Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > html site-critique

Reply
Thread Tools

html site-critique

 
 
Bernhard Sturm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-17-2007
Bergamot wrote:
> Jim Moe wrote:
>> On 10/16/07 09:43 am, Bernhard Sturm wrote:
>>> http://test.montessori-viki.ch/
>>>

>> The text
>> below "Anmeldung (pdf, 39kB)" shows only the top parts of the characters.

>
> I don't see anything below it at all.
>

Just the kind of effects I suspected to happen... I just don't get it
why print oriented designers try to get involved into webdesign without
accepting the fact that it's not a piece of static paper? It's as if you
would talk to someone comming from the last century: I always have the
impression that they still think everybody else in the world will see it
the way they see it on their 22" screen, and that everybody else is
using safari and nothing else to see the page.

bernhard

--
www.daszeichen.ch
remove nixspam to reply
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bernhard Sturm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-17-2007
dorayme wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> mbstevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> It does not. As long as you had her alone when you said it, it might
>> be OK, to say it, too. Once you've warned them, if people want to
>> pay for crap, well, it's their business and their money -- back off.

>
> Maybe... or maybe take a stand quietly, play about a bit, get the
> list back in the html and css something like:
>
> #menu a {font-size: .75em;}
> #menu li {list-style: none;}
> #menu ul, li {margin:0;padding:0;}
> #menu ul, li {line-height: 1;}
>
> and ask the graphic designer to see if she can pick it from just
> looking at the website itself. If she cannot, then Bob will be
> OP's uncle.


I'll give it a try... I think it's worth it.

>
> All this line height stuff makes me nervous. It suggests a
> brittle perfection.
>


It's as if someone would say: the web is a static place. I, THE DESIGNER
AM IN CONTROL! but this is such an outdated view. This is not only true
for the visual design but also for the navigational design: most of the
graphic designer can not embrace the reality of a non-linear
navigational structure. They always think in terms of a book: a user
will always start at the first page and navigate along a predefined
path(hence the many useless intro-pages).

still angry
bernhard


--
www.daszeichen.ch
remove nixspam to reply
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-17-2007
In article <ff4d3g$sro$(E-Mail Removed)>,
Bernhard Sturm <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Jim Moe wrote:
> >>

> > To achieve truly pixel perfect layout for all possible browsers you will
> > have to provide the page as an image map. Any other choice will not meet
> > her expectations.
> >

>
> True... That's what I suggested to her as well. Then she got almost mad
> about me: that I would take the mickey out of her... siggh... I think I
> go along the way as doryame told me. She will not notice it as she
> hardly checks a site when finished.


When I fiddled about this morning with some values, I recall not
being able to notice at all the difference. In case it helps you
in your deception [1]:

Open the <p>'d version in one window and the <ul>d version in
another.

Browser/window control the font-size so that the pics are the
same size between windows (I noticed the design has this feature
via the positioning scheme).

Then fiddle with the css of the list version.

------------
[1] I say, chaps, this is terribly exciting, how to deceive the
boss.

--
dorayme
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bernhard Sturm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-17-2007
dorayme wrote:
>
> When I fiddled about this morning with some values, I recall not
> being able to notice at all the difference. In case it helps you
> in your deception [1]:
>
> Open the <p>'d version in one window and the <ul>d version in
> another.


I did this already I made screenshots to document the 'non-existing'
difference. There is only a small 1 pixel shift visible in firefox, but
I doubt she will notice it. Anyhow: thanks for the input.

>
> Browser/window control the font-size so that the pics are the
> same size between windows (I noticed the design has this feature
> via the positioning scheme).


Yes. Which makes it even harder to achieve pixel perfect designs as
various UAs size different (I noticed some glitches in Safari on Windows).


> ------------
> [1] I say, chaps, this is terribly exciting, how to deceive the
> boss.


LOL.. given the fact, that she is not the boss, but in this particular
project she has the lead (in all other cases I am the boss

bernhard


--
www.daszeichen.ch
remove nixspam to reply
 
Reply With Quote
 
Andy Dingley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-17-2007
On 16 Oct, 19:15, mbstevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Once you've warned them, if people want to
> pay for crap, well, it's their business and their money -- back off.


