Slashdot Mirror


WthRemix Winners Announced

joeclark1159 writes "The contest to redesign the World Wide Web Consortium's homepage to look like something vaguely superior to 1982-era lpt output has announced its winners, judged on criteria including standards compliance, accessibility, graceful degradation, and aesthetics. The grand-prize winner, Radu Darvas, is arguably head and shoulders above the competition."

62 of 112 comments (clear)

  1. rats by mrpuffypants · · Score: 3, Funny

    I guess my submissions of http://www.microsoft.com didn't win after all... :(

  2. Call me a perfectionist... by loquacious+d · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...but that winning design still needs some massaging. At least that's what the Machead type-designer in me says. The text spacing is pretty off to my eyes, in both Safari and Chimera (nee Camino) 0.6.

    In any case, razor blades flying from my LCD at high speeds would probably be better than the W3C site as it stands. It always annoyed me that their CSS2 page was just about the ugliest one on the intarweb. "Look, kiddies! With CSS, your pages can cause bleeding eyes! Semantically!"

    1. Re:Call me a perfectionist... by jimm · · Score: 1


      It's "Camino (nee; Chimera)", not "Chimera (nee; Camino)". "nee" is French for "born as". (The second "e" should have an acute accent; I couldn't get it to display properly.)
      </pedant-mode>

      --
      Transcript show: self sigs atRandom.
    2. Re:Call me a perfectionist... by Flamerule · · Score: 1
      [sigh] Dude, dude, dude. You failed your pedantism.

      You were correct about Chimera coming first and being followed up by (the stupidly-named) Camino, but it's "née". The accent is on the first 'e'. Actually, you only need the second 'e' if the noun is feminine, but let's just leave it on to be safe.

    3. Re:Call me a perfectionist... by Moses+Lawn · · Score: 1

      Nope, the winner does it right, you're a wanker. All the W3C projects are along one side, relevant organization info is along the other. The "A to Z crap" is commonly known as an "index".

      The NIH site is uninspiring, dated, and seems to have been designed without expending any visible effort. The narrow-column design wastes space and the graphics are cutesy and unprofessional.

      --

      What if life is just a side effect of some other process and God has no idea we exist?

  3. Great... by juuri · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... so now we can gave the w3 homepage be a bastion of obfuscation as well.

    When will web designers (hi slashdot!) learn that tons of varied visible information on one screen is NOT a good way to design an interface.

    --
    --- I do not moderate.
    1. Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ...tons of varied visible information on one screen is NOT a good way to design an interface.

      I don't know. I think that being able to find information quickly, through a clear and logically layed out site, is the thing the W3C is after here. Personally, I would not like to go on a clicking marathon to find the content im after. If I can load one page quickly, and find a link to what I'm looking for immediately, I would be quite happy with that.

      I am also guessing (hoping too) that many others think that way aswell.

    2. Re:Great... by jackb_guppy · · Score: 1

      That is way I have findly moved to google. A dimple search right to the actual page - NO million choice first page.

  4. Nothing remarkable by divide+overflow · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It looks clean and organized but also rather bland and generic. Also, I like more contrast between my text and background than the dark grey on light grey color scheme chosen by Radu. I think greater contrast makes the text more distinct and easier to read.

  5. okay well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    now can someone stop the w3c from their xml trip? by http 6.0, every bit will be xml encoded.

    <octet hexvalue="2d">
    <bit order="7">0</bit>
    <bit order="6">0</bit>
    <bit order="5">1</bit>
    <bit order="4">0</bit>
    <bit order="3">1</bit>
    <bit order="2">1</bit>
    <bit order="1">0</bit>
    <bit order="0">1</bit>
    </octet>

  6. Does spelling count? by gdarklighter · · Score: 1

    If the winner is any indication, it does not. While I do like his design...shouldn't everybody know that Google is spelled with two o's, not three?

    1. Re:Does spelling count? by glenstar · · Score: 3, Funny

      The design was submitted by a slashdot reader.

    2. Re:Does spelling count? by bsartist · · Score: 1

      No, the number of O's depends on how many pages of results you get back from your search.

      --
      Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
  7. From the contest FAQ. by Rhinobird · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What is the relationship of this contest with the W3C?

    This contest is not affiliated with the W3C, entries will not be submitted to them. Enter this contest if you are inspired by the challenge and/or excited about the prizes.


    --
    If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
    1. Re:From the contest FAQ. by blibbleblobble · · Score: 1

      "This contest is not affiliated with the W3C"

      It does look as if there are no plans to actually use this design on the W3C site... is it going to end up the waste of a design?

