Today, as I was looking through the referrers for this site, I found a comment from my now-co-worker D. Keith Robinson, dated December 4th, 2003. A few excerpts from the comment:
It’s an age old debate. Flash vs. HTML vs. CSS — blah, blah, blah. I’ll hammer a few more nails into this dead horse if it’ll help get the message across. It’s not about the tool, it’s about what you do with it. … The problem usually is that some designer or developer latches on to a certain technology (it could be CSS, it could be Flash, it could be anything) and thereafter tries to solve every and all problems with it. … Flash is a tool, CSS is a tool. If you are working on the Web you’d probably want to have both in your “toolbox” and know how and when to use each. … A carpenter doesn’t try to build everything with a hammer, does he? Why should a Web designer be any different?
That’s four years ago, people. And guess what? We’re still having pathetic little flame wars over what tools people are using, rather than showing some interest in what they’re doing with said tools.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with talking about the pros and cons of various tools (I like this sort of discussion, and I certainly sometimes engage in it, and even start it here on this blog). But, for many people, it seems that the “craft” of using a particular technology has eclipsed the goal of producing meaningful, useful, effective, and powerful messages and tools on this here global network. Many people in our community seem more obsessed with arguing the details of particular tools than they are interested in designing, building, and analyzing great results — so obsessed with arguing, it seems, they’re willing to get personal and mean-spirited.
I, for one, am done with these kinds of pathetic little debates. Oh, I might still write about tools I use. You might still find the occasional Django tutorial or see me mention that I used Blueprint or Boilerplate as a starting point for my CSS on a project. But, I’m done trying to convince anyone else why they should use the same tools I do. I want to steer the direction of this blog towards talking about great design on the web. I’m less interested in the means to an end, and more interested in the end itself.
If HTML and CSS is your “craft,” more power to you. There are many, many places where you can have pedantic conversations about whether a dd is more appropriate than an li or whether it's appropriate to use a CSS framework or not.
But, HTML and CSS is not, and never has been, my craft. My craft is building cool things on the Internet, and I’d prefer to talk about those cool things than about markup pedantry.
Comments
There are currently 61 comments on this entry. If you have something to say, please consider adding your own.
You can also subscribe to an RSS feed of this entry’s comments.
Links in this entry
This entry’s tags
AuthenticJobs.com
- Ruby and Javascript Developer
- Border Stylo
- Los Angeles, CA, US
- Web Applications Developer (Full-time, in-house staff position)
- Paradowski Creative
- St. Louis, MO, US
- Ongoing web design work
- Vitabase
- Great opportunity for front-end developer
- MassMedium
- Boston, MA, US
- Join our team - Versatile Application Developer
- MassMedium
- Boston, MA
- Lead Visual Designer
- An Internet Startup
- San Francisco, CA
- Web Developer
- boubakiki, LLC
- New York, NY, US
- Junior Web Designer
- Adbay.com
- Casper, WY, US
- Senior HTML CSS Designer Wanted
- Stealth Health
- Palo Alto, CA, US
- Front-End Web Developer (HTML/CSS/Javascript)
- U.S. News & World Report
- Washington, DC, US
001 // Leslie // 11.25.2007 // 7:11 PM
Amen.
002 // Mark Lloyd // 11.25.2007 // 7:14 PM
WOW!
i for one WAS a pedantic little CSS zealot and despised the use of flash for websites but i think you have enlightened me.
Your 100% correct in saying ‘its not the tool its how you use it’ realistically i should be criticizing the language or technique used, rather appreciating what has been made with those tools.
However, at the same time, how can you be accessibility and usability focused whilst creating a website 100% with flash? even if it is really impressive it might not be practical.
003 // Ludwig // 11.25.2007 // 7:15 PM
Glad you decided to stick around ;)
004 // Sean S // 11.25.2007 // 7:16 PM
Yesh, amen. Bring it.
005 // Jeff Croft // 11.25.2007 // 7:17 PM
The is precisely the type of debate I’m no longer interested in hosting here.
