RE: [WSG] Standard Hacks?
Would it be beneficial to come up with a list of Standard Hacks :-) I think the idea is that you should stay away from hacks as much as possible. One exception is the box model hack for IE5 and IE5.5 - but there are a couple of different ways of doing that one, and which one you pick depends on the particular problem you are having. We generally don't resort to hacks unless not having them would cause serious issues with the design. Even then, if it's possible to alter the design to make it more standards friendly without detracting from the look, then we try to do that. I think a lot of people (graphic designers especially) overestimate the amount of attention that clients pay to detail - they generally only look at the site in one browser anyway, so pixel perfection across platforms is not usually necessary. I don't remember the last time a Photoshop mockup looked exactly like the finished site... -- Kay Smoljak Senior Developer/QC Leader/Search Optimisation PerthWeb Pty Ltd - http://www.perthweb.com.au/ Ph: 08 9226 1366 - Fax: 08 9226 1375 * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Standard Hacks?
John, It is always best to avoid any sort of hack. There is always a way around a hack, if that be by adding an extra div. or changing your menu layout. Hacks are *last resort* methods to create a layout. I think a list of _standard hacks_ would just promote the use of hacks, where they are not needed. That list would become abused - well thats a guess - by newbies to XHTML and CSS... and it would lead to the same issues we have now - with inaccessability and validation. my 2 cents, chris stratford J4Web wrote: Hello I have been reading this list for a few weeks and am finding it very valuable. I think this is my first post. I am at the stage of teaching myself CSS-P and unravelling the whole issue of standards and accessibility. I am of course aware that there are all sorts of hacks available to massage standards compliant code for non-compliant browsers. The question I have been asking myself, and now ask you guys, is: Would it be beneficial to come up with a list of "Standard Hacks" :-) I mean by this a list of hacks that could be incorporated into standard CSS templates for beginning new sites, that would save the bother of hacking the most prevalent problems one by one as they arise. Perhaps such a list - or even such a template - exists already? Thanks John Saward * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
RE: [WSG] Standard Hacks?
That is true, however already knowing of such hacks enables you to make this kind of judgement. So for the purpose of education these should help you out John http://diveintomark.org/safari/csshacks/ http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=CssHack Enjoy or not ;) On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 18:15, Kay Smoljak wrote: Would it be beneficial to come up with a list of Standard Hacks :-) I think the idea is that you should stay away from hacks as much as possible. One exception is the box model hack for IE5 and IE5.5 - but there are a couple of different ways of doing that one, and which one you pick depends on the particular problem you are having. * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Standard Hacks?
I agree with Kay, avoid them when possible, Certainly don't take the approach of including a bunch of them in every CSS regardless of whether you need them or not. If you are after more specific information on hacks (or filters as they are also known), check out http://www.google.com/search?q=css+hacks Cheers Mark -- Mark Stanton Technical Director Gruden Pty Ltd Tel: +61 2 9299 9462 Fax: +61 2 9299 9463 Mob: +61 410 458 201 http://www.gruden.com mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Standard Hacks?
I think that's a great idea actually. In theory yes we should all avoid hacks but there are a few reasons where a big fat list of the standard hacks, reasons for use and pros and cons would be useful... 1. If a deadline is looming and a hack will temporarily get you through it without resorting to the old demons of HTML. 2. To help understand the source/css of sites that have used a hack to implement something. 3. To get an idea of the kind of bugs/issues that have required a hack to get over. Nick Would it be beneficial to come up with a list of Standard Hacks :-) * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Standard Hacks?
I think that's a great idea actually. In theory yes we should all avoid hacks but there are a few reasons where a big fat list of the standard hacks, reasons for use and pros and cons would be useful... 1. If a deadline is looming and a hack will temporarily get you through it without resorting to the old demons of HTML. 2. To help understand the source/css of sites that have used a hack to implement something. 3. To get an idea of the kind of bugs/issues that have required a hack to get over. Nick Would it be beneficial to come up with a list of Standard Hacks :-) This makes perfect sense to me especially if it were a wikipedia or similar type of site that members would update and comment and keep current. Rick Faaberg * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Standard Hacks?
