September 16, 2004 | View Comments (98) | Category: Whitespace
Summary: I implemented sIFR on the site and decided to share my very minimal thoughts on the technology.
sIFR has been implemented on the site and I am very pleased with the results. The major issue I had with the design were the headers although there is a certain someone who like the Georgia all-caps look (also found on 9rules) I didn't see it as appropriate for Whitespace.
What I wanted were cleaner looking headers that gave the site a more professional design appeal. I can't count how many times the typography of a site has ruined its chances of getting in the Vault. Typography is a really big deal and on the web can lead to a lot of frustration.
sIFR helps to fix that. Now I can use Myriad Pro and not worry if everyone has it on their machines or not. But what makes sIFR really special is that it allows for branding on your site that could only be done previously by creating the header images manually in Photoshop (or whatever).
Jeff Croft touched a bit upon this in Why sIFR Matters and I think it needs repeating. With sIFR you can keep your brand (typography/font family) intact. Very cool.
Initially I couldn't get it working at all. I just got a white block where the headers were supposed to be. I bitched, moaned, and even cried some and eventually slammed my head against the keyboard while the CSS file was open and something worked. So with that said, implementation is a piece of cake!
So I like sIFR. It opens up more design possiblities for me in cases where I would be hesitant to try and stretch things. I am implementing it on a site that is launching XXXX and Mike Rundle is tweaking with it on another B-Logs collabo site that is launching XXXX.
It doesn't work too well on pages with a lot of headers that need replacing so be careful. And if you need help I can give you Mike Davidson's email address and he will be glad to help you out as I still don't know how this thing works.
I see sIFR as a quick fix solution to a problem that continues to exist with typography and the web. Some time in the future hopefully we can have a way where the font of a site is automatically viewed by the browser with clean anti-aliasing going to work. That would be heaven.
Trackback URL: http://9rules.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/337
I don't know if it's the sIFR or not, but your site has completely exploded in IE 6 - to the point it's barely readable.
Initially, I thought you were tinkering w/the CSS, but it's been like this all day now.
Mark (http://www.lightpierce.com/ltshdw)
Implementation is kind of odd on sIFR, it for some reason doesn't like file structures at all. If you want to have the JS in a different folder than the JS for example:
/inc/js/sifr.js
/inc/swf/txt.swf
You would assume that as the source file you would use ../swf/txt.swf. Nope. So you have to use something such as /inc/swf/txt.swf.
I know you got this taken care of, but for others out there they might find this useful. I know I found it useful after about 30 minutes of trying to figure it out. Just nobody told me, I also got pissed and hit something, then it worked.
Lesson to be learned: violence solves all problems.
Ryan Latham (http://www.unmatchedstyle.com)
It's just fine in IE6 on my computer. Get your version of IE to lay off the PCP.
Ryan Latham (http://www.unmatchedstyle.com)
Works great for me in all browsers, including IE/PC.
By the way, if anyone helps help on implementation, read the sIFR thread on Mike Industries. The solution to your problem might be in there. If it's not, then go ahead and post a comment or e-mail me using the form.
Mike D. (http://www.mikeindustries.com)
Here is a screenshot of what I'm seeing -
It didn't look like this before, and all the other CSS-based / blog sites I visit look fine.
Mark (http://www.lightpierce.com/ltshdw)
Using the sIFR as a link, as you have on the homepage in the latest posts box, seems to have the effect of breaking the middle click (to open in a new tab) in Mozilla. Also, due to it being flash, a right click on the title link no longer provides the standard link context menu (allowing open in new window/open in new tab, etc). The context menu blocking also seems to affect IE on the PC too.
Unfortunately, I can't see that there would be a nice way round this problem - the main thought that entered my mind is positioning a transparent element over the top of the flash, and handling the link there, although that wouldn't work in the case of Mac based browsers where flash appears on top of everything.
Chris (http://reflectiveperspective.net)
Also, just to test the apparent PCP level of my browser, I opened and displayed Mike's page and the examples he posts just fine and error free.
Whitespace is the only one which vomited.
Mark (http://www.lightpierce.com/ltshdw)
Works fine in:
Mac IE, Mac Opera 7.5, Safari, Firefox/Mozilla builds, OmniWeb...
one thing that has nothing to do with sIFR is that in Mac IE, your background is not white, it is my default gray. possibly the fact that background: #fff; may need to be background-color for it to fly here, though I wouldn't think so... All your right column menus shift about 20px left, and your top border is about ten pixels down, and doesn't go 100% of the page. But that is Mac IE for you, and it may not be worth fidgeting with -- majority Mac users aren't too IE supportive.
Brady J. Frey (http://www.dotfive.com)
I opened a bunch of tabs and Opera froze up. I looked at the tabs, "None of these guys use any IFR stuff" I thought... little did I know.
(Little do I know at the best of times...)
Miss the all caps!! Brandings cool, why not GD? (Check yer e-mail)...
Mike P. (http://www.fiftyfoureleven.com/sandbox/weblog/)
Also, if it helps any, here's what I'm seeing in your title bar on the comments page -
Mark (http://www.lightpierce.com/ltshdw)
Hmmm, I won't have time to really look into until tomorrow, but it definitely worked on my IE. Will investigate more tomorrow, till then everyone switch to Firefox!!! Woohoo!! ;-)
Scrivs (http://9rules.com/)
I put sIFR to commercial use for the first time last night and I am very very impressed. It's saved me having to cut out dozens and dozens of headers and for that alone I will be eternally grateful! My only problem with it right now is that the object/embed seems to have 8px of extra space underneath it in Firefox despite the IE and Moz browsers returning element heights differing by only 1px. It's probably a browser problem, not a methodology issue, but it's irritating.
I see no problems with the home page IE6/XPsp1. One of the comments mentions a fix to sFIR2b for SP2 - maybe it's related...
Mike Stenhouse (http://www.donotremove.co.uk)
Interesting. Here's how the page looks for me in:
IE 6
Netscape 6
Mozilla 1.5
Firefox 0.8 (after a refresh, otherwise nothing)
Opera 6
Opera 7.23 This is my default browser which has all my bookmarks and is the fastest so I use it most of the time. I glimpse a heading similar to Opera 6 but it disappears)
How is it supposed to look?
Peter 01010 (http://www.01010.org/)
Thank you, Peter for showing everyone that Mark is not crazy, nor is his browser on PCP. ;)
It is interesting, however, that when I got home this evening and loaded the site in IE6, it looks "fine" (whtever thats supposed to be). When I load it in Opera, the headers disappear all together.