006 // Jim Ray // 11.25.2007 // 7:22 PM
Wait one minute, Jeff. Just the other night over drinks you said you were thinking of ditching HTML forever and focusing exclusively on Silverlight development. Something about “now that I’m in Seattle, I really see how much potential Microsoft has to positively influence web development, who cares about all that standards blah blah.”
In fact, I remember you being pretty adamant that Silverlight really does represent the future, that you were selling your Macbook and everything.
Which is it?
007 // Jeff Croft // 11.25.2007 // 7:24 PM
I would ask you exactly how many drinks I’d had when I said this if I didn’t know how many drink you’d had when you heard it. :)
008 // Jim Ray // 11.25.2007 // 7:35 PM
Lies, damned lies, I tell you! Oh, I think you may be right.
009 // Mark Lloyd // 11.25.2007 // 7:37 PM
sorry to bring up the debate in a place you don’t want it, but i don’t think disregarding usability and accessibility (especially with the big target case you have in the US at the moment) is a wise move.
I’m not saying i don’t agree with you, for the most part i think you hit the nail right on the head, people focus on what was used not how well it was used far too much.
The focus recently has shifted away from that mindset though, Ajax has been adopted with open arms and images are playing a huge role in web interfaces to the point were people are using them to replace text. I think its great to see people move away from the box that everyone says you have to design within.
I’m just saying, i don’t think its a wise move to throw accessibility and usability out the window in order to create something regardless on how well the tool was used.
010 // Stephen Caver // 11.25.2007 // 7:40 PM
More power to you, Jeff. No matter the topic, I’m sure your thoughts will be insightful and illuminating. I, for one, am looking forward to future posts (and the discussion that ensues).
011 // Jeff Croft // 11.25.2007 // 7:45 PM
Dude. No one is disregarding usability and accessibility. This post is about focusing on building great things on the Internet. Depending on the nature of the project, great usability and accessibility may or may not be an important factor in creating something great.
You have done exactly the sort of thing that I’m frustrated with: you’ve ignored the overall message of the original post and taken it in an entirely different direction, focusing instead on the debate about whether or not Flash is accessible and usable. It’s especially heinous in this case, when that original message I spoke of had everything to do with not letting conversations devolve into debates about tools.
012 // Mark Lloyd // 11.25.2007 // 8:02 PM
Point taken, i agree 100% with this. Maybe i didn’t quiet understand this message from the original post, in which case its my fault.
There are definately times when certain things aren’t needed for a project, i.e no point doing SEO for an intranet.
I think maybe i didn’t get the general direction based on the original post, again my bad. But i did say i agreed with you for the most part.
My apologies. If by the original post you meant on a case by case basis then yes i agree 100%. There is no point making some accessible or usable just for the sake of it.
Sorry for delving into an argument particularly one that you had wanted to avoid.
I’m from the other side of the world to you so I’m not sure on the national implications of the whole ‘Target’ accessibility law suit but from what i gather, any non-accessible website is open for litigation. I may be completely wrong on this but just something to consider.
013 // Jeff Croft // 11.25.2007 // 8:06 PM
Apology accepted, but certainly not needed. Really not a big deal. :)
I agree with that, but it wasn’t really the point of my post. The point of my post was simply that I’m tired of conversations here at jeffcroft.com devolving into (and something starting as) pedantic arguments over tools, rather than focusing on the end results — and that I’m going to be doing my best to avoid it from here out. If that point wasn’t clear, then I apologize.
Accessibility and usability are certainly things to consider. I’ve considered both of them many times in other posts on this blog. They’re simply not relevant to this post, is all.
014 // Dylan B. // 11.25.2007 // 8:10 PM
So when you say you’re going to talk about cool things on the web, are you talking about “applications” or site “designs”. Personally I would love to hear you opinions on both. Keep up the good work.
015 // Jeff Croft // 11.25.2007 // 8:16 PM
Both, and then some. I used the generic word “things” on purpose. :)
016 // Geof Harries // 11.25.2007 // 8:51 PM
I, for one, will stand behind you and continue to read jeffcroft.com if that’s the direction your writing will be taking. It’s exactly the stuff that interests me and keeps the excitement alive after all these years in the business.
