Probably because that's all they know. Nowdays, I know quite a few people printing their pics off an ink-jet at A4 size. Simply because they can and want to. They aren't pros or anything either (deffintly not a pro if your using an ink-jet anyway;) just your average joe.
People have large paintings and posters, it's only going to take a few clicks for people to realize they could blow their photos up that large (assuming priting costs are reasonable), and then it will be considered normal.
these cameras will have worse image quality than 3-4 megapixel cameras on regular sized prints. (in brief the higher the resolution given a constant image area in the camera the smaller the recievers, the less light the reciever gets. noise is constant for a single reciever so the less light the less signal. ie less accurate pixels).
Uh.. you should really read the artical first. The new camera is full frame (more light), and it doesn't use microlenses on the sensors, it also has a fancy new 12bit hybrid JPG format.
The theory that the more pixels a camera has, the less light is only half truth. You have to take into account all the other varibles when doing things like that. It's one small techical aspect of the whole formular, not a law of physics.
It's kinda like saying that large HD's aren't as good as small ones, because they waste more space on the file table and other overhead stuff (bad analogy, but it's all I can think of).
Digital is just on the verg of being on par with 35mm film. Have you ever blowen up a 35mm to an A1 poster size?
Untill you can blow something up to A1 size, and still have the resolution and details as if you were look at the film, it ain't going to be enough.
Hell, even then, if the resolution increases, then you can print even bigger than A1, make a photo as big as your whole wall...Is there some law of physics that says we can only print out photos out on 4x6" paper?
I won't even go into the fact that higher resolution means you have more flexibility with cropping etc.
Whenever something like this is posted, someone always whines "Why would a normal person need...'
Are these people never heard of thinking outside the box/lateral thinking?
The only things you need are food, warmth and shelter. But I still see you have a computer (or atleast access to one). So stop with the silly remarks.
I'm tired of this rat race. I'm tired of every six months some hardware company telling me I'm obsolete. I'm sick of companies telling me to buy, buy, buy. Buy until it hurts! Buy until your wallet implodes!
Well don't listen to them then! But I think you will find alot of people will want, or require the latest stuff, regardless of if the companies are trying to push it ir not.
Are KDE and GNOME suddenly going to decide to render everything in OpenGL?
Why do you need such ridiculous ammounts of graphics memory? At 128MB of ram you can have a normal workspace screen with 44,739,242 pixels, or a resolution of arround 7680*5760 at 24bit color.
Unless you run OS X, which has a more advanced windowing system than most OSs at the moment. It chews up alot of RAM (a good idea, really, but annoyes me--being an iBook owner).
I acctually agree with that (having used them for a couple of years). But still find hocky-puck mouse to be horrible to use because it's perfectly round. It's hard to tell if you are holding it the right way. I always found myself looking down and 're-calibrating' my hand with the mouse every now-and-then. And I know I'm not the only one.
I've never had that prob with other mice, I can always feel if it's pointing in the right direction.
Now....The new Apple mice solve this prob. But The fact that the who mouse is a button makes it difficut to lift the mouse up all the time if you happen to be dragging something.
Plus, and as much as I can learn to live without the right mouse button (especialy on a laptop, when the keyboard is close). I can't live without my scrollwheel.
Yes. It's not so much the total size of the PDA, but the thickness for me.
I spose it depends on if you're gona carry it around in your front pocket all the time like wallet or not. If you don't, then most PDA's nowdays are OK in terms of size/weight. If you do (like me), then they still have a while to go.
[pipedream] Hopefully, in a few years time, they're have 3mm thick, semi-flexable PDAs.
High-res OLEDs printed on fexible film etc (already a/. artical about that BTW).
A nice scratch resistant screen would go down nicely to....Never need to bother with cases.[/pipedream]
One a side note incase anyone is thinking of getting a sony. The virtual graffiti area can only be colapesd in a very small range of apps(mostly the sony apps). They don't work in memo pad etc. But then again, there maybe hacks around, or other replacment apps.