I don't have FireFox, but did the next best thing - in my opinion - and loaded the site into browsercam. What I saw, and you can to by establishing a temporary demo account is that the site renders differently depending on the browser and the platform. Although none of the captures in browsercam came out as extreme as Peter's.
So my question, if there is a lack of control in how this displays a font - where is the typographic advantage?
Mark (http://www.lightpierce.com/ltshdw)
My next question would be why do this anyway? Hasn't it been established that a good number of your visitors come via RSS? Considering that wouldn't this (as cool as it is) be just mearly a gimmick that most people coming from / reading from an aggregator will miss anyway?
How is that useful or usable?
PS - I'm assuming here that this is more than just a glitch in the code that you missed in installing it.
Mark (http://www.lightpierce.com/ltshdw)
They come via RSS, but they still have to come to the site to read the whole entry. So in that case no one will miss it.
It's useful because I couldn't look at the old headers. When you use Win2000 like I do you don't have the luxury of looking at anti-aliased fonts. I like pretty fonts. Do I need another reason? :-)
And if it works on the other sites just fine then I have to assume it is just an error in my implementation.
Scrivs (http://9rules.com/)
Fair enough.
Just FYI, although the page looks much better here on my home computer, the title bar is still repeating the "#comments#comments..." line.
Mark (http://www.lightpierce.com/ltshdw)
Okay, a few things:
1. Peter: All of the examples from your screenshots (thanks for those by the way) which display the headlines in thick black letters are the result of you not having Flash 6 or greater installed in those browsers. That's perfectly fine and that means sIFR is degrading gracefully, as it should. Furthermore, your browser text settings on some of the screenshots seem weird which suggest to me that perhaps you have chosen to override some CSS properties with your own? That's perfectly fine too. The only screenshot which concerns me is the Opera 7 screenshot. Would you mind downloading the latest version of Opera and letting us know if the problem subsides? The latest version is 7.54.
2. Mark: Yes, there is a bit of "lack of control" with sIFR just as there is with browser text. Browser text doesn't look exactly the same from browser to browser or platform to platform and that is actually the precise reason why you may see a few pixels of difference in sIFR implementations. sIFR literally takes up the exact space the browser text takes up so any differences are related to that.
3. Mark again: If you think typography is a gimmick, there's not a lot I can do to change that attitude. What people like Scrivs and I do with our sites is to try and make them as attractive and usable as possible so as to offer some tangible benefits over reading through an aggregator. RSS is best used, from a business standpoint, as a notification technology and not a "full post reading technology" and as more people start to monetize their writing, you will see less and less full posts available in aggregators. But that's a debate for another day.
As an aside to Mark's comment, I've noticing something interesting about RSS reading habits: designers who read mostly design blogs tend to prefer reading articles on the site, while engineers who read mostly engineering blogs tend to prefer aggregators. This could theoretically say something about how engineers and designers think, but I think it's a lot more likely that designers read design blogs on-site because the text looks *better* than it does in an aggregator, while engineers read in an aggregator because engineers generally design sites which look *worse* than aggregators.
Mike D. (http://www.mikeindustries.com)
Mike -
My background is in graphic design, and with nearly 20 years of professional experience, trust me, I am fully aware of the importance of typography.
However, in this forum (Whitespace), I think typography is of secondary importance.
This site, in my opinion, functions much like a discussion board. Hence, the focus should be on, and remain on the discussion. The header should serve only to provide the topic to discuss. Once the focus shifts from the discussion to the style quality of the header, then a unnecessary distraction has taken place.
Arguably, a good portion of the design discussed here relates to structure – or, left-brain design. Therefore, as long as Paul designs a site that appears structurally sound and logical, I don't think it really matters what font he uses. More so, I think it dilutes the message of this site to use a tool that can (as has been shown in the screenshots Peter and I have provided) compromise the structural integrity of the site. Furthermore, I think that implementing a technology which (as you point out to your response to Peter) forces one to download the latest plug-in is diametrically opposed to the theology of minimalism, which Scrivs' has earned his reputation of preaching.
So, for Whitespace, I think typography can be a distraction. However, given that, I think the tool works beautifully on your site and others like yours where the design is more emotionally or right-brained based.
Hope that makes some bit of sense and explains my take on the matter.
Mark (http://www.lightpierce.com/ltshdw)
Mike D. (#20) asked for a Opera 7.54 screenshot: whitespace (20k).
I'm guessing that's how it's supposed to look.
david (http://www.freepgs.com/individed/)
Mark,
Okay, fair enough. I do respectfully disagree however.
1. I think of Whitespace as a place where anything web-publishing related can be talked about, and in this case, tested. You say "the focus should remain on the discussion". Well, aren't we doing that right now? We're discussing a technique as we see it in action first-hand. What could be more relevant than that?
2. I think how much detail Scrivs' puts into the typography is up to him. He is the designer and just because browser text is sufficient for you, it doesn't mean it's sufficient to him or other users.
3. You refer to "a technology which forces one to download the latest plug-in" which tells me that you really haven't read much about sIFR at all. It does nothing of the sort. It does what every good progressive enhancement technology does: it stays dormant unless your browser can support it. Do old versions of Opera have a few quirks in them? Maybe... but we'll work those out. According to that last screenshot, it works perfectly with the current version of Opera.
4. The structural integrity of the page is completely unaffected by sIFR. This method does not even touch your code. It snaps right in, and snaps right out.
5. Finally, I think the overarching point of what you're saying is that the very use of anything but the bare minimum for this site goes against its own message of "being minimal". You can carry this argument to its logical extreme by saying why have any CSS at all? How about just plain HTML? The reason you *add* the CSS, is to improve minimalist look and layout. Why then isn't adding some sharp typography allowed in order to do the same? I consider this technique quite minimalist indeed considering it eliminates the need for images, server-side scripts, and inline Flash movies.
I appreciate the fact that you recognize sIFR as looking good on other sites, such as mine, but I guess I just don't agree with the reasons you say it doesn't work here.
Mike D. (http://www.mikeindustries.com)
By the way Mark, that titlebar thing is really weird. Thanks for the screenshot. It seems to only happen when you reach the page via a "comment" link. Going to the page and then clicking "View Comments" won't even induce it.
I've have Mark Wubben look at this. I suspect it has something to do with the fact that the "#" sign is used to delineate both named anchors and CSS selectors and perhaps there is something in the script which trips IE on this. Oh well, at least it's just the titlebar. This is what betas are for...
