That's a good point. Perhaps sIFR has the potential to get highjacked. As of right now, sIFR depends solely on what the text in the markup says. There is no current way of making sIFR display antyhing else then what it is told is in the headline. If the H1 says 'Home and Garden' then sIFR can only currently render the text 'home and garden'. You know what I mean? It can only do what it's told in the html. This includes links. The markup links cannot me masked.
No content is hidden with sIFR. The markup remains a carbon fucking copy of the same site wihtout sIFR implemented. Headlines remain the same text in the markup and the presentation. In fact SEO is increased because now the same end result is achieved with a proper H tag, then with an image of the headline set in 'Sabon'.
I'm aware of that, but if flash wasn't an approved way by font houses to display their type, then the entire flash program would still be stuck in legal.
Point is, The way fonts are imbedded in flash is an acceptable medium to pass font houses copyright. A series of intentional re-engineering steps is required to get it out of a flash document. Compare that to careless distribution of the actual file, and you can see that font houses have to be prepared to pick and choose the copyright battles they fight and the mediums of presentation they are willing to accept.
Heck! I could trace letters from a printed document and compile the letter forms into a type face, that would be breaking copyright too. But go figure, font houses let their fonts get printed anyway.
OMG, there is a better mechanism for downloading fonts, it's called buying them first.
But seriously, this is the first way to cover all the following criteria for developers a)not break copyright b)deliver custom presentation c)remain 100% accessible.
Better things will come along I'm sure, but for now, if a company's marketing managers say, "We want all the headlines to be in our corporate face, 'Sabon' and not be images because we want better SEO, it has to be plain web text."
Then developers say, "No problem, we can do that!" and come up with this.
Again you're wrong, The page displays correctly in either case. Too boot, if you are using a flash blocker FF extension, it so happens to respect sIFR as well, turning off the flash/behavioural aspects of the site, and leaving you with the accessible goodness, web text rendered type. Don't get mad at sIFR when it's the REAL garbage out their that's getting you angry with flash, sIFR is not the blackhole of proprietary mess you may think it is.
View the page source of the mike industries page that has been mentioned.
Well, fonts cost money... Unless you've designed a font yourself to be referenced by this rule (in which case you're probably creating an even greater diservice to a world that like things legible) you can't give fonts away or the data associated with it for free, I'm certain of it.
And again, allthough you may need Flash+JS in order to view the page the way the designer intended, you certainly don't need Flash+JS to view the page. sIFR with all of it's "HACKINESS" as you put it does in fact degrade gracefully.
If the user has flash installed and JavaScript turned on then that is the only green light/permission I need to serve the user the content they have approved. I create pages out of xhtml+css with markup, presentation, and behaviour seperated correctly. So long as I keep the Javascript in the behaviour column, the flash in the presentation column and the headline in the markup, the user has to freedom to view whatever areas they want without compromising the acctual content. sIFR has a place to sit in the architecture and it doesn't bully the content around.
The point of highlighted has already been touched on, it can be highlighted.
But the strength of sIFR is that under the hood, the markup remains <h1>Replaced Text</h1>. Maintaining it's searchability, symantic correctness, and in the event the user doesn't have the appropriate version of flash or has JS turned off, the headline defaults to the style specified in the CSS, Trebuchet, Verdana, what have you.
sIFR respects the users preferences while at the same time delivering the cherry on top when it is permitted. Because whether or not you care to admit it, designers like to make their pages look nice, and that means typefaces too.
Bah! Just steal/liberate the music from your local music purveyor and send five bucks to the arist. Then and only then will we NOT be stealing from the precious artists whose coffers the RIAA is so concerned with filling.
"Microsoft is trying to address what it believes is a legitimate and longstanding problem in the design market."
The problem with the design market IS software availability. Any schmuck with a computer and a fifteen hundred bucks can pick up Adobe CS and call themselves a designer. When really all they are is a computer user. Design is a school of thought and communication, and this fact clearly escapes MS.
The long standing problem currently facing the design industry is it's creditability. Design should be regulated as a profession. Only then will we see over saturation decline, and quality within the industry rise.
I personally have over 12GB of music I will never purchase now.
Would you have bought every song if you couldn't download them? If you we're never going to buy it, then you cannot substitute the action of downloading IN THE STEAD OF the action of purchasing. I believe the the phrase you're getting it confused with is 'rather than'.
That's what I've been saying since napster. They actually think I would've bought the stuff I downloaded? The record companies would be in the same shape if Napster existed or not. The percentage of people that actually download INSTEAD of purchasing are slim the way I see it. Probably about the same number that used to shoplift music back before those fancy detector gates were put in. The only difference today is that they don't lose any tangible product inventory now. (i'm certain there's still store theft today)
Truth be told, I have made many wiser (and less) purchases as a result of file sharing, but that's a very very dead horse.
Why does the menu item "Picture Tools" require it's own tab, aptly named, "Picture Tools"?
Errr, uh... I mean, Why does the menu item "Picture Tools" require it's own tab, aptly named, "Picture Tools", in keeping with common versioning practices?
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm... My Safari defaults to whatever width I had when I closed it. Do you mean on first launch?
Bbbut, they still sell power books... :(
In a related note, apple has gone to a 1024 web site layout now.
I thought they had always sold Personal Computers.
That's a good point. Perhaps sIFR has the potential to get highjacked. As of right now, sIFR depends solely on what the text in the markup says. There is no current way of making sIFR display antyhing else then what it is told is in the headline. If the H1 says 'Home and Garden' then sIFR can only currently render the text 'home and garden'. You know what I mean? It can only do what it's told in the html. This includes links. The markup links cannot me masked.