Chris Stratford wrote: It is always best to avoid any sort of hack. It's important to remember why hacks exist in the first place. More often than not, it's because a browser either doesn't support a feature of CSS, or worse, supports it incorrectly. There is always a way around a hack, if that be by adding an extra div. Adding an extra div is hacking the mark-up, which I think is much worse. Hacks are *last resort* methods to create a layout. Depends on the hack. For example, hiding style rules from NN4 with @-rules is almost alway better than changing your layout. I think a list of _standard hacks_ would just promote the use of hacks, where they are not needed. If you include comments about when and why to use it and not to use it the problem should be kept to a minimum. * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Standard Hacks?
media=screen is not a hack, thats statin the proper display device target for the relavent stylesheet. Hacks are things like the IE Underscore hack, they tend to be workarounds for CSS properties that are not yet implemented in certain browsers or that need slightly differnt values, theres differnt hacks for each of the dodgy browsers. But you sould always look towards creating your site hack free as that is the best was to make sure its backward/forward and bloody even sideways compatible! Hacks are for the Cowbot webdesigner who hasnt done his job right in the first place! ( or for a client thats given too much hassle and not enough cash to make the recode cost effective! ;] ) Mark www.phunky.co.uk On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 23:11 , J4Web [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent: Well; I am surprised, but pleased actually, that so many of you are saying that hacks are not part of the Standards Arsenal. I had got the impression that I needed to become familiar with gadzillian hacks and be able to draw the appropriate one out of the woodwork every ten lines of CSS code. But I am getting the message that one can produce Standards Compliant pages without hacking. I am not quite totally convinced, though, and some of the replies have gone in the direction of supporting a big fat list, if not including some hacks in standard templates. I wondered if there are some workarounds that people on this list use habitually and forget they use them, so I did a quick sample of some of the URLs at the bottom of peoples' posts and the only hack I found so far (but I have not searched very thoroughly) was on the webstandards.org.au site : @import url(/stylesheets/wsg_advanced.css); media=screen Is the import hack a candidate for first (or sole) item on the list of standard hacks? It seems pretty essential to me to get version 4 browsers to degrade gracefully. I am enjoying learning from those who have been in this game much longer than me. John The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Standard Hacks?
J4Web wrote: style type=text/css media=screen@import url(/stylesheets/wsg_advanced.css);/style link rel=stylesheet href=/stylesheets/wsg_main.css type=text/css media=screen Is the import hack a candidate for first (or sole) item on the list of standard hacks? After giving it some thought, I wouldn't call this a hack. CSS provides two ways of accessing external style sheets: @import and link/. Both are valid CSS. What the hack does is feed styles which aren't intended for NN4 by using a method which NN4 doesn't support. Compare this to what most hack do: they use irregular, but technically valid, ways of writing rule to take advantage of parsing errors in order to hide rules. Another example of a not a hack hack might be conditional comments. Here too is a case of not parsing rather than unable to parse. * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
RE: [WSG] Standard Hacks?
