"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -- Arthur C. Clarke
"Any sufficiently arcane magic is indistinguishable from technology." -- P. David Lebling
While we're at it, let's petition Linux, Microsoft, and Apple to make OS's that interpret all code indentically, and can run all programs identically.
Let's petition all automobile makers to make cars that all use the same headlights, the same size tires, the same center console, etc.
We'll petition all camera makers to make cameras that all take the same quality pictures, all businesses of any kind to make all identical products so that competition, growth and progress are all stifled for the sake of simplicity.
Then we'll all be one big happy collection of morons.
i could have imagined this would come up... Ok man, whatever you say, but wile we're at it, as you said, let's make 130 cm meters, size 8 shoes that say size 7, bigger pounds and buttons that say off but are really on, and then we can feel really smart about it.
And the list of STANDARDS that we can piss on can be a LOT bigger, feel free to chose your own and enjoy them, for the sake of diversity.
Do you think web design would ever have gotten to where it is today if Netscape and IE had decided at identical interpretation 6 years ago?
You have to take a serious look at how the browser issue relates to other issues in life, and put it in perspective.
The differences in interpretation between browsers at this point is almost negligible. Proper code will generally work properly. But the bigger question is what *is* proper?? It changes with every new specification, because things grow, things change.
Why on earth would you want to stop that? Just so that you don't have to tweak a bit of code here and there to get it to work cross-browser?
Since when web design is some sort of sport where you feel good about having a heart attack because of running too much?
I don't see what you have against simplicity.
And yes, I don't think that the fact that NN and IE chose 6 years a different interpretation helped the field of web deisgn very much. Having to test for browsers or resolution with JS didn mean you were a JS Guru, neither meant a NN resize bug that you knew how to work around that you were the HTML guru.
6 years ago people were using the spacer gif, and that sais a lot.
But in a world were XHTML/CSS is the way it seems stupid to me to loose time/code to get a site too look the same on many browsers. Because you can do that , and you feel good about that, has no relevance, because it doesn't have to be this way and it shouldn't bother you doing the same thing easier than today.
You just can open a jar that didn't have to be that tight in the first place, if you like more work, you can design 2 more sites, not spend to much time on only one.
And aesteticaly speaking, I see no gain from this situation either, as I see no technical one, but this is what I have been trying to say all along.
From: Somewhere over the rainbow Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 06-25-2004 13:00
The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.
quote:The differences in interpretation between browsers at this point is almost negligible. Proper code will generally work properly. But the bigger question is what *is* proper?? It changes with every new specification, because things grow, things change.
I can't even begin to fathom you r point with the heart attack line. I fail to see the slightest bit of comparison. To add some relevency to that line of thought though, look at it this way - what if every sports stadium was forced to be built to exactly the same specifications? Now, there are a great number of standards taht must be complied with when building a stadium - both in regard to sports rules and in regard to building codes. Those are good things. But the idea of forcing indenticality on the porcess is totally absurd.
It's the same thing here.
What about SQL standards? There is a very specific set of standards defining what SQL is.
Should MySQL, Oracle, PostgreSQL, MSSQL, and all the others have to implement them all identically? How silly would that be?
You act as if we're still in the days of NN and IE 4, as if the web standards revolution never happened....
Once again - The differences in interpretation between browsers at this point is almost negligible.
quote:I don't see what you have against simplicity.
I am a big fan of simplicity actually. I just don't see any justification for absolutely identical interpretation. *nothing* in the world works that way. Why should web browsers?
quote:And yes, I don't think that the fact that NN and IE chose 6 years a different interpretation helped the field of web deisgn very much. Having to test for browsers or resolution with JS didn mean you were a JS Guru, neither meant a NN resize bug that you knew how to work around that you were the HTML guru.
No, adding cookie-cutter scripts to your page at any point in time means nothing other than that you can copy and paste. That still has nothing to do with anything.
quote:6 years ago people were using the spacer gif, and that sais a lot.
About what?
quote:But in a world were XHTML/CSS is the way it seems stupid to me to loose time/code to get a site too look the same on many browsers.
But if you approcah things the right way, with proper standard code in hand from the start, you don't have to lose time. That's the whole point.
A huge part of the problem here is still the fact that people aren't learning to code properly.
quote:Because you can do that , and you feel good about that, has no relevance, because it doesn't have to be this way and it shouldn't bother you doing the same thing easier than today.
This comment is so off base I don't even know where to start. It's not about being able to do extra work and feeling elite or any such nonsense...
quote:You just can open a jar that didn't have to be that tight in the first place,
Or you can stop using your feet to try opening your jar. No, the metaphor doesn't make a lot of sense, but neither does yours...
quote:And aesteticaly speaking, I see no gain from this situation either
Nor should you, as aesthetics ahve nothing to do with the issue
quote:as I see no technical one, but this is what I have been trying to say all along.
Again, the differences between browser early spurred a huge number of people to do some really amazing things while in the course of accomodating for those differences. Things which never would have been done otherwise, things which have brought a large portion of the high quality web design world to where it is today.
Web standards, and the compliance to them by software creators have come a *long* way since those days.
We are at a place that is pretty damn good as far as cross-browser compatibility goes.
You need to keep the push for standardization in perspective. The standards are there, and they are open to interpretation.
That's the way the world works, and that's what makes things progress, whether we're talking web design, construction, or anything else.