Mike D. (http://www.mikeindustries.com)
So, for Whitespace, I think typography can be a distraction.
I'm sorry, but anyone with any number of years in graphic design who then makes that comment is a bit loopy IMHO. Please pass the pipe if you will.
Typography a DISTRACTION. Surely you jest, right? You really didn't mean to say that, did you... Ok... I forgive you. 8^)
Outside of the points Mike makes, I would suggest typography is everything to Whitespace, since Scrivs has yet to add more color or visuals. It's all about reading and pleasant type to read. In that respect, a good header font (with the proper amount of margin or padding space above it Scrivs, big hint hint) will make the world of difference for Whitespace where color and visuals would not.
Andrei Herasimchuk (http://www.designbyfire.com)
If the layout breaks due to sIFR I can only assume this has something to do with the CSS used by sIFR. I'm afraid it's up to scrivs to fix that :)
Regarding the title problem, however.. I'm seeing it too. Spooky! There are 7 #comments added to the title, exactly the amount of replaces. But, I have no idea how this can happen. It's really spooky! So, I'll try and debug it this afternoon (there it goes..), luckily I see the bug on this box too.
IE oddity, i.e. oddity.
Mark Wubben (http://neo.dzygn.com/)
There is a slight problem I have with sIFR in general, and it is particularly appearent on your site. If someone (like me) uses FireFox with the AdBlock extension enabled, each flash-text gets an adblock tab above it, making a site full of headers look quite funny.
zsepi
Hi
A heads up to Scrivs... Mac (X 10.3.5), Safari 1.2.3 (v125.9)
Looks like the sIFR AND the text is being displayed... either that or I have drunk too much already today!!
Matt Coyne
Ooops, follow up to the post above (#28)
Must be a cache issue as Safari does tend tyo hold onto cached pages even when emptied and refreshed (go figure).
Just tried in Firefox, same happend, but on refresh the sans typeface camethrough and larger.
:)
Matt Coyne
Ok I tracked down the Flash problem in IE. It seems there is a general Flash/IE bug. Please help tracking it down on my site.
Mark Wubben (http://neo.dzygn.com/)
Mike -
1. Agreed. I guess my point was that if the header was changed, and then Paul wrote a post regarding Poker, I think the discussion would eventually degrade to "what'd you do to the headers?" Thus becoming a distraction to the topic.
2. Also agreed. It seems everytime I post a dissenting opinion here I have to add the disclaimer that I really don't care what Scrivs' does, it's his site...
3. Admittedly, I don't know as much about sIFR as I probably should. However, I think you took my comment a bit out of the context in which I was trying to present it. I was only commenting on the comment you made to Peter.
4. I can't really agree with you here. All you have to do is refer back to my comment #6 to see that. BTW: It looks fine today, so Paul, whatever you did to fix it worked - however, I still have the title bar issue.
5. Not really. The overarching point I think I was trying to make was that concern for header design as it relates to this site, especially to the point of having to install a new technology to achieve that effect. It comes off to me as an unnecessary gimmick, which has already proven by the number of screenshots provided, to be somewhat a distraction.
-----
Yes Andrei, type can be a distraction.
Mark (http://www.lightpierce.com/ltshdw)
I don't know, I still don't still the distraction aspect. This is a post about sIFR and we're talking about sIFR. This post is extraordinarily helpful actually as we work the last few remaining bugs out. sIFR is still in beta, remember, and the fact that we are noticing a few edge cases of weirdness is perfectly normal.
By the way, the "duplicate titles" thing is most likely the result of using a cached stylesheet. It is Scrivs new' sIFR-enabled stylesheet that hides the browser text so if this stylesheet never got loaded freshly from the server, there's your problem.
By the way, in beta 2 (to be released very shortly), we've waited until all page structure has kicked in before doing the replaces. This will eliminate the occasional sizing weirdness which may sometimes occur in Safari. Safari actually will execute the script before it is physically ready to sometimes.
Mike D. (http://www.mikeindustries.com)
That's cool, Mike. It's probably one of those things better discussed in person anyway.
I guess we'll just have to wait for Paul to organize one of those local Whitespace meetups that were discussed here so long ago.
Mark (http://www.lightpierce.com/ltshdw)
What's weird Mark is that I haven't touched the site at all yet...glad it's working now though. Maybe since it's Friday WS decided to ease up on me. What a great site.
Scrivs (http://9rules.com/)
Mark, badly designed or improer use of type is not a distraction. It's just badly designed or improperly used and should be avoided.
To say typography is a "distraction" and should be avoided on sites like Whitespace is like telling a painter that nuclear red and cobalt blue clash when used too close to each other, therefore, one should avoid using color when painting.
I'm sorry, that's just silly. I understand your underlying point, but to express it by saying "typography is a distraction" is entirely incorrect imho.
Andrei Herasimchuk (http://www.designbyfire.com)
Here are some facts for you fellas why sIFR is a "designer gimmick." (Trying to make fonts anti-aliased like the way mac browsers(Safari) display them.)
#1. Flash text cannot be scrolled by the browser.
#2 Flash text cannot be searched by the browser hence spiders as well. Try doing a text search within the page...no go.
Its a good idea in theory if those two problems could be resolved. But a better solution would be for a CSS style to address this issue in future versions of CSS.
Until then, the public at large wasn't demanding anti-alised fonts...
Almustafa El-Said
Almustafa, 1 out of 2 aint bad.
#1. True
#2. Ummm, look at the source for this page. All the headers are easily readable XHTML code so spiders can see them just as easily as any other type of header.
Scrivs (http://9rules.com/)
Almustafa, you need to do some research before you make points that are simply incorrect.
If you studied the sIFR technique, you'd know you are wrong on both fronts. (Although I admit I don't quote know what it means to have text scrollable by the browser, since all my sIFR headlines scrolls with all my content just fine.)
Go read Mike Davidson's write up to inform yourself how sIFR works. Further, the issue is focused around the licensing of fonts, not the trivial technology of adding a CSS property.
...the public at large wasn't demanding anti-alised fonts...
What does that have to do with anything? Much of what designers do and contribute to the worls is not demanded by the public at large. The point?
Andrei Herasimchuk (http://www.designbyfire.com)
Andrei -
Just a clarification. In never said point blank that typography is a distraction, I said it can be.
Having cleared that up, I'm satisified that you understand the underlying point I was trying to make.
Mark (http://www.lightpierce.com/ltshdw)
#2 Actually, I just tested this with Firefox's new find bar and, guess what, it _does_ work. However, as the original text is hidden, you don't actually see the highlight.
