Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/661094/tilt.png
Now do it for the remake posted up in this thread.
Oh, Adobe... read the copy, then view the source.
141–150 of 151 posts
Re: Oh, Adobe... read the copy, then view the source.
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
This . And, not to mention no business owner want to get locked into a solution, they want their "data" transferable and standardized to at least some extend. The code this produces is so horrible you've lost all the time spent with it. Muse dies out, and your time spent in it dies with it.
And, not to mention no business owner want to get locked into a solution, they want their "data" transferable and standardized to at least some extend. That's a weird thing to say. Why do many business continue to use things like MS Office - or rather, its fabulous file formats then? Or other vendor-lock-in products? Don't misunderstand me, I'd wish all businesses would think like this, because open standards are inf…
Re: Oh, Adobe... read the copy, then view the source.
#143Re: Oh, Adobe... read the copy, then view the source.
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
To add insult to injury, the layout is broken in chromium on Ubuntu. Whereas the remake you posted is running as expected. http://i.imgur.com/otaOc.png
Speaking of which, "Adobe Air is not available for your system." :-P
Re: Oh, Adobe... read the copy, then view the source.
#145Re: Oh, Adobe... read the copy, then view the source.
#146I 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.”
Re: Oh, Adobe... read the copy, then view the source.
#147Q. How many times do you inspect the compiled assembly to see what it generated?
One day these tools will be perfect, it's just a shame for me that Adobe have copied what I've done for the second time: http://blog.gameweaver.com/2011/08/16/has-adobe-copied-anoth...
Re: Oh, Adobe... read the copy, then view the source.
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
WYSIWYG for HTML is just never a good thing. You spend more time learning the idiosyncrasies of a crippled GUI when you could just get busy in a text file.
I agree! I also think compilers are ridiculous. You spend much more time tuning their output and learning their arcane options and switches and pragmas than you would need just writing ASM by hand.
Re: Oh, Adobe... read the copy, then view the source.
#149Earlier 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…
Second, HTML is for telling the browser how to lay out content. When you use Muse or Dreamweaver or iWeb or whatever, you're essentially "scripting" your HTML in a proprietary GUI. When that GUI changes or disappears, how will you maintain that page? Yes, by hand.
All WYSIWYG GUIs should seek to output human-maintainable code, at the very least. It isn't a performance issue.
Re: Oh, Adobe... read the copy, then view the source.
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
And, not to mention no business owner want to get locked into a solution, they want their "data" transferable and standardized to at least some extend. That's a weird thing to say. Why do many business continue to use things like MS Office - or rather, its fabulous file formats then? Or other vendor-lock-in products? Don't misunderstand me, I'd wish all businesses would think like this, because open standards are inf…
That's only weird to those who think open standards to be the only viable standard. MS Office is the de facto standard and your data is not vendor-locked when using it. Please provide link to a somewhat decent Word/Excel/... alternative which doesn't at least let you read the document and save it in their own format.
That's only weird to those who think open standards to be
the only viable standard.
Open standards are the only viable standard if you want adaptable, future-oriented and collaborative software ecosystems as well as likewise markets. You simply cannot guarantee or even create these circumstances with standards that are set by a single corporation (or worse, a trust) - which is only logical because they were designed to do the exact opposite ('defective by design'). MS Office is the de facto standard
I wasn't arguing that. My point is that this is bad and needs to be replaced. your data is not vendor-locked when using it
I think you somewhat misunderstand the term 'vendor-lock'. Sure, you can open Office files with other programs and convert them into open file formats, such as odt.This is, however, mostly thanks to people reverse engineering Microsoft's original binary file formats, and MS was not really happy about this to begin with. If they could have prevented it, they would have done so (and they tried). Even the newer OOXML is not entirely documented and prevents free implementations due to patents (which, no matter what Microsoft may claim, is the exact opposite of an open standard).
Also, while this conversion might work fine for simple, small documents (or other files), the more complex and larger your filed become the more impossible it becomes to convert without a major hassle, which brings us back to your misunderstanding of 'vendor-lock'. The terms doesn't necessarily mean that it's impossible to switch to alternatives, but also applies when measures are taken to make it as hard as possible to switch without investing heavily in time and money.
As a side note, I am not attacking MS Office specifically. It's just the best example for showing all that is wrong with closed standards and proprietary file formats.