Best css hack / trick to recommend?

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

:
[Travis Newbury wrote: (restored attribution)]

I hope I understand your intent was to throw a Flash site in our
faces, 'cause there sure ain't no CSS at that one.

Did you even read before you replied?

Of course, Travis. Your statement was ambiguous. ".. to see a CSS based
website that even came close to this one" would have been much better
worded, ".. to see a CSS based website that even came close to this
Flash-based one".

Let's get real. Let's say that millions more people (more than teen-aged
movie-goers) will .. shop at Amazon .. read newspaper sites .. seek
information .. and if they encountered layout such as your proffered
ironman site, they would leave and find someplace else to do their
business. We all know this, including you.

 

[Bergamot]

You are not in the target audience, so you really don't matter as far
as the site is concerned. As it should be.

So what about those commercial, non-profit or information sites I asked
about? Most of us here *would* be in at least one of those target
audiences. I dare say even you. Please show some examples - even 1 will
do - of what you think is good design for such sites.

It can't possibly be that entertainment and Flash are the only things
you find worthy, but that's all you ever bring up. I'm tired of hearing it.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Let's get real. Let's say that millions more people (more than teen-aged
movie-goers) will .. shop at Amazon .. read newspaper sites .. seek
information .. and if they encountered layout such as your proffered
ironman site, they would leave and find someplace else to do their
business. We all know this, including you.

I have never ever stated that a site like the ironman site is good for
everything. But lets also face it that if you want to make an
exciting interactive game/video heavy page that plain text and static
images would also cause said visitors to leave for greener more
exciting pastures. And you know that too.

 

[Travis Newbury]

But the only sites you ever mention, let alone give any praise to, are
entertainment types. Not exactly of high interest around here. Why never
anything more down to earth, or relevant to us middle-aged folk?

I don't care if it is of high interest to you. I talk about it,
because that is what I do. You talk about plain Jane sites because
that is what you do.

No, you can't do fancy sound and animation with just HTML and CSS. We
know that. So what?

Sure you can. You could easily incorporate links for video, music and
even flash games. So you could use HTML and CSS to present the exact
same content. But the kids would leave in droves and head to a site
like the ironman site.

 

[Travis Newbury]

It can't possibly be that entertainment and Flash are the only things
you find worthy, but that's all you ever bring up. I'm tired of hearing it..

Berg, you do sites that follow all the rules (I assume you do), and
that's what you talk about. I do sites for the entertainment
industry, education industry (on-line training/AIC SCORM) and
corporate intranets. And that is what I talk about. Sorry you find
that somehow offensive.

 

[Travis Newbury]

BTW, since 40% of us in the US are *still* stuck on dialup, I bailed
long before I was able to get any information on the movie. Great sales
pitch.

So are you suggesting that developers put everything that currently
requires broadband on hold until you (that 40%) has broadband too?

 

[Bergamot]

Berg, you do sites that follow all the rules (I assume you do), and
that's what you talk about.

You don't know anything about me. As a user, most of my time on the web
is spent on research activities. Nothing to do with web stuff at all,
but information gathering from a variety of sources, many academic, on a
particular subject. Nothing like the sites I'm usually involved with.

For a couple years I spent a lot of time on food and nutrition sites.
nutritiondata.com was one of my favorites - excellent info, I could
always find what I was looking for, and features like the "pantry" were
pretty useful, too. Their latest design iteration, however, has made the
site less than usable due to a dependency on puny font sizes. It no
longer adapts to my large default font size.

When I see something like this on a site I visit, does it influence my
own web-related decisions? Of course. I wouldn't want anyone else to
have the troubles I have, especially on any site I have a hand in
constructing. Does that mean no site should ever do [insert whatever
dee-ziner idea you want here]? Of course not.

Many of the sites I work on are coding up someone else's design, and the
expectation is that it will accommodate people like me as well as stay
true to the designer's intent. There is an understanding on both sides
of what should or should not be done, but compromises have to be made
sometimes. Sometimes I'm the one who compromises, sometimes not.

I do sites for the entertainment
industry, education industry (on-line training/AIC SCORM) and
corporate intranets. And that is what I talk about. Sorry you find
that somehow offensive.

I'm not offended in the least. I'm *bored* with it. I don't recall you
ever showing an example of anything you approve of other than Flash. I
can't believe that's the only kind of site you ever visit, or ever found
to be an example of good design. I just want to hear something else once
in a while, that's all - how about a corporate or education site? You
complained about CSS designs being boring, so what's your idea of a good
non-Flash site? It doesn't have to be a CSS layout, just not Flash, and
not even one you had a hand in. Don't tell me there aren't any?

