Most of the time, users don't have a clue what makes a good interface, they don't know what they need. Getting feedback is only something that should happen after proper planning has been done. If your idea of UI design is throwing some rough idea out, and refining it with user feedback, you will end up will as poor interface. Hell, this is why most of the poor interfaces exist; they think it works.
User interface design is primarily about the process you have to go though to get something done. And that's why programmers are bad at it. They can't simplify things as much as they could, because they think too logicaly, they find it very hard to think from the users point of view, or atleast, they think they can think from a users POV, but they don't.
I have read this book. It should be compulsary reading for all programmers. Linux should refuse to boot unless you can answer a question from part of the book (kinda like that old form of copy prevention they used to use in games).
Well, I tested it in NN4, and the site works just fine. Sure, it doesn't look nice--plain vanilla HTML. But that's because NN4 can't import the stylesheets because it doesn't have very good CSS support. In fact, the support is so bad, that if you let it use stylesheets, it will often make the site unusable.
At this point, your only argument is that it's still possible to make the web-site look somewhat perfect on a browser like NN4. But to do that, Zeldman would have to resort back to using spaghetti code and hacks etc. Surely I don't need to point the disadvantages of these out to you? (poor accessibility, bloated code, harder to write and change etc etc.)
HTML was never designed with asthetics in mind. That's what CSS is for. If an older browser doesn't support CSS, then you're right, the user won't see the site as the designer intended. But what the hell is the designer supposed to do? "Sorry guys, I can't use CSS because some people won't get the benefits of it, so it will be better if none of you do"? That's absurd.
My computer doesn't have the power to play the latest games very well. Does that mean that game makers should hold back just for people like me, when there are plenty of others who do have a computer powerful enough to take advantage of what game makers can offer? No.
CSS is like that, because it's an enchantment. People can still use a site without CSS. Just like my computer can play todays latest games, it just not in all their glory.
You can go about making you site look good in a browser that hardly anyone uses, but you will be penalising other people who simple can't just upgrade to work around your problematic code.
So, the reason that you don't listen to Zeldman--A designer, who advocates web standards, mainly--is because he doesn't advocate usability as strongly?
That makes no sence. Do you expect everyone to be an expert on everything?
Read Zealdman for tips on standards, HTML and CSS, and whoever else for tips on usability. Bloody hell...
What browser where you using? Could you still use the site? Could you override it if you had a disability? Please atleast answer these before you go on some ignorant, illogical, naive rant...OK?
It's FUD because you are giving the impression that the standard it's self is bad/flawed, and that infact, it's so bad that it should be avoided at all costs. When in fact, it's the browser or designer that is a problem, and it's overreacting to say the whole CSS standard is crap because of one small issue that it's not even responsable for. That's why your comment is FUD. It spreads fear, uncertinty and doubt over the CSS specs.
Well, both Wired and ESPN have re-designed with pure CSS, tableless layouts. Those are pretty big names, and there are more big sites starting to follow the CSS path to.
There is nothing wrong with the standards, your last statement is simply FUD. Your problem is a browser bug and also bad design. I always do line-height:140% rather than line-height:12px etc. When the line-height is defined in a relative size, then it will scale up along with the font. But of course, the browser should be able to re-size both, and no matter what units they are set in.
On a side note, I always adjust the default line-height, as I think it's too close together, hard to read by default.
I think they said it was to do with the adds they have, and that they don't have control over it. But they're working on it. They probably have to convince some add company to use standards, which could be hard.
Some info here, but I can't find the one where they talk about it being caused by something out of their control. I think that link was before the explaination.
They don't make me cry. Maybe your just not a skilled web developer? It doesn't take that much to support screen readers. A couple of hidden (from screen) links, and a few meanful alt tags, a bit more care in the layout, and that's it.
There is always someone who moans about how hard it is. But the truth is, it's not very hard at all, and if you can't learn how to do it, the I really have to wonder how you managed to learn HTML in the first place.
Did you understand what the word "seems" meant in the context of my post? Obvously not. I was making a personal observation, not a claim.
Have you done any extensive research to claim that my claim is un-based?
As for the KKK, NZ is too small for groups like that AFAIK. I've never heard of them here anyway, and I doubt it's because they've been repressed by our governmet.
Rendering doesn't need super-fast storage. It may need lots of storage for the whole movie, but the render farms spend far more time rendering than they do outputing data.
In New Zealand, we don't have anything like the US Constitution. There is no founding document that says we will always have free speech, yet in recent times, it seems that we are more well off than the US in terms of rights.
Documents don't hold much weight unless you have honest people running the place. Unfortunalty, it seems that the only thing your constitution can do is give people a clear goal to fight for.
Where did he say that humans don't recognize words as a whole?
Perhaps they're trying to figure out exaclty how the brain figures it out as a whole. Not if it does or not.
It's always such a laugh how people on/. automaticly jump to conclusions, pulling anything out their ass, when the person in the artical has probably spent the last year or so actually researching it.
If even 10% of the people who applied the patch are having problems it's too much.
Heh, even 1% is too much IMHO. Apple isn't in the PC market with 1000's of different set-ups. That's why it bugs me more when my iBook stuffs up. I have learnt to expect it from my wintel machines, but I don't expect it from Apple.
