Another drawback of using IDEs such as Dreamweaver in an assembly-line web application development environment, is that there is always a poor soul who has to clean-up all the nasty WYSIWYG-generated HTML code from the IDE. This is can sometimes be a huge set-back for resources and time allocation.
Anyone who has ever used Dreamweaver, and who uses the Code View knows that the code is clean and you have control over how it is generated. That's the great thing about Dreamweaver, it's great for code-heads and it's great for those who are not.
Since most Web Designers who use IDEs only view from the 'Design' view, they generally don't realize how much sloppy code is being generated, or how to clean it up.
Since when does Dreamweaver develop a lot of sloppy XHTML code that has to be cleaned up?
Re:CSS created by programmers for designers
on
Dvorak Rants on CSS
·
· Score: 1
"And most designers would rather design separately for each of those mediums. I don't need a generic "content" flowing into five generic "designs". If you don't have real graphic control over even ONE medium, what difference does it make that you can cram the same content into SEVERAL mediums. It's useful, I'll grant you that, but that's just the kind of thing that is crap for design. Hideous."
Which is why content separte from design is so wonderful. You can design separetely for each medium and use the same content. That's wonderful that you don't need "generic" content flowing into five "generic" designs. Others need content that can flow into any number of designs that are not generic. For example, when I make a website, I can make it look different when it's printed, i.e. suitable for the medium of the printed page, than how it looks when it's viewed on a computer on the web (the medium is different and has different properties.) Furthermore, I can make an entirely different design for the web page when viewed on a PDA, or in the future, on HDTV. The content is the same, but now I have the power to make seperate designs for each medium. So unlike your premise (...if you don't have real graphic control over even ONE medium)you do have complete and real graphic control over each medium. That's the power of CSS.
"Also what I meant about print content and design being the same is that with print, designers can make the page look pretty much exactly like they want and the user can't go home and read it however they want. They see it the way the designer designed it and can not "separate it". "The same" as in "inseparable". A far cry from internet design."
Of course they can't, because the printed page is not an electronic medium. Most users will see your web site as you designed it as well, using CSS doesn't prevent this. That the user has the option to not view like you designed it isn't a problem with me. They have to actually go ahead and create their own style sheet for it in place of yours (and how many actually do that.) They have to increase the font-size themselves if they want. I see nothing wrong with letting a user use their own preferences, if they should choose to.
"Obviously I wasn't implying that content could not be re-designed."
Yes, obviously. Nor did I imply that you did.
Re:Absolute positioning was the really bad idea.
on
Dvorak Rants on CSS
·
· Score: 1
"I laugh when I see CSS nuts struggling to make three equal columns."
Why? You find it hilarious when people can accomplish what is a dead easy task?
"That's what tables are for."
Doing it in CSS is just as easy and far more flexible and efficient.
"The concept that every page should have a Javascript formatting engine is silly."
What does that have to do with CSS?
Re:CSS created by programmers for designers
on
Dvorak Rants on CSS
·
· Score: 1
"CSS is an attempt to separate content and form. No designer in their right mind wants that. On a printed page, content and form are identical. CSS is the opposite."
I disagree, many designers in their right mind would want that, particularly when we have to use content in a multitude of mediums, including the web, print, internet for cell phones, internet for PDA's etc.
We can design adaptable forms to fit the form of the medium we are using. We can also design multiple forms and easily modify our designs. Heck, we can even put out a book that is branded with company x and the same book branded in the style of company y, all with the same content. Heaven in my book. The way content looks is not identical to the actual content and therefore, form and content are no longer identical in print (this is why we have structured document and XML in print programs.) Thankfully it's full steam ahead into the future.
"Why, WHY should centering a DIV involve the process of moving it 50% of the way across the screen then pulling it back 1/2 its (specified) width?"
The answer, it doesn't.