Does this really matter? No. Because you get scrolled to the header anyway and the titles (which you replace with sIFR) are big enough to spot without highlight.
AkaXakA (http://akaxaka.gameover.com)
Again, for Andrei's sake (Scrivs, you too) I will repeat myself.
Try doing a Edit>Find in This Page...and you'll see what I mean, make sure you use a word from the sIFR text.
Andrei are you telling me anti-aliased fonts are more useful than non anti-aliased fonts or do you just think it looks better? My point is that it is a gimmick, if you read my original post.
Almustafa El-Said
For Almustafa's sake.
You said "Flash text cannot be scrolled by the browser."
I have no idea what you mean here, but Flash text scrolls with everything else I have on my pages.
You then said, "Flash text cannot be searched by the browser hence spiders as well."
I tested "Find..." on both Safari and Firefox and the search function worked fine. I don't have a PC close by, so I haven't tried it on IE. As Aka said, the text is not highlighted, but the behavior works the same in terms of jumping to that part of the page. As for the spiders thing, you are simply wrong.
I stand by my comment. You seem to have a belief that sIFR is a gimmick only and are trying to find reasons to justify the gimmick, rather than judge the technique purely on its own merits.
Andrei Herasimchuk (http://www.designbyfire.com)
Andrei:
FireFox: View>Text Size>Increase
(What I mean by text scrolling (as in a scroll wheel).)
Okay, so I was mistaken on the spider issue, but fact is the browser does not treat sIFR text the same as normal text,(even when searching) is it worth the effort just to make it anti-aliased?
Would you seriously use this technique on a major commercial site? How would you explain the benefits to a technical manager?
I can see how you would be defensive seeing you use the technique on your site.
Like I said, I think it is a gimmick because it is a work-around that does not add much end user value.
In the future, say in CSS3.0, I hope for a text-aliasing property.
Almustafa El-Said
Almustafa:
As Andrei said, you are 100% incorrect on all counts. It's funny to me how many people make judgements and decisions in this world based on nothing more than hunches. It goes something like this:
"I've never seen anything like this before, and it's Flash, so all of my preconceived notions about about Flash *must* apply to this technique as well."
Quite silly really. Open your mind.
No one is saying this is a replacement for body copy... which is what you'd generally be using Edit > Find for anyway.
Mike D. (http://www.mikeindustries.com)
What I find is funny, is people who can't take criticism...
Well, semi-wrong on 1 count.
I commend you Mike, this is a clever use of Flash. But how would you explain the benefits of this to a technical manager?
Like I said, say in CSS 3.0, I hope for a text-aliasing property. Until then...
Almustafa El-Said
Ok Almustafa, you go ahead and wait 5 years for CSS 3.0 (which, incidentally, doesn't even address this issue). In the meantime, *those who choose to* will get the type they want *today*.
Also, I still don't understand what you mean by text scrolling.
And as for explaining this technique to a "technical manager" (whatever that is), here's how I do it:
"By inserting one external javascript file and one tiny .swf file to our pages through a single site-wide include file, we can use much more professional typography on the site. Those who don't have Flash or javascript will continue to see the site as normal."
Quite simple really.
Mike D. (http://www.mikeindustries.com)
Oh I have no problem taking criticism Almustafa. Just not when it's based on falsehoods and lack of research. Allow me to criticize my own work for you... how about that.
Here's what I don't like about sIFR:
1. It requires the page to load before the headlines appear, thus creating a second of two of blank headlines before the text appears.
2. It may exhibit some weirdness in a few outdated browsers such as Opera 6.
3. It doesn't provide a true permanent ideal solution for custom typography. It is more of an adequate workaround for now.
4. Flash ad blockers can't tell the difference between a Flash ad and a Flash non-ad.
5. It can get a little wonky if you are using a custom font which has vastly different proportions than the original font.
See? That's valid criticism... and I took the liberty to "pre-criticize" this stuff in my article, if you'd only have read it.
Mike D. (http://www.mikeindustries.com)
Me the File>Print Preview doesn't work because I didn't implement the print stylesheet. That is my fault and not sIFR's.
Scrivs (http://9rules.com/)
What I meant is that
go to
http://www.mikeindustries.com/blog/archive/2004/09/sifr2-kick-the-tires
Firefox 1.0PR,Win2k,
File>Print Preview : Firefox generates error and quits.
Almustafa El-Said
Almustafa,
#1: That page doesn't use sIFR.
#2: The text *does* scale with text zoom and if, again, you'd read the article, you'd know how.
#3: I just tested the sIFR example page on my site ( here ) and it previews just fine in Firefox... Mac and PC.
Can we please stop this nonsense already?
Mike D. (http://www.mikeindustries.com)
As much as I appreciate the research going into typography on the web, I don't think i'll be using this technique. I would rather see a development solution, than a development solution using a design tool.
Text isn't an object, nor is it an image, it's text and i'll be happy when the web eventually gets to the point where we all use our favourite fonts. Then again, it would be nice if all our favourite fonts were free too.
It is good to see people pushing the boundaries though and actually doing something productive.
I can't really comment on the technical aspects of sIFR, as I haven't really researched or use it. However, i'll download it later today to have a snoop around the code.
The only thing I have noticed about sIFR is that it makes the text impossible to select and equally impossible to select with shortcuts. It also seems to make the ol' browser lag a bit.
Robert Lofthouse (http://www.ghxdesign.com)
Robert,
You're a smart guy so I'm not going to fly off the handle here as I am increasingly feeling like doing, but again, let's make sure we have our facts straight: text is not impossible to select. It is selectable. And it even copies in correct context when you hit "Select All"... try it.
Is it slightly "less" selectable from the standpoint of what you're used to? Yes. Is it still reasonably selectable? Clearly yes. And besides, I'm not sure the ability to copy an entire article of mine and paste it into your own context is even something I want my readers doing (even though it's still perfectly possible with sIFR). Copy a paragraph for a citation? Sure. Copy a headline for a link? Sure. Both work equally well with this method.
Mike D. (http://www.mikeindustries.com)
Actually Mike, at the risk of elevating your blood pressure (which I hope I'm not doing because I actually do like your tool, I'm just not fully convinced it was best implemented here on this specific site), selecting the text, or parts of it, is extremely difficult in IE6.
I would generally agree with your cautionary approach regarding readers "copying articles and pasting it in their own context", but again - here on Whitespace, that's the kind of the approach we take. Snip something out of the original post / comment and place in a blockquote to further the discussion.