    2. Re:From the contest FAQ. by Rhinobird · · Score: 1

      One would hope that the W3C would at least take some tips on thier site design.

      --
      If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
  8. W3C Validation by miketang16 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hehe, reminds me of when I tried to feed msn.com through the HTML validator... god did it ever fuck itself...

    --
    -------
    "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
    -- George Orwell
  9. Good looking, compliant and accessible - Top notch by Isofarro · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The winning entry is an excellent example that it is possible to create good looking, highly functional, structured websites that are also fully accessible. Congrats to Radu Darvas.

    Don't know about you guys, but I'm grabbing a copy of his markup and stylesheets - its packed with a number of excellent tips on creating accessible designs. Apart from one or two miniscule gripes that are not worth mentioning - this is a fantastic example of modern web design.

    Also, I do like one of the honourable mentions - very clean looking and easy on the eye.

  10. Look ma, no tables! by Rhinobird · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Say, those pages looked alright, I bet Slashdot could do a redesign and get rid of thier tables too.

    --
    If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
    1. Re:Look ma, no tables! by skillet-thief · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Say, those pages looked alright, I bet Slashdot could do a redesign and get rid of thier tables too.

      Yeah, I am pretty impressed with the absence of tables, replaced with "containers". Unfortunately, the containers have fixed pixel widths.

      It is interesting to see that, in spite of his ingenuity, he wasn't able to match up the columns at the bottom of the page.

      All the same an interesting example.

      --

      Congratulations! Now we are the Evil Empire

    2. Re:Look ma, no tables! by daffmeister · · Score: 2, Informative
      I wouldn't mind understanding how that was done.
      Can anyone explain?

      Just view the source and download the style-sheets. It's all there.

    3. Re:Look ma, no tables! by extra88 · · Score: 1

      Submit a patch.
      </CmdrTaco>

  11. Slashdot Ubiquity by cheerkiller · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think it's interesting that so many sites are copying the basic format of slashdot.org. This is only the most recent example. For others visit xwin.org and osnews.com. Innovation is dead.

    1. Re:Slashdot Ubiquity by buddha42 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      A three-column layout has been common since the invention of the freaking printing press.

      When the whole world starts looking like slashdot to you, its time to check into a clinic.

  12. What no alternate stylesheets? by Chilliwilli · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Where are the alternate stylesheets? Larger text options for hard of vision? Higher contrast?
    Also none of the entries make use of site navigation links?
    Load up wired.com in a new version of Mozilla.. that's how new standards compliant web technology should be done.

    --
    Cure cancer.. and stuff! www.team45.info
    1. Re:What no alternate stylesheets? by __past__ · · Score: 1

      Well, but their absolutely uncool URI design still sucks.

  13. Re:From netcraft... by Wild+Wizard · · Score: 1

    And the real reason you didn't provide a link is because you lied.

    The site www.homelesspixel.de is running Apache/1.3.27 (Unix) on Linux.

  14. Re:Did you know? by bj8rn · · Score: 2, Funny

    Kind of offtopic, but this reminds me of this old joke (from Stalinist era, I think):

    Today, in preparation of Lenin's forthcoming 70th jubilee, a contest for anecdotes about Lenin was announced. The prizes are:

    Third place - 10 years in places of importance in the life of Lenin (Siberia)

    Second place - 25 years in places of importance in the life of Lenin plus 5 years in places where other revolutionary heroes have dwelled

    First place - an opportunity to meet the great leader in person

    --
    Hell is not other people; it is yourself. - Ludwig Wittgenstein
  15. Database Problems by Wild+Wizard · · Score: 1

    so this is what happens when /. /.'s itself

  16. Accessible design with fixed font sizes? by rmonday · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I don't see what's so accessible about a design that uses fixed text sizes. Seems to be an attempt to do page layout, rather than page markup.

    To be properly accessible, it should (amongst other things...) be possible to easily change the displayed font size to suit your preference.

    With the default MSIE settings it can't be done when the stylesheet specifies fixed pixel font sizes. I realise that most of the size specifications in css are broken in some way in some browser, but just assuming that everybody uses the exact same screen DPI and has the exact same eyesight isn't the answer.

    From that point of view, the winning design is a big step backwards from the existing site (and no less cluttered and confusing).

    1. Re:Accessible design with fixed font sizes? by TheSunborn · · Score: 1

      You can't blame the site just because MSIE is unable to scale fonts contained widthin a style-sheet. That is a problem with MSIE not the site.

