Erika Meyer wrote:
I think that one issue is that there still tends to be a big
real-world divide between designers and developers. Very few people
"design" in CSS, and from what I've seen, there is little financial
incentive to do so.
That's a huge barrier.
Instead, the web dev model is still (as far as I can tell) wireframe
-> photoshop -> CSS . Web design is still a relatively new field,
and a lot of designers (and perhaps more importantly, employers) are
still thinking in print. The ongoing desire to have a site look and
behave the same in all browsers is evidence of that.
I know my "broad content concept --> source-code --> CSS --> test across
media --> add imagery --> enhance --> repeat until finished" model is
not widely used. One has to visualize in code from the start to use it,
which probably throws visual designers - print designers - off.
Much easier to start with the "picture" itself and trivialize the rest
until it breaks. One can't easily blame the "picture" for weakening the
code necessary to realize it, so the "picture-makers" go free and the
overall cost goes up.
Guess that's why so many web creations tend to break under the slightest
amount of stress and can not be easily redesigned with CSS alone to work
in/on other media than the regular "browser defaults on screens" setting
- that's most likely all they are made for.
The way toward change in web design trends is always by setting
examples, especially high-profile examples.
Know of any existing ones out here?
regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