Mark (http://www.lightpierce.com/ltshdw)
Sorry Mike, it doesn't seem to select it when I press 'select all' in firefox - not sure why. I wasn't critisizing the sIFR method as you know. I already stated I haven't researched it or looked into the technical aspects of it, so it would be stupid for me to write a review on it.
Not sure I quite deserved "two paragraphs of your time", but thank you for taking the time to respond to mine and everyone elses comments.
You can replace the word "impossible" with "difficult" in my last post, except where I mention shortcuts.
Note: I was using Paul's site to test "select all" and various shortcuts, so it might be just to do with his web site. I'm not sure as I haven't done any research into the method at all.
Robert Lofthouse (http://www.ghxdesign.com)
Just thought i'd add: The implementation of sIFR on Mike's web site is far better and does in fact allow me to select text quite easily (much easier in fact), including selecting it with 'select all'. However, it does not allow me to select it with shortcuts.
I take back my comments (#54) on selecting the text, now that i've seen it on another web site.
As I said before, good work!
Robert Lofthouse (http://www.ghxdesign.com)
Just goes to show my superior ability to take such an easy technique and f*ck it up all to hell. Exciting!
Scrivs (http://9rules.com/)
Sorry Scrivs', but I to will have to qualify my last (56) by saying I didn't have the same problems on Mike's site that I do on yours.
However, having said that, I do have a similiar difficulty in selecting text on Cameron's site as I do here.
Visiting Andrei's sit just a moment ago (I think he's implementing this as well...no?) I discover a bunch of empty white space whre a header should be.
So Paul, I hope in some weird way that assures you that your ability to f**k things up is not as bad as you think.
Mark (http://www.lightpierce.com/ltshdw)
...is it worth the effort just to make [type] anti-aliased?
This comment reflects a lack of understanding on the importance of typography and why one would want to use various typefaces for design work.
sIFR is not about anti-aliasing type. To think so misses the point entirely.
Andrei Herasimchuk (http://www.designbyfire.com)
...here on Whitespace, that's the kind of the approach we take. Snip something out of the original post / comment and place in a blockquote to further the discussion
As Mike has stated previously, using sIFR for body copy would be a poor use of the functionality. I don't think anyone questions that point. In that regard, this sIFR selection issue is fairly minor, imho.
I take back my comments (#54) on selecting the text, now that i've seen it on another web site.
You do realize Robert that DxF has been using the sIFR technique for a month or so now. (It has issues with Safari and disappearing headline on very long articles, but that's a memory bug with Safari as near I can tell, as it doesn't exhibit this problem on either Firefox or IE.) So you have seen it elsewhere, even though you may not have been aware of it.
Andrei Herasimchuk (http://www.designbyfire.com)
"This comment reflects a lack of understanding on the importance of typography and why one would want to use various typefaces for design work."
"sIFR is not about anti-aliasing type. To think so misses the point entirely."
Having a different opinion does not mean a lack of understanding. To think so, is plain unfair.
The end result of typography and text in general (anti-aliasing / different fonts) is communication. Are you arguing that anti-aliasing is more professional than non? That argument is sujective.
Does the fact that Scrivs implemented sIFR make his site better (more professional) than before? Thats open to debate...
I guess its a "designer" thing to blow out of proportion the idea of "nuance."
If I had to resolve the issue of wanting styled headers looking a particular way and making them graphics wasn't an option - I would just leave it normal text.
Thats just a programmer's perspective...
Almustafa El-Said
Ok, so that explains a lot then. You are a programmer and not a designer. I wouldn't expect a programmer to fully understand the importance of typography, just as I wouldn't expect a designer to fully understand the importance of scoping variables. Certainly there are those who fully understand both, so this isn't a knock on designers or programmers, but Andrei's comment, and now mine, merely suggest that you may have a bit to learn in this regard. And that's fine. We all have a bit to learn.
You are right in that having a different opinion does not necessarily mean a lack of understanding, but if your opinion is uninformed, it means precisely that.
You started out by criticizing a technique you didn't even bother to understand, then followed that up by referring to typography as a "designer gimmick", then followed that up by reducing the argument to a debate about anti-aliasing, and then finally wrapped it all up by telling Andrei he is blowing things out of proportion.
Who exactly is doing the blowing here?
Mike D. (http://www.mikeindustries.com)
Having a different opinion does not mean a lack of understanding.
In this case it does until you prove (to me at least) that you understand otherwise. You simply cannot equate the benefits of typography with a completely unrelated rasterizing function like anti-aliasing. Anti-aliasing is an entirely unrelated topic to sIFR, especially considering both MacOS and Windows allow for anti-aliased fonts outside using sIFR.
The end result of typography and text in general (anti-aliasing / different fonts) is communication. Are you arguing that anti-aliasing is more professional than non?
Beyond what Mike said, which is spot on, I'm claiming that you just don't get it.
To think sIFR is about "anti-aliasing" (as you've now repeated twice in this discussion) is to not understand the nature of type. Sure, a particular typeface communicates, but it does so much more than that as well.
Well chosen type becomes the embodiment of the communication. The message or object communicated and the typeface used to communicate it become one in the same thing. A typeface changes the nature of the communication as much as the choice of words.
Ever been to London? Notice the "UNDERGOUND" signs? That's set in Gill Sans. That word, what it means, how it communicates, what people think of when they see it, and how it becomes a part of the world around London would be ENTIRELY different if the sign was set in a font other than Gill Sans.
It would be like if you suddenly woke up one day with the name Donna Smith, discoverd you had big hair and lived in central Texas. It just wouldn't be you now would it?
Anti-aliasing has NOTHING to do with the nature and benefits of true typography.
One should use sIFR when they want to further their cause of deepening their communication, delivering it by a means that becomes part of the communication. Properly used typography doesn't just help in communication, it DEFINES communciation.
Andrei Herasimchuk (http://www.designbyfire.com)
So you have seen it elsewhere, even though you may not have been aware of it.
I was aware of it on your web site, I just didn't bother testing it as I only go to your web site for the content. My busy life prevents me from noticing everything on a web site - too many things to develop and design myself.
I come from a programming/software development background, but due to also having a background in Art and literature I understand the importance of typography.
I believe (especially on the web) it's very important to learn both design and programming skills, if you want to get anywhere. If you're a programmer with no creative side to you whatsoever, try picking up something like "Drawing on the right side of the brain" or "the elements of typographic style", or both :P
I can see a couple of limitations possibly with the sIFR method, but again i'm not going to comment as I haven't researched or tested the method.
