Re: [css-d] "Transcendant" web design and CSS3

[MB]

Thierry Koblentz said:

>"Stealing" time from IE6 dev time to tune styles sheets for browsers that
>represent a very small fraction of your audience is no better than spending
>time on making rounded corner, drop shadow, etc. work in IE6. 
>I think the key is to *balance* these two approaches.

Yes, balance is always an objective. I feel that was what Andy Clarke
was, and is, promoting while also saying "don't be afraid, sooner or
later you can transcend the current situation". 

BTW, IE6 is not the lowest common denominator in the logs I've looked at
recently. But that varies from site to site of course.


/MB


"Content precedes design. Design in the absence of content is not
design, it's decoration."
-- Jeffrey Zeldman 


__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
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/

Re: [css-d] "Transcendant" web design and CSS3

[Thierry Koblentz]

> I donknow if you read "Transcending CSS" or not, but this is basically
> the same thing Andy was saying in his book. Perfectly usable is the
> same
> as "punishing"? I disagree with that conclusion.

No, I did not read "Transcending CSS", but my understanding of this from
your posts is that authors should not spent too much time styling things for
IE, instead they should create "better" designs for better browsers.

We all agree that it makes no sense to try to make things look the same in
IE6, but I think it makes no sense to do the bare minimum for that browser
either. At least as long as it is a big player. 

"Stealing" time from IE6 dev time to tune styles sheets for browsers that
represent a very small fraction of your audience is no better than spending
time on making rounded corner, drop shadow, etc. work in IE6. 
I think the key is to *balance* these two approaches.

Of course, if conversion is not your primary goal, then you can go wild,
forget the user, and do it for yourself ;)  


--
Regards,
Thierry 
www.tjkdesign.com | articles and tutorials
www.ez-css.org | ultra light CSS framework




__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
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/

Re: [css-d] "Transcendant" web design and CSS3

[MB]

Thierry Koblentz said:

>I'm not for serving pixel perfect designs - or even identical look - across
>browsers, but I'm not for "punishing" IE6 users either.
>I'm sorry, but this makes no sense to me...

To quote Georg: "It leaves older IE/win versions with a perfectly usable
document, and doesn't in any way shut out users with obsolete browsers -
they simply get a clean sheet." from the link Alan provided. 

I donknow if you read "Transcending CSS" or not, but this is basically
the same thing Andy was saying in his book. Perfectly usable is the same
as "punishing"? I disagree with that conclusion. 

There's nothing in Andy Clarkes approach to transcending the situation
with CSS-design (as it were in 2006) that prohibits the developer to
support older versions of IE with "usable" pages, if he/she decides this
is worth the effort. Exactly how usable is up to the developer. In this
book, Andy leaves it to the developer to decide which browser is the
development browser. That could be IE6 or some other browser if the
project demands that.

I feel Andys total web development approach makes more sense than the
alternatives I've seen. Though some designs in the book brake needlessly
so in IE6. But there are other sources for accomodating IE6, if that's
important.

Also, this is three years later. IE6 usage is dropping and the real
challenge today among other things is making usable web for all those
other browsers. You know 9-inch screens and phones and the like. 

How ever anyone sane could choose to NOT separate structure and
presentation in this day and age is totally beyond me. Not that this old
school approach have been promoted in this particular thread, but I see
seemingly bewildered developers defend this old school approach too
often on this list - like table layout designs,  minimum widths and so
on. But this paragraph is really out of the subject, so.

__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
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/

Re: [css-d] "Transcendant" web design and CSS3

[Alan Gresley]

Thierry Koblentz wrote:
[snip]
>> Ok, I see. He want IE6- to render a page like it antiquated or ugly. I
>> totally agree but this has to be a top down banishment of IE6-. The
>> governments and the corporations of this world have to inform the
>> masses (by whatever medium) that there are 100s of thousands of web
>> designers pleading for users to stop using IE6-. This does require
>> large scale activism.
> 
> I don't understand why people think it is just a matter of choice for the
> end user.
> I'm not for serving pixel perfect designs - or even identical look - across
> browsers, but I'm not for "punishing" IE6 users either.
> I'm sorry, but this makes no sense to me...
> 
> 
> --
> Regards,
> Thierry 
> www.tjkdesign.com | articles and tutorials
> www.ez-css.org | ultra light CSS framework


I thinking more in the lines of how Georg handles IE6.