I find CSS to be a dream and much easier to work with than tables. More often than not, when people complain about CSS there are two main reasons:
a. Explorer (but you learn some work arounds) b. They don't know what they're doing and are unwilling to learn (it's a paradigm shift as they say)
Of course, learning it from a good source makes all the difference.
I use CSS for layouts and for type (and for print.) It's a breeze. I recently had to do a quick update of an old site that used tables. It was a horrible, horrible experience. Fortunately, I've got the project to convert it using XHTML and CSS.
So why don't you pony up for a real Apple computer to get the real Apple experience? Don't tell me you have some Windows apps you need to run, Boot Camp already took care of that excuse.
Because "ponying up" for another completely new computer is a lot mor expensive than buying an OS that you can put on your existing computer (see, oh I don't know, Bootcamp for a prime example.)
I use Apple hardware and OS X on a freelance basis and the "real" Apple experience is just like any "real" computer experience. I'm just using a computer. Boot Camp makes it personally interesting to me to maybe buy a Mac next time round when I feel like upgrading my hardware as I do some cross-platform development. However, a quick glance at the prices of the Mac hardware I'd be interested in kills this instantly, as I can laptops with larger screens and more memory for much less. The OS X value experience is enough for me, personally, to justify the extra cost and thus far, cross platform development has worked just peachy using a PC.
Wow, different people, with different preferences, objectives, likes, and dislikes. Who'd have thought! How's that for an "excuse?"
Why bother? In your case, as you said, personally, you're using something you like. Personally, I can't stand iTunes on Windows because it installs Apple's QuickTime player. I prefer the alternate QuickTime player, and iTunes is huge and hideous. But personal tastes differ.
Your note about links is noted. I don't want to get into a marketing versus usability versus visuals debate but I am aware of these issues. My point is, the statement about CSS being pretty well useless in regard to Explorer is clearly overly simplistic. I, and others I work with, have found it very useful.
This is not, however, to say we haven't found it grossly frustrating in some cases and that in some ways, the quirks of Explorer can affect the design of a site.
HTML 4.01 Strict is just as easy to validate, just as semantic, just as strict, AND works in MSIE. Why would you recommend XHTML instead?
Because we've found that declaring a strict XHTML 1.0 DTD forces Explorer to behave in regard to how it handles CSS for example.
As mentioned above, we've just nearly finished coding a site using XHTML and CSS (no tables) http://www.adrenalineonline.net and every page validates thus far with the exception of any with Amazon links (which is being looked into it.) Every page also renders well in IE 6 (and of course Firefox.)
Granted, HTML 4.01 Strict is just as semantic and most likely hasn't deprecated the start attribute as mentione above. For another site I've worked on in the past I did, indeed, use a different DTD for any pages with ordered lists that required use of the start attribute. It's just that we found the XHTML 1.0 Strict DTD helped Explorer 6 behave. That the code is already in XHTML may be beneficial in future.
There is no doubt that the web in this regard is still not rock solid and is very much transitional. I don't think we'll be getting away from the "pain" of its evolution for a while. As a result, some odd reasons arise for doing things. It's a mixed bag still, obviously.
I just finished this site http://www.adrenalineonline.net using CSS (for type and layout) and it seems to work just wonderfully. In IE 6.x (Windows) that is.
That said, it's probably a disaster for the one person who visited with IE5.
Indeed, OS X is a pre-emptive multitasking OS whereas previous Mac OS's are not. Back then, when they weren't (and nearly every other OS like Linux, Windows, Amiga was), pre-emptive multitasking "really wasn't that good" or "really wasn't needed", in fact, it was overrated and actually problematic. Strangely, the moment it was a feature of the Mac's OS it was suddenly a "great" feature!
how do you survive in a car with only like 58 horses
Get in it and drive. It's not like they put out cars that can't accelerate properly on the road. Guess you don't drive on the roads so you have no idea what sort of cars are out there and what they can do...
For the city, totally fine. For the highway. You accelerate easily off the ramp into the flow of traffic. The only worry you have is some asshole in the merging lane going 160km when said asshole should be doing that in the passing lane. But the day we make our cars to accomodate the assholes will be a sad day indeed.
