And when we all get even more decrepit and need 640x480 ?
The best thing is to have sites that are still accessible when resized. This is fundamental UI design. It is a sad fact of life that people do have disabilities, sometimes only temporary (luckily) and if you want their patronage then you should cater for them.
With devices like the Zaurus and some of the new DVD case sized web pads coming available, I suspect that 640x480 and 800x600 will become more common.
Even if they don't, with so many 320x240 resolution PocketPC devices available catering to the smaller resolutions is an issue. There is a trend in handheld browser tech to produce renderers that will rescale pages to fit the smaller screens, taking advantage of the higher pixel count of most current fonts to resize them while still being readable. There is a limit to how well this can work and if the site you go to has a lower resolution page available, then there is a higher likelyhood of the page being usable.
With the increase in wireless technologies, this could well become a big issue in the next few years.
What most people refer to as a 'minimum' resolution is really a fixed resolution.
There are valid and reasonable cases for choosing a 'minimum' resolution, expecially when you are designing web apps or intranet apps that would be too awkward to use efficiently if you didn't have the on screen real estate.
However, the reason most people use a 'minimum' resolution is that they do not have the skills to make sites that can scale easily so they choose a size that they can work with. Because they don't scale, then they stay the same size no matter what the window size is. How many sites have you been to where, when you maximise the window, the content is only on the left 2/3 of the screen??
These are 'Fixed' resolution sites, not 'minimum'. And we will be stuck with them until these alleged developers actually learn how and why they should use the available technologies (CSS, JavaScript, etc). Stop accepting their 'excuses' for not using them, check if they are making these decisions because they aren't qualified enough to make the call.
Sometimes, however, it does make sense to assume a minimum screen width. If the information you need to present or interact with can be so much more sensibly handled at a certain min width and, so long as you know your audience can mainly work with it, it makes sense to design to this minimum.
However this should be a rational engineering decision and not just arbitrarily made because you are too unskilled to develop pages that auto scale so have to 'choose' a resolution.
I wonder how many people go to view your site at 640x480 (prabably very few, to be fair:) ) or 800x600 and just give up in disgust and go away because your site doesn't scale well enough to view?
One of the problems is that alleged 'web designers' haven't learned enough to know that such standards exist. Many wouldn't even know what the W3C was.
They will talk about standards w/o really knowing what that means or where/why they exist.
They do if they are worried more about appearance than content and get carried away with their own cleverness at outdoing other designers in sheer glittery prettiness while being egged on by PHBs who may possibly be unable to understand the site's intended content so settle for cooing at the nice shiny things;)
A big problem is that there is no requirement for proper training in the industry and because most clients know less than the 'designers' and have become used to disappointment they accept any tripe that is spouted to them.
I've felt for many years that there should be more emphasis on UI design issues and their execution than image manipulation and CSS. The problem is that most emphasis on available information for newbies or wannabes is squewed from the wron direct, namesly appearence rather than content.
Unless it is a site for which the media is all important (arty farty for its own sake, or some hip community sites, etc. - all relevant and valuable expressive arts in their own right) the main reason I go to a site is for content. I want that content to be accessible and easy to assimilate. I don't want to get eyestrain because some moron has decided that 4 point is perfect (and looks crap on my hi-res monitor) or has neglected simple and easy to learn colour rules that any halfway decent UI or Graphics (art or computer) would make blindingly (sorry:) ) obvious. I don't want to spent half an hour hunting over a daft image to find hot links to jump to the information I want and I don't want to wait 5 minutes to find that that was the wrong link because some moron has decided to feed me 30megs of uncompresses/unoptiminsed/gratuitous images. (Insert other obvious rants as necessary. If you can't think of any more, then I hope you are not a 'web designer':) ). Of course, sensible use of images can make a site both visually more appealing and more accessible.
Like too many areas of our industry there is too little emphasis on professional training and it is all too normal for untrained and inexperienced people to be employed to do serious engineering work; and, believe me, designing a first rate web site is down to good engineering (even if you also have to be a good artist as well). Why is this the case? In no other industry would rank amateurs be granted such a free hand. When some figures state that over 60% of projects fail to live up to expectation or be delivered then the financial costs and dangers are obviously high. When safety issues are at stake, the problem becomes even worse.