A large segment of coded pages across the web can render the same in a 
compliant browser or IE6-. Anyway, I find (with my code) that what 
usually bugs IE6- out also has the same problems in IE7 and it really 
has more to do with poor or incorrect support for CSS2.1. A layout 
such as this is a no go in IE7-.




Progressive Enhancement or Graceful Degradation has never really taken 
off due to the presence of IE6 and IE7. I have only really archived 
Progressive Enhancement or Graceful Degradation with different 
versions of non IE browsers. I guess it will be different with IE8 and 
IE9.

For an extreme case of wanting users to use IE8 or other good browsers 
is this family tree done with ordered list and display:table.




This is to replace this method using Excel spreadsheet which does not 
work in non IE browsers (the hyperlinks don't work for starters). BTW, 
view the source.




To save me duplication, I would really appreciate users to be using 
IE8 so I can code it with a text editor and generate the layout with CSS.



-- 
Alan http://css-class.com/

Armies Cannot Stop An Idea Whose Time Has Come. - Victor Hugo
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
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/

Re: [css-d] "Transcendant" web design and CSS3

[Thierry Koblentz]

> >> You can still support IE6- but some authors just don't want to
> bother
> >> understanding why IE6- has shocking CSS2.1 support or why a document
> >> is rendered broken in IE6-. I agree with Andy Clarke by sending
> >> IE6/Win un-styled pages but their is also that user agent IE5/Mac.
> >
> > I'm not making myself clear.  He is not serving IE6- an *unstyled*
> page,
> > he is serving it a DIFFERENTLY styled page, and a style that is just
> as
> > complex - but different.  Different graphical accents.  Black-and-
> white
> > photographs instead of color photographs.  Differences like that.
> IMO,
> > the same kind of stupid penalization of IE that it suffered when
> > Netscape users would use the (unsupported-by-Netscape) FONT tag to
> set
> > the Symbol font (making the page unreadable in IE) when the first
> > version of IE came out.  He wants to treat IE6 like the same kind of
> > pariah that Netscape 4 has been for years, with less excuse in the
> case
> > of IE6, because IE6 DOES support most of what he wants to do.
> 
> Ok, I see. He want IE6- to render a page like it antiquated or ugly. I
> totally agree but this has to be a top down banishment of IE6-. The
> governments and the corporations of this world have to inform the
> masses (by whatever medium) that there are 100s of thousands of web
> designers pleading for users to stop using IE6-. This does require
> large scale activism.

I don't understand why people think it is just a matter of choice for the
end user.
I'm not for serving pixel perfect designs - or even identical look - across
browsers, but I'm not for "punishing" IE6 users either.
I'm sorry, but this makes no sense to me...


--
Regards,
Thierry 
www.tjkdesign.com | articles and tutorials
www.ez-css.org | ultra light CSS framework




__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
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/

Re: [css-d] "Transcendant" web design and CSS3

[Alan Gresley]

Jeff Zeitlin wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 18:19:08 +1100, Alan Gresley 
> wrote:
> 
>> You can still support IE6- but some authors just don't want to bother 
>> understanding why IE6- has shocking CSS2.1 support or why a document 
>> is rendered broken in IE6-. I agree with Andy Clarke by sending 
>> IE6/Win un-styled pages but their is also that user agent IE5/Mac.
> 
> I'm not making myself clear.  He is not serving IE6- an *unstyled* page,
> he is serving it a DIFFERENTLY styled page, and a style that is just as
> complex - but different.  Different graphical accents.  Black-and-white
> photographs instead of color photographs.  Differences like that.  IMO,
> the same kind of stupid penalization of IE that it suffered when
> Netscape users would use the (unsupported-by-Netscape) FONT tag to set
> the Symbol font (making the page unreadable in IE) when the first
> version of IE came out.  He wants to treat IE6 like the same kind of
> pariah that Netscape 4 has been for years, with less excuse in the case
> of IE6, because IE6 DOES support most of what he wants to do.  