The Prius itself looks ok. But of course, such things as one's opinion on looks are completely relative. The Vette is barf inspiring.
You can also have a load of fun in a low powered car. Sliding through corners and what not, provided you're not an ass about, which only a few are, though they stand out.
Windows has a huge marketshare too. People do indeed, vote for products with their wallets. Britney Spears, I hear, has emptied a lot of wallets as well...
I do. In Dreamweaver. It's not the tool, it's the person. If they're a good developer, it doesn't matter if they use a text editor or a WYSIWYG application. Blaming the application is ridiculous.
People who understand code can use whatever they like, including Dreamweaver.
I guess you've never met anyone else who has different priorities than your own. Sorry to hear that. If something is important to you I guess that makes you lazy as well?
In my small sphere, I know a few people who have bought Dells. They are not lazy people. They basically purchase a computer like they would an appliance. They are perfectly happy with them.
Yes and 80% of the world are morons. What's your excuse?
Of all the users I know of various operating systems, including Linux, OS X, Windows, Solaris, etc. I cannot honestly say that one group stands out as morons. I know many intelligent Windows users. I know many intelligent Linux users. I also know some who are less than intelligent on any of these platforms.
Judging intelligence by the person's OS of choice shows a surprising lack of intelligence on your part. Perhaps you're a Windows user as well then? Blanket statements. They're wonderful aren't they?
Can you provide some statistical analysis and studies that clearly display that if user X chooses Windows, they are, most likely, morons? I'd be surprised if this is the case rather than they want to use a computer for a few things. Much like people use appliances.
The point that many people use Windows was not made to say that therefore, Windows is not problematic. The point was, in context of the ongoing discussion, only that it is and continues to be useful to people (regardless of the problems it has and even it is not useful to yourself) and that it's marketshare is rather large and may be a bit of a factor in getting paid programming work in future.
But hey, let's have a discussion about how bad Windows is instead. That is really what the question is about I suppose isn't it. Windows sucks. Windows is useless. Wow! How unfathomnably observant and persuasive. We have an orginal thinker here!
Where was the love for MS when they gave IE away for free!
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone who has ever used Dreamweaver, and who uses the Code View knows that the code is clean and you have control over how it is generated. That's the great thing about Dreamweaver, it's great for code-heads and it's great for those who are not.
Since most Web Designers who use IDEs only view from the 'Design' view, they generally don't realize how much sloppy code is being generated, or how to clean it up.
Since when does Dreamweaver develop a lot of sloppy XHTML code that has to be cleaned up?
"And most designers would rather design separately for each of those mediums. I don't need a generic "content" flowing into five generic "designs". If you don't have real graphic control over even ONE medium, what difference does it make that you can cram the same content into SEVERAL mediums. It's useful, I'll grant you that, but that's just the kind of thing that is crap for design. Hideous."
Which is why content separte from design is so wonderful. You can design separetely for each medium and use the same content. That's wonderful that you don't need "generic" content flowing into five "generic" designs. Others need content that can flow into any number of designs that are not generic. For example, when I make a website, I can make it look different when it's printed, i.e. suitable for the medium of the printed page, than how it looks when it's viewed on a computer on the web (the medium is different and has different properties.) Furthermore, I can make an entirely different design for the web page when viewed on a PDA, or in the future, on HDTV. The content is the same, but now I have the power to make seperate designs for each medium. So unlike your premise (...if you don't have real graphic control over even ONE medium)you do have complete and real graphic control over each medium. That's the power of CSS.
"Also what I meant about print content and design being the same is that with print, designers can make the page look pretty much exactly like they want and the user can't go home and read it however they want. They see it the way the designer designed it and can not "separate it". "The same" as in "inseparable". A far cry from internet design."
