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 a standards based architecture.
Unfortunately the site doesn't validate because of bare ampersands in
URIs, some _javascript_ language attribs, attributes that aren't doubled
quoted and a missing alt tag. The ad banner system seems to be the cause
of most of the errors which, im guessing, is out of their control.
Again, nice work f2! I look forward to seeing you move more of SMH (and
the f2 network) towards standards based techonologies (including a focus
on some accessibility features).
A question on behalf of those who are considering moving their companies
to standards based design:
How were the "forces of power" in f2 convinced to invest in web
standards and what commitment by management was needed for this to
become (what I consider to be) a successful project?
-- tim
www.toolmantim.com
