What is Digg?67 Comments
- mousy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+84Anyone that still uses 800 by 600 should be given a plain text version.
Problem solved =D - pezholio, on 10/12/2007, -4/+77"Anyone that still uses 800 by 600 should be shot."
Fixed =D - praisethelard, on 06/06/2008, -13/+83Needs more blink tag.
- jaxshores, on 10/12/2007, -2/+63The possibilities are exciting, but you know some people will still be using IE 6 on 800x600 resolution monitors. The joys of designing for a large audience...
- Ellsass, on 11/05/2008, -0/+28Sideways scrolling = bad UI...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+27Schrodinger's cat is [blink]NOT[/blink] dead.
- roosterjm2k2, on 10/12/2007, -3/+28JaxShores...
the 800x600 is less of a problem now.
You'll notice that most big developers dont worry about 800x600 anymore. They are a minority now ...
Besides, making a page designed about 1024x768 doesnt make it unusable for 8x6, there are still scrollbars. Sure, its more inconvenient, but thats life in the tech world, move forward or be left behind. - Alisic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16There are real programming languages for the web. Many of them, serverside and client side. For making the structure of the site, a programming language wouldn't be better at all than a markup language.
- geoffp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Hey -- what about mobile devices, some of which (like my Nokia 770) have 800x480 screens, or smaller? And why do we feel, as web designers, that we must always take up the user's entire screen? No thanks. IMHO, design for a conservative width, or liquid within reasonable limits, and you'll thank yourself later.
800-wide displays aren't a problem. IE6, though, *is* a problem. I don't mind coding for a narrow screen as long as I can write proper CSS. - Alisic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Also, there's not only a problem with the browser vendors being slow to implement new stuff, there's also a problem with the w3c itself. The consensus among many pioneers of the semantic web is that the w3c is lazy, ineffective and doesn't listen at all to user or developer input.
http://www.zeldman.com/2006/07/17/an-angry-fix/ - ReaperUnreal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11@roosterjm2k2
No, IE6 is indeed broken. I found this out very quickly when I wrote my website using pure CSS1.0 and XHTML1.0 Strict. IE interprets the box model the wrong way. Hooray for padding, and hooray for the IE hack also working in Opera, and hence another hack being needed on top of that for Opera! - moitio, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12A good article but maybe it's better for pointing out that the problem with going forward with the Internet is hugely restricted by IE. The developers are so busy playing catch up with Firefox, Opera and Safari, they've forgotten about giving us, the web developers, freedom to use the standards used elsewhere. Microsoft don't care about anyone except number one. All they care about is keeping their market share, and they're leaving us web developers beached.
- eatsushi, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14@roosterjm2k2
Big name clients are the 90% who are using IE at 800x600. Their technical terms go as far as "excel" and "spreadsheet" on their free ibm laptops their company gives them. True you can opt to just not design for that resolution anymore, but when you deal with marketing directors, they just don't give a ***** about what you think in regards of web standards. That's the name of the game as of right now in the industry IMO, and leaving the minority behind is a bit difficult when it's larger than you think. - loof, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@eatsushi
It's been my experience that the majority of people corporate or otherwise use at least 1024x768. With LCD Monitor coming standard with computers these days many of them have higher resolutions to match their monitor. The user doesn't need to be smart just their IT guys, who should be smart enough to set a decent default resolution. Not that designing to exclude the minority is a good thing but the number of people using 800x600 is getting smaller and smaller everyday. - fugazied, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Thats exactly right, I would estimate 10-20% of my development time creating XHTML and CSS is spent debugging internet explorer issues and getting 5.5, 6, and 7 playing nicely with the more standards compliant browsers such as firefox/opera/safari. Microsoft have enough money to create a standards compliant browser, I guess the technical expertise or willpower to do so is missing.
Whilst its great to see a sneak preview of the new specs, developers will no doubt be restrained by the limitations of IE as we try to get the cool/exciting new features into websites. - Jassman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Anyone who writes XHTML 1.0 Strict and proper CSS can tell you that
"Microsoft & IE: BAD
Anything else: GOOD"
ends up being entirely true as far as web development goes. - dhumphreys, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11@roosterjm2k2: I say it's a problem with browsers, not CSS. I wouldn't say that CSS itself is flawed, but rather that the way many browsers (IE 5.5 and 6 for example) render the pages is flawed. There is a laundry list of reasons that designers should use CSS instead of tables. However, different people use different methods for design. My only major pet peeve with tables is "designers" who throw out table designs in Frontpage or other WYSIWYG editors and attempt to call the result anything similar to a web page.
