To a certain extent I aggree with you - especially in regards to certain cosmetic things looking suboptimal in non-compliant browsers. However, this design perrogative is only available when you, the designer, are directly making the calls for what goes and what doesnt. In the case of working for paying clients, or poorly-informed employers with phobias for non-microsoft platforms, this is in many cases not an option.
I heartlily beleive that it is our duty as designers and programmers to educate those we work with and for about the reasons for writing standards compliant code, but there will always be times when the end product is simply out of our control (client need intranet site, only uses old Windows boxes for for office machines, won't switch browsers -or- client is extremely picky and the bosses demand his every demand be made, naturally when he pulls his lovely full XHTML/CSS site up in IE on his home machine he is pissed and cannot be reasoned with). This is why I suggest a happy median - structure content with standards-compliant XHTML, and use as much CSS as humanly possible that will work in both browsers. Then, you can always add on some of the lovely options that is available with a browser that supports the full extent of CSS2, and begin making suggestions. That way, even if they don't buy it, you still have a site that conforms to the standard, even if you had to make a few sacrifices to do it (not that there's anything against coming up with a new solution that no one has ever thought of that makes your particular design display perfectly cross-browser).
The web is about accessability, and if you loose that, then what's the point?
There is iterpoperability - this is just a client that uses an open protocol spec. It's not like they designed their own proprietary network. Besides, lots of options is a good thing, right?
Which is why you should design for standards first, and then fix what you can for non-compliant browsers. Make it accessable, but make it standards-based first and foremost.
This is quite spiffy, I must say. Yet another country where data is not hindered (much) by corporate-lobbied government. Don't get me wrong. This is great news for all the Aussies out there . . I'm just tired of overpriced, substandard broadband being the common consumer link here in the States. Perhaps WiMax will change some of this, but it's still going to be sometime before it is adequately ubiquitous and it's hardly a silver bullet. It's a shame that by the time US citizens finally do start getting things like FTTP, every other country will be using realtime neural uplinks.
I've been interested in Xandros ever Corel Linux was bought up, and I must say, I'm very impressed with what they've done. This is definately a step in the right direction.
However, destktop Linux still needs interface (that's right, not necesarily filesystem or API) standardisation. There has to be a common set of design rules for developers to stick to so every different open source app doesn't have a totatlly different way of using common functions. There is a reason the Macintosh is so easy for idiots to use - Apple has a set of guidlines for how applications look and behave, and these transcend all the programs (at least the effective ones). Even if you've never used a certain app before, you have at least a rudimentary idea of how to use it because it shares a common workflow with the rest of the system.
X will be a lot better off when someone applys this to Linux.
Yes, I can totally see how having the option to use my choice of three hundred exciting text editors, along wiht a myriad array of other incomplete, inconsistent software is so much better than a professionally designed machine.
When was the last time you USED a Mac?
This month's special is the amazing Vandaltron 9600. Apply astoundingly witless phrases to signage, walls, clothing, and small animals WITHOUT A SINGLE STROKE OF A PEN! It's like MAGIC!
But that's not all! Now, with the Vandaltron 9600, you have the power of forgery in the PALM of your HAND! Surprise your friends and family! Get free food! Be the target of major lawsuits!
And if you order now, you'll get a kickass bluetooth PDA absolutely FREE! (with your inclusion of a $500 check)
What are you waiting for, kids?? Buy one TODAY!
Slashdot Mirror
Internet Says Elton John already Destroyed Music
I totally read that as Norse Cells to Cure Spinal Injuries.
I guess it would be a very bad thing to be Scandinavian in that case.