I've had a play with the new sonys. They are real nice. But I will never buy one because they are too big and come with features I'll never use (small MP3 player, mem stick, etc).
The Palm V/x is still by far the best designed PDA I have used. I wish they had released an up speced V style PDA (like the M505 i spose), but with a 480 by 320 screen. And maybe a 320x302 model with a keyboard.
I think the best analogy for bandwidth theft is jumping into the back of someones pick-up and scoring a free ride without them knowing (unless you're gona download GB's of data, and cost them some $$$).
It's not the best thing to do, but it's hardly theift in the usual sence.
And how is this any different to the many other decisions people make everyday that pose a risk to their life (motor-racing, base jumping, white-water rafting, driving to work, etc).
Some people know the risks, and are willing to take it.
Pepsi isn't forcing anyone to get into a spaceship.
If I want to change my HTML, I'll change it. Of course without CSS, I have to change the HTML instead. No big deal. It's not carved in stone. Maybe you just don't get HTML. Of course HTML wasn't designed for this, and CSS is more flexible for certain things that HTML is poor at. But again, I really can change the HTML and it's not that much trouble.
That's fine for a personal or small site. But not for large dymanic site, it's still to have to calling in a programmer to make a few interface changes.
And when I mean change I'm not just talking about on your end. I'm talking about the other end, how it is interperated by the browser. That's the part I'm talking about when I was refering to not being able to change the HTML, it's just that the two points I made overlap quite a bit.
You're arguments are based on the idea that CSS is better than HTML...
Stop right there. I never said that one was better than the other. None it better than each other, they are 2 spereate things, that's the whole problem. HTML has evolved to do two different things, ot was only supposed to do one.
What do you mean HTML is a hack? What do you mean I can't change it? That's nonesense. I can change it.
When you do your HTML, the layout is set. EG, tables are set in that exact layout. The layout can't be changed. With CSS, you can change the entire layout without editing the HTML since the style isn't embedded into it. It shouldn't be, HTML is not a styling language.
It's very clear that you just don't get what I'm talking about, because to most people who undersatnd CSS, my point would be an obvious comment on it.
A [font] tag does provide information. The most useful information is relative size. The tag [font size=+1] says the text following is larger than the previous.
It doesn't tell you anything about the infomation, it just changes it's layout for a graphical browser.
Why is that text a different size? There must be a reason. Is it an important message? Part of the navigation? I heading? A [FONT] tag dosn't tell us that. An [H1] or a [B class="importantMessage] does tell us information about it.
I've seen the sliced up images. I think they are doing that because they are too lame to do image maps. It's certainly not needed to do layouts even with tables, unless what they want is a layout with a non-rectangular image.
Image maps are worse really. I was more talking about decorations anyway, when--like you said--they have a non-rectanular layout or design elements, and create lots of little images everywhere. They should really be BG images, and it's possable to achive the same effects with the BG image properties in CSS, this means that they don't have to be downloaded, or included into the document structure.
Forward compatibility is pointless if you don't have a path into it for everyone.
There is a path for everyone. I'm not sure what you mean by that.
It just doesn't feel quite right. There is something disharmonious about it. I'm having a bit of trouble explaining it, but I wonder if an OS built from the ground up for the Mac wouldn't have been better.
I also have that feeling. As much as I think UNIX is great, I don't think it was the best option for MacOS (idealy, excluding the circumstances).
Example: A user should not be told that if they create a file that begins with a '.' that it will be hidden.
I won't go into any other details, other than to say that the file/metadata system and GUI could have been done better.
Having said that....I'll still be fully switching to OS X when I replace my desktop win2k box with a G4 (an iBook just doesn't compare to a nice desktop system, with dual monitors etc).
There's nothing wrong with making it look good, too. In fact I'd like that, too. The problem is developers like Zeldman prefer to make it look good only if you are using their preferred browsers, and look bad on others.