- rYno, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8It's going to be a long time before you could, at least for business applications, widely implement these as the update speed of people is very slow. Browsers won't update to accept all of the new stuff... Don't expect big changes any time soon.
I do however completely welcome html5 and xhtml2... can't wait to see what else they'll make to further empower us developers. - confusednazgul, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I'm not sure what comparison you're trying to make here. People with visual impairments or disabilities aren't forced to use 800x600. Apples and oranges, dude.
- UO07, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Whats wrong with that? Its the truth..
- senfo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I read the article and maybe it was the ADD, but I don't feel like I learned very much about which standard(s) I should be interested in. The little bit I did learn was that XHTML2 might not ever see the light of day because, being treated as XML, it is not backwards compatible with older HTML standards.
I still don't understand exactly what HTML5 is. It sounds like an upgrade to both HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0, so I'm wondering if the syntax will enforce the closing of all tags (which I strongly believe is a good idea). Also, as others have already pointed out, I find it highly unlikely that we will reach a point in which 90% or more of the web users will have a browser that supports the new standards. That said, new features, such as the ability to drag and drop, may continue to be implemented in JavaScript for at least the next decade.
For me, XHTML 1.0 strict has been sufficient for the majority of my needs. I strongly believe, as do many others, with the idea of separating styling information with the content. And fortunately, frameworks have made it much easier to take advantage of the new web 2.0 ideas, such as drag + drop. As for now, I'm quite satisfied with the standards and have issues only with the lack of implementation in some browsers (e.g., IE). - Lennalf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"Tables disgusting? Ridiculous thing to say."
I believe he means tables are disgusting when used for layout. Everybody knows tables can and should be used to represent data; That is not in question here. The topic at hand is layout. And while I can agree that tables are "reliable" for layout, I think it is definitely true that going about it in such a way does lead to some pretty "disgusting" code.
I, for one, am very glad that I no longer have to put up with horrendous table hacks for layout. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Web developers need not be concerned. If you are not a manager or "the boss" by the time microsoft implements these, you are doing something wrong.
- Gisterogue, on 10/12/2007, -10/+14@Heembo: Reliable? It's just a little easier for people who can't be bothered to learn CSS properly.
Tables are disgusting. There's so many things wrong with them that I won't even bother listing them - but I suggest that you go read somewhere why they are.. - Langford, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5There's still the option of a fluid page layout. Should stretch to most browsers.
Or to retain fixed-like control, switch from px to em. If desired, a short javascript can be used to define em based on screenwidth. Of course, getting img to display nicely may become complicated on some browsers, especially old ones. - PopcornDave, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@roosterjm2k2
IE7 isn't much better when it comes to CSS. I spent a while tracking down a particularly stupid bug that IE7 rendered italicized text with a line stretching underneath it the width of it's container. Turns out I had to tell it to do an inline block to fix the problem with what *should* have been standard CSS.
This is the CSS in question:
#center .boxtext{
font-family: Verdana,Arial, Helvetica,sans-serif;
font-size:8pt;
color:red;
font-style: italic;
display: inline-block;
margin-left:5px;
}
Unless I'm sadly mistaken, that's just standard stuff, but I had to add the display:inline-block to get rid of the line.
A new set of standards would be great, but if the browsers don't follow them, then what's the use? - TheSak, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5What's ridiculous to me is asserting that the resolution a user has is necessarily the width of their browser window. Even more ridiculous is *telling* a site's users that they must maximize their browser and run at a particular resolution to use your web site, as if you're doing them a favor. Remember, you exist to serve them, NOT the other way around.
It's not about you, it's about the *consumer*. If you can't wrap your brain around that, you should probably not be in any business that has customers, which is, well, all of them. Just go collect unemployment or something.
Really, there's no excuse for not being able to design a site that looks just fine at less than 800 pixels of width.
