I want to elaborate on a point made in my earlier post, to head off some potential arguments before they start. (Of course, I may start a few more. Who knows?;-)
I had said that content is 95% text, and style is 95% graphics, and the WWW is optimised for content (text).
Some people would say that fonts and text layout are therefore graphics fit into my idea of content. Those people are wrong. Fonts are collections of characters, which are graphics in themselves. And text layout is the physical positioning, spacing, etc of text characters. Text, however, is independant of its font and layout. You can take 10 point Arial in a justified paragraph and change it to 12 point Courier in a single line, but the text still has the same meaning. Text, meaning the ideas that the font characters represent, is independant of its presentation. My personal design philosophy is that content should always be independant of style, and never depend on it. If a user is unable to absorb the information from your website after he has turned off JavaScript, CSS, images, Java, and all plug-ins (ie Flash), then your site is a failure. (The same caveat regarding image archives applies.)
The best test is to try viewing your site with a text-only browser, like Lynx. If you aren't able to communicate ideas effectively to Lynx, then you have either too much style, not enough content, or both.
The old saying that "a picture is worth a thousand words" is true, if the graphics are properly appplied. Look at Slashdot. The site is mainly text, yet those icons for the story topics on the index page are very helpful; they allow me to grep the contents as fast as possible. But the graphics on Slashdot are acceptable because: if you remove them, the site loses no functionality. (In fact, I believe that there is even an option in the "User Preference" section to turn off those graphics.) Don't become dependant on graphics. To put it in a different light, graphics on the web should be frivolous, they should never be a necessity.
(Yes, the caveat regarding image archives and sites whose purpose is to present images applies!)
I looked at the link in the story description, about Lynda. She appears to be my idealogical opposite on WWW design theory. (She looks like a high-school art teacher; need I say more?) I read the bit about Flash (ugh) and Real... I don't think I'll be coming back to see her answers to this interview.
I'd like to clarify something before I read another idiotic post complaining about "Perl and CGI" being related to the problem of flashy websites. PERL HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS. All of that annoyance is mostly Flash, JavaScript, and Java. Perl, in contrast, is server-side, so you NEVER SEE IT, and also, it handles mostly text and database stuff -- in other words, the exact opposite of what you're talking about.
JavaScript is actually a fairly nice scripting language. Not half as nice or powerful as Perl, but a tasteful, minimalist application of client-side JScript with server-side (if you use Netscape Enterprise) JScript can do some really elegant things. I really feel bad that JScript jas been delegated to doing mouseover image crap.
Java, while nice for flashy applications on the client-side, and for general data-moving on the server-side (i.e. servlets) is nice, but the client-side aspects are still too slow and large for general use.
And Flash... well, it's like Microsoft: good for games.;-) But graphics are all it's good for. Even it it had the proper interfaces for use with large amounts of text, it's too slow.
And you can argue with me if you like, but content is 95% text. Conversely, style is 95% graphics. The WWW was designed, and is optimized for, displaying content which is mostly text. Hyperlink theory (Yes, "hyperlink" wasn't always a buzzword. Hypertext is based on complex theories of database design and information evolution.) makes this obvious. Despite the efforts of many graphic designers to change this, text is still what most people go on the web to see. Pictures are nice, but are mostly frivolous, except in image archives.
Perl, on the other hand, works behind the scenes. It compiles and stores information, parses HTML, and does the actual "legwork" that the fancy JavaScript/DHTML interface on your favorite e-commerce site makes so pretty. Perl is naturally suited for this, because of its intergration with the Unix environment, its RegExp capabilities, its interfaces to filesystems and networks, et cetera.
Yes, I am a Perl zealot. Behold the Camel in all his glory. But I am also someone who is very conscious of UI design and theory, and of what the WWW is and isn't currently capable of being. That's why I look down on the Flash people and the 'client-side JScript is kewl' people.
Speaking of annoying JScript, I was at a site two days ago that had used JScript to disable the right mouse-button function! If you right-clicked on a link, you got an error popping up in an alert box. I had to turn off JScript to open a link in a new browser window. Now that, folks, is disgusting.
Thanks for reading. Heil Larry Wall, and as always,
Descent 3 is an awesome game, but personally, I can't wait for heroin to be ported to Linux! Any news if Loki is trying this next?
Heroin is the only reason I have to keep my Win32 partition.:-( When will Linux users enjoy the same heroin fix that Windows users have enjoyed for years?