017 // Joshua Bryant // 11.25.2007 // 8:52 PM
You say: “Flash can be useful”
They hear: “OMFG, teh blind people!?!?! wtf!?!?”
Everyone’s got their filters. Web standards is an idea, to code a site and have it work cross-environment. Problem is, people don’t get that and instead understand it to be a “superior” way of building on the web (which it is not, nor will it ever be). Standards is a means to and end, not the end itself. People are dumb… it happens. Build some cool shit tomorrow and forget about internet trolls. A passing thought is still too much energy spent on em’.
018 // Sara Flemming // 11.25.2007 // 11:21 PM
Glad you’re stickin’ around. (:
019 // Dustin Brewer // 11.25.2007 // 11:35 PM
Great article, it does put everything into a new kind of perspective. I think a lot of us probably forget that everything we use is truly just a tool and that what drives us is our ability to use all of these tools creatively to design awesome web sites that look incredible and function excellently.
020 // Matt Howell // 11.25.2007 // 11:55 PM
Heh. I’ve just stopped paying attention when the pedantry gets going. It’s a big freaking time-suck to engage in the discussion at all… and I’ve got better things to do. :)
021 // Jeremy // 11.26.2007 // 12:12 AM
So, I’m so pleased that people still read that ONE good post on my site, :) ANd you’re completely right, the same arguments are being recycled and recycled.
022 // Lea // 11.26.2007 // 1:36 AM
There is a reason why I barely leave blog comments… repeating the same ol’ arguments just gets you exasperated when the answers are still relatively the same: “It depends.”
Do you think perhaps people tend to steer the discussion towards tools because it’s a tangible thing to argue about (i.e. easy), whilst higher level discussions are harder to a) understand (more context to consider) and b) contribute to (i.e. no easy answers, point-by-point responses)?
Meanwhile, your title is rather naughty, mister. (or do I just have a dirty mind? heh)
023 // Fouad Masoud // 11.26.2007 // 2:39 AM
Liked the post, but never liked the outcome.
Name any other available tool to markup the web that is supported by each and every browser out there. It’s not any tool it’s the only tool, it’s the basic necessity.
I remember back in late 90s, where the struggle was to push browser vendors to build standard complaint web browsers. The whole thing was about fully supporting HTML/CSS, till now we define the web to be 3 layered: presentation “CSS”, content “XHTML”, and behavior “JS.. etc”. That’s the web your design is built over. Yes I know that the whole standard movement is just recommendations to make things better, but guys those are recommendations that are well tested, well thought out, well adopted. They are there to stay.
I said it before here and I will say it again the web industry is growing very fast, new technologies and ways are being built each and everyway, I and lots of people like me are ready to cope, if our “craft” had a very good solid replacement ill be the first to shift.
But now all you have in your tool box is XHTML/CSS, and when you’re limited with your tools you better know how to use them. We don’t have the variety a carpenter has when it comes to tools and trust me if he has only a hammer he’ll be building everything with a hummer.
It really sounds strange coming from you, I mean am a big fan of your work and your “books” and articles, a wild guess if your craft isn’t HTML/CSS then its your hobby and most likely hobby are far more stronger than crafts.. I think deep down inside you have the craft. But when it comes to building cool things, we all want that, but sir cool aint just the outer look cool is in the inside too, I personally wont conceder a site to be cool unless its well designed, well structured and well marked up and am sure we all agree to that. We have a saying in the Arab word (“من بره رخام و من جوه سخام”) it translates somehow like (“from the outside you see a house built with marbles and you go wow, but when you go inside its all broken, broken to the extent that it should be rebuilt”). ……….
024 // Fouad Masoud // 11.26.2007 // 2:40 AM
……………… You keep saying that we are missing your point, I know text is pretty un-human in nature it caries no emotions, I can assure you I am writing this with a big smile over my face and I am very +ve you had a smile on yours while writing your post. But if I may ask it of you it would be nice to see you using less harsh words, coz sir I know for a fact that if someone said harsh words about the kind of craft you have you’ll be mad about it even if he had a smile on his face while writing his post.
