Rimantas Liubertas wrote:
Well ok...Can you name some industries?
currently I work for a large ad agency and a lot of the work we get is for FMCG campaigns which have turn arounds of hours (including several revisions of art direction, client changes and legal). Most of the creative directors and art directors around here think print, most of the clients have no idea and we certainly never get to talk to them anyway.
(that is on the 'interactive side' on the 'B2B' side I usually get to make the rules)
Formerly I did some consulting for the UK customs and exise where I was consulting on browser requirements (this was in early 2002) and one of the issues we had was that in the UK they have to keep a record of legal documents, and by a record I mean an exact printed record... so any document displayed online had to look EXACTLY the same down to the millimetre. At the time I advised that this was not possible.
I've also worked for entertainment (MTV, compuserve, peppers ghost (3d TV animation)), and a bevy of other sites during the dot com boom era...
And even today most art directors and clients think that the web IS print.
HA! you joke but I've had to do that before... Often the actual end client is a half dozen or more layers away from my team and everyone in between has different agendas and different understandings of what is going on.
Why not to export entire page from photoshop as GIF, JPEG, or PNG and put
it on the website? That's the only way I know to get pixel percision.
How do you and your clients imagine pixel precision in screen readers, mobile phones
and PDAs? How do they know is this layout pixel presice or not?
For me talks about pixel prescion is an indicator that nobody really cares what and whom this website is for.
In the advertising realm mostly they haven't even heard of screen readers, and phones and PDAs... not even a blip on their radar.
Remember that there is much more than just websites out there... we do micorsites, one pagers that are basically just online fliers and of course emails...
trying to get pixel precision is crazy I know... but there are dozens of reasons why it is also often required.
>Patrick Lauke wrote:
Or it might be time to educate your client with regards to "the web is not print". What's next: discussions about exact colour matching, across all browsers?
Well I have tried this from time to time... whenever possible with examples of where web beats print... but usually I never get to even see the client, and account handlers are not interested in techno babble...
Another point to note is that when the stuff you are making is ephemeral in nature there is less of a requirement to make it perfect... if it is 6:45 on a friday and this microsite needs an adjustment you can do in 6 seconds with a hack, and the site is only gonna be there for 2 weeks...
I'm not saying all hacks are good or anything, just that there is a time and place for everything. Take the @import 'hack', a valid way of hiding complex CSS from a browser that will choke on it, which allows me to actually use css because if I can't hide my css from certain browsers then I have to limit my css to what they understand or else my documents might not be usable
I just think it is a little simplistic and idealistic to tell newcomers to css that all hacks are bad.
s
*****************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
*****************************************************