Notice the "UNDERGOUND" signs? That's set in Gill Sans.
I live in London, we barely notice the "NO ENTRY" signs lol or anything else for that matter. The only time you can admire the typography and architecture in London is if you're a tourist.
Robert Lofthouse (http://www.ghxdesign.com)
I believe (especially on the web) it's very important to learn both design and programming skills, if you want to get anywhere. If you're a programmer with no creative side to you whatsoever, try picking up something like "Drawing on the right side of the brain" or "the elements of typographic style", or both :P
This part of my previous post was not aimed at Andrei (obviously). It was just aimed at those who are purely programmers and need a little insight to the creative realm.
Robert Lofthouse (http://www.ghxdesign.com)
Andrei: The London underground signs are not set in Gill Sans, it uses Johnston Sans, a custom made font by Edward Johnston in 1916.
Gill Sans was designed by Eric Gill around 1930 and was based on Edwards original font.
David (http://www.stylegala.com)
Jesus, Scrivs. Look what you've done! ;)
Looks great, I'm a huge fan of IFR, it always looks so great.
Darryl (http://surreal.hydra3.org)
But still regarding my original post:
Firefox: View>Text Size >Increase...
Guys, I totally understand what you are saying in regard to type but honestly, does the average user know the difference or even care as long as the text is legible and does what its supposed to do, communicate clearly?
Almustafa El-Said
As Mike D sussed out, in #14 above I had overridden author settings on some browsers. But I think we'll find more and more of this as the population gets older. With less time to live, cutting the crap becomes more important, so old folk are more likely to want to go straight to the content, therefore more likely to switch to their preferred user fonts. But that's just my opinion, of course, and is another debate really.
I've downloaded Opera 7.54 (build 3985 on Win 98) and I now see this. I am in Author mode with nothing set to override, so it is a bit surprising. "Post a comment" is also very large (but looks good!)
I get fed up of having to keep up to date with browsers, don't you? I tend to always be one or two versions back. I think this lagging behind will very likely apply to most surfers who are not interested in web design or messing about with computers. So, although sIFR is an excellent temporary solution for some, I think it will be a long time before typographic headaches disappear. It would need a strong, sustained and unanimous desire by W3C and all the browser makers for it to happen. Is there a way we can influence them?
Peter 01010 (http://www.01010.org/)
Guys, I totally understand what you are saying in regard to type but honestly, does the average user know the difference or even care as long as the text is legible and does what its supposed to do, communicate clearly?
To say something like this really undermines what design is all about. Of course the average user doesn't really know what it's supposed to do -- that's the point of well-made design. It just looks right the first time and always. However, a bad typographic choice (whether that means the size is strange or the typeface choice is in error or if the kerning or the leading is off) looks wrong immediately, though the user doesn't really understand why.
Designers understand, and it's their job to understand and implement it to make it as attractive as possible without being glaringly obvious. Design isn't about neon lights pointing to some bright picture that's "obvious." Design, well-done design, is seamless and attractive.
As for your repetitive Text Size > Increase etc... What is your point? That the text doesn't scale? Because it does. Everytime you increase it, refresh your browser and the headlines scale appropriately.
And yes, it kind of sucks that it doesn't re-size in "real time" but that is already a problem that Mike is probably more than aware of, and has been hinting that he already wrote about it on his page without actually spelling it out over and over again on different people's sites--which he doesn't need to because he wrote pretty much an entire essay about the technique!
Lea (http://xox.lealea.net/01/)
Damn.. this post almost has more comments than the sIFR post on Mike's site.
Anyway, regarding the resizing issues. There is no way for us to detect a font resize, except checking the height of the body every x milliseconds. I suppose you see the problem.
Then there is the thing with resizing the window. In theory we could adept for this, but it would be messy. In short: revert the replaced elements to the state before the replacement, replace again. More browser lags etc.
However, I don't think this is all that important.
Mark Wubben (http://neo.dzygn.com/)
David, thanks for that clarification I stand corrected. It also appears that Johnston collaborated with Gill on the font at the time. I always connect Gill with that form of lettering based on how unique Gill Sans is. The point about the nature of the sign and the font chosen obviosuly still stands.
Andrei Herasimchuk (http://www.designbyfire.com)
*raises hand like a dumbass*
I have yet to implement the sIFR but I did download it so that means I am on my way to trying it out :), just have to open up the little old flash player I guess.
But, obviously this techniques works by one simply typing out the text they want to use in their xhtml and it cans translated from the font in the swf file (that description just sucked), but can this work with links to?
Say you have <h2><a href="#">This is cool</a></h2>, will the link look like your custom font as well?
Thanks
Bryan (http://www.juicedthoughts.com)
[sIFR] does what every good progressive enhancement technology does: it stays dormant unless your browser can support it.
In my case, at least, it _lowers_ the usability of the site. I can't middle-click. I can't right-click. Lots of Adblock tabs appear all over the place, making it look extremely ugly. I already have nice-looking fonts and you are taking them away and replacing them with, to be frank, a mess. I tried using Adblock to not load the flash, but now there are no headings visible at all. This is _not_ a technique that degrades gracefully. It might degrade gracefully when Flash is completely missing, but it doesn't degrade well when the Flash environment isn't what you expect (e.g. with Adblock installed) and it takes control away from the user.
If the expected audience was relatively inexperienced surfers, then perhaps this technique might be appropriate, but on a site that is visited by a large number of web professionals, you can expect things like ad-blockers and middle-clicking to be common behaviour.
I appreciate the value in typography and visual design, but I liked this site just as it was, and this new technique has made a mess of things in my opinion. Obviously if Scrivs prefers catering to people who have aliased fonts, that's his prerogative, but it's seemed to cause nothing but problems for very little gain - which, I suspect, is why it is prone to being labelled a "gimmick".
Jim Dabell (http://www.jimdabell.com/)
Jim,
It is your ad-blocking software that is not performing gracefully here. A smartly designed ad-blocking plug-in would a) attempt to discern the difference between an ad and a non-ad (based on originating domain, size, etc), or b) at the very least, let you disable it easily on a per-site basis.
It is you who is deciding that "all Flash is bad" by using that plug-in and thus, it is you who will suffer any ill effects. The fact is that it is only a tiny percentage of the population who is using the plug-in you are using (for now at least), and so for that tiny minority, they must decide if it's worth it for them.