But the key point to all this, is the non-CSS isn't flexible, it's always a hack, it's just not a hack in the way that you probably think I'm talking about (It's a hack of concepts rather than syntax). Once it's been stylised, you can't remove it or change it easily.
If you want to differentiate a piece of data on a page, you can apply a FONT tag to it, and make it stand out right? For the end user, in you average desktop PC graphical browser. That's OK.
But what if we use a different device to browse a site? What does a FONT tag tell us about that information? Nothing. It isn't descriptive at all, it's like bad, uncommented code, all on one page with no modularity. I'm sure you programmers can relate to that.
HTML and XML are based on the same principals. A descriptive mark-up language. That means it tells us what this information is. I'm sure you already know that. But the problem is, websites have gotten so complicated over the years, the basic HTML elements aren't doing the job in terms of how they are perceived in a browser. This is why we have tables inside tables just to do layouts, this is why we have photoshopers slicing images up into a million different pieces that make no scene (logos cut in half so they fit nicely into a layout etc).
CSS is needed now. It provides a way for us to make these complex sites. And still keeps some sort of structure in the HTML code, this means the HTML can go back to what it was originally supposed to be used for.
The other thing is not just the compatability with other devices. But the fact that when you go to write a CMS (content managment system) or something similar, you can write it more modularly. Not only is it easy to write code this way, but it's also easier to change since the style and content are seperated. The CMS is giving you structured data, the CSS is formatting it.
BTW, the title of the book this artical is about is called "Forward Compatibility". I hope my point makes more sence when put into that context.
If I had full control over what I do, or my input as a web developer was respected in managment and IT. It could be an option. But as I said, in the real world, it't not. Not just because that option is sub-optimal, but mainly because I would no be allowed. So, from my perspective, the idea wont work, it's not an option.
If people come to the site for just content, then why are the designers jerking around with the gloss and flashiness?
Because they want it to look good to. What'd wrong with that? Have you ever seen a magazine before? They're not just plain text you know. Alot of people enjoy the design. If you don't like it, you can always turn it off/override it.
If you want to know what features are only available in the newer browsers, maybe you should ask the developers of www.alistapart.com [alistapart.com] what it is they use that won't work on anything but the newer browsers. The features I use seem to be working fine on older browsers.
The only feature I can think of is CSS. And it's just that--A feature. If your browser doesn't support it, you don't get the feature. Just like an old car may not have a CD player.
If you want the feature, then you'll have to upgrade your browser. it's as simple as that. I'm not sure what the big deal is.
And it does still work in older browsers. I have tested it myself.
I just see too many web sites that appear to be more intended to show off the designer's l33t w36 sk1llz that an ability to stick to information and readability.
But this is why CSS is good. For starteers, if you use CSS, you have much for flexability in you layouts. You can create sites that are much more user-friendly than you ever could with HTML and tables. Also, you can have the same type of control over the layout as you have normaly, but without all the HTML hacks, this can be a bad thing, but it's not CSS's fault, it's the designers.
Anyway, you can turn CSS off, or overide it (browsers should have this feature, it's in the CSS specs) if you find the site hard to use. You can't do that with normal HTML
I'm well aware of that. But the site is still usable as it has degraded gracefuly....It still works. If someone is that keen to see it the way the designer made it. Then they are probaly the kind of people who will already have the latest browser.
And if that's not the case. Most people won't be to worried anyway, as it's the content they're supposed to be after...right?;)
BTW, what are the features that are only avalible in for newer browsers? The only thing I can think of are the buttons to change the fonts, but if your not using CSS, that's irelivant anyway.
But why should bob2 learn the complexities latter on, when there shouldn't be any in the first place?
"just like a programming language"...dude, there's a reason why programmers make the big bucks, and it's because most people aren't equipped to deal with things like programming languages.
I wasn't talking about the complexity of progamming languages. I was talking how they have set rules that make them predicable. So I don't see how your point applies.
HTML is more harder to learn than XHTML because there are more exceptions and rules.
