hmm, on Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 10:29:27AM +0100, Jonathan Glaschke said that > The Web is against good design. You can see this by looking at the most > people's choice of browser. Bad web browsers are the biggest problem in > creating a good looking website. I now nobody using CSS who takes care > of ie 4 or older. Nearly nobody is actually taking care of ie 5/5.5, > too, but thats default in windows 2000.
there are ways to get this (mostly) right. there are great pages which show perfectly in lynx/links and have maybe a couple of div's inside. css and xhtml does not exclude simplicity. one can make beautiful (eye pleasing) sites with using 4 div's (not nested too). also, one cannot stick to the old technologies all the time. the project is overall bold in scratching old stuff (telnetd, rlogin and friends). but with html, it's back in the 90's. > So you have to get tricky - ever seen the new freebsd website: > > <div id="CONTENT"> > <div id="FRONTCONTAINER"> > <div id="FRONTMAIN"> > <div id="FRONTFEATURECONTAINER"> > <div id="FRONTFEATURELEFT"> > <div id="FRONTFEATURECONTENT"> so what if there are divs? should be tables or what? the new site looks just great in links/lynx btw. and it looks (quite) good in modern browsers _also_ so who is robbed of the precious info inside? > What a lot of people forget is that having a good website means having > content, not having a good design. yes, and what a lot of people forget is that having a good website means having nice layout too. so how about both? it's like saying a good book is only the good content. yeah, and try to read it if it's typeset in comic sans ms. > So, we are talking about a better, fresh and modern design using XHTML > and CSS. We can't use XHTML 1.1 (which is the latest web standard) > because most people's browser can't handle it, thats the first limitation where's your numbers? what's most people? "most people" on the web these days is some version of IE. i thought ie supports xhtml. > And if we talk about a new design - why don't we talk about generating > sites with a modern scripting language? That's only the next step, but, > who wants that? Who needs that? Who wants to implement it? could be, doesn't have to be. certainly would save a lot time to the devs which could be used for something else. couldn't cvs it directly though (the content). > If there is only one person who has problems to view the content because > of a new and tricky design, than the new design was a step in the wrong > direction. Thats my opinion. well, good look serving all the people. come on, you know that you can't please everyone, don't you? _that_ is precisely what openbsd is about. it never aimed pleasing _everyone_ Theo is man of principles, i have seen that proven many times. but the site is somehow a sad exception to his principles. it's just not a priority and i can live with that. > PS: If we change now to a modern design, how long would is last until > the first person thinks about a flash movie on the starting page? i wish people would not be such extremist on this list.. do not insult me with flash, earthling. -f -- user: a technical term used by computer pros. see idiot.
