Or as a like to call it: podcasts that have caught my eye in the past week or so. And they differ in several ways, so there’s sure to be something for everybody. Take your pick:
Confession: It took me a while to realize that this podcast is actually the previously-named You Suck at Web Design, relaunched as a new brand with a new site design. This show isn’t so much a bag of tricks on web design as it is a quirky, personal storybook told by Matthew D. Jordan, but still a must-listen.
This is not just one but seven shows tackling different topics, from photography to Ruby programming, founded just last year by Dan Benjamin. I love the idea of a whole network of shows about the internet, on the internet, and here we have a whole suite for people who make websites. I can think of few things better than that. More networks and more topics, perhaps?
In light of the “circuses” happening in both the Hollywood late night talk show circuit and the web working groups, standardista slash comic strip creator Kyle Weems aka CSSquirrel announced this:
I am in the process of devising a “late night” talk show that the Squirrel will host, featuring interviews with cartoon representations of various web designers/developers/standardistas. It’ll draw from the mighty traditions of the Tonight Show, The Daily Show and Space Ghost: Coast to Coast, and in theory will be a plug-in free experience brought to you in part by HTML5, JavaScript and vector tree-climbing rodents.
Check out the podcast over at SitePoint, titled HTML5 is a beautiful mess:
The podcast touches on that matter, and spins out to the state of the actual implementation of HTML5 itself, whether there’s a challenge in getting designers and developers to start using it, the issues of accessibility in <canvas>, and how delightful it’d be to move past plugins.
Truthfully, I’m trying to avoid getting caught in the sticky details of how HTML5 is developing at the moment because it only adds to the anxiety (isn’t stressing over Internet Explorer enough?) and diminishes hope (we’re supposed to be moving forward with these technologies already). But it also helps to stay realistic not just idealistic, and drawing back the curtain on how the working groups are actually working on the HTML5 standard is a good way to do that.
Chrome Experiments is a cool new website rolled out by Google to promote its browser Chrome (which is out with version 2.0 beta, by the way) and to demonstrate the power and fun that can be had with the awesomeness of JavaScript and the browser chrome.
Emphasis on the small letter c. See how the site is named Chrome and not Google Chrome (although they effectively became synonymous because it’s Google)? This means most of the neat tricks can be accomplished on other modern browsers too. That is, after all, the idea of “moving to the cloud”—your web product must work in every browser and any other device possible. Of course, the idea is to promote Chrome and not really every other browser and device out there, but Google gets that that’s not the only goal. The experiments are best experienced while using Chrome and not the other browsers.
A short update on other browsers
Speaking of other browsers, let’s take a look at what they’ve been up to lately:
Now let’s go back to Chrome. Seems to me that this Chrome Experiments campaign is the most engaging one of its kind to come out in a long while. From real-time information visualization to graphics and sound rendering to games (both the classics and ones with a browser-based twist), these demos are just a delight to try out. See the compilation video below:
A short rant on other browser campaigns (yes, IE6)
Now, a note on “browser campaigns”. it’s like every other day I see a new site, piece of code, or banner that screams death to IE6! exclamation point! That’s it. Hardly any effort to get Microsoft and other companies to listen, it’s just screaming. I feel like IE6 is now an ace up one’s marketing sleeve, and no longer a real headache that web designers have to deal with everyday. Chrome Experiments makes more sense right now.
What Chrome’s made of
All the browsers claim they’ve got the fastest JavaScript engine of all, and maybe Chrome wants to put its money where its mouth is. It needs to; Google probably expected a better adoption rate for its browser because it’s Google, but it hasn’t happened (yet?). And while it’s nothing close to Spread Firefox or Mozilla Labs, it’s still a solid effort.
We do practically everything on a web browser these days. That’s how Google built itself from the ground. That’s why they rethought how browsers were made and came out with Chrome. Time to show what it’s really made of.
All the hoopla over Everything You Know About CSS Is Wrong!, a book by Rachel Andrew and Kevin Yank (see also the Digital Web article) is making me feel uneasy.
We’re not wrong; the title is wrong
I detest the title of the book. No, I don’t think “everything” I know about CSS is wrong. I “know” about the display:table technique for months now (thanks to Sitepoint, again).