Actually, I think it's an ugly design. And I also don't think many people will enjoy using it after using a numeric keypad since they were old enough to pick up a phone.
Exec: "How do we sell more cellphones?"
Designer: "Why don't we focus on improving the interface, making it easier to..."
Marketer: "I KNOW!. We'll arrange the numeric keypad in a really kewl way!"
Exec: "Brilliant! Let's go with it!"
Designer: "But...*sigh*"
Slashdot Mirror
Most of the time, users don't have a clue what makes a good interface, they don't know what they need. Getting feedback is only something that should happen after proper planning has been done. If your idea of UI design is throwing some rough idea out, and refining it with user feedback, you will end up will as poor interface. Hell, this is why most of the poor interfaces exist; they think it works.
User interface design is primarily about the process you have to go though to get something done. And that's why programmers are bad at it. They can't simplify things as much as they could, because they think too logicaly, they find it very hard to think from the users point of view, or atleast, they think they can think from a users POV, but they don't.
I have read this book. It should be compulsary reading for all programmers. Linux should refuse to boot unless you can answer a question from part of the book (kinda like that old form of copy prevention they used to use in games).
At this point, your only argument is that it's still possible to make the web-site look somewhat perfect on a browser like NN4. But to do that, Zeldman would have to resort back to using spaghetti code and hacks etc. Surely I don't need to point the disadvantages of these out to you? (poor accessibility, bloated code, harder to write and change etc etc.)
HTML was never designed with asthetics in mind. That's what CSS is for. If an older browser doesn't support CSS, then you're right, the user won't see the site as the designer intended. But what the hell is the designer supposed to do? "Sorry guys, I can't use CSS because some people won't get the benefits of it, so it will be better if none of you do"? That's absurd.
My computer doesn't have the power to play the latest games very well. Does that mean that game makers should hold back just for people like me, when there are plenty of others who do have a computer powerful enough to take advantage of what game makers can offer? No.
CSS is like that, because it's an enchantment. People can still use a site without CSS. Just like my computer can play todays latest games, it just not in all their glory.
You can go about making you site look good in a browser that hardly anyone uses, but you will be penalising other people who simple can't just upgrade to work around your problematic code.
Not sure. It would suprise me, because IE5 for Mac is farily complient. I would have thought it would support that.
That makes no sence. Do you expect everyone to be an expert on everything?
Read Zealdman for tips on standards, HTML and CSS, and whoever else for tips on usability. Bloody hell...
What browser where you using? Could you still use the site? Could you override it if you had a disability? Please atleast answer these before you go on some ignorant, illogical, naive rant...OK?
Not sure, but I do know that Lemons run Windows 98.
It's FUD because you are giving the impression that the standard it's self is bad/flawed, and that infact, it's so bad that it should be avoided at all costs. When in fact, it's the browser or designer that is a problem, and it's overreacting to say the whole CSS standard is crap because of one small issue that it's not even responsable for. That's why your comment is FUD. It spreads fear, uncertinty and doubt over the CSS specs.
Well, both Wired and ESPN have re-designed with pure CSS, tableless layouts. Those are pretty big names, and there are more big sites starting to follow the CSS path to.
On a side note, I always adjust the default line-height, as I think it's too close together, hard to read by default.
Some info here, but I can't find the one where they talk about it being caused by something out of their control. I think that link was before the explaination.
Zeldman didn't do Wired's re-design. That was Douglas Bowman.
@media screen {
[Your css here]
}
Netscape 4 will still load the stylesheet, but it can't understand the @media part, and will ignore everything inside it.
You seem like the type of person that need to read this book.
There is always someone who moans about how hard it is. But the truth is, it's not very hard at all, and if you can't learn how to do it, the I really have to wonder how you managed to learn HTML in the first place.
Have you done any extensive research to claim that my claim is un-based?
As for the KKK, NZ is too small for groups like that AFAIK. I've never heard of them here anyway, and I doubt it's because they've been repressed by our governmet.
Rendering doesn't need super-fast storage. It may need lots of storage for the whole movie, but the render farms spend far more time rendering than they do outputing data.
Documents don't hold much weight unless you have honest people running the place. Unfortunalty, it seems that the only thing your constitution can do is give people a clear goal to fight for.
Hoon to Namb trO ro roon?
The system probably needs to be quite responsive, heavy/large wheels are harder to start and stop.
Perhaps they're trying to figure out exaclty how the brain figures it out as a whole. Not if it does or not.
It's always such a laugh how people on /. automaticly jump to conclusions, pulling anything out their ass, when the person in the artical has probably spent the last year or so actually researching it.
You need to atleast explain why you think this if you want anyone to take you seriously.
Heh, even 1% is too much IMHO. Apple isn't in the PC market with 1000's of different set-ups. That's why it bugs me more when my iBook stuffs up. I have learnt to expect it from my wintel machines, but I don't expect it from Apple.
I'd say the it's only a minority of Mac users who are actually zealots.
Exec: "How do we sell more cellphones?"
Designer: "Why don't we focus on improving the interface, making it easier to..."
Marketer: "I KNOW!. We'll arrange the numeric keypad in a really kewl way!"
Exec: "Brilliant! Let's go with it!"
Designer: "But...*sigh*"