|
|
Posted by Chris on 09/26/14 11:59
Ed Seedhouse wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 00:37:45 +0200, Chris <krimgelas@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Thanks, ron. I think that CSS should have solved a lot of design issues,
>>but it didn't entirely fulfill its promise (yet). The support for CSS by
>>browsers differs immensely.
>
> It's not as bad as you might think.
>
>>Luckily we already have firefox, but we're
>>still stuck with IE which most of the average users seem to prefer to use.
>>To make a website look the same among browsers, requires a lot of very
>>ugly hacks.
>
> Not really. If you write good semantic well structured html you can
> style it to be robust across browsers with a minimum of effort and very
> few hacks.
>
> Of course complicated layouts can get you into a lot trouble, but I
> think there are just too darned many complicated layouts out there
> anyway. No one, so far as I know, uses a particular site a lot because
> it's layout is cool. On the other hand they will use a badly laid out
> site often if it provides them with the content they seek. There's
> quite a few sites I return to whose layout I hate.
>
> If that is so, then surely it is layout should be serving content, and
> make it accessible with a minimum of fuss. Not the other way around.
>
> That is a constraint, but real creativity lies in creating great results
> within the constraints of a medium. And there are always constraints.
>
>
Interesting point. One remark though, as a webdesigner you don't have the
choice of putting content before design. You might get a jpeg from the
graphic designer about how the page should look like and if you're even one
pixel off, you're already gonna get nagged at. But I do agree that it
shouldn't matter so much, content should come first.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|