    2. Re:Accessible design with fixed font sizes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      No, this isn't just another case of IE being broken, it's a problem with the specification. The CSS specs don't say that fonts specified with fixed pixel sizes should be scalable, that's just an assumption made by some browsers. IE not being able to scale fixed pixel fonts is really pretty valid, it's not just another IE broken standard thing like the fact that transparencies and alpha layers in PNGs STILL don't work in IE6 for Windows (they do in IE 5.1 and later for Mac I know).

    3. Re:Accessible design with fixed font sizes? by gol64738 · · Score: 1

      With the default MSIE settings it can't be done when the stylesheet specifies fixed pixel font sizes.

      whoa, people still use MSIE? i mean, honestly?

      i know, people will mark me as a troll, but really, if you're still using MSIE, you should give the latest mozilla build for windows a try.

      i'm telling you, once you try mozilla, you won't go back to MSIE.

    4. Re:Accessible design with fixed font sizes? by joeclark1159 · · Score: 1

      The requirement for variable font sizes is something of a myth in accessible Web design. The only browser with a problem resizing fonts is IE on Windows. People with an actual need to resize fonts, as distinct from people who are visually-impaired enough to require screen magnification (which blows up everything on the screen), should switch browsers. It's an oversold problem. One could certainly have argued for standards-compliant navigation columns that appear and disappear. Those columns of nav links could be improved. But the winning site is itself a massive improvement over W3.org.

  17. An accessible page with fixed font sizes? by rmonday · · Score: 1, Redundant
    I don't see what's so accessible about a design that uses fixed text sizes. Seems to be an attempt to do page layout, rather than page markup.

    To be properly accessible, it should (amongst other things...) be possible to easily change the displayed font size to suit your preference.

    With the default MSIE settings it can't be done when the stylesheet specifies fixed pixel font sizes. I realise that most of the size specifications in css are broken in some way in some browser, but just assuming that everybody uses the exact same screen DPI and has the exact same eyesight isn't the answer.

    From that point of view, the winning design is a big step backwards from the existing site (and no less cluttered and confusing).

  18. Congratulations to the W3C by fleppir · · Score: 2, Funny

    Finally one can go to the page without feeling like having had extensive eye surgery.

    --
    I am the Barber of Seville.
    1. Re:Congratulations to the W3C by mattrix2k · · Score: 1

      The W3C probably isn't going to use it, they had nothing to do with the competition. (other than making their site so lame that somebody else came up with the idea).

  19. Where's the improvement? by macshit · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It must be something hidden like standards conformance, because the `remixed' home-page looks pretty exactly the same as the old home-page, except that the remix seems vaguely more depressing. To be honest, I rather like the old home-page; it's clean, straight-forward, and even kind of cheerful...

    --
    We live, as we dream -- alone....
    1. Re:Where's the improvement? by TKinias · · Score: 2, Interesting

      scripsit macshit:

      It must be something hidden like standards conformance, because the `remixed' home-page looks pretty exactly the same as the old home-page, except that the remix seems vaguely more depressing. To be honest, I rather like the old home-page; it's clean, straight-forward, and even kind of cheerful...

      You must be using an obsolete or non-CSS supporting browser. Out of curiosity I looked at it with SGI's OEM NS4.5 under IRIX and it looks like a 1995-era grey-background all-text page -- but is perfectly usable. That's what graceful degradation is about. He's hiding the CSS from you if you've got a FUBAR browser.

      --
      In principio creauit Linus Linucem.
    2. Re:Where's the improvement? by macshit · · Score: 1

      I'm using Mozilla 1.2, so I don't think it's an `obsolete browser' problem.

      I suspect that your taste simply differs from mine, but care to describe what you're seeing that makes it an improvement over the current page?

      What I see is that they both have the same basic layout -- a title, a minimal navigation header, and 3 columns, with articles in the center one and useful links in the two side columns. The only real differences seem to be color and icon changes, little boxes around everything (in the remix page), and a bit of javascripty mouseover highlighting. But given that the old page was really pretty reasonably designed, none of the changes seem to actually mean anything; for instance, adding the boxes doesn't help much because the old page did a good job of using whitespace and color to make sure boundaries were clear and to focus the eye.

      Is it really anything more than `this guy likes grey and boxes'?

      --
      We live, as we dream -- alone....
    3. Re:Where's the improvement? by TKinias · · Score: 1

      scripsit macshit:

      I'm using Mozilla 1.2, so I don't think it's an `obsolete browser' problem.

      I suspect that your taste simply differs from mine, but care to describe what you're seeing that makes it an improvement over the current page?