Point the way to good (non-Flash) web design! Please!

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

So are you suggesting that developers put everything that currently
requires broadband on hold until you (that 40%) has broadband too?

No, but it bandwidth *should* be factor. If someone cannot not see it
then you haven't any chance of a sale, right?

 

[Travis Newbury]

Does that mean no site should ever do [insert whatever
dee-ziner idea you want here]? Of course not.

Sounds incredibly like what I say...

I'm not offended in the least. I'm *bored* with it. I don't recall you
ever showing an example of anything you approve of other than Flash.

Actual a Korgi site just a few weeks ago was presented to the group, I
mentioned I liked it (also mentioned I wasn't sure why I liked it),
brought up an issue about the text touching the left side of the
images, the user returned a few days ago and said he fixed everything,
I mentioned good job, and that Joey's handler was hot. Yesterday I
told the guy that wanted to use Iframes that it was probably a bad
idea and others would tell him/her why.

There are tons of posts where I never mention Flash at all.

I can't believe that's the only kind of site you ever visit, or ever found
to be an example of good design. I just want to hear something else once
in a while, that's all - how about a corporate or education site?
You
complained about CSS designs being boring, so what's your idea of a good
non-Flash site? It doesn't have to be a CSS layout, just not Flash, and
not even one you had a hand in. Don't tell me there aren't any?

Here are a list of sites I frequent almost on a daily basis I
consider them all good sites. (of course I am not including the porn
sites I visit...)
http://www.foxnews.com,
http://www.firefox.com,
http://www.creativecow.net,
http://www.adobe.com,
http://www.neosounds.com
http://www.movies.com
http://www.sound-effect.com
http://www.videocopilot.net
http://www.imdb.com (registered version, it's a little different than
the free version, but not much)

See a pattern? They all deal in one way or another with what I do for
a living and hobby. Video, Flash, movies and music.

Sites I use almost on a daily basis that I think suck:
http://www.wamu.com
http://www.BN.com
yahoo.com
and google groups. (I would use a reader, and have in the past, but
for the last several years it has not been convenient to use a reader
so Google groups fills the void.)

Point the way to good (non-Flash) web design! Please!

There you go, you have my lists. Do any these follow the "rules"?
Hardly, not a one of them comes close to validating, but that is not
how I rate a good site. I rate a good design based on does the site
accomplish what I need in a manner I enjoy and is easy for me. If the
answer is yes, then that site get a "good" rating from me EVEN if the
code completely sucks.

And that is how I build pages (I don't work on complete sites, or
pieces). I build them to accomplish what the user wants. I do not go
out of my way to break things or use bad code, but if I have to use
bad code to accomplish what I need to, I will.

 

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

On 2008-06-24, Travis Newbury wrote:
....

Here are a list of sites I frequent almost on a daily basis I
consider them all good sites. (of course I am not including the porn
sites I visit...)
http://www.foxnews.com,

That page is ~30% wider than my window. That's good?

http://www.firefox.com,
http://www.creativecow.net,

<http://cfaj.freeshell.org/testing/creativecow.jpg>

That is good???

http://www.adobe.com,

Low contrast; hard to read.

http://www.neosounds.com
http://www.movies.com
http://www.sound-effect.com
http://www.videocopilot.net

Low contrast; hard to read. Content spills out of its container.

http://www.imdb.com (registered version, it's a little different than
the free version, but not much)

See a pattern? They all deal in one way or another with what I do for
a living and hobby. Video, Flash, movies and music.

Sites I use almost on a daily basis that I think suck:
http://www.wamu.com

Agreed.

http://www.BN.com

That site seems to work quite well.

yahoo.com

I don't know what you see; it redirects me to ca.yahoo.com.

and google groups. (I would use a reader, and have in the past, but
for the last several years it has not been convenient to use a reader
so Google groups fills the void.)


There you go, you have my lists. Do any these follow the "rules"?
Hardly, not a one of them comes close to validating, but that is not
how I rate a good site. I rate a good design based on does the site
accomplish what I need in a manner I enjoy and is easy for me. If the
answer is yes, then that site get a "good" rating from me EVEN if the
code completely sucks.

Some of us obviously have higher standards; we expect a site to
work for everyone, not just for you.

And if it doesn't work, i.e., it's illegible, it doesn't matter
to anyone how cool it looks.

And that is how I build pages (I don't work on complete sites, or
pieces). I build them to accomplish what the user wants.