Ok, I see. He want IE6- to render a page like it antiquated or ugly. I 
totally agree but this has to be a top down banishment of IE6-. The 
governments and the corporations of this world have to inform the 
masses (by whatever medium) that there are 100s of thousands of web 
designers pleading for users to stop using IE6-. This does require 
large scale activism.

I see a further dilemma with the fact that governments and 
corporations still serve pages in quirks mode which IE6 handles 
brilliantly. Please direct IE8 to this page.




>> I also disagree with that backwards philosophy. I attempt to suggest 
>> of philosophy of styling a page with future support in mind. My own 
>> test pages shows this philosophy.
> 
> You are saying that it is a 'backwards philosophy' to design for a
> consistent visitor experience?  Are we seriously - and intentionally -
> going back to the days of 'Best when viewed with ',
> but based on CSS support instead of support for HTML extensions?  Are
> you seriously suggesting that if I like a two-column print layout, I
> sould write my print stylesheet for it, and to hell with any browser
> that doesn't support it, letting it have whatever the defaults are?

Yes, especially since all user agents now use the same default styles. 
Please again look at this page.



Note the last column with _Final Styles_. For authors to allow the 
user agent defaults to flow into the cascade of CSS, one person in 
particular (hint, list chaperon) has to stop promoting _CSS resets_.


> Or
> that I should have different print stylesheets for Trident vs. Gecko vs.
> Webkit vs. whatever?  That I should use generated content in the CSS
> where it will make the page whizbang, even if it's not supported by all
> browsers, and a failure to generate the content makes the page
> meaningless in that browser?  That's certainly what it sounds like
> you're saying.  And if it is, then I *cannot* support that OBSCENE
> philosophy; I'll stick with 'graceful degradation'.

There is no graceful degradation. You have large steps of degradation. 
BTW, my test page use one CSS file. This works perfectly well in all 
browsers accept IE6- but each version of each browser does show 
changes in level of support for CSS3. IE7 looks fine but I do have a 
bug to simulate what display:table achieves in other browsers.


> Or maybe it's
> called 'progressive enhancement'.  But what it IS, is ACCEPTING that the
> Web is NOT the printed page, that all browsers and computers and
> displays are NOT created equal, and while not designing for an
> inarguably badly broken (from the CSS support viewpoint) browser like
> Netscape 4, at least making an effort to ensure that the results in
> arguably usable browsers such as IE5.5 and later aren't unusable.

I reject this. If you know how CSS works or which CSS bugs particular 
browser have, then you can send basically the same style to each page. 
Note, some HTML can not be styled and function correctly in IE7. 
Sometimes the HTML must be altered to not send IE7 buggy.


>> I have been using CSS3 for over 2 years. IE9 will have support for 
>> rounded corner so nested divs could be seeing their last days. Here is 
>> a page of mine (style is basically from 2008) that uses CSS3 and give 
>> some examples.
>>
>> 
> 
> Yay for rounded corners.  But note that I was talking about RADICAL
> differences in the original post.  The difference between rounded and
> pointy corners is noticeable from an æsthetic point of view, but it is
> not RADICAL, and I don't see how it justifies serving up a completely
> different design for browsers that don't support them.


Radical, mmm. How about creating faux columns by background-size 
or source ordering by display:table. Or even usi

Re: [css-d] "Transcendant" web design and CSS3

[Thierry Koblentz]

> I have a grid of all the CSS3 selectors and browser support on my  blog
> at
> http://www.standardista.com/css3/css3-selector-browser-support
> 
> The values and properties are on my old blog at
> http://www.evotech.net/blog/2010/02/css3-properties-values-browser-
> support/
> this is a huge file, so it may take a bit if you're on low bandwidth
> 
> I go into further detail on a few of the CSS3 modules:
> 
> Border Properties
> http://www.standardista.com/css3/css3-border-properties
> 
> Background Properties:
> http://www.standardista.com/css3/css3-background-properties
> 
> Font-face
> http://www.standardista.com/css3/font-face-browser-support
> 
> Columns (just browser grid, no explanation yet)
> http://www.standardista.com/css3/css3-columns-browser-support


These are great, thanks for sharing


--
Regards,
Thierry 
www.tjkdesign.com | articles and tutorials
www.ez-css.org | ultra light CSS framework