No content is hidden with sIFR. The markup remains a carbon fucking copy of the same site wihtout sIFR implemented. Headlines remain the same text in the markup and the presentation. In fact SEO is increased because now the same end result is achieved with a proper H tag, then with an image of the headline set in 'Sabon'.
:O You use depricated tags!!!!!
I'm aware of that, but if flash wasn't an approved way by font houses to display their type, then the entire flash program would still be stuck in legal.
Point is, The way fonts are imbedded in flash is an acceptable medium to pass font houses copyright. A series of intentional re-engineering steps is required to get it out of a flash document. Compare that to careless distribution of the actual file, and you can see that font houses have to be prepared to pick and choose the copyright battles they fight and the mediums of presentation they are willing to accept.
Heck! I could trace letters from a printed document and compile the letter forms into a type face, that would be breaking copyright too. But go figure, font houses let their fonts get printed anyway.
OMG, there is a better mechanism for downloading fonts, it's called buying them first.
But seriously, this is the first way to cover all the following criteria for developers a)not break copyright b)deliver custom presentation c)remain 100% accessible.
Better things will come along I'm sure, but for now, if a company's marketing managers say, "We want all the headlines to be in our corporate face, 'Sabon' and not be images because we want better SEO, it has to be plain web text."
Then developers say, "No problem, we can do that!" and come up with this.
So.. If sIFR was a gun...
sIFR doesn't kill webpages, designers kill webpages... with sIFR
I was hoping you woudn't point that out...
Allright, good game, throw sIFR out, it was fun while it lasted.
Again you're wrong, The page displays correctly in either case. Too boot, if you are using a flash blocker FF extension, it so happens to respect sIFR as well, turning off the flash/behavioural aspects of the site, and leaving you with the accessible goodness, web text rendered type. Don't get mad at sIFR when it's the REAL garbage out their that's getting you angry with flash, sIFR is not the blackhole of proprietary mess you may think it is.
View the page source of the mike industries page that has been mentioned.
Well, fonts cost money... Unless you've designed a font yourself to be referenced by this rule (in which case you're probably creating an even greater diservice to a world that like things legible) you can't give fonts away or the data associated with it for free, I'm certain of it.
And again, allthough you may need Flash+JS in order to view the page the way the designer intended, you certainly don't need Flash+JS to view the page. sIFR with all of it's "HACKINESS" as you put it does in fact degrade gracefully.
And if they have either turned off then the web page falls back to text, xhtml and accessible goodness for all.
Besides you still have to prove that sIFR forces users into anything. Do you even know what you're talking about anyway!?
So now you're telling the user what they want!?
If the user has flash installed and JavaScript turned on then that is the only green light/permission I need to serve the user the content they have approved. I create pages out of xhtml+css with markup, presentation, and behaviour seperated correctly. So long as I keep the Javascript in the behaviour column, the flash in the presentation column and the headline in the markup, the user has to freedom to view whatever areas they want without compromising the acctual content. sIFR has a place to sit in the architecture and it doesn't bully the content around.
The point of highlighted has already been touched on, it can be highlighted.
But the strength of sIFR is that under the hood, the markup remains <h1>Replaced Text</h1>. Maintaining it's searchability, symantic correctness, and in the event the user doesn't have the appropriate version of flash or has JS turned off, the headline defaults to the style specified in the CSS, Trebuchet, Verdana, what have you.
sIFR respects the users preferences while at the same time delivering the cherry on top when it is permitted. Because whether or not you care to admit it, designers like to make their pages look nice, and that means typefaces too.
Can't we all just get along!!?
Re: Werner Brummand!
OMG I know him! I thought that company sounded familier!
Bah! Just steal/liberate the music from your local music purveyor and send five bucks to the arist. Then and only then will we NOT be stealing from the precious artists whose coffers the RIAA is so concerned with filling.
"Microsoft is trying to address what it believes is a legitimate and longstanding problem in the design market."
The problem with the design market IS software availability. Any schmuck with a computer and a fifteen hundred bucks can pick up Adobe CS and call themselves a designer. When really all they are is a computer user. Design is a school of thought and communication, and this fact clearly escapes MS.
The long standing problem currently facing the design industry is it's creditability. Design should be regulated as a profession. Only then will we see over saturation decline, and quality within the industry rise.
Umm, exactly...
I personally have over 12GB of music I will never purchase now.
Would you have bought every song if you couldn't download them? If you we're never going to buy it, then you cannot substitute the action of downloading IN THE STEAD OF the action of purchasing. I believe the the phrase you're getting it confused with is 'rather than'.
Spoke much english does you?
That's what I've been saying since napster. They actually think I would've bought the stuff I downloaded? The record companies would be in the same shape if Napster existed or not. The percentage of people that actually download INSTEAD of purchasing are slim the way I see it. Probably about the same number that used to shoplift music back before those fancy detector gates were put in. The only difference today is that they don't lose any tangible product inventory now. (i'm certain there's still store theft today)
Truth be told, I have made many wiser (and less) purchases as a result of file sharing, but that's a very very dead horse.
Why does the menu item "Picture Tools" require it's own tab, aptly named, "Picture Tools"?
Errr, uh... I mean, Why does the menu item "Picture Tools" require it's own tab, aptly named, "Picture Tools", in keeping with common versioning practices?
is patenting the act of generating profit.
Probably because there is nothing resourceful about trying to understand what the hell is spelled out there.
That's a developers site and not for people who draw for a living.
hmm... on second read, I'm still right.