "designers" that buy FrontPage that make my job harder (medium to high-end web development services). There's nothing better than a potential client saying that some lamebrain with a copy of FrontPage quoted them $100 to build a custom content management system, and why won't I do it for less.
- jimbarter, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7ALA generally write very well thought and highly respected articles, if you're involved in web development or design you'd be advised to pay attention and read their back catalogue
However I have thought that recently they have been a bit 'light weight' - and this peice is, although well wriiten and good advice - nothing new. - fjvwing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Creates accessibility issues for screen readers, degrades badly on small screens, often requires a separate printable page instead of being able to turn it off with a print CSS, not very flexible when you need to add or remove buttons in dynamic pages.
- Dracos, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8This article describes a technique that should have been obvious for years to anyone competent with CSS.
Mentioning IE's proprietary filters is the black eye on the article. As long as designers cater to broken browsers (that's you, IE), the broken browsers will continue to be used.
It's called being an enabler. It's exactly like bringing a 12 pack of beer over to your recovering-alcoholic friend's house. - armbar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Theoretically, ALA's articles are the cream of the crop, which supposedly justifies the long wait time between posts. However, around half of the articles over the past 6 months have been just blatantly bad practice. Did anyone else read the "Q tag" article? Terrible. http://www.alistapart.com/articles/qtag
Usually, one of the two articles that they post at a time has something reasonable to read, but I get most of my info nowadays from hacking away by myself. I haven't seen anything new under the web development world sun in over a year now. - rasterbator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@armbar:
That is when you say:
"If you really believe someone can create a custom content management system for $100, then by all means hire them. If you want someone who knows what they are doing, and is giving you a competitive market price based on your specifications, then hire me. Once I leave this conference room, you will either be a hero, or a goat. Just know that my estimate is not based on fixing someone else's mess, nor is it based on working with ignorant clients. Now you can either kick me out or hire me, I don't care which. But if you want me to built your custom content management system, and you want it in six months, we need to start yesterday. So make it quick. You can reach me on my cell. Goodday, gentlemen." - VanillaBaron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7http://duggmirror.com/design/A_List_Apart_Articles_Super_Easy_Blendy_Backgrounds/
Short (partial) duggmirror URLs = only some can use
Long (complete) duggmirror URLs = EVERYONE can use
Please use only full and complete duggmirror URLs. The referrer is NOT always sent. - inkubux, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Read the article they had a Javascript Hack (wich I used tons of times) and it works #1. Good article :)
- inkubux, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@inkubux(me)
Pardon my ignorance they actually did the PNG hack in the css
.gradwhite {
filter: progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft. »
AlphaImageLoader(src='grad_white.png', »
sizingMethod='scale');
}
* html .gradwhite img {
display:none;
}
.. pretty neat :). - jimbarter, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Or you could make all your text buttons as text.
...hey - I'm a traditionalist... - tempusrob, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"PNG is compatible with IE6 using CSS"
Except that DXImage filter crap isn't CSS. It's like ... MSCSS. - armbar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3rasterbator, that's basically what I do, except I don't always tell them what they're getting into :) For the most part, they'll come back after they've been shafted because the other guy doesn't meet deadlines and doesn't have a clue. Ahh, the joys of life.
- WeeklyGeek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@fjvwing
Or you could just have a designer that also codes (like myself). I find it is way easier to have the person who actually designed the mockup slice up the images and lay it all out. That way you are thinking about how you will code it as you design it. If something isn't going to work, you will know. - jimbarter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@porkstacker
Hacks will always be required 'cos some people will always use old(er) browsers...
Only switched on Technoheads (such as digg users) will upgrade automatically, the herd tend to use whatever comes with their OS. - porkstacker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I just hate having to include Javascript just to get seemingly simple CSS stuff working properly within IE6/7. Hopefully in 2012 when IE8 comes out they will finally abide to the w3c.org's established standards such that no hacks or Javascript trickery will be necessary....(holds breath)....(passes out)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Please tell us in every digg how the referrer is not sent on every browser.
It's not annoying at all.
Seriously, install the duggmirror extension already and stop whining.
http://duggmirror.com/mirroredbyduggmirror.xpi
Oh, what? Not everyone uses Firefox? - Xilon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1He's right... if you develope for a customer you can't just say "oh, this won't work with IE 6... oh well, screw 95% of the viewers". You'll be out of a job REAL fast.