In XHTML, there are tags with closing tags, and tags with none. That's it, that's all they have to learn.
With HTML, you have some with closing tags, some without, some that can have closing tags, some that should have closing tags but don't. How can you possibly say the XHML is harder to learn?
If you don't belive me, maybe you should do some real world testing. I bet that XHTML will be much easier to learn as people won't get confused as easly. There are fewer rules, and they are consistant.
After all, isn't the key to programming simplicty?
Doesn't work so great when you have different fonts. If they were all the same type of font tag, just different variations, it would be OK. But that's not oftern the case. Even so, a regex will still miss a few.
And in the real world, I wouldn't be allowed to run a regex on a DB of 80,000 documents.
Plus it's just plain slower and more unrelible than changing one work in a CSS file.
"I don 't know where you get off just saying it is easier to modify CSS. It's just simply not true. If I want to make one character, word, sentence, or paragraph stand out, all it takes in HTML is a simple ,
, , etc. around the section. I don't see how you can even claim that CSS is simpler than that."
Well, if that's the case, then you should use a <B> tag or whatever. But you have to ask your self why you are doing it. If it's just a one-off, then HTML will be easier. But if you going to be be doing it more than once, then CSS is better. I think you need to give me a good example so we both know what we're talking about.
Don't forget, CSS is about seperating content from style. Is there a structural (as in the document structure) reason you want to change something? If so, then use HTML (which is what the author was saying all along). Else it should be CSS.
You obviously don't understand me or CSS. Else you wouldn't be saying things like "I don't know where you get off just saying it is easier to modify CSS. It's just simply not true".
Also, Have you ever worked on a large dynamic site before? Or is this all theory?
Slashdot Mirror
People have large paintings and posters, it's only going to take a few clicks for people to realize they could blow their photos up that large (assuming priting costs are reasonable), and then it will be considered normal.
Uh.. you should really read the artical first. The new camera is full frame (more light), and it doesn't use microlenses on the sensors, it also has a fancy new 12bit hybrid JPG format.
The theory that the more pixels a camera has, the less light is only half truth. You have to take into account all the other varibles when doing things like that. It's one small techical aspect of the whole formular, not a law of physics.
It's kinda like saying that large HD's aren't as good as small ones, because they waste more space on the file table and other overhead stuff (bad analogy, but it's all I can think of).
Untill you can blow something up to A1 size, and still have the resolution and details as if you were look at the film, it ain't going to be enough.
Hell, even then, if the resolution increases, then you can print even bigger than A1, make a photo as big as your whole wall...Is there some law of physics that says we can only print out photos out on 4x6" paper?
I won't even go into the fact that higher resolution means you have more flexibility with cropping etc.
Whenever something like this is posted, someone always whines "Why would a normal person need...'
Are these people never heard of thinking outside the box/lateral thinking?
The only things you need are food, warmth and shelter. But I still see you have a computer (or atleast access to one). So stop with the silly remarks.
Well don't listen to them then! But I think you will find alot of people will want, or require the latest stuff, regardless of if the companies are trying to push it ir not.
Are KDE and GNOME suddenly going to decide to render everything in OpenGL?
Unless you run OS X, which has a more advanced windowing system than most OSs at the moment. It chews up alot of RAM (a good idea, really, but annoyes me--being an iBook owner).
mroe and mroe....ont he box and cbaels though ebcause....tha....moniter...
I'm guessing you have your keyboard connected to a no-name KVM switch? ;)
I've never had that prob with other mice, I can always feel if it's pointing in the right direction.
Now....The new Apple mice solve this prob. But The fact that the who mouse is a button makes it difficut to lift the mouse up all the time if you happen to be dragging something.
Plus, and as much as I can learn to live without the right mouse button (especialy on a laptop, when the keyboard is close). I can't live without my scrollwheel.
I spose it depends on if you're gona carry it around in your front pocket all the time like wallet or not. If you don't, then most PDA's nowdays are OK in terms of size/weight. If you do (like me), then they still have a while to go.