      Well, I know for a fact that my taste differs from many people's <grin>

      In this regard, I misunderstood your description to be that of the CSS-free version. I don't consider the `remix' page bland; if anything, the orange header is a bit garish IMHO.

      The `remix' page seems a bit tighter, but it's not a particularly substantive change. Rather, I think a redesign should do more than change the stylesheets; I'm on the ``less is more'' side of the home-page issue. Vive le Google.

      --
      In principio creauit Linus Linucem.
  20. Fails on Windows IE, works on Linux, Mac by danielp · · Score: 2, Informative

    Refreshing doesn't help, but if you scroll around the page for a while, you will eventually have everything redrawn in another (more correct) way than refresh. Go figure!

    Works great in Debian GNU / Linux - Galeon 1.3.3, Debian GNU / Linux - Mozilla 1.3, Mac OS X 10.2.5 - Safari 1.0 Beta 2 (v73) (damn fast!), and Mac OS X 10.2.5 - IE 5.2.2.

    Cheers!

    - I don't have a .sig

  21. Missing half the beauty with CSS turned on by starvingartist12 · · Score: 1

    You're missing half the beauty of the design without grabbing the Toggle CSS Stylesheet favelet/bookmarklet and trying it out on the winning site.

    Because of the use of proper HTML structure (Hx, Acronym tags) the site is still is very accessible and easy to read.

    A minor quibble is the rampant usage of spans with a class named "none" to hide navigation divider pipes ("|") when CSS is on. Something like an unordered list might be better structurally... but that's more of a personal thing.

  22. funny by fizban · · Score: 1

    Did anyone happen to translate the latin text at the bottom of Radu's page? It's been a while since I took latin, so I'm very rusty. Here's the text:

    "copyright ©2003 blah blah lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat.

    Duis autem veleum iriure dolor in hendrerit in vulputate velit esse molestie consequat, vel willum lunombro dolore eu feugiat nulla facilisis at vero eros et accumsan et iusto odio dignissim qui blandit praesent luptatum zzril delenit augue duis dolore te feugait nulla facilisi."

    --

    +1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.

    1. Re:funny by marsvin · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's the default filler text used when someone needs a bit of text, for example for demonstrating a typeface or page layout. See this Straight Dope article for more info.

    2. Re:funny by Nachtfalke · · Score: 1

      Check out http://www.lipsum.com/ for everything you wanted to know about Lorem Ipsum but were afraid to ask.

  23. Re: ermm good for you.. by Chilliwilli · · Score: 1

    good you you...

    --
    Cure cancer.. and stuff! www.team45.info
  24. You're missing half the beauty with CSS turned on by starvingartist12 · · Score: 1

    You're missing half the beauty if you don't grab the Toggle CSS Stylesheet bookmarklet/favlet and use it when you check out the winning entry.

    Because of all the proper structure in the HTML (like proper usage of Hx, and Acronym tags), it still looks good and is easily readable without the CSS. It even unhides "skip to" links (see Dive Into Accessibility) for easier navigation at the top for non-visual browsers.

    My only quibble is the repetitive usage of spans with a class called "none" to hide the navigation dividing pipes ("|") when CSS is enabled. Maybe a structure using unordered lists might read better semantically.

  25. It's dummy text by Andy_R · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's the printing/design industry's standard piece of dummy text, used by designers like me when making mockups.

    It dates from about 1500, and is a garbled version of Section 1.10.32 of "de Finibus Bonorum et Malorum", written by Cicero in 45 BC.

    www.lipsum.com has more info, translations, the ungarbled version and so on.

    --
    A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
    1. Re:It's dummy text by marko123 · · Score: 1

      My God! That's where it came from! I just thought is was some wanky ROT13 when I saw it in the demo website in NetObjects Fusion.

      --
      http://pcblues.com - Digits and Wood
  26. Winning design not properly resizable by Andy_R · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Try making the window thinner - first the content gets squeezed down to a thin strip between those two huge menus, then eventually one menu disappears and random bits of text obscure the content! (ymmv, I'm using Mozilla 1.2 for MacOS).

    --
    A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
  27. NOooo by Hard_Code · · Score: 1

    Make the Tyranny of the Three Column View stop!

    Next they'll have rss feeds and w3cboxes!

    --

    It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
    1. Re:NOooo by mattrix2k · · Score: 1

      Err, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but they do have an RSS feed.

  28. Free at last (almost) by buddha42 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Regardless of the nitpickign we could all do, whats important to realize is that the day has finnaly arrived when you can have a standards compliant and cross-user-agent accessible site, and look good!.