On the other hand I "screw 95% of the viewers" on all my personal sites... I don't give a ***** if someone can't view the design properly or has a weird "transparent" image on top of a gray background... The text is there, you will most likely be able to read it. You want the site to look good then get a browser that isn't on crack. - mcspectrum, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Unfortunately, YBT
- WeeklyGeek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1In an ideal world (internet) I would agree with you. But in a practical world, people still use IE and workarounds like this need to be utilized in order to make clients happy.
- WiBu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Nothing stopping you doing it the way you described with PNGs. The issue IE has with PNGs is the transparency element, give it a background and there's no problem at all.
- VanillaBaron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Pstonie > "Please tell us in every digg how the referrer is not sent on every browser."
Or by every surfer (their choice). Or if the comments were open to an API, and used in some other app or some other page.
Yeah, it must be annoying to hear about the short and useless duggmirror URLs all the time. Not as annoying as seeing them, though, or trying to use them when you're one of the people to whom they're completely useless.
A link to a homepage is not a link to a page within a hierarchy. They're different. They're MEANT to be different, so that ALL clients (human and script) accessing that URL can go to the right location. Internet 101, dude. You link to where you want to go, not just "somewhere on that site".
Pstonie > "Seriously, install the duggmirror extension already and stop whining."
Are you kidding? Install software just to work around the fact that people are linking to duggmirror's homepage instead of the mirrored page itself? And, like I said, every time that URL gets accessed by anything other than a referring-sending browser, it is useless, so then programmers will have to change their software (or your great idea: get users to install new software) to work around it then.
Why not just put the full damn URL, then it will work for every surfer on every browser and every other internet application, every time, WITHOUT programmers having to rewrite their software or requiring users to install workarounds?
Pstonie > "Oh, what? Not everyone uses Firefox?"
Yeah, duh. Not everyone uses Windows, not everyone likes the iPod, either. Get over it. - Dogtown7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This points to the fact that we need something better than HTML for the web, a markup that completely separates UI from content into two different files. The content file can be indexed and searched by the web crawlers. With CSS and W3C, we are getting the lowest common denominator and the hacks are getting ever more complexed. XAML or MXML, please!
- Dogtown7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@xilon: this is correct. I was in a food coma after lunch and hit the wrong link. I'm ashamed.
so, anyway, while i'm here... what's going? how was your day? You catch the Niner game? - LiquidPenguin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Xilon
I think he was commenting to the article itself and not to my own comment. - LiquidPenguin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Not much. Hurt my back lifting a court file (some of them are huge). Nope, heard they were moving though.
- LiquidPenguin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I wish there was a way to show that I actually like the comments and "bookmark" them within digg rather than digging the entire article, which I happen to think sucks. I guess commenting here is the next best thing.
- armbar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1PNG is compatible with IE6 using CSS...you don't have to use JavaScript. The article addresses that point, I believe.
- aronoff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I digg it.
- Xilon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@Dogtown7: huh?
- nighthwk1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Those Javascript fixes just apply the same proprietary CSS. It doesn't matter which way you do it. Personally, I include pngfix.js (if ie < 7) on all of my sites and don't worry about PNG support.
- Shinta, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2It's funny, I always digg the trolls up.
- uacheesehead, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!
- bobalien, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2How is this any easier than using a color to color gradient JPG on top of a solid color background? I suppose if you want to change that you have to change the JPG and the background color code - but that's not exactly rocket science.
PNG's are compatible with IE through some Javascript fixes:
http://dean.edwards.name/IE7/
But I'm not sure about using them as background images. - rasterbator, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1So THAT is how they created the pornotube.com website!
- Otto, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2They work in IE7. Since MS just pushed IE7 recently via the Windows Update, you should start seeing a lot less IE6 users about. Of course, it'll be forever before they all go away.
- zaren, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4...or you could make your text buttons as single images, so you don't have to futz with all that foofery?
Seriously, that looks awfully slick, but you KNOW that's going to break in a browser somewhere, especially when you have to start plugging in custom CSS to work with specific versions of specific browsers. HTML itself is bad enough of a "hack". - bryant, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3http://duggmirror.com
Just in case. - fearofcorners, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Transparency is the issue which isn't being used here.
A List Apart usually has better articles than this. - judofyr, on 10/12/2007, -15/+1Looks nice...
- coolian, on 10/12/2007, -22/+3Looks gay.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is