__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
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/

Re: [css-d] "Transcendant" web design and CSS3

[Estelle Weyl]

I have a grid of all the CSS3 selectors and browser support on my  blog at 
http://www.standardista.com/css3/css3-selector-browser-support

The values and properties are on my old blog at
http://www.evotech.net/blog/2010/02/css3-properties-values-browser-support/
this is a huge file, so it may take a bit if you're on low bandwidth

I go into further detail on a few of the CSS3 modules:

Border Properties
http://www.standardista.com/css3/css3-border-properties

Background Properties:
http://www.standardista.com/css3/css3-background-properties

Font-face
http://www.standardista.com/css3/font-face-browser-support

Columns (just browser grid, no explanation yet)
http://www.standardista.com/css3/css3-columns-browser-support

Note taht for all of these posts, except for columns, the grid of support is at 
the top, and quirks and usage are explained at the bottom.  

I also did a presentation on CSS3 properties that are supported well enough to 
be used, since there are IE workarounds for them. 
http://www.standardista.com/css3-implementable-features

Note that sites like Twitter.com are using CSS3, and it degrades nicely to IE. 
As long as it looks decent in IE, it doesn't need to look identical in all 
browsers.  standardista, for example, is all CSS3 and HTML5. I works fine in 
IE7 and IE8, but has added appearance features in CSS3 supporting browsers.  I 
think that is the way to go. No need to hold back to cater to non-supporting 
browsers, but you defnitely want your sites to work everywhere.

-Estelle
http://www.standardista.com


  
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
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/

Re: [css-d] "Transcendant" web design and CSS3

[Bob Rosenberg]

At 19:40 -0500 on 03/07/2010, Freelance Traveller wrote about Re: 
[css-d] "Transcendant" web design and CSS3:

>Thank you; this does indeed appear to be quite useful - and tells me
>that CSS3 is not ready for prime time, and probably should not yet be
>used as I'd like to use it.

It is "not ready for prime time" and will not be ready for the 
foreseeable future due to the need to serve to IE Browsers. So long 
as you can ignore IE support (or can serve a stripped down version to 
the IE holdout users) you can according to the chart use it now since 
all the other browsers currently support it (or do with all but 
obsolete versions).
-- 

Bob Rosenberg
RockMUG Webmaster
webmas...@rockmug.org
www.RockMUG.org
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
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/

Re: [css-d] "Transcendant" web design and CSS3

[David Hucklesby]

On 3/7/10 5:32 PM, Theresa Mesa wrote:
> Plus, I don't think the vast majority of website owners are going to
> permit the charges for the kind of time this would take, so while it
> would be worthwhile to try on one's own site, it's probably not best
> to effect this across all your sites in progress.
>
Now that's an interesting viewpoint. Because, for me, using CSS3 to
enhance pages for capable browsers seems to me a way of saving time. For
example, making images to add rounded corners takes a lot more time than
using CSS...

But then, for me, trying to make pages look the same in all browsers
seems as futile as attempting to display color on a black-and-white TV...

Cordially,
David
--


__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
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/

Re: [css-d] "Transcendant" web design and CSS3

[Jeff Zeitlin]

On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 18:19:08 +1100, Alan Gresley 
wrote:

>You can still support IE6- but some authors just don't want to bother 
>understanding why IE6- has shocking CSS2.1 support or why a document 
>is rendered broken in IE6-. I agree with Andy Clarke by sending 
>IE6/Win un-styled pages but their is also that user agent IE5/Mac.

I'm not making myself clear.  He is not serving IE6- an *unstyled* page,
he is serving it a DIFFERENTLY styled page, and a style that is just as
complex - but different.  Different graphical accents.  Black-and-white
photographs instead of color photographs.  Differences like that.  IMO,
the same kind of stupid penalization of IE that it suffered when
Netscape users would use the (unsupported-by-Netscape) FONT tag to set
the Symbol font (making the page unreadable in IE) when the first
version of IE came out.  He wants to treat IE6 like the same kind of
pariah that Netscape 4 has been for years, with less excuse in the case
of IE6, because IE6 DOES support most of what he wants to do.  