Russ and I have discussed this at length and we have come to the opinion that the @import rule (when used in that manner) is indeed a hack but a harmless one. The reasoning is that it exploits a bug or particular behaviour in a browser. In this case, older browsers don't understand it at all and they ignore it so that the real styles that will break them can be put in there safely. We believe (and maintain) that it is harmless as we can't envisage any browser manufacturer not obeying it in the future as it is actually the preferred method. Regards, Peter -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Harwood Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 11:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Standard Hacks? media=screen is not a hack, thats statin the proper display device target for the relavent stylesheet. Hacks are things like the IE Underscore hack, they tend to be workarounds for CSS properties that are not yet implemented in certain browsers or that need slightly differnt values, theres differnt hacks for each of the dodgy browsers. But you sould always look towards creating your site hack free as that is the best was to make sure its backward/forward and bloody even sideways compatible! Hacks are for the Cowbot webdesigner who hasnt done his job right in the first place! ( or for a client thats given too much hassle and not enough cash to make the recode cost effective! ;] ) Mark www.phunky.co.uk On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 23:11 , J4Web [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent: Well; I am surprised, but pleased actually, that so many of you are saying that hacks are not part of the Standards Arsenal. I had got the impression that I needed to become familiar with gadzillian hacks and be able to draw the appropriate one out of the woodwork every ten lines of CSS code. But I am getting the message that one can produce Standards Compliant pages without hacking. I am not quite totally convinced, though, and some of the replies have gone in the direction of supporting a big fat list, if not including some hacks in standard templates. I wondered if there are some workarounds that people on this list use habitually and forget they use them, so I did a quick sample of some of the URLs at the bottom of peoples' posts and the only hack I found so far (but I have not searched very thoroughly) was on the webstandards.org.au site : @import url(/stylesheets/wsg_advanced.css); media=screen Is the import hack a candidate for first (or sole) item on the list of standard hacks? It seems pretty essential to me to get version 4 browsers to degrade gracefully. I am enjoying learning from those who have been in this game much longer than me. John The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Standard Hacks?
Is the import hack a candidate for first (or sole) item on the list of standard hacks? It seems pretty essential to me to get version 4 browsers to degrade gracefully. CSS hacks are one of those questions (like font sizes) that bring out the fanatics from all sides. On one side you will have people who are completely opposed to hacks. At the other end of the spectrum are people who use hacks scattered throughout their CSS. A lot of this stems from a difference between theory and reality. Theoretically it is bad to use any hacks. In reality, you or your client may need to get a layout to behave in a particular manor that cannot be achieved without some form of hack. Sometimes you can work around these issues without hacks, sometimes you can persuade clients that layout differences are not important, but other times there may be no alternative - this is a commercial reality. Basically, hacks come down to - personal choice - the amount of knowledge you have of workarounds - the specific design you are trying to achieve If you design your own layouts, you can often avoid hacks simply because you can be keeping the main browser issues in mind when designing (not so easy if you are implementing someone else's design). For this reason it is vital that you read up on all the major browser bugs - so you can head them off at the pass. The best place to go for the main IE bugs is here: http://positioniseverything.net/ The @import hack is one solid method of hiding content from older browsers - even though that it is not its intended purpose - which is why it is classified as a hack. For more on this go here: http://www.mail-archive.com/wsg%40webstandardsgroup.org/msg00841.html To see a tutorial that explains how to use the @import hack go here: http://www.maxdesign.com.au/presentation/process/ The particular step in the tutorial dealing with older browsers is: http://www.maxdesign.com.au/presentation/process/index_step10.cfm Which hacks would I use? I generally try to avoid any hacks apart from the @import hack, but will sometimes use the display: inline fix to avoid double margins on floats. I don't think I have ever used a box model hack. Work around where possible, hack sparingly, shower regularly. :) 2 cents Russ * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Standard Hacks?
Hacks are for the Cowbot webdesigner who hasnt done his job right in the first place! ( or for a client thats given too much hassle and not enough cash to make the recode cost effective! ;] ) quite true - but there are hacks that are used to counteract behavours in browsers. Camz www.t94xr.net.nz * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Standard Hacks?
-- Original Message - From: scott parsons [EMAIL PROTECTED] I do not know what industry you work in but in every industry I have worked in there is a great need for pixel precise layouts. Can you name some industries? ... Clients and the many print trained art directors want pixel precision... ... Why not to export entire page from photoshop as GIF, JPEG, or PNG and put it on the website? That's the only way I know to get pixel percision. How do you and your clients imagine pixel precision in screen readers, mobile phones and PDAs? How do they know is this layout pixel presice or not? For me talks about pixel prescion is an indicator that nobody really cares what and whom this website is for. Regards, Rimantas * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
RE: [WSG] Standard Hacks?