Slashdot Mirror
I had said that content is 95% text, and style is 95% graphics, and the WWW is optimised for content (text).
Some people would say that fonts and text layout are therefore graphics fit into my idea of content. Those people are wrong. Fonts are collections of characters, which are graphics in themselves. And text layout is the physical positioning, spacing, etc of text characters. Text, however, is independant of its font and layout. You can take 10 point Arial in a justified paragraph and change it to 12 point Courier in a single line, but the text still has the same meaning. Text, meaning the ideas that the font characters represent, is independant of its presentation. My personal design philosophy is that content should always be independant of style, and never depend on it. If a user is unable to absorb the information from your website after he has turned off JavaScript, CSS, images, Java, and all plug-ins (ie Flash), then your site is a failure. (The same caveat regarding image archives applies.)
The best test is to try viewing your site with a text-only browser, like Lynx. If you aren't able to communicate ideas effectively to Lynx, then you have either too much style, not enough content, or both.
The old saying that "a picture is worth a thousand words" is true, if the graphics are properly appplied. Look at Slashdot. The site is mainly text, yet those icons for the story topics on the index page are very helpful; they allow me to grep the contents as fast as possible. But the graphics on Slashdot are acceptable because: if you remove them, the site loses no functionality. (In fact, I believe that there is even an option in the "User Preference" section to turn off those graphics.) Don't become dependant on graphics. To put it in a different light, graphics on the web should be frivolous, they should never be a necessity.
(Yes, the caveat regarding image archives and sites whose purpose is to present images applies!)
I looked at the link in the story description, about Lynda. She appears to be my idealogical opposite on WWW design theory. (She looks like a high-school art teacher; need I say more?) I read the bit about Flash (ugh) and Real... I don't think I'll be coming back to see her answers to this interview.
Heil JonKatz!
Signed,
Anti-JonKatz Troll
JavaScript is actually a fairly nice scripting language. Not half as nice or powerful as Perl, but a tasteful, minimalist application of client-side JScript with server-side (if you use Netscape Enterprise) JScript can do some really elegant things. I really feel bad that JScript jas been delegated to doing mouseover image crap.
Java, while nice for flashy applications on the client-side, and for general data-moving on the server-side (i.e. servlets) is nice, but the client-side aspects are still too slow and large for general use.
And Flash... well, it's like Microsoft: good for games. ;-) But graphics are all it's good for. Even it it had the proper interfaces for use with large amounts of text, it's too slow.
And you can argue with me if you like, but content is 95% text. Conversely, style is 95% graphics. The WWW was designed, and is optimized for, displaying content which is mostly text. Hyperlink theory (Yes, "hyperlink" wasn't always a buzzword. Hypertext is based on complex theories of database design and information evolution.) makes this obvious. Despite the efforts of many graphic designers to change this, text is still what most people go on the web to see. Pictures are nice, but are mostly frivolous, except in image archives.
Perl, on the other hand, works behind the scenes. It compiles and stores information, parses HTML, and does the actual "legwork" that the fancy JavaScript/DHTML interface on your favorite e-commerce site makes so pretty. Perl is naturally suited for this, because of its intergration with the Unix environment, its RegExp capabilities, its interfaces to filesystems and networks, et cetera.
Yes, I am a Perl zealot. Behold the Camel in all his glory. But I am also someone who is very conscious of UI design and theory, and of what the WWW is and isn't currently capable of being. That's why I look down on the Flash people and the 'client-side JScript is kewl' people.
Speaking of annoying JScript, I was at a site two days ago that had used JScript to disable the right mouse-button function! If you right-clicked on a link, you got an error popping up in an alert box. I had to turn off JScript to open a link in a new browser window. Now that, folks, is disgusting.
Thanks for reading. Heil Larry Wall, and as always,
Heil JonKatz!
Signed,
Anti-JonKatz Troll
DEVIL'S-LETTER TROLL!
Not go forth and troll, troll, troll!
Heil JonKatz!
Signed,
Anti-JonKatz Troll
Heroin is the only reason I have to keep my Win32 partition. :-( When will Linux users enjoy the same heroin fix that Windows users have enjoyed for years?
Heil JonKatz!
Signed,
Anti-JonKatz Troll
Here's a little hardware hack that's a guaranteed fix for those of you angry with your TNT or TNT2's performance under Linux:
------------------------------------------------ -------
Warning! This will void the warranty on the TNT/TNT2!
Tools:
Instructions:
Heil JonKatz!
Signed,
Anti-JonKatz Troll