>> I understand that one cannot expect to see THE SAME THING in all
>> browsers, as though the screen was a printed page; nevertheless, the
>> philosophy that I learned when I was first starting web design (and the
>> use of CSS) was to try to avoid radical differences in the appearance
>> from browser to browser, or screen size to screen size.  That's what
>> I've done with my website at http://www.freelancetraveller.com - but it
>> appears that Mr Clarke disagrees with this philosophy, embracing its
>> opposite, and THAT is what I am questioning.

>I also disagree with that backwards philosophy. I attempt to suggest 
>of philosophy of styling a page with future support in mind. My own 
>test pages shows this philosophy.

You are saying that it is a 'backwards philosophy' to design for a
consistent visitor experience?  Are we seriously - and intentionally -
going back to the days of 'Best when viewed with ',
but based on CSS support instead of support for HTML extensions?  Are
you seriously suggesting that if I like a two-column print layout, I
sould write my print stylesheet for it, and to hell with any browser
that doesn't support it, letting it have whatever the defaults are?  Or
that I should have different print stylesheets for Trident vs. Gecko vs.
Webkit vs. whatever?  That I should use generated content in the CSS
where it will make the page whizbang, even if it's not supported by all
browsers, and a failure to generate the content makes the page
meaningless in that browser?  That's certainly what it sounds like
you're saying.  And if it is, then I *cannot* support that OBSCENE
philosophy; I'll stick with 'graceful degradation'.  Or maybe it's
called 'progressive enhancement'.  But what it IS, is ACCEPTING that the
Web is NOT the printed page, that all browsers and computers and
displays are NOT created equal, and while not designing for an
inarguably badly broken (from the CSS support viewpoint) browser like
Netscape 4, at least making an effort to ensure that the results in
arguably usable browsers such as IE5.5 and later aren't unusable.

>I have been using CSS3 for over 2 years. IE9 will have support for 
>rounded corner so nested divs could be seeing their last days. Here is 
>a page of mine (style is basically from 2008) that uses CSS3 and give 
>some examples.
>
>

Yay for rounded corners.  But note that I was talking about RADICAL
differences in the original post.  The difference between rounded and
pointy corners is noticeable from an æsthetic point of view, but it is
not RADICAL, and I don't see how it justifies serving up a completely
different design for browsers that don't support them.

BTW, thanks for the link to CSS3.info on that site; the selectors test
there is another useful and interesting resource (and reveals just how
badly Trident/IE7 is lagging in CSS support as compared with the
versions of Webkit and Gecko that ship with LunaScape).
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
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/

Re: [css-d] "Transcendant" web design and CSS3

[Ingo Chao]

2010/3/8 Jeff Zeitlin :
> On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 09:11:25 +0900, Philippe Wittenbergh 
> wrote:
...
>>> He also advocates NOT trying to make
>>> the presentation of a website look the same in all browsers, but to
>>> write to the limit of the CSS capabilities of each individual browser,
>>> and use things like conditional includes, media rules, and @import to
>>> control what CSS gets seen/used by which browser(s).
>
>>Which is a philosophy I fully support. It is called progressive enhancement.
>
> No.  He specifically denigrates Progressive Enhancement, describing it
> as "...begins with less capable browsers such as Internet Explorer 6 and
> then uses CSS selectors to add functionality."  His "Transcendent CSS"
> "abandons the notion that a less-capable browser is the benchmark", and
> "sets that benchmark squarely where it belongs today, with the CSS2.1
> specification and those browsers that support it. It uses all the
> available CSS2.1 features, not to add visual enhancement, but to
> accomplish the best design for the most, standards-capable browsers."

Progressive Enhancement minus IE6.  Phasing out IE6 is a matter of
time, not of the right wording. Name this "Transcending" if you like
to, but normally "Progressive Enhancement" and "Graceful Degradation"
already are confusing enough.

