On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 07:34:44 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
>_____/ On Wednesday 24 August 2005 06:57, [Onideus] wrote : \_____
>> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 06:23:43 +0100, Roy Schestowitz
>> <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>_____/ On Wednesday 24 August 2005 00:19, [Mimic] wrote : \_____
>>>> A List Apart have just released their redesign.(like within the last 8
>>>> hours :P)
>>>> Given the amount of webdesign talk around here, I think alot of people
>>>> could do with looking at it.
>>>> Looks GREAT, 100% valid code and xbrowser compatible. Take heed.
>>>There will be a few confused readers (including me) whose DNS server will
>>>point them to the old site. Here is the new site's IP address:
>>>Hope it contributes,
>>>PS - I noticed many people who are amazed (in blogs, and
>>>alt.www.webmaster), but apart from the neat CSS tricks, it doesn't appeal
>>>to me visually. This comes to show what a huge rule taste plays.
>> Yeah I don't get all the hype. It's like these people have been
>> closed up in a box where all they've ever seen has been text only
>> websites and now that they got one with a few ho hum, outdated CSS
>> parlor tricks they're all drooling all over themselves. Over in the
>> REAL web design communities we're all just cockin our heads to the
>> side and sayin, "Huh?". Especially regarding their 1024x768 non
>> text-liquid layout, how is THAT supposed to be "cutting edge"? Also I
>> highly doubt it's as cross browser compatible as people are claiming.
>> It seems like some screwballs are saying that just because it's W3C
>> compliant...usually meeting W3C specs means that it's NOT cross
>> browser compatible since no web browser on the planet ACTUALLY meets
>> the W3Cs imaginary standards.
>I played about with the site for a while, trying to figure out what the hype
>was all about. I have about 5 browsers on this machine, including some that
>are outdated. Konqueror seems to like most of it, but not all.
>When re-scaling the fonts, you can see that the site has a robust layout
>indeed. Some people got excited about the so-called 4 column layout, which
>I quite frankly believe doesn't take a genius to implement.
It's like that episode of the Simpsons...OMG WTF MALIBU STACY HAS GOT
A NEW HAT!1!!
>Overall, it seems to me like an ordinary good Web site.
I think it's good design wise (from a minimalist perspective) but as
far as the implementation it's nothing special at all and in a lot of
ways very deficient (like no liquid form, not even on the text).
>The innovative part is probably the underlining on titles.
I'd hardly call that innovative in any sense of the word.
Much of the rest of the tricks I already saw
>elsewhere... unless I am missing something.
>While I agree that W3-compliant pages are not guaranteed to be rendered
>properly by all (IE springs to mind), you at least know that the developer
>stuck to standards that were agreed upon rather than hacking or
>re-inventing the Web (e.g. IE-only).
...except that the W3C isn't there to make or set standards, the
purpose of the W3C is only to RECOMMEND standards...and a lot of their
recommendations are just fucking stupid to say the least...but what
would you expect, those who make up the W3C are the very same
lackwitted deficients who made IE, FireFox, Netscape, etc, etc, etc in
the first place.
I mean REALLY think about that, the people who are RECOMMENDING the
standards...don't even follow them. o_O
Maybe everyone just took a ride on the stupid train or something, but
that really is just eight shades of fuckin dumb no matter how you
wanna look at it.
Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