Many major sites, including ESPN, Disney and all of our competitors make heavy use of Flash so the standard is pretty well established. If you try to filter out noise using brute force, you will end up inevitably filtering out signal as well.
That said, I'd certainly be open to a solution to this Flash blocking weirdness. I do have one way right now but I'm not sure if I want to implement it: A tiny blank Flash movie could be placed at the end of the page which makes the javascript call instead of making the javascript call natively. Since ad blocking software would prevent that movie from firing, you'd just see normal headlines. A better solution, however, would be a better designed ad blocker.
Mike D. (http://www.mikeindustries.com)
Jim,
Might I also remind you that AdBlock is a heavy beta at 0.5 and appeared not to have been updated in quite some time. Hopefully they will address these sorts of issues in the next release, but perhaps I can beat them to the punch.
Anybody know if it's possible to even detect the presence of AdBlock via something like "navigator.adblock"?
Mike D. (http://www.mikeindustries.com)
One last thing: I just installed AdBlock on my PC version of Firefox and the Flash headlines show up just fine. You just have that stupid little AdBlock tab on the right side... hardly a "mess of things" in my opinion. My bet is that the next version, whenever released, will give you the ability to hide this crap.
So... anyone know of a way to detect extensions?
Mike D. (http://www.mikeindustries.com)
Mike, you don't seem to be familiar with the way Adblock works.
It adds a small tab to the top-right of a Flash object so that you can click on it to get a menu. It's a workaround for a limitation of Flash; namely the disabling of the context menus.
When Flash is used in the traditional manner, this tab isn't very conspicuous unless you are looking for it. When Flash is used as simply a nice way of presenting headings, it's very conspicuous when you have more than a couple of headings on a page.
Adblock is certainly capable of blocking Flash on a per-site basis. This doesn't help with your technique and I don't see why you would think that it would.
Please don't put words in my mouth; I do believe there are appropriate uses of Flash. I don't believe this is one of them though, not in this context.
Your suggestion that Adblock is somehow broken or outdated is not in line with the experiences of its many users; I've seen plenty of people praising it, but cannot recall anybody having anything bad to say about it. I personally haven't experienced any problems with it beyond the annoyances in relation to sIFR. Remember that a 0.x version number is common even with mature software in the Free Software community. Perhaps it hasn't been updated in a long time because there is no need? I can't think of anything it is missing.
As for your claim that the right solution is "a better ad-blocker", how is that possible so long as Flash disables context menus? And even if I had no Ad-blocker installed at all, that still doesn't solve the problem of it disabling parts of my user-interface that I use on a daily basis (i.e. middle-clicking and right-clicking), which I consider to be far more important than the ugliness of Adblock tabs all over the place.
Jim Dabell (http://www.jimdabell.com/)
You just have that stupid little AdBlock tab on the right side... hardly a "mess of things" in my opinion.
Hong on... so a slightly nicer font is a big deal, but the Adblock tab appearing all over the place isn't a big deal? You appear to be using double standards here.
My bet is that the next version, whenever released, will give you the ability to hide this crap.
"This crap" works very well on other websites, thank you very much. How would you suggest working around the lack of a context menu?
Jim Dabell (http://www.jimdabell.com/)
Another edge-case argument from the edge-case of all casers... what else is new. It's a good thing I made sure sIFR didn't screw up Lynx... otherwise I'm sure I'd be hearing about that right now.
"Adblock is certainly capable of blocking Flash on a per-site basis. This doesn't help with your technique and I don't see why you would think that it would."
So disable it for this site then. Problem solved. What about that isn't clear?
Your suggestion that Adblock is somehow broken or outdated is not in line with the experiences of its many users; I've seen plenty of people praising it, but cannot recall anybody having anything bad to say about it.
Maybe that's because you're listening for the good and tuning out the bad. Here's a link to the official AdBlock forum where you can view all sorts of complaints of crashing, incompatibilites, and feature-requests. My point is not that AdBlock is bad... just that it's in beta (as is sIFR) and there are clearly still a lot of issues with it.
"This crap" works very well on other websites, thank you very much.
The crap I'm talking about is the AdBlock debris, not the headlines. The AdBlock debris shows up on any website which uses Flash.
Here is the bottom line: I'm guessing Scrivs gets about 50,000 hits a week to his site (sorry if I'm low Scrivs... just a ballpark). sIFR has been live for about a week now and I count 5 complaints... 2 of which were from people who jumped the gun and didn't investigate the technique before complaining.
And finally, as for your middle/right-clicking: This isn't even an issue unless we're talking about linked text. Even when we *are* talking about linked text, only a small percentage of the time is that text right-clicked on by the general public. How do I know this? Because I've commissioned studies on it. For you, it may be greater and that's okay. If you export your .swfs as Flash 7 instead of Flash 6, you can enable the contextual menus. As soon as the Flash 7 penetration rate gets up past 90%, this, and many other enhancements will be made. In the meantime, sit tight. I don't think sIFR is killing anybody.
Mike D. (http://www.mikeindustries.com)
Looks like I spoke too soon. As long as the author doesn't enable hovercolors (which unfortunately changes the state of the text to a 'button' in Flash), you can have your *precious* right-clicking ability today with sIFR.
Mike D. (http://www.mikeindustries.com)
Scrivs, you need to look at these screenshots.
IE6 ws homepage top
IE6 ws homepage lower down
IE6 entry page
Opera 7.54 ws homepage
Opera 7.54 entry page]
Opera 7.54 preview page
I also notice that the time has disappeared from comments on entry pages but the commenter url is displayed. Is this meant? (On the preview page it displays as it always did)
Peter 01010 (http://www.01010.org/)
Peter,
None of these screenshots seem sIFR related at all. Correct me if I'm wrong.
The first three illustrate what happens when you don't have Flash installed. The fonts you're seeing are the fonts you should be seeing. These would appear whether or not sIFR was present.
In the second three, it appears sIFR is actually working as intended in Opera. The layout issues seem unrelated, especially considering the MT error at the top.
Scrivs, how about implementing Live Previewing? That way you can get rid of the styleless preview pages.
Mike D. (http://www.mikeindustries.com)
Peter,
What is special about your version of IE that differs from everyone else. Obviously you changed some of the default settings so if you let me know what they are then maybe I can help out better with the IE stuff. Mike is right in that it has nothing to do with sIFR as you are seeing YOUR default fonts because that certainly isn't Verdana.
As for Opera the site works fine in 7.50. I guess I have to download 7.54 to see what's up, but everything should be peachy.