Ingo
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
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/

Re: [css-d] "Transcendant" web design and CSS3

[Alan Gresley]

Freelance Traveller wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 15:49:43 -0800, Thierry Koblentz
>  wrote:
> 
> [Quoting me in >>]
> 
>>> Question the first: Is this a widely-accepted philosophy in the
>>> web-design community, and is it being widely adopted - and should it
>>> be?
> 
>> I think this is the right approach, but note that most of the time there is
>> no need to control what is sent to a particular browser as a property which
>> is not supported is simply ignored.
>> For example consider this:
> 
>> .myBox {
>>  border:1px solid #333;
>>  -moz-border-radius:3px;
>>  -webkit-border-radius: 3px;
>>  border-radius: 3px;
>> }
> 
> This appears to be "trying to make the page appear 'the same' (or at
> least very similar) in all browsers", while using the advanced
> capabilities that might be available.  Mr Clarke is suggesting
> otherwise; an example in the book shows, for example, the serving of a
> completely black-and-white-and grey page when viewed with IE6, but full
> color (and certain graphical accents are completely different) when
> viewed with FireFox.

You can still support IE6- but some authors just don't want to bother 
understanding why IE6- has shocking CSS2.1 support or why a document 
is rendered broken in IE6-. I agree with Andy Clarke by sending 
IE6/Win un-styled pages but their is also that user agent IE5/Mac.

> I understand that one cannot expect to see THE SAME THING in all
> browsers, as though the screen was a printed page; nevertheless, the
> philosophy that I learned when I was first starting web design (and the
> use of CSS) was to try to avoid radical differences in the appearance
> from browser to browser, or screen size to screen size.  That's what
> I've done with my website at http://www.freelancetraveller.com - but it
> appears that Mr Clarke disagrees with this philosophy, embracing its
> opposite, and THAT is what I am questioning.

I also disagree with that backwards philosophy. I attempt to suggest 
of philosophy of styling a page with future support in mind. My own 
test pages shows this philosophy.


>>> Question the second: What is the current level of support for CSS3?
>>> There are some interesting ideas in CSS3, which I would like to be able
>>> to use - but I'd like to know that the support is there and relatively
>>> stable before attempting to use it.
>> This is a great resource:
>> http://a.deveria.com/caniuse/
> 
> Thank you; this does indeed appear to be quite useful - and tells me
> that CSS3 is not ready for prime time, and probably should not yet be
> used as I'd like to use it.


I have been using CSS3 for over 2 years. IE9 will have support for 
rounded corner so nested divs could be seeing their last days. Here is 
a page of mine (style is basically from 2008) that uses CSS3 and give 
some examples.




-- 
Alan http://css-class.com/

Armies Cannot Stop An Idea Whose Time Has Come. - Victor Hugo
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
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/

Re: [css-d] "Transcendant" web design and CSS3

[Alan Gresley]

Theresa Mesa wrote:
> Plus, I don't think the vast majority of website owners are going to  
> permit the charges for the kind of time this would take, so while it  
> would be worthwhile to try on one's own site, it's probably not best  
> to effect this across all your sites in progress.
> 
> Theresa

Web site owners are in the dark. They will possibly in the future 
regret their backward thinking and lack of foresight. It similar to 
supporting quirks mode in 2020.


-- 
Alan http://css-class.com/

Armies Cannot Stop An Idea Whose Time Has Come. - Victor Hugo
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
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/

Re: [css-d] "Transcendant" web design and CSS3

[Theresa Mesa]

Plus, I don't think the vast majority of website owners are going to  
permit the charges for the kind of time this would take, so while it  
would be worthwhile to try on one's own site, it's probably not best  
to effect this across all your sites in progress.

Theresa



On Mar 7, 2010, at 4:40 PM, Freelance Traveller wrote:
>
> This appears to be "trying to make the page appear 'the same' (or at
> least very similar) in all browsers", while using the advanced
> capabilities that might be available.  Mr Clarke is suggesting
> otherwise; an example in the book shows, for example, the serving of a
> completely black-and-white-and grey page when viewed with IE6, but  
> full
> color (and certain graphical accents are completely different) when
> viewed with FireFox.
>
> I understand that one cannot expect to see THE SAME THING in all
> browsers, as though the screen was a printed page; nevertheless, the
> philosophy that I learned when I was first starting web design (and  
> the
> use of CSS) was to try to avoid radical differences in the appearance
> from browser to browser, or screen size to screen size.  That's what
> I've done with my website at http://www.freelancetraveller.com - but  
> it
> appears that Mr Clarke disagrees with this philosophy, embracing its
> opposite, and THAT is what I am questioning.
>
> Thank you; this does indeed appear to be quite useful - and tells me
> that CSS3 is not ready for prime time, and probably should not yet be
> used as I'd like to use it.

