Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
> Curiosity killed the cat...
> -- Molly 'the cat' :-)
Don't worry, they have lives to spare :)
[···]
> Content being the same doesn't mean users get to or want to see it in
> the same way across the board, and that is often the reason why users
> learn about browser-options and/or switch browsers in order to get it
> right - for them. Thus, what the designer sees when comparing across
> browser-land and browser-options, and what an end-user sees, will only
> be the same by chance.
Maybe we're talking about different things here. What I understand
here would be basically the same as saying that the standards shouldn't
exist and, though interpreting the same content / instructions, each
browser should render it its own way.
Now users wanting to see it differently (or 'right for them') would
usually do, in my opinion, one of two things:
- change the browser's skin
- change the content's theme (css style), whereas allowed by the site
itself or externally with a custom css or tools such as stylish (and
themes built the community).
As an example, ESPN's Game Cast doesn't seem to work on anything but
IE, and that's plainly wrong. We should have past already the time when
we told users to use the browser /we/ wanted instead of their own choice.
Now, that's how I interpreted your comments, that's why I'm guessing
we're talking about different things here. What were you referring to?
[···]
> Browsers don't use the same engines and same calculations, and their set
> of options vary quite a bit. Sites designed with built-in "stability"
> limitations, doesn't help much on anything. Sites (meaning design here)
> should not be "stable", they should adapt to the environment the very
> best they can - without disturbing the end-user.
Well, yes, that's our current situation: different engines with
different limitations, behavior and bugs. But CSS is supposed to help us
achieve the layout we want without the need of changing the structure.
That's what we were promised, and what the future should bring, but for
that we need for all engines to follow the specs (and that these are
actually complete), but the "should" you used isn't referring only to
present, but also future posibilities, and that's I don't agree.
Also, if we only use the little set that looks like working right in
"all" browsers then we wouldn't be able to be creative and come up with
good, different and non-stiffed designs... so we would all be working
for lynx and that's the "designs" we would see all around the web.
Continuing with your paragraph... if by "stable" you mean
'pixel-perfect' I agree on what you say, but stability for me has little
(if any) relation with pixel-perfect, fixed, liquid or any other style.
For me it just means that it's as bullet-proof as the current engines
allow us to (which can be a darn pretty hard work by itself).
> There is in reality no "lowest common denominator" to design for - maybe
> apart from the one called "ignorance", only some common standards with
> plenty of play-room, common sense and varying degree of support.
> Add in the growing number of hardware variables and see the world
> evolve. Not much stability in there, and neither should there be if we
> want some progress.
In my opinion, there should be a lowest denominator, and that's
simply because if doesn't, we won't be able to move forward. There *is*
a need for getting rid of older and plainly defective browsers, but we
can't, just because they're the users' belongings and we cannot control
that, so we then have the only choice of ignoring some features or think
on "special cases".
As a note: nothing of this should care to lynx in any way, we're
talking about CSS, something lynx just ignores (as it should, I
believe). The content is there, we're talking about the presentation here.
> Some earlier thoughts related to the subject, for those who care to read
> articles on a, by definition, pretty unstable site...
> <http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_additions_21.html>
>
>
> regards
> Georg
I still get the feeling that this is just a misunderstanding of your
words, though maybe we do have different ways of thinking regarding our
present and (possible) future in Web dev.
Rafael.
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