Of course they can't, because the printed page is not an electronic medium. Most users will see your web site as you designed it as well, using CSS doesn't prevent this. That the user has the option to not view like you designed it isn't a problem with me. They have to actually go ahead and create their own style sheet for it in place of yours (and how many actually do that.) They have to increase the font-size themselves if they want. I see nothing wrong with letting a user use their own preferences, if they should choose to.
"Obviously I wasn't implying that content could not be re-designed."
Yes, obviously. Nor did I imply that you did.
"I laugh when I see CSS nuts struggling to make three equal columns."
Why? You find it hilarious when people can accomplish what is a dead easy task?
"That's what tables are for."
Doing it in CSS is just as easy and far more flexible and efficient.
"The concept that every page should have a Javascript formatting engine is silly."
What does that have to do with CSS?
"CSS is an attempt to separate content and form. No designer in their right mind wants that. On a printed page, content and form are identical. CSS is the opposite."
I disagree, many designers in their right mind would want that, particularly when we have to use content in a multitude of mediums, including the web, print, internet for cell phones, internet for PDA's etc.
We can design adaptable forms to fit the form of the medium we are using. We can also design multiple forms and easily modify our designs. Heck, we can even put out a book that is branded with company x and the same book branded in the style of company y, all with the same content. Heaven in my book. The way content looks is not identical to the actual content and therefore, form and content are no longer identical in print (this is why we have structured document and XML in print programs.) Thankfully it's full steam ahead into the future.
"Why, WHY should centering a DIV involve the process of moving it 50% of the way across the screen then pulling it back 1/2 its (specified) width?" The answer, it doesn't.
I find CSS to be a dream and much easier to work with than tables. More often than not, when people complain about CSS there are two main reasons:
a. Explorer (but you learn some work arounds)
b. They don't know what they're doing and are unwilling to learn (it's a paradigm shift as they say)
Of course, learning it from a good source makes all the difference.
I use CSS for layouts and for type (and for print.) It's a breeze. I recently had to do a quick update of an old site that used tables. It was a horrible, horrible experience. Fortunately, I've got the project to convert it using XHTML and CSS.
That kid was Dr. Zee and Dr. Zee was in the episode. Starchild motif and all that.
Because "ponying up" for another completely new computer is a lot mor expensive than buying an OS that you can put on your existing computer (see, oh I don't know, Bootcamp for a prime example.)
I use Apple hardware and OS X on a freelance basis and the "real" Apple experience is just like any "real" computer experience. I'm just using a computer. Boot Camp makes it personally interesting to me to maybe buy a Mac next time round when I feel like upgrading my hardware as I do some cross-platform development. However, a quick glance at the prices of the Mac hardware I'd be interested in kills this instantly, as I can laptops with larger screens and more memory for much less. The OS X value experience is enough for me, personally, to justify the extra cost and thus far, cross platform development has worked just peachy using a PC.
Wow, different people, with different preferences, objectives, likes, and dislikes. Who'd have thought! How's that for an "excuse?"
Why? I let it boot my hardware every day and have no world of pain.
Why bother? In your case, as you said, personally, you're using something you like. Personally, I can't stand iTunes on Windows because it installs Apple's QuickTime player. I prefer the alternate QuickTime player, and iTunes is huge and hideous. But personal tastes differ.
So does CSS. Fabulous for scaling to various screen sizes. There are advantages and disadvantages to both and how we weigh them will differ.
I could care less about what is "deprecated" by W3C, as though they are going to come over and scold me, and as though I would care.You'd probably care if your clients wanted pages that printed well, adhere to accessability standards, and displayed well in mobile devices.
This is not, however, to say we haven't found it grossly frustrating in some cases and that in some ways, the quirks of Explorer can affect the design of a site.
Because we've found that declaring a strict XHTML 1.0 DTD forces Explorer to behave in regard to how it handles CSS for example.
As mentioned above, we've just nearly finished coding a site using XHTML and CSS (no tables) http://www.adrenalineonline.net and every page validates thus far with the exception of any with Amazon links (which is being looked into it.) Every page also renders well in IE 6 (and of course Firefox.)