__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
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/

Re: [css-d] "Transcendant" web design and CSS3

[Jeff Zeitlin]

On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 09:11:25 +0900, Philippe Wittenbergh 
wrote:

>On Mar 8, 2010, at 8:21 AM, Jeff Zeitlin wrote:

>> Mr Clarke is pushing CSS3 in this book, though he notes that (at the
>> time the book was written) support for CSS3 was spotty at best even for
>> the Mac (his preferred platform).

>Note that CSS3 as a unit doesn't exist. 'CSS3' is a collection of 
>modules, some of which are in the Candidate recommendation state, some 
>others are just early (concept) drafts. Those modules are all labeled 
>with 'CSS' and 'level 3'.

>Support is not at all dependent on platform but on rendering-engine 
>(browser). I seriously doubt Andy would make the claim that support is 
>better on OS X than other OS.

At the time the book was written, he essentially was, as the webkit
engine was only available in Safari/Mac.

>Modules one seriously can start using include the Selectors module  [1], 
>the border and backgrounds module [2] to name two that more wide support 
>in various browsers; other modules have at least a partial 
>implementation in various browsers. For a full list, see [3].

Thank you for these links; they will clearly come in handy.

>> He also advocates NOT trying to make
>> the presentation of a website look the same in all browsers, but to
>> write to the limit of the CSS capabilities of each individual browser,
>> and use things like conditional includes, media rules, and @import to
>> control what CSS gets seen/used by which browser(s).

>Which is a philosophy I fully support. It is called progressive enhancement.

No.  He specifically denigrates Progressive Enhancement, describing it
as "...begins with less capable browsers such as Internet Explorer 6 and
then uses CSS selectors to add functionality."  His "Transcendent CSS"
"abandons the notion that a less-capable browser is the benchmark", and
"sets that benchmark squarely where it belongs today, with the CSS2.1
specification and those browsers that support it. It uses all the
available CSS2.1 features, not to add visual enhancement, but to
accomplish the best design for the most, standards-capable browsers."

In other words, design for the MOST capable browser, and then don't try
too hard to to support less-capable browser beyond making sure that it
doesn't look completely like something I might not want to step in
walking down the street.  Or do try hard if you want to invest the time
and effort - but basically, if Gecko can do it, and you like it, go for
it, even if neither Webkit nor Trident support it.  Or swap the engine
names around as you see fit.

[Side question for folks here that do a lot of design and testing: For a
given engine and level, do you see differences in the way different
browsers render the page?  For example, do you see a difference between
Lunascape-using-Trident and IE?  Or Safari vs Google Chrome?]

__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
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/

Re: [css-d] "Transcendant" web design and CSS3

[Freelance Traveller]

On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 15:49:43 -0800, Thierry Koblentz
 wrote:

[Quoting me in >>]

>> Question the first: Is this a widely-accepted philosophy in the
>> web-design community, and is it being widely adopted - and should it
>> be?

>I think this is the right approach, but note that most of the time there is
>no need to control what is sent to a particular browser as a property which
>is not supported is simply ignored.
>For example consider this:

>.myBox {
>  border:1px solid #333;
>  -moz-border-radius:3px;
>  -webkit-border-radius: 3px;
>  border-radius: 3px;
>}

This appears to be "trying to make the page appear 'the same' (or at
least very similar) in all browsers", while using the advanced
capabilities that might be available.  Mr Clarke is suggesting
otherwise; an example in the book shows, for example, the serving of a
completely black-and-white-and grey page when viewed with IE6, but full
color (and certain graphical accents are completely different) when
viewed with FireFox.

I understand that one cannot expect to see THE SAME THING in all
browsers, as though the screen was a printed page; nevertheless, the
philosophy that I learned when I was first starting web design (and the
use of CSS) was to try to avoid radical differences in the appearance
from browser to browser, or screen size to screen size.  That's what
I've done with my website at http://www.freelancetraveller.com - but it
appears that Mr Clarke disagrees with this philosophy, embracing its
opposite, and THAT is what I am questioning.
 