Neither do I think it’s a good idea to go around belittling people by telling them they are wrong, whether in printed book or online article format. It’s harsh and misleading.
We’ve got issues
As for the CSS Tables technique presented in the book, these are some of the issues plaguing it:
- tag soup
- lack of source order control
- the question of semantics and presentation vs. content: is making
<div>s behave like tables/table cells any different from using tables as layouts?
- IE6 and IE7 incompatibility (no surprise there!)
And not too long after the uproar, the authors have addressed the above problems:
Andrew Tetlaw responds to #1 and #3:
No one is negatively affected by the overuse of structural div tags. The same can’t be said for the use of HTML tables for layout.
And here’s an interesting quip which points out the very valid woe of web developers, who have had to adjust to all these changes in coding conventions because of our “flakiness”:
Congratulations on years of punishing web devs for using common sense. Finally the circle turns, but somehow you think that you were ‘right all along.
Matthew Pennell of Digital Web has this to say about those who question semantics and standards:
I must say that I’m surprised that an audience of (presumably) conscientious, standards-aware developers are almost all declaring that they will not use new features of CSS when they are available and supported. Are you all so short-sighted that you cannot see any application for the techniques discussed here beyond wholesale replacement of site layouts?
And Rachel has written this regarding #4:
Some commentators have suggested that we shouldn’t have put a book out about a technique that can’t be used immediately, that will require workarounds to still provide support for older versions of Internet Explorer. I disagree. Something I point back to in the book is how the web community began to use CSS for layout even though support in Netscape 4 was limited and buggy. If those of us who were building CSS layouts right in those early days had said, “nah, it doesn’t work in Netscape, can’t do it”, then our recent history would look very different.
Are we hesitant about change and innovation?
In a sense, browser usage does “cripple” our ability to look towards a future of web design innovation (and bliss) when IE6 is finally disappears. But are things right now are exactly the same as when Netscape Navigator 4 was the stumbling block?
More importantly, will the CSS Tables technique actually push our level of innovation by a significant degree? The past few months of new websites tell me innovation is not too hard to come by still.
And what about next-generation HTML5, which will have new structural tags like <header>, <section>, <article>, <footer>? Can one not feel guilty using all those <div>s in the midst of these elegant new tags? Perhaps that’s another debate for another day—in 2022.
Umbrella Today, which is a beautifully crafted site (CSS parallax effect!) that tells you whether or not you should bring an umbrella outside, does not work for me. See, it asks for a zip code—presumably limited to the United States only. But I don’t live there.
Now, I know, there are countless websites that exclude a certain demographic in every imaginable way, not just by geography. After all, on the Internet you’re free to do anything you want. But if you don’t like how something is working (or isn’t working), you’re free to blog about it as well.
Go local, be successful, then branch out
To all the developers out there: going local is a good strategy, but if you can help it, try to make your nifty little web app more accessible than just for your neighborhood.
And I’m not just talking about the one-person startups but also the bigger fish in the pond. I wonder how long it will take for Google Maps to completely and accurately cover the planet. (I don’t know if we should be excited when it does, either, but that’s a different story.)
True usability and accessibility
When we mention the term usability in terms of web development, we look at how comfortable users are in using and interacting with the interfaces that are created. Closely associated with usability is accessibility, which champions the idea of never leaving any differently-abled user out.
Doesn’t true usability and accessibility cover my dilemma with Umbrella Today, since I’m left out of its target userbase?
I do hope the makers of Umbrella Today and other people like them stop discriminating by zip code and start reaching out to other parts of the world.
Again, this is if they can help it. Because if there’s one medium that can make it possible, it should be the Web.
Today, August 27th, marks the day Internet Explorer 6 (IE6) first came out. It’s a seven year-old browser. This little factoid is part of a battle cry by M. David Auayan to stop developing websites for IE6 by March 2009. Enter the IE Death March.
Internet Explorer 6 will be SEVEN years old on August 27th. It came out a few weeks before the Twin Towers fell. It came out before the Nintendo GameCube. It came out before the first iPod.
It’s time to put a deadline on dropping IE6, and I say that time is now, and the deadline should be soon… say like, March 2009. That’s roughly a little more than 6 months. Feel free to join me. If your company is dropping support for IE6, let me know and I’ll gladly post it up.