Live preview huh? I might have to do that. I was gonna take my afternoon nap though, dammit.
Scrivs (http://9rules.com/)
All I have different, I think, in IE6 is in Accessibility. I have Ignore font styles and Ignore font sizes checked. I don't see how this would move the right side of ws homepage down below. Note that I first noticed this last night, so you've done something since the sIFR article because it was OK before. IE version 6.0.2600.0000IC
With Opera 7.54, notice that many headings are missing on the homepage, hence I thought it was sIFR.
Peter 01010 (http://www.01010.org/)
Sorry, I just took those IE accessibiliy checks away and now it renders OK. But check them out anyway, peeps, because it really should render OK with them on, if at all possible.
Peter 01010 (http://www.01010.org/)
Peter,
I still don't understand... it does render just fine with Accessibility turned on. What about it doesn't look right?
And by the way, how on earth is that weird narrow font more readable than Verdana anyway?
Mike D. (http://www.mikeindustries.com)
Mike - look at the IE screenshots again. There is a big space at the right of Categories section. The second screenshot shows where it has moved to. On the third IE screenshot, notice that The Network has disappeared.
Re the font, I am doing a very unscientific experiment. My theory is that after a couple of days exposure to almost any body font, I will find it easy to read because of the familiarity. I will probably grow to like it too. Gill Sans Condensed looked awful to me the other day but now I am getting used to it and now read it easily. But I doubt it will ever be more readable than Verdana.
Peter 01010 (http://www.01010.org/)
Peter,
Ok, gotcha. It's still not sIFR-related though because sIFR isn't even firing. Looks like maybe a float-clearing issue, possibly caused by your custom fonts. If a font is too big it can increase the width of a div so that it can no longer float where it should be.
Mike D. (http://www.mikeindustries.com)
Another edge-case argument from the edge-case of all casers... what else is new.
Huh? The whole point of sIFR is to make things work for edge-cases. If all you are worried about is the majority, previous Flash techniques work just as well.
So disable it for this site then. Problem solved.
No, the problem isn't solved. Flash is still installed on the system, so the underlying titles aren't displayed. Flash isn't allowed to be displayed so the Flash replacement isn't displayed. The end result is no headings whatsoever, as I thought I already explained.
Maybe that's because you're listening for the good and tuning out the bad. Here's a link to the official AdBlock forum where you can view all sorts of complaints of crashing, incompatibilites, and feature-requests.
Support forums are by their very nature heavily biased towards people who have problems.
And finally, as for your middle/right-clicking: This isn't even an issue unless we're talking about linked text.
My right mouse button does more than open links. If I want further information, for example, I can double-click a word, right-click and select "Search web for...".
Even when we *are* talking about linked text, only a small percentage of the time is that text right-clicked on by the general public. How do I know this? Because I've commissioned studies on it.
Did you commission studies on how many people use the scroll-wheel on their mouse? Because that breaks for me too when sIFR is used.
If you export your .swfs as Flash 7 instead of Flash 6, you can enable the contextual menus.
As long as the author doesn't enable hovercolors (which unfortunately changes the state of the text to a 'button' in Flash), you can have your *precious* right-clicking ability today with sIFR.
That's good to know, but none of the sIFR sites I've seen do this, including your own site. And why the ridicule? I don't think it's unreasonable to use more than one tab or window when browsing.
Jim Dabell (http://www.jimdabell.com)
Jim,
1. You didn't create sIFR so I'm not sure you understand what the point of it is. The point of sIFR is to successfully enhance typography on the web while sacrificing as little as possible.
2. You said AdBlock could be disabled on a per-site basis (which I still cannot find out how to do). This statement, if correct, indeed solves your problem. "Disabling AdBlock" means "acting as if it weren't there". If your statement is incorrect then that's why it doesn't solve your problem.
3. You continue to bring up edge-cases like wanting to use "Search Web For..." on a headline. Please. In my opinion, professional typography is worth sacrificing this feature which is used mostly in body-copy when used at all. Take a survey of how many people out of 100 use this feature. Zero to one is your most likely result.
You ask "why the ridicule"? Simple. I categorically disagree with almost every single comment I've ever seen you post. You consistently criticize progress citing the least significant of all edge-cases that basically apply to you and .00000000000001% of the rest of the world. My work focuses on the masses without a significant negative effect on the edges. Your work (which I've yet to see anywhere) would seem to not go anywhere at all for fear of breaking convention.
I'm sure you're very good at what you do, but I simply don't agree with your philosophy and that's okay too. I don't care how you develop sites and I don't care whether or not you use sIFR. But let's just not blow things out of proportion here. I judge everything in life by how much good it does versus how much bad it does. This method should be judged no differently.
Mike D. (http://www.mikeindustries.com)
On a different note, how many of the people here are using an LCD monitor on Windows XP with ClearType enabled ?
I find the FIR to be rough looking compared to normal fonts.
Ian Firth (http://www.divsoft.com)
It'll be better to write more indepth tutorial on how to implement it. Especially when you open .fla file in Flash...
Nik
Ha ha ha.
I came to read about AdBlock dilemmas. I stayed to laugh at Almustafa.
Why do people put soooo much effort into trying to find things wrong with something for no good reason?
sIFR definately has some problems. Some big, some small... but its Beta... and its a step towards doing something very cool.
Luckily, none of the true problems are as Almustafa described.
Anyway, ignoring that diatribe..
I'm with you MD. AdBlock is poor in design.
1. I understand it cannot reveal its presence. That would defeat the purpose to some extent.
2. It's tabs should be displayed on roll-over. They should not be omnipresent on every graphical element of a page.
3. If it must display its tabs, they should not alter the flow of the document. They should simply `float`.
If anyone has not actually seen the problem, here is a screen shot from a buddy.
Lucky he uses that crappy extension... or I would have went live to my audience, a large percentage of whome uses FF with AdBlock, none the wiser.
AdBlock-blockade? I'm in! ;)
Adam Michela (http://www.acurazine.com/)
RJ from 456berea informs me:
For anyone holding back on using sIFR because of the problems with AdBlock: the sIFR team is working on a fix for that
Adam Michela (http://www.acurazine.com/)
Keep track of comments to all entries with the Comments Feed
©2003-06 9rules, Inc. | Thoughts Feed | Notes Feed
Amazon Stores: Powertools | Jewelry | Books | Health | Landscaping | Kitchen | Movies
#1
And yes some of the headers are "light" and I will probably darken them some time.
Scrivs (http://9rules.com/)