    Whats important now is to keep moving forward! Don't let your self, friends, family, clients, company, etc put up any new sites that don't at least try to validate. They don't have to be perfect, just at least try and put some effort into it.

    For those of us who learned HTML in the 2.0 & 3.x days, it takes a little bit of relearning in terms of how you approach markup, but it really is worth it.

    Go run your homepage through validator.w3.org. Fix 5 things. Make it a goal one weekend to make your site validate with less than 5 errors. It really is remarkably easy, we're talking about markup and stylesheets here people.

  29. oops by Chilliwilli · · Score: 1

    during the big db mess up today you post showed up with only a sig and no content.. hence my snide remark.. sorry chap.

    --
    Cure cancer.. and stuff! www.team45.info
  30. People w/ limited eyesight don't use MSIE by jtheory · · Score: 1

    My vision isn't great (I'm certainly not blind, but I need larger fonts than many sites seem to think looks "cool"). When CSS starting becoming popular for font sizing, I had to switch from MSIE to other browsers. I'm sure a lot of other people like me followed suit (but not enough that MS cared, apparently).

    Frankly, it wouldn't be a problem if IE weren't so pervasive. Current versions of Opera, Mozilla, and Netscape ALL support changing the font sizes declared in CSS. Generally (sometimes minor config required) you just hold ctrl and roll the mouse wheel.

    I find this MUCH more useful than overriding the stylesheet, for instance, because I still get to see what the "real" site looks like, then I can decide to crank up the font size by a notch or two so I can read comfortably.

    By the way, the designs in this contest all handle font scaling well.

    --
    There are only 10 types of people: those who understand decimal, those who don't, and, uh, 8 other types I forget.
  31. I like the GNU page by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

    I like simpler pages, like the old-style GNU page. Why do people always have to try to make websites look like newspapers, with zillions of tiny columns of text?

    My best guess so far is Windows users that can't figure out how to use software non-maximized complaining that text doesn't fill their browser window otherwise. Any other explanation seems nuts.

    And rollover highlighting? I had thought that had died a long time ago, when people realized that users hated it.

  32. what the heck. by Xzzy · · Score: 2, Funny

    no 900k flash intro? one that gives me a thumping techno beat as the letters "w3c" flash into existence before my eyes?

    not a terribly modern redesign, obviously. These people need to get with the program.

  33. Look good?? by NitroWolf · · Score: 1

    All those pages look pretty bland to me. I wasn't very impressed with them. They are functional, I guess.

    Eye candy please. No, I'm not talking about Flash and all that junk, just need to splash the page with graphics or something. Way to plain.

    Oh well, back to my MTV and Shiney things.

  34. Winner's Irony by Snover · · Score: 1
    It uses GIF files for its lossless graphics.
    h2 {
    margin: 15px 0px 3px 0px;
    padding: 3px 21px;
    font-size: 14px;
    color: #333;
    background: <b>url(imgs/arrow_ico.gif)</b> no-repeat 2px 4px #ddd;
    border: 1px solid #bbb;
    }
    --

    [insert witty comment here]
  35. Re:The w3c original is perfect. by ansonyumo · · Score: 1

    I totally agree. There is no need for the w3c to whiz-bang its site. If you are looking for standards information, then you probably already realize that it is a good idea and don't need to be sold on it.

    I enjoy using the w3c site mostly for its content, but also because it renders well on any browser that I use, doesn't require plugins and doesn't generate JavaScript error dialogs with every click (yes, i know how to disable those. as a web developer, i leave them on).

    The one suggestion I would make to w3c is to improve navigability. Their use of top-level TOC for documents has fallen by the wayside of late, which forces you to dig through the pages some to find what you want.

    If selling the idea of standards-based technologies as tools for whiz-bang sites is an issue, then create a gallery and link to it. Leave the w3c site alone.

    -brian

  36. It's a good design... but... by AShocka · · Score: 1

    It should really have been done in XHTML Strict DTD.

    Pretty much anything can be designed well in Transitional DTD, but doing it in Strict is far more challenging (and this is the DTD that the W3C home page is done in, so it should have been the required DTD).

    When doing it in Strict, as much of the design and layout, as possible, is moved away from the structural layout and into the CSS/XSLT, which is not the case with transitional. The full and real benefits of seperating markup are not gained using Transitional (making the design more portable and flexible between media).

    This is the Black Art to markup coding and it's pay off is the flexibility and portability of the structured markup between media. Of course there are the down sides of decredation in various browsers, but there are now more and more good reasons to support using Strict than ever before. The improvement in browser support and the increasing use of other media and devices shows the change in this landscape.