[pipedream] Hopefully, in a few years time, they're have 3mm thick, semi-flexable PDAs. /. artical about that BTW).
High-res OLEDs printed on fexible film etc (already a
A nice scratch resistant screen would go down nicely to....Never need to bother with cases.[/pipedream]
hmmm... sounds like someone at sony was a bit slack then.
One a side note incase anyone is thinking of getting a sony. The virtual graffiti area can only be colapesd in a very small range of apps(mostly the sony apps). They don't work in memo pad etc. But then again, there maybe hacks around, or other replacment apps.
The Palm V/x is still by far the best designed PDA I have used. I wish they had released an up speced V style PDA (like the M505 i spose), but with a 480 by 320 screen. And maybe a 320x302 model with a keyboard.
I think the best analogy for bandwidth theft is jumping into the back of someones pick-up and scoring a free ride without them knowing (unless you're gona download GB's of data, and cost them some $$$).
It's not the best thing to do, but it's hardly theift in the usual sence.
Some people know the risks, and are willing to take it.
Pepsi isn't forcing anyone to get into a spaceship.
An insecure DRM system! Thanks to MS, everyone will have access to your files except you. ;)
That's fine for a personal or small site. But not for large dymanic site, it's still to have to calling in a programmer to make a few interface changes.
And when I mean change I'm not just talking about on your end. I'm talking about the other end, how it is interperated by the browser. That's the part I'm talking about when I was refering to not being able to change the HTML, it's just that the two points I made overlap quite a bit.
You're arguments are based on the idea that CSS is better than HTML...
Stop right there. I never said that one was better than the other. None it better than each other, they are 2 spereate things, that's the whole problem. HTML has evolved to do two different things, ot was only supposed to do one.
When you do your HTML, the layout is set. EG, tables are set in that exact layout. The layout can't be changed. With CSS, you can change the entire layout without editing the HTML since the style isn't embedded into it. It shouldn't be, HTML is not a styling language.
It's very clear that you just don't get what I'm talking about, because to most people who undersatnd CSS, my point would be an obvious comment on it.
A [font] tag does provide information. The most useful information is relative size. The tag [font size=+1] says the text following is larger than the previous.
It doesn't tell you anything about the infomation, it just changes it's layout for a graphical browser.
Why is that text a different size? There must be a reason. Is it an important message? Part of the navigation? I heading? A [FONT] tag dosn't tell us that. An [H1] or a [B class="importantMessage] does tell us information about it.
I've seen the sliced up images. I think they are doing that because they are too lame to do image maps. It's certainly not needed to do layouts even with tables, unless what they want is a layout with a non-rectangular image.
Image maps are worse really. I was more talking about decorations anyway, when--like you said--they have a non-rectanular layout or design elements, and create lots of little images everywhere. They should really be BG images, and it's possable to achive the same effects with the BG image properties in CSS, this means that they don't have to be downloaded, or included into the document structure.
Forward compatibility is pointless if you don't have a path into it for everyone.
There is a path for everyone. I'm not sure what you mean by that.
I also have that feeling. As much as I think UNIX is great, I don't think it was the best option for MacOS (idealy, excluding the circumstances).
Example: A user should not be told that if they create a file that begins with a '.' that it will be hidden.
I won't go into any other details, other than to say that the file/metadata system and GUI could have been done better.
Having said that....I'll still be fully switching to OS X when I replace my desktop win2k box with a G4 (an iBook just doesn't compare to a nice desktop system, with dual monitors etc).
But the key point to all this, is the non-CSS isn't flexible, it's always a hack, it's just not a hack in the way that you probably think I'm talking about (It's a hack of concepts rather than syntax). Once it's been stylised, you can't remove it or change it easily.
If you want to differentiate a piece of data on a page, you can apply a FONT tag to it, and make it stand out right? For the end user, in you average desktop PC graphical browser. That's OK.