While I have known many self taught people who are utterly brilliant, they are the minority among the self taught. It is entirely possible that should they get formally qualified, then they may also be among a minority among the 'professionals' as well, but that is another story and has more to do with the quality of training available today.
All in all, though, when it comes to web design, while we allow people whose experience stems from reading a "teach yourself in 24 minutes" book then we will continue to have poorly designed websites.
Anecdotally, I must tell a story about one such person. Several years ago I took charge of a project where MISmanagement had allowed degeneration to a dangerous level. In the team I inherited was a hairdresser (nothing against hairdessers) who had picked up a copy of Homesite and magically 'became' a web-designer. Most of my previous rants could easily apply to him. On one occasion X3C compliant HTML I produced broke his poorly designed CSS and he went ape. Seeing an opportunity to belittle me and with a total lack of professionalism, rather than discussing it with me, he announced this 'failing' to whole team stating my code was "not standard" and that this was the problem with all us 'Linux Types' and Computer Scientists. Unfortunately for him, the code was X3C standard compliant and I could even tell him (after a quick check:) ) which part of the standard (page, chapter, paragraph.
A very good point that is also often overlooked. We now live in a world dominated by the Windoing Paradigm and don't expect to fill the entire screen with one 'form'. We use windows to organise information and often want to see, or access, many of these windows at once. A site that unnecessarily forces me to use a full screen, or use the dreaded horizontal scroll bar unduly may well be poorly designed.
Perhaps more emphasis should be set on UI issues than making pretty glittery images when 'training' web designers. However, it may be possible to get them trained first,rather than letting web 'designers' pick up a book andtrain themselves.
While I know many excellent people who are self trained, they are not the norm:(
One thing that should be considered in this debate is the rise of portable or handheld devices. While screens of 320x240 and smaller are a little too small to worry about,I suspect that VGA or 800x600 resolution devices will become more common. Since they are great as web pads it would be wise to consider them in any new web page design
I thought the reason was obvious. They want to make more money:)
Seriously, though, I can see what you are saying, but I can also see the other side as well. In a way this is the same argument that has raged through the software industry since the year dot. Some publishers allow installation on multiple machines so long as only one is used at any given moment, some only allow installation on a single machine for use by a single entity, some...
There are many different models that an IP owner can adopt and, usually have a right to adopt.
Of course there are occasions where they can lose the moral right to choose their own terms. Companies that have abused a position to gain a monopoly can be figured among those, but I cannot see that this has happened in this case.
If you choose to use, then you pay. That is it. Your choice. It is their work and risk that has gone into it, it is up to them to decide what conditions under which they will allow you to use it.
PS could you clarify the 'goofy' bit? I'd like to know if its a term that will enrich my use of the language, or an insult I can get righteously annoyed at:)
You physically own that material that the tools is made from. You have the right to do with it as you please. However, you do not own the IP that went into its design and manufacture. Thus, you are not allowed to buy a B&D drill, take it apart and use its components to create fabrication tools to make copies of it.
Software is, by its nature, this kind of intangible IP. There is NO physical representation of it. The physical disk/CD whatever is all the physical material you have bought. In most cases you can use that as you please (frisbee, pizza cutter, windchime, ear-ring) so long as you don't breach the terms of the license under which you are permitted access to the software it carries.
One of the themes of this article' postings has been that CS was originally created by the community and not Valve. Many have implied they are assholes for making money out of this. (despite the fact it requires their game engine that they DID write)
Turning the argument on its head, how can Valve be the only assholes when the cafe owner is taking something he didn't create and, without properly licensing it, made money out of it?
Have you actually checked this in a dictionary, or is the lack of such a check the reason why you are posting as an AC ?
I can recommend the Oxford English Dictionary if you intend to use English. I'm afraid I don't know if it covers American though (in case you are from that side of the pond);)
And into this cost argument, where do you factor in the cost of development, the cost of the training and education of the developers, the cost of marketing and the cost of the risk involved in the whole venture?
As someone who has invested over quarter of a century into my education I take such a trivialisation of its value very poorly, as should all professionals of any field.
Software is expensive to write, there is no way out of that. Period.
