Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Adobe & HTML

html.adobe.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 71 posts

Re: Adobe & HTML

#31

Post by qznc »

dcurtis wrote: post #16

If you're not a designer, it might be hard to see, but the importance of this work is impossible to overstate. In 10 years, we'll look back on today and think about how barbaric and stupid it was that we didn't have re-flowable text in multi-box CSS layouts or absolute control of typefaces on the web. I have come upon the edge of what CSS is capable of multiple times, especially when building http://dustincurtis.com…

I agree that this technology is absolutely necessary for certain use cases.

However, this will certainly be abused by lots of people to create "an amazing experience online", with the effect that texts become harder to read.

Re: Adobe & HTML

#33

Post by nostromo »

dcurtis wrote: post #16

If you're not a designer, it might be hard to see, but the importance of this work is impossible to overstate. In 10 years, we'll look back on today and think about how barbaric and stupid it was that we didn't have re-flowable text in multi-box CSS layouts or absolute control of typefaces on the web. I have come upon the edge of what CSS is capable of multiple times, especially when building http://dustincurtis.com…

> In 10 years, we'll look back on today and think about how barbaric and stupid it was that we didn't have re-flowable text in multi-box CSS layouts or absolute control of typefaces on the web.

I believe that's the purpose of this W3C Candidate Recommendation: http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-multicol/

I agree that it seems silly that we still don't have columns in html, especially considering how wide monitors have gotten.

However, I'm not Adobe has the answer.

Re: Adobe & HTML

#34

Post by aw3c2 »

haberman wrote: post #19

I'm very cross with Adobe for forcing me to install Adobe Reader today. Makes it hard for me to have any interest in their new ideas. https://plus.google.com/108917965951523281393/posts/MJqS8pF7...

Reply to the sender that this is not acceptable.

Re: Adobe & HTML

#35

Post by idan »

EmilStenstrom wrote: post #27
gbog wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the only sane way to build the layouts was to absolutely/manually position every paragraph To me, this looks like the most INsane way to build a layout. What is wrong with a "let browsers and users choose their font size, their text widht, etc."? For instance, both my wife and I are Kindle users, we have different font size, the text reflows almost always correctly, and who prefers bigger font has bigger font. My f…

There are two big "design movements" on the web, and dustin represents one end of the spectrum. His side argues that great design makes things better, and that we all should put more time into design. The other side says "design is not needed", and that each user can manage their design settings themselves. These are the people that pushed for RSS and Responsive design, and that see design as more of an optional addo…

This is a terrible representation of the issue.

In the end, designing for the web is designing for a lack of control. I can't control your screen geometry, display technology, browser compliance, fonts, and more. There is no fixed canvas like I had in print.

This isn't a limitation, this is simply the medium. Designing for this medium means that you must take your canonical ideal and figure out how it would be transformed under different stresses: tiny screens with partial user attention, big screens viewed from couch distance, monochrome screens which don't refresh quickly, modern browsers with fast javascript, and old broken browsers.

Great design does make things better, but it isn't about pushing the design decisions onto the user. There's no argument that Dustin produces beautiful works of art, but designing with manual layout of the kind he describes is designing against the grain of the medium. CSS has limitations, but so does print. Design is what you accomplish within those limitations, and how you go about accomplishing it in a timeframe that allows you to complete your project and make a living.

Re: Adobe & HTML

#36

Post by baddox »

artursapek wrote: post #10
bonjourmr wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what's wrong with Dreamweaver? /s

Joking aside, Dreamweaver got me into HTML and CSS six years ago when I was 13 and now I have a pretty awesome job developing. Like pdenya states, it's definitely not for power users. But it has its place.

Years ago, when CSS layouts were the new thing and hadn't quite been figured out yet, I used Dreamweaver's code editor and WYSIWYG view to teach myself the basics of CSS layouts. This was before I knew how to "program," and I'm sure there are better ways to learn, but it was an effortless way to get instant code-output feedback which really helped at the time and probably helped in my foray into programming.

Re: Adobe & HTML

#37

Post by coob »

qxcv wrote: post #12
sparknlaunch12 wrote: post #8

They lost on flash. Will they lose on html and CSS?

They did not "lose" on Flash. 99% market penetration[0] is not losing. I doubt they'll "lose" on HTML and CSS any more than they lost on Dreamweaver, they'll simply pull an Autodesk[1] and target the education and training market. It's hard to beat the Flash IDE for ease-of-use, and I imagine their new HTML-based product(s) will be the same. [0]: https://www.adobe.com/products/flashplatformruntimes/statist... [1]: ht…

99% market penetration is a bullshit statistic, it completely ignores mobile which is the fastest growing method for accessing the web.

Re: Adobe & HTML

#38

Post by danssig »

idan wrote: post #35
EmilStenstrom wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two big "design movements" on the web, and dustin represents one end of the spectrum. His side argues that great design makes things better, and that we all should put more time into design. The other side says "design is not needed", and that each user can manage their design settings themselves. These are the people that pushed for RSS and Responsive design, and that see design as more of an optional addo…

This is a terrible representation of the issue. In the end, designing for the web is designing for a lack of control. I can't control your screen geometry, display technology, browser compliance, fonts, and more. There is no fixed canvas like I had in print. This isn't a limitation, this is simply the medium. Designing for this medium means that you must take your canonical ideal and figure out how it would be transf…

>Designing for this medium means that you must take your canonical ideal and figure out how it would be transformed under different stresses:

But the medium lets you account for this with style sheets. You can have a totally different layout for mobile, etc.

Re: Adobe & HTML

#39

Post by whatusername »

DanBC wrote: post #25
kirillzubovsky wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am with Dustin on this one, but from a different angle. By creating flowable text, Adobe will ridiculously enhance the usefulness of their current publishing tools. A few years back I dabbled into newspaper publishing, and you can't imagine just how frustrating it is to have a beautiful layout in InDesign, which isn't really portable to the web. Having these tools will allow 'normal' people who don't do web to easi…

> to easily create stunning experience I know that I've lost this battle and that I'm in a minority, but to me "stunning experience" comes from the content, and not the presentation.

Really? I'm really really struggling to find any human experience that is not improved by the "presentation". Can you name a single one that is wholly about the content and derives no value from the 'presentation'? (For any of the 5 senses?).

To my mind there is basic quadrant setup:

  * Low Content and Low Presentation == Worthless Junk
  * Low Content and High Presentation == Useless Fluff, Polished Turds
  * High Content and Low Presentation == Useful but Boring and hard to understand
  * High Content and High Presentation == Life Changing Content.  Valuable AND easy to grok.
For a HN related example -- Assuming you don't use Python -- do you format/indent your code in any way? That's "Presentation" that clearly adds value to the content.

Re: Adobe & HTML

#40

Post by marathe »

Anyone else noticed that this move comes a week shy of the two-year anniversary of Steve Jobs's infamous open letter? (http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/)

"New open standards created in the mobile era, such as HTML5, will win on mobile devices (and PCs too). Perhaps Adobe should focus more on creating great HTML5 tools for the future, and less on criticizing Apple for leaving the past behind."

Write-up here: http://webdev360.com/adobe-lays-cards-on-table-with-standard...

Post reply on HN