On Jan 19, 2009, at 7:13 PM, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
Erika Meyer wrote:
I think that one issue is that there still tends to be a big real-
world divide between designers and developers. Very few people
"design" in CSS, and from what I've seen, there is little
financial incentive to do so.
That's a huge barrier.
Instead, the web dev model is still (as far as I can tell)
wireframe -> photoshop -> CSS . Web design is still a relatively
new field, and a lot of designers (and perhaps more importantly,
employers) are still thinking in print. The ongoing desire to have
a site look and behave the same in all browsers is evidence of that.
I know my "broad content concept --> source-code --> CSS --> test
across
media --> add imagery --> enhance --> repeat until finished" model is
not widely used. One has to visualize in code from the start to use
it,
which probably throws visual designers - print designers - off.
Much easier to start with the "picture" itself and trivialize the rest
until it breaks. One can't easily blame the "picture" for weakening
the
code necessary to realize it, so the "picture-makers" go free and the
overall cost goes up.
my two cents from a 'print designer gone web". when i started work
with css, my concerns were more structural and content centered...
basically a pencil sketch of the basic page layout, semantic
organization of content (main content first) html. then css. then
rework, validate, test, rework. at a certain point, i felt i needed
to revisit actual surface design, and started doing photoshop mock-
ups. as i understood how css works, and the need for scalable fonts
and images, the mock ups represented a balance between different
content types, but allowed for flexibility-- but none of this
deterred me for having robust structure and validating and testing
pages for cross browserland functionality. so, because i do photoshop
mock-ups doesn't mean i'm using tables and slicing and dicing
graphics to make 100lb pages (though admittedly some are heavier than
a dial up line likes). I always keep in mind that georg sets his
minimum font size to 14pt... and try to make it look ok for the poor
old folks that don't see so well. There are benefits to doing
alternate compositions and making decisions in advance of coding, not
to mention the benefits of communicating ideas to clients before
major time investments. so, i'm not so sure all us picture makers
really go that free if we want our sites to validate and perform
across browserland. though we can be slow on the up-take.
Guess that's why so many web creations tend to break under the
slightest
amount of stress and can not be easily redesigned with CSS alone to
work
in/on other media than the regular "browser defaults on screens"
setting
- that's most likely all they are made for.
The way toward change in web design trends is always by setting
examples, especially high-profile examples.
Know of any existing ones out here?
regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
______________________________________________________________________
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/
______________________________________________________________________
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/