Besides, your example of using B&D tools is an interesting one. I've seen so many die that it would amount to a renewable license if I were dumb enough to keep buying them:)
Software differs from physical items like books and power tools because they are intangible and easy to duplicate. There is little to prevent multiple instances of a single copy being used at once. Because of these things it is easy enough to say you are comparing apples with lumps of rock.
If they have attempted to change the licenses retrospectively, then they are well and truly in the wrong. In such a case I would expect that their terms are unenforcable and may open them to possible litigation in return.
However, if the cafe owner was using the software for a purpose that wasn't specifically allowed then he may possibly have problems. While IANAL it is not too large a stretch to compare the sofware's use in a cafe with a software rental company where special licensing terms are usually required. Maybe someone is making such a stretch.
Does anyone have any more detailed information on the case and possibly links to copies of the licenses that applied?
I'm not a gamer, but I do write software for a living.
At the end of the day, the guy used their software (which they paid for) in order to run his business and make money. I assume that no-one forced him to do this and that using this software was deemed to be beneficial to his business.
Why did he use this software without a license? Why is he any different from a any software pirate? Why shouldn't the publishers demand payment?
Both the cafe owner and the publisher are in the business of making money. If I were to set up a car sales (say) business in your front garden, thereby using your property, wouldn't you either sue me or demand payment for that use of your property? What is wrong with people who think that they should be able to use software in contravention of licensing terms with impunity?
Now, I've read a number of comments in this thread stating that Valve have awkward licensing terms and that they didn't write Counter Strike. However, the first point is up to them and may be stupid business. They are allowed to be stupid and ignore possible customers. Those possible customers who don't like the terms of their business are not allowed to use it regardless. They have the choice to not use it if they don't like the terms, not to make up their own terms.
The second point, as I understand it, is true, but that CS uses their games engine. In such a case I would believe (unless there are daft licences regarding development that uses their engine) that anyone could use the CS code as they wished, so long as they didn't use the games engine. If their effort is so inconsequential as to be disregarded, then some of the whingers should do what the rest of us Open Source supporters do and get off their backsides and write a comparable engine. (Let me know if I'm wrong on these 'facts', I only have the preceeding comments to go by)
At the end of the day this comes down to people making a living and the rights of license holders to enforce the terms underwhich the fruit of their efforts are to be allowed to be used by others. This is the same whether code is Open Source or Commercial.
My mention of executions was partially tongue in cheek, althoug, given the dangers, perhaps a severe sanction may not be completely out of order. After all, how many people have died as a result of corruption (it comes in all shapes and sizes) in the world's nuclear programs?
All kinds of energy generation affect the environment adversely. It's just a question of the cost/benefit equations and reducing their impact
Just as an addition to my previous comment, I AM totally pro renewable energy sources, so long as their 'cost' balance is provably worth it.
For example, a windmill that requires 1gigawatt of energy to create it, and it then only makes 1gigawatt of power is a little silly. Has anyone any unbiased figures on this?
It is as well to remember that no action is without effect on the environment. Even 'green' solutions may be harmful. (tidal barrages, anyone?)
Just off the top of my head, but is it not possible that, by collecting the heat over a wide area and concentrating it into the tower, you could create a 'plume' of heat, inside a generally temp lowered surrounding, that could rise higher and faster in the atmosphere than it would otherwise?
Coukd this not affect weather patterns locally, and perhaps globally?
Or a capitalist country where the owners worry more about the bottome line;)
Enough with this 'communist' thing. Here in the west we have had our fair share of nuclear accidents, for pretty much the same reasons as in the eastern block, (Admittedly, the USSR did hit the jackpot).
I'm in agreement that nuclear energy, if managed properly, can be as safe as any of the other currently viable alternatives. However. safety should be the first priority and openness a close second. Serious sanctions (execution?) should be made available against transgressors to help enforce safe management.
Upon reading the original question, I doubt that this information is really necessary. He poses a pretty generic scenario and no doubt would like to know how to solve the problem for as large a class of apps as possible.
Would you actually be capable of answering his question if you had this information, or are you just posing a position to be 'helpful' to those that really can?
Slashdot Mirror
And when we all get even more decrepit and need 640x480 ?
The best thing is to have sites that are still accessible when resized. This is fundamental UI design. It is a sad fact of life that people do have disabilities, sometimes only temporary (luckily) and if you want their patronage then you should cater for them.
