RE: [WSG] A new standards based smh.com.au/technology
Title: RE: [WSG] A new standards based smh.com.au/technology Hi Tim, thanks for yr kind words :) I was going to send a note around to the list when we fixed a few things up with it but just havent had time... ok, so few points: * yep, the new tech section is our first live site using css for layout. any site we build from scratch from this point will be using css for layout. if we're ammending old sites we'll probably use the existing (table) layout, but it'll be a case by case thing. * we were all quite stoked in the design team when we got to the end of the first day and hadnt recieved one email from a user saying the layout was funked up or they couldnt read the text or any of the other usual emails we get when we launch something of a decent profile * the validating thing is difficult - for the reasons you pointed out mostly. I think wired had some similar issues with ad tags etc when they launched. There's probably some other bits of code that arent validating either that we can improve on as we go. the projects move so fast that its very difficult to do anything past making sure it looks decent in IE5, 5.5, 6, Opera, Mozilla, Safari - and then we're away. We value the importance of validation bigtime, but we dont kill ourselves over it. hence we've chosen the 'transitional' approach. * we've learnt more about css layouts since the design was locked down (first week of jan) and while the positioning of the left and right columns are floats in this design, we'll be using absolute positioning for those columns in the future. mainly to get the main content further up in the markup. * to answer How were the 'forces of power' in f2 convinced to invest in web standards and what commitment by management was needed? question: a) we illustrated how much money we'd save on serving costs due to lighter pages. Its hard to predict an exact figure but I think it'd run into hundreds of thousands of dollars once we convert the whole network over to css. b) we are obviously very focussed on budgets etc - its a commercial business - so as sites are needing quicker and quicker redsigns to keep up with the market and advertising needs we had to standardise and make redesigns as simple as possible. c) better markup = better chances of ratings on search engines d) at the moment our 'network' of sites doesnt look much like a network. css is going to help standardise elements and the look feel. e) easier implementation for the dev guys. now that the pages are cut up into little bit size chunks (divs), they arent fooling around with our non-breaking spaces, br tags, col/rowspans in tables other stuff. and that one has just been proven. easiest and smoothest implementation of one of our designs yet. f) pages load faster We're also lucky to have a great very persuasive manager ourselves who was able to put all this into a message that was even more attractive to the wider Management who really just want to know does it look great? and how much did it cost?. In short, we're pretty excited. And a little nervous. Youve gotta understand, this is pretty nerve racking putting such a high profile design up, (i think its over 400,000 unique users a month now for just this section) and having the design community/this list check it out :) you know that feeling you get when you preview something in opera and your heart jumps up into your throat as youre waiting on it to load.. :) anyway, thumbs up to Andrew Coffey, one of our 4 designers (including myself) here that was the lead designer on this one. Let us know if you can spot any major display errors or anything. In saying that, we've learnt a lot since this design got locked down (as is the way with this css game - its so hard to keep up! :) so keep an eye out for some major improvements across the whole smh/age sites proper over the next few months. if anyones got any other questions, let us know, i could talk underwater about this stuff ;-) pete Pete Ottery Lead Designer f2 - fairfax interactive network P: 02 8596 4450 E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Tim Lucas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 1:00 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [WSG] A new standards based smh.com.au/technology Just received an email[1] from my SMH subscription stating they've launched a new website, SMH.com.au technology: http://www.smh.com.au/technology I have to admit. I was a little cynical and was preparing myself for an onslaught of presentational markup and zilch semantic markup. Off I went and viewed the source of the new website and... low and behold... its semantic markup laid out purely with CSS (otherwise known as a CSS-P layout). Hats off to the f2 network web team (I know you're on this list!) for moving SMH's policies toward
Re: [WSG] A new standards based smh.com.au/technology
Hi Pete, Funny, I was going to mention this to the list but I hesitated. However, after your reply below I'm glad Tim didn't hesitate. I don't know about anyone else, but your reasons why, coming from such a high profile site, are a great advertisement/example to Australian clients of reasons to use web standards. I'd certainly like to use them if you have no objections. Nick Hi Tim, thanks for yr kind words :) I was going to send a note around to the list when we fixed a few things up with it but just havent had time... ok, so few points: * yep, the new tech section is our first live site using css for layout. any site we build from scratch from this point will be using css for layout. if we're ammending old sites we'll probably use the existing (table) layout, but it'll be a case by case thing. * we were all quite stoked in the design team when we got to the end of the first day and hadnt recieved one email from a user saying the layout was funked up or they couldnt read the text or any of the other usual emails we get when we launch something of a decent profile * the validating thing is difficult - for the reasons you pointed out mostly. I think wired had some similar issues with ad tags etc when they launched. There's probably some other bits of code that arent validating either that we can improve on as we go. the projects move so fast that its very difficult to do anything past making sure it looks decent in IE5, 5.5, 6, Opera, Mozilla, Safari - and then we're away. We value the importance of validation bigtime, but we dont kill ourselves over it. hence we've chosen the 'transitional' approach. * we've learnt more about css layouts since the design was locked down (first week of jan) and while the positioning of the left and right columns are floats in this design, we'll be using absolute positioning for those columns in the future. mainly to get the main content further up in the markup. * to answer How were the 'forces of power' in f2 convinced to invest