Slashdot Mirror
Help Beta Test Slashdot CSS
After almost 8 years, Slashdot's HTML is finally getting an overhaul. For now the changes are almost entirely under the hood, as we migrate the current skin to CSS. Slashdot itself will migrate in the next few weeks, but for now, we'd appreciate it if people who understand CSS could take a look at Slashcode. If you use a browser that lets you select a stylesheet, you can take a look at that site with the Slashdot CSS Skin. Keep in mind that Slashcode doesn't look exactly like Slashdot, so there will be some differences between that site, and the final version that will appear on Slashdot. We're mainly looking for feedback on compatibility issues and blatant bugs. You can use our our SF bug tracker to submit bug reports. Thanks for your help. Once we move Slashdot, work will begin on a new look & feel. If you have ideas, you could start playing with the CSS stylesheets now!
After almost 8 years, Slashdot's HTML is finally getting an overhaul.
What is a HTML?
If you do change to CSS beware as some CSS is IE specific, like list trees.
CmdrTaco? I have exactly two words for you.
:-)
This. Rocks.
Kudos on finally bringing Slashcode into the 21st century! The Slashdot style over on Slashcode looks absolutely wonderful, with none of the chunky layout problems that plague Slashdot itself! What I'd love to know is, how much bandwidth are you saving by using CSS? Many of the experiments done to date suggest that you could cut your bandwith usage by 30-50%! Will this update usher in a new era of faster page loading? Inquiring minds want to know!
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
for things like collapsing articles to header only and expanding them to full article? (And user options for the initial view)
"I'm never quite so stupid as when I'm being smart" (Linus van Pelt)
Just curious -- not attacking or anything -- but why HTML 4 as opposed to XHTML 1 Strict? Is it because of the content type issues with a certain browser, strict XML compliance was too difficult, or simply that only purists ever seem to care? ;-)
Slashdot going to CSS? Has hell frozen over!? Windows gone GPL!? What's next?
I'd answer, but I'm too busy trying to catch these damn flying pigs!
Um, because:
Damn,
It's getting cold down here.
- Satan
The hip way to get your IP. No ads, ever.
I tried this and it seems to be kicking out quite a few duplicate stories. Is that normal?
Johnkoerner.com
Who cares? Three main groups:
People with disabilities prefer CSS because it allows them to trivally alter layout and visual presentation in a way that works for them. For example, some people have trouble seeing low-contrast presentations; they can insert their own CSS into a CSS-aware page to make any site readable.
The folks who pay for the bandwidth tend to like CSS because it costs less to serve (properly implemented, that is). CSS separates style from content, so the style can be cached while smaller content pages are tranferred on request. This makes a better end-user experience and costs less to provide.
Developers and designers like CSS because it follows the excellent practice of separating view from data. It's easier for a developer to make changes to the underlying code because they worry less about breaking the view; likewise, a designer can make layout tweaks without affecting other areas of code. Clean separation makes fewer bugs.
We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
Allow me to list people who would be denied the goodness of slashdot if you didn't create something that allowed IE to be compatible:
1) People who for some stupid reason or another can only use IE at work and don't have enough control of their PC to install something better.
2) Geeks and nerds who do not fall into the category of computer nerd. There are science geeks, english geeks, political geeks, math geeks, but just because one is a geek about one thing doesn't mean they are geek about computers.
I'm all for scolding IE for not complying to standards, but since MS's philosophy of embrace, extend and extinguish is still in use in IE, don't allow yourself to be extinguished by designing a page that doesn't work around I.E. bugs and cut off major portions of your audience.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Remember: this calculation is based on the number of pages served as of 13 June, 2000. I believe that Slashdot's traffic is much heavier now, but even using this three-year-old figure, the money saved is impressive.
Welcome to 2005.
Your sig(k) has been stolen. There is a puff of smoke!
Got it finally: http://greasemonkeyed.com/tag/slashdot
IMarv
Trusting software vendors is no smarter than trus
Absolute nonsense. I implement sites for major commercial organisations which use standards-based CSS 1 and 2.1, and they work just fine cross-modern-browser - IE-Win, IE-Mac, Opera, Firefox, Safari, you name it. And when I say "just fine", I mean "look identical to the pixel", as well as scaling seamlessly for visually impaired users, being fully accessible to assistive technologies, having semantically pure markup and degrading gracefully in ye olde browsers.
On my current project I combine floating, absolute positioning and just about every other CSS technique in the book, and out of 1800+ lines of CSS across the entire site, just 13 are to cater for IE's brokenness.
Everything one needs to know to make standards-compliant sites that work in today's browsers is out there (including avoiding the IE-5-Win box model problem), but many "web designers" are so lacking in an understanding of the technologies with which they work that they can't or won't improve. I see new sites produced using nested tables, for goodness sake; I used those techniques myself last century when there was no alternative, but these people really need to get with the programme.
It's the same problem that leads to so many useless implementations in any field: the vast majority of people are unwilling to undertake a process of constantly improving and refining their skills, and the employers aren't sufficiently well-informed to make the distinction between those who work hard to make the best possible use of the available technologies, and those who read a book about HTML in 1997 and have been marking time ever since.
Luckily things are now changing, and clueful organisations are demanding people who can work with standards. A lot of people who think they understand how to produce a web page are going to be looking for alternative employment over the next year or so unless they catch up on the advances made over the last few years.
</rant>Thank you for listening; have a nice day :-)
Using HTML in email is like putting sound effects on your phone calls. Just say <strong>no</strong>.
If you can't reliably depend upon CSS to render a dashed line on a border, why do you even provide it?
Do share: just how do you propose to get a blind user's screen reader to render a dashed line on a border?
Wait, wasn't that what you meant? Oh dear, it looks like you're going to have to concede that you don't actually want CSS to guarantee anything of the sort, doesn't it?
Two completely compliant browsers can give you a different picture, depending on their choice to implement optional components.
Oh lord, you're not another of these clueless people who think that the idea of CSS is to make sure sites look identical everywhere, are you?
The fact that two completely compliant browsers can produce totally different results is a feature. You might want your website to have green text on a red background in letters five pixels high, but if I'm nearsighted and colourblind, I damn well don't want my browser to render it that way! As a less extreme example, you might want your site to be laid out in three vertical columns, but if I'm browsing it on a mobile phone, I sure won't object if my browser decides to render it as one column instead.
Pixel-identical rendering? You can keep it. I want to use fonts I can read, colours I can stand, layouts I can navigate. CSS lets me do all that just by providing my own stylesheet. You know, I'm really not terribly unhappy with that.
But I think there is a point somewhere in there to be made. Remember HTML 1.0? Simply the fact that tags like STRONG, H1-H6, and ADDRESS exists points pretty clearly to the intent to allow a site to describe what was being presented but allow the browser to determine how it was presented. Of course, there were a load of problems with this and people's ideas of how it should be used, and we like to think we've come a long way. But in truth, we're still doing the same things.
Rather than trying to be the control-freak with everything exactly positioned, it's far more useful (and elegant to program) to have a site which can do without X, Y, or Z and still convey all the information it did before. A site that degrades gracefully may not impress the casual user, but the casual user will be able to use it.
Look at the most successful commercial sites out there today. Google's front page and search results are viewable in every possible browser I can come up with. eBay is one of the ugliest sites in existence, but its content is available to nearly any browser. Hit amazon.com with Lynx and you can still buy things.
Successful web sites are not pretty. They're functional. CSS is a tool to make more functional pages. Yes, you can also make them prettier, but if you set out with that as your goal, you'll fail the more important one.