With devices like the Zaurus and some of the new DVD case sized web pads coming available, I suspect that 640x480 and 800x600 will become more common.
Even if they don't, with so many 320x240 resolution PocketPC devices available catering to the smaller resolutions is an issue. There is a trend in handheld browser tech to produce renderers that will rescale pages to fit the smaller screens, taking advantage of the higher pixel count of most current fonts to resize them while still being readable. There is a limit to how well this can work and if the site you go to has a lower resolution page available, then there is a higher likelyhood of the page being usable.
With the increase in wireless technologies, this could well become a big issue in the next few years.
What most people refer to as a 'minimum' resolution is really a fixed resolution.
There are valid and reasonable cases for choosing a 'minimum' resolution, expecially when you are designing web apps or intranet apps that would be too awkward to use efficiently if you didn't have the on screen real estate.
However, the reason most people use a 'minimum' resolution is that they do not have the skills to make sites that can scale easily so they choose a size that they can work with. Because they don't scale, then they stay the same size no matter what the window size is. How many sites have you been to where, when you maximise the window, the content is only on the left 2/3 of the screen??
These are 'Fixed' resolution sites, not 'minimum'. And we will be stuck with them until these alleged developers actually learn how and why they should use the available technologies (CSS, JavaScript, etc). Stop accepting their 'excuses' for not using them, check if they are making these decisions because they aren't qualified enough to make the call.
Sometimes, however, it does make sense to assume a minimum screen width. If the information you need to present or interact with can be so much more sensibly handled at a certain min width and, so long as you know your audience can mainly work with it, it makes sense to design to this minimum.
However this should be a rational engineering decision and not just arbitrarily made because you are too unskilled to develop pages that auto scale so have to 'choose' a resolution.
I wonder how many people go to view your site at 640x480 (prabably very few, to be fair :) ) or 800x600 and just give up in disgust and go away because your site doesn't scale well enough to view?
One of the problems is that alleged 'web designers' haven't learned enough to know that such standards exist. Many wouldn't even know what the W3C was.
They will talk about standards w/o really knowing what that means or where/why they exist.
They do if they are worried more about appearance than content and get carried away with their own cleverness at outdoing other designers in sheer glittery prettiness while being egged on by PHBs who may possibly be unable to understand the site's intended content so settle for cooing at the nice shiny things ;)
:) ). Of course, sensible use of images can make a site both visually more appealing and more accessible.
:) ) which part of the standard (page, chapter, paragraph.
A big problem is that there is no requirement for proper training in the industry and because most clients know less than the 'designers' and have become used to disappointment they accept any tripe that is spouted to them.
I've felt for many years that there should be more emphasis on UI design issues and their execution than image manipulation and CSS. The problem is that most emphasis on available information for newbies or wannabes is squewed from the wron direct, namesly appearence rather than content.
Unless it is a site for which the media is all important (arty farty for its own sake, or some hip community sites, etc. - all relevant and valuable expressive arts in their own right) the main reason I go to a site is for content. I want that content to be accessible and easy to assimilate. I don't want to get eyestrain because some moron has decided that 4 point is perfect (and looks crap on my hi-res monitor) or has neglected simple and easy to learn colour rules that any halfway decent UI or Graphics (art or computer) would make blindingly (sorry:) ) obvious. I don't want to spent half an hour hunting over a daft image to find hot links to jump to the information I want and I don't want to wait 5 minutes to find that that was the wrong link because some moron has decided to feed me 30megs of uncompresses/unoptiminsed/gratuitous images. (Insert other obvious rants as necessary. If you can't think of any more, then I hope you are not a 'web designer'
Like too many areas of our industry there is too little emphasis on professional training and it is all too normal for untrained and inexperienced people to be employed to do serious engineering work; and, believe me, designing a first rate web site is down to good engineering (even if you also have to be a good artist as well). Why is this the case? In no other industry would rank amateurs be granted such a free hand. When some figures state that over 60% of projects fail to live up to expectation or be delivered then the financial costs and dangers are obviously high. When safety issues are at stake, the problem becomes even worse.
While I have known many self taught people who are utterly brilliant, they are the minority among the self taught. It is entirely possible that should they get formally qualified, then they may also be among a minority among the 'professionals' as well, but that is another story and has more to do with the quality of training available today.