in web standards and what commitment by management was needed? question: a) we illustrated how much money we'd save on serving costs due to lighter pages. Its hard to predict an exact figure but I think it'd run into hundreds of thousands of dollars once we convert the whole network over to css. b) we are obviously very focussed on budgets etc - its a commercial business - so as sites are needing quicker and quicker redsigns to keep up with the market and advertising needs we had to standardise and make redesigns as simple as possible. c) better markup = better chances of ratings on search engines d) at the moment our 'network' of sites doesnt look much like a network. css is going to help standardise elements and the look feel. e) easier implementation for the dev guys. now that the pages are cut up into little bit size chunks (divs), they arent fooling around with our non-breaking spaces, br tags, col/rowspans in tables other stuff. and that one has just been proven. easiest and smoothest implementation of one of our designs yet. f) pages load faster We're also lucky to have a great very persuasive manager ourselves who was able to put all this into a message that was even more attractive to the wider Management who really just want to know does it look great? and how much did it cost?. In short, we're pretty excited. And a little nervous. Youve gotta understand, this is pretty nerve racking putting such a high profile design up, (i think its over 400,000 unique users a month now for just this section) and having the design community/this list check it out :) you know that feeling you get when you preview something in opera and your heart jumps up into your throat as youre waiting on it to load.. :) anyway, thumbs up to Andrew Coffey, one of our 4 designers (including myself) here that was the lead designer on this one. Let us know if you can spot any major display errors or anything. In saying that, we've learnt a lot since this design got locked down (as is the way with this css game - its so hard to keep up! :) so keep an eye out for some major improvements across the whole smh/age sites proper over the next few months. if anyones got any other questions, let us know, i could talk underwater about this stuff ;-) pete * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *
RE: [WSG] A new standards based smh.com.au/technology
Title: RE: [WSG] A new standards based smh.com.au/technology I'd certainly like to use them if you have no objections. of course not, its an important message. gotta get it out there :) we're going to try to put together a whats new about the design page on the site with some more concise detail on it for future designs. that'll hopefully be a good page to point those clients to aswell :) pete -Original Message- From: Nick Lo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 11:20 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] A new standards based smh.com.au/technology Hi Pete, Funny, I was going to mention this to the list but I hesitated. However, after your reply below I'm glad Tim didn't hesitate. I don't know about anyone else, but your reasons why, coming from such a high profile site, are a great advertisement/example to Australian clients of reasons to use web standards. I'd certainly like to use them if you have no objections. Nick Hi Tim, thanks for yr kind words :) I was going to send a note around to the list when we fixed a few things up with it but just havent had time... ok, so few points: * yep, the new tech section is our first live site using css for layout. any site we build from scratch from this point will be using css for layout. if we're ammending old sites we'll probably use the existing (table) layout, but it'll be a case by case thing. * we were all quite stoked in the design team when we got to the end of the first day and hadnt recieved one email from a user saying the layout was funked up or they couldnt read the text or any of the other usual emails we get when we launch something of a decent profile * the validating thing is difficult - for the reasons you pointed out mostly. I think wired had some similar issues with ad tags etc when they launched. There's probably some other bits of code that arent validating either that we can improve on as we go. the projects move so fast that its very difficult to do anything past making sure it looks decent in IE5, 5.5, 6, Opera, Mozilla, Safari - and then we're away. We value the importance of validation bigtime, but we dont kill ourselves over it. hence we've chosen the 'transitional' approach. * we've learnt more about css layouts since the design was locked down (first week of jan) and while the positioning of the left and right columns are floats in this design, we'll be using absolute positioning for those columns in the future. mainly to get the main content further up in the markup. * to answer How were the 'forces of power' in f2 convinced to invest in web standards and what commitment by management was needed? question: a) we illustrated how much money we'd save on serving costs due to lighter pages. Its hard to predict an exact figure but I think it'd run into hundreds of thousands of dollars once we convert the whole network over to css. b) we are obviously very focussed on budgets etc - its a commercial business - so as sites are needing quicker and quicker redsigns to keep up with the market and advertising needs we had to standardise and make redesigns as simple as possible. c) better markup = better chances of ratings on search engines d) at the moment our 'network' of sites doesnt look much like a network. css is going to help standardise elements and the look feel. e) easier implementation for the dev guys. now that the pages are cut up into little bit size chunks (divs), they arent fooling around with our non-breaking spaces, br tags, col/rowspans in tables other stuff. and that one has just been proven. easiest and smoothest implementation of one of our designs yet. f) pages load faster We're also lucky to have a great very persuasive manager ourselves who was able to put all this into a message that was even more attractive to the wider Management who really just want to know does it look great? and how much did it cost?. In short, we're pretty excited. And a little nervous. Youve gotta understand, this is pretty nerve racking putting such a high profile design up, (i think its over 400,000 unique users a month now for just this section) and having the design community/this list check it out :) you know that feeling you get when you preview something in opera and your heart jumps up into your throat as youre waiting on it to load.. :) anyway, thumbs up to Andrew Coffey, one of our 4 designers (including myself) here that was the lead designer on this one. Let us know if you can spot any major display errors or anything. In saying