To a certain extent I aggree with you - especially in regards to certain cosmetic things looking suboptimal in non-compliant browsers. However, this design perrogative is only available when you, the designer, are directly making the calls for what goes and what doesnt. In the case of working for paying clients, or poorly-informed employers with phobias for non-microsoft platforms, this is in many cases not an option. I heartlily beleive that it is our duty as designers and programmers to educate those we work with and for about the reasons for writing standards compliant code, but there will always be times when the end product is simply out of our control (client need intranet site, only uses old Windows boxes for for office machines, won't switch browsers -or- client is extremely picky and the bosses demand his every demand be made, naturally when he pulls his lovely full XHTML/CSS site up in IE on his home machine he is pissed and cannot be reasoned with). This is why I suggest a happy median - structure content with standards-compliant XHTML, and use as much CSS as humanly possible that will work in both browsers. Then, you can always add on some of the lovely options that is available with a browser that supports the full extent of CSS2, and begin making suggestions. That way, even if they don't buy it, you still have a site that conforms to the standard, even if you had to make a few sacrifices to do it (not that there's anything against coming up with a new solution that no one has ever thought of that makes your particular design display perfectly cross-browser). The web is about accessability, and if you loose that, then what's the point?
There is iterpoperability - this is just a client that uses an open protocol spec. It's not like they designed their own proprietary network. Besides, lots of options is a good thing, right?
Which is why you should design for standards first, and then fix what you can for non-compliant browsers. Make it accessable, but make it standards-based first and foremost.
This is quite spiffy, I must say. Yet another country where data is not hindered (much) by corporate-lobbied government.
Don't get me wrong. This is great news for all the Aussies out there . . I'm just tired of overpriced, substandard broadband being the common consumer link here in the States. Perhaps WiMax will change some of this, but it's still going to be sometime before it is adequately ubiquitous and it's hardly a silver bullet.
It's a shame that by the time US citizens finally do start getting things like FTTP, every other country will be using realtime neural uplinks.
And somehow, even without the use of your eyes, you made less spelling and grammar mistakes than the average slashdotter.
Actually, from the article it seems we are talking about 64 processor systems, not single 64-bit chips. Bit of a difference.
Sweet fancy moses! I buy something, then I buy more things, and it . . . COSTS MORE MONEY! Where will this consumer nightmare end?? Oh, God!
Good God, man! Not only have you settled for the ugly sister, you're in DENIAL about it as well!
Eh, no. I'm sorry, the correct answer is "Mice in Space." Yes. Terribly sorry, you must try again.
I've been interested in Xandros ever Corel Linux was bought up, and I must say, I'm very impressed with what they've done. This is definately a step in the right direction. However, destktop Linux still needs interface (that's right, not necesarily filesystem or API) standardisation. There has to be a common set of design rules for developers to stick to so every different open source app doesn't have a totatlly different way of using common functions. There is a reason the Macintosh is so easy for idiots to use - Apple has a set of guidlines for how applications look and behave, and these transcend all the programs (at least the effective ones). Even if you've never used a certain app before, you have at least a rudimentary idea of how to use it because it shares a common workflow with the rest of the system. X will be a lot better off when someone applys this to Linux.
It would be a sad day to see Google go portal . . personally, I think it would be nice if they stuck with 2).
Stop trolling? See parent.
Yes, I can totally see how having the option to use my choice of three hundred exciting text editors, along wiht a myriad array of other incomplete, inconsistent software is so much better than a professionally designed machine. When was the last time you USED a Mac?
Selling "My Other Computer Was Confiscated By The FBI" stickers.
Percent of useful content on the internet continues to drop.
Am I the only one bothered by the phrase armies of tiny helicopter drones?
This month's special is the amazing Vandaltron 9600. Apply astoundingly witless phrases to signage, walls, clothing, and small animals WITHOUT A SINGLE STROKE OF A PEN! It's like MAGIC! But that's not all! Now, with the Vandaltron 9600, you have the power of forgery in the PALM of your HAND! Surprise your friends and family! Get free food! Be the target of major lawsuits! And if you order now, you'll get a kickass bluetooth PDA absolutely FREE! (with your inclusion of a $500 check) What are you waiting for, kids?? Buy one TODAY!