61–70 of 151 posts
"You can design and publish original HTML pages to the latest web standards without writing code" - WTF I think compounding all this inefficiency is how they have " " on EVERY SINGLE DIV. Someone should use the Tilt extension to visualise this page in 3D ( http://hacks.mozilla.org/2011/07/tilt-visualize-your-web-pag... ) and screen cap it.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/661094/tilt.png
I recommend reading this post by Zeldman from last year: http://www.zeldman.com/2010/07/05/an-indesign-for-html-and-c... Says Nack: As I noted the other day, “Almost no one would look inside, say, an EPS file and harrumph, ‘Well, that’s not how I’d write PostScript’–but they absolutely do that with HTML.”
There's a good reason for that - clean HTML is not just the territory of pedantic/obsessive designers, it has tangible and important benefits to many sites (note: many, not all). Sure, if you want a personal homepage, or put up an ode to your dog Scruffy on the internet, tools like this may very well work for you. But in those use cases, we've already had capable tools for years , many of which produce cleaner code t…
I recommend reading this post by Zeldman from last year: http://www.zeldman.com/2010/07/05/an-indesign-for-html-and-c... Says Nack: As I noted the other day, “Almost no one would look inside, say, an EPS file and harrumph, ‘Well, that’s not how I’d write PostScript’–but they absolutely do that with HTML.”
There's a good reason for that - clean HTML is not just the territory of pedantic/obsessive designers, it has tangible and important benefits to many sites (note: many, not all). Sure, if you want a personal homepage, or put up an ode to your dog Scruffy on the internet, tools like this may very well work for you. But in those use cases, we've already had capable tools for years , many of which produce cleaner code t…
Has anyone seen the video? They're trying desperately to map print paradigms to the web. It's a major fallacy which many developers (and product managers) fall into.
I am not surprised. What do you think WYSIWYG is supposed to mean?
Or, you could have "What You See Is What You Want, Based On What I Think Is A Good Way To Do This (But You Can Also Choose)"
Things like resolution independence, mobile/small display support, gestural interaction support, impaired-senses accessibility, graceful degradation, and multi-browser compatibility all go towards into that, IMO. It may not be identical on every system, but it will look good and be usable.
I can't really see WYSIWYW,BOWITIAGWTDT(BYCAC) being the next sales paradigm shifting quantum leap of buzzwordology though.
I recommend reading this post by Zeldman from last year: http://www.zeldman.com/2010/07/05/an-indesign-for-html-and-c... Says Nack: As I noted the other day, “Almost no one would look inside, say, an EPS file and harrumph, ‘Well, that’s not how I’d write PostScript’–but they absolutely do that with HTML.”
There's a good reason for that - clean HTML is not just the territory of pedantic/obsessive designers, it has tangible and important benefits to many sites (note: many, not all). Sure, if you want a personal homepage, or put up an ode to your dog Scruffy on the internet, tools like this may very well work for you. But in those use cases, we've already had capable tools for years , many of which produce cleaner code t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed. The inefficiency here is astounding, especially considering the relatively straightforward page layout involved. Original: 1496 lines, 77.9kB Your version: 104 lines, 4.75kB I'd thought we'd progressed beyond the state of a decade ago where Dreamweaver or what-have-you would build you a cumbersome and baroque html splooge to match whatever you had done in the designer, but I guess we haven't advanced that far…
How about we've progressed to the state where HTML is the bytecode you don't want to see anyway, and designers can use modern tools to manipulate it? If the generated markup works, cross-browser and cross-platform (I don't know to what extent it does, but let's assume so), then what's the problem? For many purposes, optimizing the HTML nerd out of the process is a much bigger win than a 20k download (don't forget gzi…
The sense I am getting is that GUI generation of markup code is as inevitable as was the first compiler back in the old days. Whether that point is now or not remains to be seen. Back then we had a combination of increase in RAM sizes/processor speed and democratization of Computers beyond advanced research laboratories, that prompted this change. It no longer was necessary to worry about that extra 10 KB or so of cr…
We've already trod this path and it lead us to dark places.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed. The inefficiency here is astounding, especially considering the relatively straightforward page layout involved. Original: 1496 lines, 77.9kB Your version: 104 lines, 4.75kB I'd thought we'd progressed beyond the state of a decade ago where Dreamweaver or what-have-you would build you a cumbersome and baroque html splooge to match whatever you had done in the designer, but I guess we haven't advanced that far…
And how much is it compressed? Let's see... ~ $ curl -s 'http://studentweb.infotech.monash.edu/~wlay/FIT1012/muse-demo/' | gzip | wc -c 1741 ~ $ curl -s 'http://muse.adobe.com/index.html' | gzip | wc -c 11521 Hmm, so 11.5kB vs 1.7kB with gzip, which I believe browsers can usually handle. That's a factor of 6.6, incidentally. I don't know much about this, but might it still be ok? I thought to check this because of ri…