I disagree with that. IMHO, one of the functions of the "competent
expert in the field" is to _educate_ the consumer.

Customers don't set out "wanting to buy crap". They often start by
wanting to buy something that _is_ crap, but they want it because they
also think, mistakenly, that this is the way it ought to be. A
customer who's told by one designer that "pixel-perfect is best" or
"fox your fint sizes" won't know that it's a bad idea (and why should
they?). Our job, as technical experts, is to educate them on the
reasons why we think such techniques lead to crap sites.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Andy Dingley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-17-2007
On 16 Oct, 17:43, Bernhard Sturm <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I wonder what you professionals think about this site:
> http://test.montessori-viki.ch/


I like it. You've achieved a very difficult task: taking a "pixel-
perfect" layout and building it on the web in a way that's broadly
pixel-perfect, yet without compromising accessibility. You're to be
congratulated.

The designer has achieved a good result too. They've produced
something that's attractive and doesn't have the usual "Designed by
Geeks" square-box look of the typical standards-based site. Now they
need to relax and not be obsessive about the trivial details you
describe. They've met the useful goals, now they should stop before
aesthetic trivia starts to break code with technically significant
issues.

Congratulations. You've both worked well on this one, you've achieved
both of yoru goals, even though this tend to pull in opposite
directions.


Please take yourself and the designer to the recently posted site
(Massage in Canada) and show them how to achieve such a result. Now
there was a ugly site that needed this sort of design input.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bergamot
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-17-2007
Andy Dingley wrote:
>
> "fox your fint sizes"




--
Berg
 
Reply With Quote
 
Andy Dingley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-17-2007
On 17 Oct, 14:01, Bergamot <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>


You just don't want to know what's been spilled in this keyboard...

 
Reply With Quote
 
mbstevens
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-17-2007
Andy Dingley wrote:
> On 16 Oct, 19:15, mbstevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Once you've warned them, if people want to
>> pay for crap, well, it's their business and their money -- back off.

>
> I disagree with that. IMHO, one of the functions of the "competent
> expert in the field" is to _educate_ the consumer.


Hence the "Once you've warned them."
 
Reply With Quote
 
Chaddy2222
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-17-2007

Andy Dingley wrote:
> On 16 Oct, 17:43, Bernhard Sturm <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > I wonder what you professionals think about this site:
> > http://test.montessori-viki.ch/

>
> I like it. You've achieved a very difficult task: taking a "pixel-
> perfect" layout and building it on the web in a way that's broadly
> pixel-perfect, yet without compromising accessibility. You're to be
> congratulated.
>
> The designer has achieved a good result too. They've produced
> something that's attractive and doesn't have the usual "Designed by
> Geeks" square-box look of the typical standards-based site. Now they
> need to relax and not be obsessive about the trivial details you
> describe. They've met the useful goals, now they should stop before
> aesthetic trivia starts to break code with technically significant
> issues.
>

I agree and think that's the problem with a lot of Flash based sites,
they look identicle in any browser, but the functionality and the
useability is just not good at all.

> Congratulations. You've both worked well on this one, you've achieved
> both of yoru goals, even though this tend to pull in opposite
> directions.
>
>
> Please take yourself and the designer to the recently posted site
> (Massage in Canada) and show them how to achieve such a result. Now
> there was a ugly site that needed this sort of design input.

Yes, I know what you mean. Although I think graphic design is one of
those things you need to study for quite some time to get an idea of
what works.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
firefox html, my downloaded html and firebug html different? Adam Akhtar Ruby 9 08-16-2008 07:55 PM
How do I identify word<html><html>other word? Laura Perl 1 06-04-2004 11:32 PM
how to redirect to a frames-based html page and load the right html when coming from an ASP.NET page Mark Kamoski ASP .Net 1 08-13-2003 05:51 AM
How to use HTML::Parser to remove HTML tags and print result Mitchua Perl 1 07-15-2003 02:02 PM



Advertisments