If it didn't work that way, we'd all still be living in mud and brush huts eating raw meat.
Let's say i agree that the differences are negligible, but you too have a flaw in your argumnet.
That mysql example fails to compare with the situation we're (or at least I am) talking about.
First of all tell me , please, when was the last time you wrote a php/mysql script that worked on oracle or postgres, or mssql?
The big difference is that you know from the begginig what DB server is available and you adopt a coding style accordingly, functions you use, etc.
Web design doesn't work that way, and you know whay, and I, as a designer, have no way of knowing what browser will the user use (oh, well ) , and I have to ensure that everything will work the same way.
And second. Yes, web standards did happen and this is why I find it frustrating, because it seems to me that everyone is free to chose whatever suits it's interesets from them. If they happen why is it that even if those small differences are there?
And please do not reply with a quote from yourself saying : for the sake of diversity, cos then i'd have to re-post my first reply
PS. I'm not sure, and i'm not ironic when saying this, if you didn't understood my heart-attack analogy or you just didn't agree.
I just wanted to say that I don't find any pleasure in doing those tweaks, required for a site too look good on all browsers, just because I can do them. No, I would spare my self anytime of that satisfaction.
quote:please, when was the last time you wrote a php/mysql script that worked on oracle or postgres, or mssql?
I have never, and I most likely never will.
Why? Because I am not a computer prgrammer. I dabble, for the sake of small time websites.
But for serious programming you get a computer programmer, who very often can and will do such things.
It's called database abstraction.
quote:I just wanted to say that I don't find any pleasure in doing those tweaks, required for a site too look good on all browsers, just because I can do them. No, I would spare my self anytime of that satisfaction.
What does pleasure have to do with it? Even for one browser, assuming everyone had only one browser, you still need to tweak thingsm, because things don't always work the way you expect them too. That will never change.
But again, approaching things properly with valid code used in a semanticaclly correct way works womders for the amount of time and effort spent on a project.
quote:f you didn't understood my heart-attack analogy or you just didn't agree.
I don't understand how it relates.
You're comparing the idea of having to check taht your code works in multiple browsers to giving yourself a heart attack and enjoying it
To make the counter analogy, what you're saying is the equivalent of wanting to get into good shape, but not wanting to have to eat right or exercise to accomplish it.
I understand very well, and have been a big advocate for web standards.
It is simply not possible to have only one interpretation/implementation of those standards.
quote:And please do not reply with a quote from yourself saying : for the sake of diversity
LOL
Ok, I messed that one, I had in mind your ironic comment, 'for the sake of simplicity', and that it actually said diversity is better, a point you've tried to underline a few times.
And let's say you are right, no more time to continue this, really, got exams, work and girlfriend on my head all at once and aside that I really don't want this thread to count as a flame, though i never imagined one could start one by wanting strict(er) standards.
I respect your profesional opinion, though you said here, and on your site (yeap, checked it out ) that you don't do this for money.
I try to.
Maybe stress gathers from little design problems, every day and blows the lid on the pot boiling with browser-related-anger .
Aside from that, no disrespect indended, english is not my natural language, sorry for any points I've missed and for any points i tried to make but got them wrong, or for any ironic approach to your arguments.
From: Perth Western Australia Insane since: May 2004
posted 06-29-2004 04:07
Bill Gates donated $40 million to Australia to fund computer projects for the under privileged. More Windows OS's and IE browsers.
Standards have always amused me. I am fond of quoting: "I like stndards; there are so many to choose from."
When there were few printer manufacturers each with one or two models, they were all overly concerned with proprietry issues and copyright. Drivers (in one form or another) were required to ensure correct printing. This issue has carried over into various models. No one complains much.
Video Cassettes were divided into two types: Beta and VHS. JVC made an effort pushing their product that BETA is now a dinosaur with a smattering of users. Each new VCR manufacturer complied with the structure of VHS to produce compatible machines. Philips went so far as to create VCR players made from other companies components.
These seemingly standard VHS video cassette players all require specific power supply and power cable compatibility for each respecive country. The television standard used within each country needs to be accomodated too.
Audio CD and Video CD have standard formats. (NTSC/PAL differences being overlooked as each country has their preferred system) DVD began with a high level of compatability but now there are 4 (or more) 23+ gig DVD standards to choose from.
From what I understand, digital television is a global standard. This is good for everyone. Soon I will not longer be able to find a broadcast station emitting my old television's signal type. This is bad. I need a new television.
I wish I had a pair of left handed scissors. Right handed mice are ok as I have adapted.
Who uses a Dvorak keyboard?
Railways have a standard and non standard line guage. I just do not understand this...
Roman roads of 2000 years ago contain furrows or grooves into which cart wheels fitted nicely. (China did too but that's another story) All cart makers made carts the width of two horses and ensured their axle widths fitted into the road grooves. Later the train was invented and designed to fit onto lines which could be fitted into the existing roads. Trains were taken to America and many long tunnels were carved into mountains. One such mountain range separates the Shuttles manufacturing site with it's launch site. This is why the booster rockets on the shuttle are the width of Roman carts, or two horses asses.
So why should computer browsers have a strict standard? Because computers are globally connected and I want less work load when designing web pages.
posted 06-24-2004 12:25
) , and I have to ensure that everything will work the same way.