Note: This blog is sorta marketing-related and less frequently updated than other blogs that I author.
If you are more of a techy-geek than a marketing wizard then cre8ive hut
will be much interesting for you.
Volkan.
Volkan.
10.28.2005
Don't be a standards blind!
Did you know that CSS3 specs (which is still under development) has a lot of interesting recommendations such as drop shadows, fancy rounded corners for your boxes etc.
One recommendation that currently interests me, which is currently being implemented by Mozilla-family and IE (in a non-standard manner), is the opacity feature. To give opacity support in IE and moz a simple style definition is adequate like;
.opaque{filter:alpha(opacity=85);opacity:.85;}
.opaque2{filter:alpha(opacity=75);opacity:.75;}
Where .opaque will be 85 per cent opaque where .opaque2 will be 75 per cent opaque (more transparent)
I plan to integrate this to sardalya's DraggableLayer so that when dragging a layer it seems transparent and when dropping it back it restores its opacity.
However if you plan to use it be aware that your "valid CSS" badge of honor will be gone. That is not a big thing imo.
I believe that if you do what you do and you know the risks and cosequences of your action, and if your action creates a better "cross-browser" user experience, you may close your eye and slightly deviate from the standards.
Take for example suckerfish dropdown menus. Since IE does not suppor :hover pseudoclass correctly, the author uses a tiny little script to make it work just as the same in IE/js-enabled
(okay, the market penetration of IE may be an important factor behind this decision but the decision helps create the same user experience in all modern browsers)
Or another case: Assume you are coding and XHTML compliant web page using .Net platform (using Visual studio .net 2003 -- not 2005) . Your web form will be something like.
That's not valid XHTML. You may apply a response filter on the server side and re-format the output into a valid form (and there are people that do this)
[form id="FrmPage" method="post"] *note there is no name attribute
[div][input name="__VIEWSTATE" type="hidden" value="...the same crap..."][/div]
*the hidden input is enclosed in a container.
But is it worth consuming your CPU power and writing a custom filter just to be purely standards blind? Yes its standards blindness, not standards compatibility. We are blindly adhering to the declared standard without using, our genuine property of being an intelligent creture: our judgement.
At times like this I stand back a few meters from my monitor and re-evaluate my action.
In the new design of sarmal, I plan to put something like below in the footer under my copyright disclaimer:
"This page is valid xhtml, valid css and at least w3ai-a accessible with intentional exceptions."
Moral of the story:
Don't let a machine do a man's job. I mean of course go validate your code. It is the first step in creating a coherent, accessible and future-oriented web site. However, don't build a blind faith to it. The W3C validator cannot decide, it cannot judge between apropriate and inapropriate.
In short use your feelings and your judgement. You will mostly find the right path.
May the force be with you :)
One recommendation that currently interests me, which is currently being implemented by Mozilla-family and IE (in a non-standard manner), is the opacity feature. To give opacity support in IE and moz a simple style definition is adequate like;
.opaque{filter:alpha(opacity=85);opacity:.85;}
.opaque2{filter:alpha(opacity=75);opacity:.75;}
Where .opaque will be 85 per cent opaque where .opaque2 will be 75 per cent opaque (more transparent)
I plan to integrate this to sardalya's DraggableLayer so that when dragging a layer it seems transparent and when dropping it back it restores its opacity.
However if you plan to use it be aware that your "valid CSS" badge of honor will be gone. That is not a big thing imo.
I believe that if you do what you do and you know the risks and cosequences of your action, and if your action creates a better "cross-browser" user experience, you may close your eye and slightly deviate from the standards.
Take for example suckerfish dropdown menus. Since IE does not suppor :hover pseudoclass correctly, the author uses a tiny little script to make it work just as the same in IE/js-enabled
(okay, the market penetration of IE may be an important factor behind this decision but the decision helps create the same user experience in all modern browsers)
Or another case: Assume you are coding and XHTML compliant web page using .Net platform (using Visual studio .net 2003 -- not 2005) . Your web form will be something like.
That's not valid XHTML. You may apply a response filter on the server side and re-format the output into a valid form (and there are people that do this)
[form id="FrmPage" method="post"] *note there is no name attribute
[div][input name="__VIEWSTATE" type="hidden" value="...the same crap..."][/div]
*the hidden input is enclosed in a container.
But is it worth consuming your CPU power and writing a custom filter just to be purely standards blind? Yes its standards blindness, not standards compatibility. We are blindly adhering to the declared standard without using, our genuine property of being an intelligent creture: our judgement.
At times like this I stand back a few meters from my monitor and re-evaluate my action.
In the new design of sarmal, I plan to put something like below in the footer under my copyright disclaimer:
"This page is valid xhtml, valid css and at least w3ai-a accessible with intentional exceptions."
Moral of the story:
Don't let a machine do a man's job. I mean of course go validate your code. It is the first step in creating a coherent, accessible and future-oriented web site. However, don't build a blind faith to it. The W3C validator cannot decide, it cannot judge between apropriate and inapropriate.
In short use your feelings and your judgement. You will mostly find the right path.
May the force be with you :)