There have been tons of initiatives to finally ditch one of the most loathed software on the planet. You may have noticed some of these around the Internet:
So many parties are restless about the state of web browsing, and rather than wait for Microsoft to get its act together, they take it upon themselves to do something about it. It doesn’t really stop with the viral websites. Every few months or so you’ll find a blog post that details how the author has had it with IE (IE6 usually) and that he has resolved to drop support for the browser completely.
One must ask: are any of them making a significant difference in the market share of IE? Or IE6, specifically?
According to statistics from several prominent web counters, Internet Explorer is still the dominant browser at around 76%. Although it’s slowly going down by a few percent every few months, that’s still a high number. Even on sites that advocate web standards like W3Schools show that around half of the site visitors are on IE, a quarter on IE6.
The biggest agent of change was probably Google, since it actually paid people to download Firefox. But now that’s gone, will the ball keep rolling? Is it time to look at other, more drastic strategies the way Mozilla did recently?
It seems we’re all feeling a little desperate these days. After all, it’s been seven years.
A few weeks ago Google announced that it can now extract and index textual content from Adobe Flash files. We all know that creating websites in pure Flash is a big no-no if you care about being found through search engines. So is there nothing left that’s stopping web designers from switching from plain old HTML and CSS to rich interactive Flash? I have yet to find somebody who agrees with a resounding “yes!”
Rand Fishkin, CEO of SEOmoz, believes that this new development isn’t compelling enough to start building sites with Flash.
Flash content is fundamentally different from HTML on webpage URLs and being able to parse links in the Flash code and text snippets does not make Flash search-engine friendly. I think it’s great that Google’s digging deeper into Flash, but I don’t believe web developers should be any less wary than they’ve been in the past about Flash-based websites or Flash-embedded content.
If anything, I commend Google for continuing to convince web designers and search engine marketers alike to embrace web standards by pushing for the best practices in coding websites. Of course it’s the most logical thing both parties: search spiders need to parse content properly so that they can index it, and a well-formed webpage makes this possible; webmasters need not wade through nested tables and unnecessary tag soup when there’s a better way. And Google should, since it’s way more influential than Opera or any other web company out there.
However, Google’s efforts to read Flash still seem to be in the premature stages. Typical Google, they always release their products in beta without being wary of the consequences.
By consequences I mean clients who are now running around telling their web designers to create animated intros and the extravagant interfaces for their websites. I can’t really shoot down this little achievement by Google—except that it’s getting scarily smarter everyday and should try to have more features than issues when they launch a product.
More importantly, I can only continue to condemn those who misuse Flash without any regard for accessibility, much less usability, whatsoever.
According to the latest episode from the Boagworld podcast, “you might be wasting your time designing with CSS” because now that Flash is open source, it’s “going to be everywhere and is the platform we should now be developing on”.
Flash versus CSS? What?
Let’s backtrack a bit. Adobe recently announced the Open Screen Project, which will implement a “consistent runtime environment” for Flash (and AIR) across all platforms. All, as in every medium imaginable: computers, mobile devices, TVs, and everything in between. Adobe working hand in hand with some of the biggest names in media and electronics to make this possible. For a company that’s always created proprietary technologies, moving to an open mindset is a bold move. But this will cement the popularity and innovativeness of Flash.
So how does Flash compete with CSS? We shouldn’t take the Flash vs. CSS part literally. It should be more like Flash vs. HTML and CSS. Or HTML and CSS and JavaScript. Wait, what about AJAX? And Silverlight?
See how silly this bout has become? All these web technologies are not direct competitors. (Except for Silverlight, perhaps, but I’m not even sure if it still stands a chance.)
But there’s a very real question being posed here. Should HTML/CSS coders move on to what seems to be the greener pasture that is Flash?
I firmly believe that not every website in the world has to be done in Flash for it to be jaw-droppingly awesome. There will be Flash developers who believe exactly the opposite. There will be hybrid web designers who can straddle between both and don’t really feel the pressure. Any of the three will prevail in the future, but from the looks of it right now, there’s still a place for plain old HTML and CSS no matter how big Flash has become.
Besides, both camps are still considerably immature. The web in general is, actually. It’s just that with all the effort spent into creating websites and the money that can be made from them, web technologies seem complete already. But they are just as dynamic and unpredictable as the web itself.