Anyway, I'm also a web developer back from the IE/Netscape 2.0 days, circa 1995. I grew tired of developing for browsers and now do C#/Winforms/Web Services/middle tier stuff. Browsers will always be a big PITA to me. - caban, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4This stuff will be so handy in a decade or so, if most browser manufacturers implement it quickly and consistently.
Judging by the history of browsers implementations of new web standards I wouldn't hold my breath though.
In theory it seems really nice with web standards, and if only they could be implemented in a standardised way in a timeframe that doesn't leave it many years behind proprietary technologies such as Flash and FLEX they would be really great. - mellenger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2i don't know what the problem with building websites that are 780px wide is. I think that the 800px width has become a standard, like 8.5"x11" paper. I like the fact that most websites don't use up my entire screen. i think the 800px width as a standard is fine until we have to start building sites which are completely resolution independent.
- MScrip, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2> "I, for one, am very glad that I no longer have to put up with horrendous table hacks for layout."
Amen to that. I've recently switched to CSS and it's so much better.
But... do you remember a time before CSS? There were millions of websites built in the early days of the web, before CSS and before CSS compliant browsers. Remember the web from 1995-2002? People who scream "tables are not for layout" probably didn't build a website before 2002. Tables were the only way to do some sort of layout back then. Do you really think we went from simple text based websites straight to pretty rounded corner CSS websites overnight?
ESPN.com announced their 'switch' to CSS in 2003. Many other huge websites made the switch around the same time. There's no denying the benefits of building CSS websites today. But, remember how the web was built in the good ol' days. - Jough, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The author of this article missed some valuable points on xhtml and the movement toward a structural markup like xml for web architecture. Only once did the author mention the semantic capabilities of xhtml2 and he failed to recognize any of the drawbacks of html5. I understand that browser manufacturers have a rough time deciphering the tag soup of yesteryear (and even some crap that I've seen today), but that is no reason to completely disregard the future of web technologies. Sure, it may take more work but will be well worth the effort.
- pnrl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"HTML5 is just appeasing the masses"
These masses are our users/clients who have no idea what's the difference between HTML, XHTML and even what a browser is. They click their "internet" on the desktop and want it to work. HTML5 works for them, XHTML2 does not. Sadly, it's very unlikely to change in the next decade. - aboyd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"1.82% of my users are using 800x600."
Hmm. That's actually kind of high. If that number holds for other Web sites, it means that 1 out of 50 people are side scrolling or getting grumpy about the too-big 1024x768 layout. I'd say that's too many people. It makes me want to create more liquid layouts.
I wouldn't be surprised to see that number grow, anyway. It seems like the Wii browser and cell phones and PDAs would all cause browsing on small resolutions to rise. But perhaps I overestimate their strength. - cyberpear, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I would like see XHTML 2.0 be the future of the web rather than HTML5, though it would be nice if they could co-exist. From reading the XHTML 2.0 draft specification, it appears that it will make authoring documents much easier.
- chapium, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I've seen many unable to read small text switch to 800x600 since it simply makes everything bigger even if it obscures their LCD. I dont understand it, but I dont see these habits being changed soon. I personally love using windows's 120dpi fonts but tons of dialog boxes are broken by it.
- HigherLogic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wow, 10-20% huh? That just tells me you're not very competent in web development. I can't recall the last time I had to spend even 5 minutes trying to "debug" my CSS or XHTML.
I hear this gripe so often from amateur designers who don't have a full grasp on CSS and how to properly use it with a well-structured XHTML document.
And the box model claim a couple comments above is also absurd. It works the same in IE6 as it does in IE7, Firefox, Opera, Safari, etc.
It seems that all these hacks were developed by, well, hacks who were trying to do something that just wasn't meant to be, coming up with solutions to problems they created. Not once should you have to resort to conditionals, hacks, separate stylesheets, and workarounds.
If you want a box to be 100 pixels wide, and you put a padding of 10 pixels on it and a 1 pixel border all the way around, your actual width needs to be:
100 - (10 x 2) - (1 x 2) = 78 pixels wide. 20 pixels for the left/right padding, 2 pixels for the left/right border.
It's really not that complicated. Basic math that a 4th grader can do.
...and seriously, why are you trying to debug for 5.5? IE6 and up please. Do you still try to get your site looking good in Netscape Communicator too? Come on man. - HaMMeReD, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Bryce
As a programmer, I agree that progress should be made.