Granted, HTML 4.01 Strict is just as semantic and most likely hasn't deprecated the start attribute as mentione above. For another site I've worked on in the past I did, indeed, use a different DTD for any pages with ordered lists that required use of the start attribute. It's just that we found the XHTML 1.0 Strict DTD helped Explorer 6 behave. That the code is already in XHTML may be beneficial in future.
There is no doubt that the web in this regard is still not rock solid and is very much transitional. I don't think we'll be getting away from the "pain" of its evolution for a while. As a result, some odd reasons arise for doing things. It's a mixed bag still, obviously.
That said, it's probably a disaster for the one person who visited with IE5.
That's why they're in business in America where cash is king and pesky ideals get pushed aside.
Indeed, OS X is a pre-emptive multitasking OS whereas previous Mac OS's are not. Back then, when they weren't (and nearly every other OS like Linux, Windows, Amiga was), pre-emptive multitasking "really wasn't that good" or "really wasn't needed", in fact, it was overrated and actually problematic. Strangely, the moment it was a feature of the Mac's OS it was suddenly a "great" feature!
Get in it and drive. It's not like they put out cars that can't accelerate properly on the road. Guess you don't drive on the roads so you have no idea what sort of cars are out there and what they can do...
For the city, totally fine. For the highway. You accelerate easily off the ramp into the flow of traffic. The only worry you have is some asshole in the merging lane going 160km when said asshole should be doing that in the passing lane. But the day we make our cars to accomodate the assholes will be a sad day indeed.
The Prius itself looks ok. But of course, such things as one's opinion on looks are completely relative. The Vette is barf inspiring.
You can also have a load of fun in a low powered car. Sliding through corners and what not, provided you're not an ass about, which only a few are, though they stand out.
Windows has a huge marketshare too. People do indeed, vote for products with their wallets. Britney Spears, I hear, has emptied a lot of wallets as well...
"Real Men code html by hand, in a text editor"
I do. In Dreamweaver. It's not the tool, it's the person. If they're a good developer, it doesn't matter if they use a text editor or a WYSIWYG application. Blaming the application is ridiculous.
People who understand code can use whatever they like, including Dreamweaver.
Lazy?
I guess you've never met anyone else who has different priorities than your own. Sorry to hear that. If something is important to you I guess that makes you lazy as well?
In my small sphere, I know a few people who have bought Dells. They are not lazy people. They basically purchase a computer like they would an appliance. They are perfectly happy with them.
So that makes them lazy. Wow.
All sorts of people. Like those who don't want to build their own.
I've got McAfee. It uses Firefox for the self-update.
Of all the users I know of various operating systems, including Linux, OS X, Windows, Solaris, etc. I cannot honestly say that one group stands out as morons. I know many intelligent Windows users. I know many intelligent Linux users. I also know some who are less than intelligent on any of these platforms.
Judging intelligence by the person's OS of choice shows a surprising lack of intelligence on your part. Perhaps you're a Windows user as well then? Blanket statements. They're wonderful aren't they?
Can you provide some statistical analysis and studies that clearly display that if user X chooses Windows, they are, most likely, morons? I'd be surprised if this is the case rather than they want to use a computer for a few things. Much like people use appliances.
The point that many people use Windows was not made to say that therefore, Windows is not problematic. The point was, in context of the ongoing discussion, only that it is and continues to be useful to people (regardless of the problems it has and even it is not useful to yourself) and that it's marketshare is rather large and may be a bit of a factor in getting paid programming work in future.
But hey, let's have a discussion about how bad Windows is instead. That is really what the question is about I suppose isn't it. Windows sucks. Windows is useless. Wow! How unfathomnably observant and persuasive. We have an orginal thinker here!
Where was the love for MS when they gave IE away for free!
Then don't.
It'd be wonderful if Microsoft just licensed Gecko...Yes it does. As is seeing the intended presentation of web site that uses such things as CSS if you don't have a CSS capable browser.