All in all, though, when it comes to web design, while we allow people whose experience stems from reading a "teach yourself in 24 minutes" book then we will continue to have poorly designed websites.
Anecdotally, I must tell a story about one such person. Several years ago I took charge of a project where MISmanagement had allowed degeneration to a dangerous level. In the team I inherited was a hairdresser (nothing against hairdessers) who had picked up a copy of Homesite and magically 'became' a web-designer. Most of my previous rants could easily apply to him. On one occasion X3C compliant HTML I produced broke his poorly designed CSS and he went ape. Seeing an opportunity to belittle me and with a total lack of professionalism, rather than discussing it with me, he announced this 'failing' to whole team stating my code was "not standard" and that this was the problem with all us 'Linux Types' and Computer Scientists. Unfortunately for him, the code was X3C standard compliant and I could even tell him (after a quick check
A very good point that is also often overlooked. We now live in a world dominated by the Windoing Paradigm and don't expect to fill the entire screen with one 'form'. We use windows to organise information and often want to see, or access, many of these windows at once. A site that unnecessarily forces me to use a full screen, or use the dreaded horizontal scroll bar unduly may well be poorly designed.
:(
Perhaps more emphasis should be set on UI issues than making pretty glittery images when 'training' web designers. However, it may be possible to get them trained first,rather than letting web 'designers' pick up a book andtrain themselves.
While I know many excellent people who are self trained, they are not the norm
One thing that should be considered in this debate is the rise of portable or handheld devices. While screens of 320x240 and smaller are a little too small to worry about,I suspect that VGA or 800x600 resolution devices will become more common. Since they are great as web pads it would be wise to consider them in any new web page design
I thought the reason was obvious. They want to make more money :)
...
Seriously, though, I can see what you are saying, but I can also see the other side as well. In a way this is the same argument that has raged through the software industry since the year dot. Some publishers allow installation on multiple machines so long as only one is used at any given moment, some only allow installation on a single machine for use by a single entity, some
There are many different models that an IP owner can adopt and, usually have a right to adopt.
Of course there are occasions where they can lose the moral right to choose their own terms. Companies that have abused a position to gain a monopoly can be figured among those, but I cannot see that this has happened in this case.
You don't have to pay for it.
:)
You don't have to use it.
If you choose to use, then you pay. That is it. Your choice. It is their work and risk that has gone into it, it is up to them to decide what conditions under which they will allow you to use it.
PS could you clarify the 'goofy' bit? I'd like to know if its a term that will enrich my use of the language, or an insult I can get righteously annoyed at
An addition, regarding the B&D or axe arguments.
You physically own that material that the tools is made from. You have the right to do with it as you please. However, you do not own the IP that went into its design and manufacture. Thus, you are not allowed to buy a B&D drill, take it apart and use its components to create fabrication tools to make copies of it.
Software is, by its nature, this kind of intangible IP. There is NO physical representation of it. The physical disk/CD whatever is all the physical material you have bought. In most cases you can use that as you please (frisbee, pizza cutter, windchime, ear-ring) so long as you don't breach the terms of the license under which you are permitted access to the software it carries.
One of the themes of this article' postings has been that CS was originally created by the community and not Valve. Many have implied they are assholes for making money out of this. (despite the fact it requires their game engine that they DID write)
Turning the argument on its head, how can Valve be the only assholes when the cafe owner is taking something he didn't create and, without properly licensing it, made money out of it?
And your point is?
;)
Have you actually checked this in a dictionary, or is the lack of such a check the reason why you are posting as an AC ?
I can recommend the Oxford English Dictionary if you intend to use English. I'm afraid I don't know if it covers American though (in case you are from that side of the pond)
And into this cost argument, where do you factor in the cost of development, the cost of the training and education of the developers, the cost of marketing and the cost of the risk involved in the whole venture?
:)
As someone who has invested over quarter of a century into my education I take such a trivialisation of its value very poorly, as should all professionals of any field.
Software is expensive to write, there is no way out of that. Period.
Besides, your example of using B&D tools is an interesting one. I've seen so many die that it would amount to a renewable license if I were dumb enough to keep buying them
Software differs from physical items like books and power tools because they are intangible and easy to duplicate. There is little to prevent multiple instances of a single copy being used at once. Because of these things it is easy enough to say you are comparing apples with lumps of rock.