I do not know what industry you work in but in every industry I have worked in there is a great need for pixel precise layouts. When you go through 13 rounds of changes with a client and discuss things like the letter spacing on single superscript letters then you just might have to put in the odd hack. Or it might be time to educate your client with regards to the web is not print. What's next: discussions about exact colour matching, across all browsers? Browsers render differently, and while we might all like to say that hacks are bad and not needed I think that is a disservice to people just learning to use CSS-p for layouts. In terms of taming browser bugs when it comes to layouts, yes...hacks (clean CSS based workarounds, not ugly abuses of markup) are still required...although it's nicer if one can get away with not having to use them by reorganising the html (but I know, this is not always easy). When I was learning css part of learning all the browser quirks was learning how to get around them, but you cannot learn all that at once and sometimes you need to focus on learning part A properly before you move on to part B. Very true. I find that the best thing is to first concentrate on the standards-compliant, clean, ideal way of doing things (previewing the work in standards-compliant browsers), just to get the idea of the bigger picture of how things can and should be done. Only later should one tackle the special cases in which hacks are required. So, going from the general (the way it should be) to the specific (the few hacks you need to achieve the ideal way). Clients and the many print trained art directors want pixel precision... Again, part of the solution is educating the client. Heck, I've just had a long winded discussion with a company sub-contracting me to do a bit of web work, who kept saying the pages need to all fit within the browser window...scrolling is bad. Patrick Patrick H. Lauke Webmaster / University of Salford http://www.salford.ac.uk * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
RE: [WSG] Standard Hacks?
-- Original Message - From: Peter Firminger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Russ and I have discussed this at length and we have come to the opinion that the @import rule (when used in that manner) is indeed a hack but a harmless one. The reasoning is that it exploits a bug or particular behaviour in a browser. In this case, older browsers don't understand it at all and they ignore it so that the real styles that will break them can be put in there safely. ... So it is a bug. Not a hack. Imagine an webdesigner who never saw NN4.x nor he cared to much about it's bugs. He uses perfectly valid @import rule. And all of sudden you claim him using hacks. Why? Then you use something not for that it's been intended - it is a hack. Now it's just a bug/not implemented feature. Regards, Rimantas * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
RE: [WSG] Standard Hacks?
No, we do it to specifically exploit this bug or particular behaviour so it is a hack. If you look at the stylesheets you'll see that there is basic css in the one that NN4 can see and all the other more advanced stuff is in the one it can't see. All quite deliberate using both methods to achieve it. So it is a bug. Not a hack. Imagine an webdesigner who never saw NN4.x nor he cared to much about it's bugs. He uses perfectly valid @import rule. And all of sudden you claim him using hacks. Why? Ignorance of the law is no excuse :-) and he (or she) would get an unstyled page in NN4, doesn't bother me a bit as long as it is semantically correct as well. I would say this person was hacking at all. It's the use of BOTH methods to target NN4 that is a hack. Regards, Peter * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Standard Hacks?
I just think it is a little simplistic and idealistic to tell newcomers to css that all hacks are bad. Good post Scott...It's a relief seeing real world scenarios used to backup reasons and choices. I'm often surprised at the number of educate your clients to understand why they cannot have their design looking the way they want it when the other design company down the road CAN do it (even though their source is frightening!) etc... type arguments raised. I don't now about everyone else but I already spent huge amounts of time educating clients about everything from content classification to signatures in emails to what a web browser is. When I get them to follow the need for standards then that in itself is a good enough step for me. Honestly how many clients have the time to be constantly educated on the ins and outs of web site development? As I see it for most clients before the web there was print (mmm still is...but get the idea) and how often did they need to learn about the ins and outs of how their brochure was put together and why this may not line up exactly with that, etc... Anyway, to re-emphasise John's question: Would it be beneficial to come up with a list of Standard Hacks :-) He merely asked if a list of standard/stroke common hacks would be useful, not whether hacks are good/bad or should/shouldn't be used. Personally, I'd say it would be useful for the reason I cited in an earlier post and whether you use them or not is dependant on your real world situation. Nick * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