But what if we use a different device to browse a site? What does a FONT tag tell us about that information? Nothing. It isn't descriptive at all, it's like bad, uncommented code, all on one page with no modularity. I'm sure you programmers can relate to that.
HTML and XML are based on the same principals. A descriptive mark-up language. That means it tells us what this information is. I'm sure you already know that. But the problem is, websites have gotten so complicated over the years, the basic HTML elements aren't doing the job in terms of how they are perceived in a browser. This is why we have tables inside tables just to do layouts, this is why we have photoshopers slicing images up into a million different pieces that make no scene (logos cut in half so they fit nicely into a layout etc).
CSS is needed now. It provides a way for us to make these complex sites. And still keeps some sort of structure in the HTML code, this means the HTML can go back to what it was originally supposed to be used for.
The other thing is not just the compatability with other devices. But the fact that when you go to write a CMS (content managment system) or something similar, you can write it more modularly. Not only is it easy to write code this way, but it's also easier to change since the style and content are seperated. The CMS is giving you structured data, the CSS is formatting it.
BTW, the title of the book this artical is about is called "Forward Compatibility". I hope my point makes more sence when put into that context.
If I had full control over what I do, or my input as a web developer was respected in managment and IT. It could be an option. But as I said, in the real world, it't not. Not just because that option is sub-optimal, but mainly because I would no be allowed. So, from my perspective, the idea wont work, it's not an option.
Maybe I should rephase. It won't work as a viable option to changing fonts used on a site (since the method is sub-optimal).
Because they want it to look good to. What'd wrong with that? Have you ever seen a magazine before? They're not just plain text you know. Alot of people enjoy the design. If you don't like it, you can always turn it off/override it.
If you want to know what features are only available in the newer browsers, maybe you should ask the developers of www.alistapart.com [alistapart.com] what it is they use that won't work on anything but the newer browsers. The features I use seem to be working fine on older browsers.
The only feature I can think of is CSS. And it's just that--A feature. If your browser doesn't support it, you don't get the feature. Just like an old car may not have a CD player.
If you want the feature, then you'll have to upgrade your browser. it's as simple as that. I'm not sure what the big deal is.
And it does still work in older browsers. I have tested it myself.
I just see too many web sites that appear to be more intended to show off the designer's l33t w36 sk1llz that an ability to stick to information and readability.
But this is why CSS is good. For starteers, if you use CSS, you have much for flexability in you layouts. You can create sites that are much more user-friendly than you ever could with HTML and tables. Also, you can have the same type of control over the layout as you have normaly, but without all the HTML hacks, this can be a bad thing, but it's not CSS's fault, it's the designers.
Anyway, you can turn CSS off, or overide it (browsers should have this feature, it's in the CSS specs) if you find the site hard to use. You can't do that with normal HTML
And if that's not the case. Most people won't be to worried anyway, as it's the content they're supposed to be after...right?
BTW, what are the features that are only avalible in for newer browsers? The only thing I can think of are the buttons to change the fonts, but if your not using CSS, that's irelivant anyway.
"just like a programming language"...dude, there's a reason why programmers make the big bucks, and it's because most people aren't equipped to deal with things like programming languages.
I wasn't talking about the complexity of progamming languages. I was talking how they have set rules that make them predicable. So I don't see how your point applies.
HTML is more harder to learn than XHTML because there are more exceptions and rules.
In XHTML, there are tags with closing tags, and tags with none. That's it, that's all they have to learn.
With HTML, you have some with closing tags, some without, some that can have closing tags, some that should have closing tags but don't. How can you possibly say the XHML is harder to learn?
If you don't belive me, maybe you should do some real world testing. I bet that XHTML will be much easier to learn as people won't get confused as easly. There are fewer rules, and they are consistant.
After all, isn't the key to programming simplicty?
And in the real world, I wouldn't be allowed to run a regex on a DB of 80,000 documents.
Plus it's just plain slower and more unrelible than changing one work in a CSS file.