Then the person running the business should have done his maths beforehand.
Noone has a given right to use someone elses property to make money from.
If this cost is too hight, then lok at providing different products of move to a different model
If they have attempted to change the licenses retrospectively, then they are well and truly in the wrong. In such a case I would expect that their terms are unenforcable and may open them to possible litigation in return.
However, if the cafe owner was using the software for a purpose that wasn't specifically allowed then he may possibly have problems. While IANAL it is not too large a stretch to compare the sofware's use in a cafe with a software rental company where special licensing terms are usually required. Maybe someone is making such a stretch.
Does anyone have any more detailed information on the case and possibly links to copies of the licenses that applied?
I'm not a gamer, but I do write software for a living.
At the end of the day, the guy used their software (which they paid for) in order to run his business and make money. I assume that no-one forced him to do this and that using this software was deemed to be beneficial to his business.
Why did he use this software without a license? Why is he any different from a any software pirate? Why shouldn't the publishers demand payment?
Both the cafe owner and the publisher are in the business of making money. If I were to set up a car sales (say) business in your front garden, thereby using your property, wouldn't you either sue me or demand payment for that use of your property? What is wrong with people who think that they should be able to use software in contravention of licensing terms with impunity?
Now, I've read a number of comments in this thread stating that Valve have awkward licensing terms and that they didn't write Counter Strike. However, the first point is up to them and may be stupid business. They are allowed to be stupid and ignore possible customers. Those possible customers who don't like the terms of their business are not allowed to use it regardless. They have the choice to not use it if they don't like the terms, not to make up their own terms.
The second point, as I understand it, is true, but that CS uses their games engine. In such a case I would believe (unless there are daft licences regarding development that uses their engine) that anyone could use the CS code as they wished, so long as they didn't use the games engine. If their effort is so inconsequential as to be disregarded, then some of the whingers should do what the rest of us Open Source supporters do and get off their backsides and write a comparable engine. (Let me know if I'm wrong on these 'facts', I only have the preceeding comments to go by)
At the end of the day this comes down to people making a living and the rights of license holders to enforce the terms underwhich the fruit of their efforts are to be allowed to be used by others. This is the same whether code is Open Source or Commercial.
Ken Brown doesn't seem to know the difference between his backside and his elbow ;)
Of course, our situation in Europe is a bit worse, because it's illegal to overtake on the right.
Unless you are in the UK where its the only side you are allowed to pass onMy mention of executions was partially tongue in cheek, althoug, given the dangers, perhaps a severe sanction may not be completely out of order. After all, how many people have died as a result of corruption (it comes in all shapes and sizes) in the world's nuclear programs?
All kinds of energy generation affect the environment adversely. It's just a question of the cost/benefit equations and reducing their impact
Just as an addition to my previous comment, I AM totally pro renewable energy sources, so long as their 'cost' balance is provably worth it.
For example, a windmill that requires 1gigawatt of energy to create it, and it then only makes 1gigawatt of power is a little silly. Has anyone any unbiased figures on this?
It is as well to remember that no action is without effect on the environment. Even 'green' solutions may be harmful. (tidal barrages, anyone?)
Just off the top of my head, but is it not possible that, by collecting the heat over a wide area and concentrating it into the tower, you could create a 'plume' of heat, inside a generally temp lowered surrounding, that could rise higher and faster in the atmosphere than it would otherwise?
Coukd this not affect weather patterns locally, and perhaps globally?
Or a capitalist country where the owners worry more about the bottome line;)
Enough with this 'communist' thing. Here in the west we have had our fair share of nuclear accidents, for pretty much the same reasons as in the eastern block, (Admittedly, the USSR did hit the jackpot).
I'm in agreement that nuclear energy, if managed properly, can be as safe as any of the other currently viable alternatives. However. safety should be the first priority and openness a close second. Serious sanctions (execution?) should be made available against transgressors to help enforce safe management.
Upon reading the original question, I doubt that this information is really necessary. He poses a pretty generic scenario and no doubt would like to know how to solve the problem for as large a class of apps as possible.
Would you actually be capable of answering his question if you had this information, or are you just posing a position to be 'helpful' to those that really can?