>> Question the second: What is the current level of support for CSS3?
>> There are some interesting ideas in CSS3, which I would like to be able
>> to use - but I'd like to know that the support is there and relatively
>> stable before attempting to use it.
>
>This is a great resource:
>http://a.deveria.com/caniuse/

Thank you; this does indeed appear to be quite useful - and tells me
that CSS3 is not ready for prime time, and probably should not yet be
used as I'd like to use it.


-- 
Jeff Zeitlin, Editor
Freelance Traveller
The Electronic Fan-Supported
Traveller® Fanzine and Resource

edi...@freelancetraveller.com
http://www.freelancetraveller.com
http://come.to/freelancetraveller
http://freelancetraveller.downport.com/



®Traveller is a registered trademark of
Far Future Enterprises, 1977-2009. Use of
the trademark in this notice and in the
referenced materials is not intended to
infringe or devalue the trademark.

Freelance Traveller extends its thanks to the following
enterprises for hosting services:

CyberNET Web Hosting (http://www.cyberwebhosting.net)
The Traveller Downport (http://www.downport.com)
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
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/

Re: [css-d] "Transcendant" web design and CSS3

[Philippe Wittenbergh]

On Mar 8, 2010, at 8:21 AM, Jeff Zeitlin wrote:

> Mr Clarke is pushing CSS3 in this book, though he notes that (at the
> time the book was written) support for CSS3 was spotty at best even for
> the Mac (his preferred platform).

Note that CSS3 as a unit doesn't exist. 'CSS3' is a collection of modules, some 
of which are in the Candidate recommendation state, some others are just early 
(concept) drafts. Those modules are all labeled with 'CSS' and 'level 3'.
Support is not at all dependent on platform but on rendering-engine (browser). 
I seriously doubt Andy would make the claim that support is better on OS X than 
other OS.

Modules one seriously can start using include the Selectors module  [1], the 
border and backgrounds module [2] to name two that more wide support in various 
browsers; other modules have at least a partial implementation in various 
browsers. For a full list, see [3].

> He also advocates NOT trying to make
> the presentation of a website look the same in all browsers, but to
> write to the limit of the CSS capabilities of each individual browser,
> and use things like conditional includes, media rules, and @import to
> control what CSS gets seen/used by which browser(s).

Which is a philosophy I fully support. It is called progressive enhancement.

> Question the first: Is this a widely-accepted philosophy in the
> web-design community, and is it being widely adopted - and should it be?

Why not use it, certainly on personal sites and even on commercial sites ? This 
can only help improve browser support.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-selectors/
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-background/
[3] http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/current-work

Philippe
---
Philippe Wittenbergh
http://l-c-n.com/





__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
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/

Re: [css-d] "Transcendant" web design and CSS3

[Thierry Koblentz]

> I recently acquired a copy of /Transcending CSS: The Fine Art of Web
> Design/ by Andy Clarke (New Riders, 2007: ISBN 0-321-41097-1).
> 
> Mr Clarke is pushing CSS3 in this book, though he notes that (at the
> time the book was written) support for CSS3 was spotty at best even for
> the Mac (his preferred platform).  He also advocates NOT trying to make
> the presentation of a website look the same in all browsers, but to
> write to the limit of the CSS capabilities of each individual browser,
> and use things like conditional includes, media rules, and @import to
> control what CSS gets seen/used by which browser(s).
> 
> Question the first: Is this a widely-accepted philosophy in the
> web-design community, and is it being widely adopted - and should it
> be?

I think this is the right approach, but note that most of the time there is
no need to control what is sent to a particular browser as a property which
is not supported is simply ignored.
For example consider this:

.myBox {
  border:1px solid #333;
  -moz-border-radius:3px;
  -webkit-border-radius: 3px;
  border-radius: 3px;
}

 
> Question the second: What is the current level of support for CSS3?
> There are some interesting ideas in CSS3, which I would like to be able
> to use - but I'd like to know that the support is there and relatively
> stable before attempting to use it.

This is a great resource:
http://a.deveria.com/caniuse/


--
Regards,
Thierry 
www.tjkdesign.com | articles and tutorials
www.ez-css.org | ultra light CSS framework



__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
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/