Isn't it better to do what works for the greatest number of people?

I do not go out of my way to break things or use bad code, but if I
have to use bad code to accomplish what I need to, I will.

Given what you think is good, you obviously don't care about
reaching the largest number of people, even those in the target
audience.

 

[dorayme]

Some website ARE made to entertain people. You can not duplicate the
Marvel site using HTML and CSS. That is my point.

Here are my points. Many websites are not even remotely meant to
entertain. I will put them in point form:

* Most that try to entertain would be better for not even trying.

* Satisfaction for many people can come from *not* being distracted by
authors' attempts to entertain.

* Information and pictures and movies are quite capable of satisfying
visitors all by their lonesome without being dressed up in tiny fonts,
black darkness and whooshy sounds by the website maker.

Better stop, I know I will get nowhere.

 

[dorayme]

Actually in this case they aren't


Making a buck IS the point of every commercial website.

You are missing my hindsight point. A lot of people say a lot of
sensible sounding things in hindsight. You make a flash site and the
bucks roll in. Where is the control on this experiment?

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

* Information and pictures and movies are quite capable of satisfying
visitors all by their lonesome without being dressed up in tiny fonts,
black darkness and whooshy sounds by the website maker.

Better stop, I know I will get nowhere.

Common concept in advertising biz...

Oooo it's shiny, but what does it mean? Who cares because it shiny!

Drug companies figured this out, they can sell you any drug because
you'll be too busy watching some CGI critter flitting about to notice
the long list of ways it can kill...

 

[Travis Newbury]

You are missing my hindsight point. A lot of people say a lot of
sensible sounding things in hindsight. You make a flash site and the
bucks roll in. Where is the control on this experiment?

No matter what way you turn there is no control. You have to know who
your target audience is, and the kinds of things they like. For
example, if I make a site that sells walkers, I would probably not
have a lot of Flash and fancy stuff. But if I am making a site for
people that play halo, I probably would include all that fancy stuff.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Better stop, I know I will get nowhere.

You stated the obvious. And interestingly enough, the exact opposite
of what you stated is just as true.

Satisfaction for many can come from the authors attempt to
entertain...
Information, pictures and movies can be just as pleasing all dressed
up...

It's a big web out there. People like different things.

 

[dorayme]

Common concept in advertising biz...

Oooo it's shiny, but what does it mean? Who cares because it shiny!

Drug companies figured this out, they can sell you any drug because
you'll be too busy watching some CGI critter flitting about to notice
the long list of ways it can kill...

Yes, the very opposite of the idea of information being an interesting
thing in itself and the presentation being a way to keep that from being
lost.

I doubt if I could even get this idea across to Travis. Not at least at
any deeper level than "Oh I understand sometimes someone just wants to
know a bus timetable..."

For example, if a designer can present informative content in a pleasant
and suitable website environment (meaning the navigation system, the
background, suitable easy to read text...), then that is a fine thing.
Anything that does a job well, when it can be done badly in a million
ways, is a treasure of inestimable value.

Classifying such sites as boring because some group of people - you
know, 12 year old boys, middle-aged men preoccupied with the size of
their penis... - is just plain ignorant insensitivity.

 

[Travis Newbury]

   That page is ~30% wider than my window. That's good?

I was not giving a list of what is good for you. I was giving a list
of what is good for me.

So give me a list of what you think are good and, if I don't like
them, I will tell you why.

 

[Travis Newbury]

   Some of us obviously have higher standards; we expect a site to
   work for everyone, not just for you.

Higher standards? I see it as impossible expectations. Companies I
work for do not want a site that "works for everyone" They want a
site that works for their customers.

 

[Travis Newbury]

is just plain ignorant insensitivity.

I think ther fear of something different is ignorant.

 

[dorayme]

No matter what way you turn there is no control. You have to know who
your target audience is, and the kinds of things they like. For
example, if I make a site that sells walkers, I would probably not
have a lot of Flash and fancy stuff. But if I am making a site for
people that play halo, I probably would include all that fancy stuff.

You are still missing the point. It is ok, it is a tricky point to latch
on to.

Don't know how to explain it to you really except to say, you are making
conclusions without knowing what the results of a different experiment
would prove.

For example, give one of those sites that are invalid, objectionable to
a number of folk here, to a gifted and sensible HTML/CSS developer and
see what he does with it (he may even allow users to access Flash
material and sounds and games and whatever) and it well might make just
as much money. You are jumping to conclusions in an unscientific way.