Although at the prospect of rewriting entire legacy applications just to bring them up to standard (not improving the product at all), it seriously ***** scares me.
There is no way in hell anyone could ever convince me in any job to start a task like that, it's soooo ***** immense that you have no clue, but the cost of abandoning old standards would most likely run into the trillions. And even for my one unlaunched app I'm building, which is xhtml (no validation), I would probably spend 2-3 months just making it validate to the new standards, and that would be a hack job, new standards are designed for the future, they need to be analyzed and integrated with the design choices of the application. There is no point upgrading technology unless you intend to take proper advantage of the improvements. - bryce, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The web future should not be backwards compatible with older standards; this is how the problem persists. If web browsers all the sudden drop support for older standards it'll force everyone to update to working standards. And if there is only one set of standards for browsers to implement then cross compatibility will be much greater than it is now.
Of course this might require a ton of work on web developer's parts because they will have to convert everything, but it should happen sometime. - pnrl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1CSS *does* have vertical-alignment (for display:table-cell) and *can* easily accomodate variable widths (display:table-cell or box-sizing:border-box) - it's not problem with CSS lacking these abilities, it's problem with Microsoft's IE inability to handle CSS fully and properly.
- MysteryFCM, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I always design for a min 800x600 with the site being able to adjust to anything larger - I refuse to be told I *have* to design for anything larger "because it's standard", no it fecking isn't!!.
- youthagainstfas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Microsoft:
.box { border-top: expression( this == this.parentNode.firstChild ? "none" : "1px solid red" );}
- BAD
Anything else:
.box:first-child { border-top: 1px solid red;}
- GOOD - v413, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2As old school as it may sound, tables are still very good - and preferred by me - at layouts. Compared to CSS layouts, table layouts are still my choice because:
1. CSS does not offer the same level of features that table can provide for layouts, e.g. CSS have troubles when accommodating content with unknown size characteristics, i.e. when elastic expandability is required while maintaing the layout structure gracefully.
2. CSS is not equally implemented across all major browsers. In order to do advanced CSS you have to rely on "hacks" which will be obliterated with the next version of any of the major browsers ( especially IE).
3. Advanced layouts done with CSS seem to increase the complexity both of the CSS and the markup used to the extent that it does not provide advantages over TABLE based layouts. E.g., inspecting the CSS and markup of sites like Yahoo.com you have endless CSS (hardly manageable) and very deep nesting of tags ... that is instead of having ... we have ... ... so when we wanted to have clean HTML notation we have the tag soup ... again. - gsnedders, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Well, seeming there's absolutely no browsers backing XHTML2, that seems unlikely.
- kjcdude, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11.82% of my users are using 800x600.
most of my users, 38.25% use 1280x1024 - meshman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Tim O'Reilly needs to read this document. THESE are the people (not person) that will determine what the next version of the web is. The technologies they're talking about are referring to the entire Web, not a small portion of rating based web sites. IF anything is to be called Web 2.0, this is it. Look at the referenced document on Web Applications V1. THAT is where we're headed, not down the O'Reilly road of "Web 2.0".
- shanmac, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I still think XHTML2 is the way to go in a purist sense. Sure it is not backward compatible with stock HTML, but sometimes in tech you have to take a Quantum leap. HTML5 is just appeasing the masses (and oddly enough some web developers too). Plus, HTML5 would not have a working standard until at least 2010. The XHTML group at the W3C has been around for some time now. I may be wrong, but I am putting my bet on the semantic web and XHTML2.
- vofuse, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Who are these "big name clients" still using IE at 800x600? I'd like to hear actual names...
- MScrip, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0> "I think that the 800px width has become a standard"
800px 'was' a standard... when most people's CRT screens were 800x600.
Today, the minimum sized LCD screen is 1024x768... with many 1280x1024. 800px is far to narrow on today's screens.
I usually build a 950 width website... or a fluid layout. - Elranzer, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2CSS doesn't have vertical-alignment. Tables do.
- redshiftct, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Anyone who isn't running the latest version of their borwser that their PC can handle is running a risk security-wise and content-wise as they won't be able to get what the autor originally intended. However a new XHTML will be welcome wih me, perhaps with a few more methods for tableless coding so it doesn't confuse me completely.
-
Show 51 - 64 of 64 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is