Reading your blog! Well! I don’t think I can give up the habit as you know old habits die hard :D. I really respect what you have to say and as we say it here “Diversity in opinions never breaks friendship” in our case respect.
Good luck with you designing great stuff, wish me luck slicing those stuff :D
Cheers
025 // Jeff Croft // 11.26.2007 // 3:10 AM
I think you may be on to something here, Lea. Not sure what to do about it, but I definitely think the more tangible, objective nature of tools probably makes them easier to talk about.
A simple, “that’s what she said” would have sufficed, Lea. :)
026 // Jeff Croft // 11.26.2007 // 3:11 AM
I don’t disagree with this at all — I simply don’t care to talk about it.
I don’t consider writing HTML/CSS to be either a hobby or a craft for me. HTML and CSS are tools I use to build websites. Building websites is my craft, and also a hobby.
Would you say that “using pencils” is an architect’s craft, or is it designing buildings? Is “pounding nails” a carpenter’s craft, of it is building things? Is “using a stethoscope” a doctor’s craft, or is it helping people be healthy?
I don’t agree to that. Lots of things are cool even tough they may not be perfect for everyone in every situation. I think Porsche 911’s are very cool, but they’re gas-guzzlers, they’re overpriced, and they can only seat two people. But they’re still cool. I think Dave Matthews is cool even though I can’t understand what he’s saying half the time. I think Jackson Pollack is cool even though I can’t “understand” his work.
And I certainly don’t always care how something was built before I’ll consider it “cool.” I think a lot of IKEA’s furniture is cool, even though I’m well aware it’s not built with the greatest materials.
027 // Jeff Croft // 11.26.2007 // 3:12 AM
As Lea said: it depends. There are circumstances in which a house built from marbles would be absolutely perfect. They’re few and far between, but they exist.
Absolutely. I’m content, and I’m glad you are, too. :)
I never intend to be harsh, but I do intend to be opinionated and write with a purpose. I don’t set out to offend people, but I’m well aware I will sometimes say things that do. That’s an occupational hazard that comes with being an opinionated blogger. I’m come to accept that — and you should, to, if you intend to keep reading. I won’t change my writing style. It got me this far, and while it’s occasionally bit me in the ass, the things I’ve gained from it far outweigh the things I’ve lost.
Absolutely. I’m glad you’ll keep reading, and I agree with you completely: anything I say about our industry — no matter how harsh it sounds — is not personal. Literally everyone I’ve met in this profession is a good, decent, and likable person. I don’t have a bad word to say about anyone in web design, no matter how much I may disagree with your opinions.
028 // Andrew Kumar // 11.26.2007 // 3:49 AM
Unfortunately,
Job applications will always ask me if I know language a, b and c (which I can’t) rather than asking me if I can do anything meaningful with them (also, which I can’t).
As long as these job descriptions exist, people will feel the need to adopt and specialize, and then argue that they chose the best language (a, b or c).
Hmmm that may not make any sense…
029 // Matt Wilcox // 11.26.2007 // 4:33 AM
It’s interesting that you may steer the blog more toward a design focus - I applaud that, to me that’s where my interest is these days. I’m content that my skills with HTML and CSS are at a level where I don’t need to think about ‘the best way’ of marking something up - I do that automatically as I author. While that sort of analytical thinking is (to my mind) essential when learning HTML/CSS, it rapidly becomes less than useful as your abilities improve. A point arrives where it no longer matters - where you argue (with yourself, or others) between one good solution and another good solution. When that happens there’s an imbalance of attention and it’s possible to get mired in the details at the expense of the whole.
As long as the basics are considered when choosing an appropriate tool to use (accessibility vs niceness, etc.) then the rest is about how well it works for the user, for the client, for the design. And that is the interesting bit.
I’m looking forward to more design articles!
030 // Fouad Masoud // 11.26.2007 // 4:51 AM
Matt Wilcox! nobody have said it better. i 2nd that. come to think of it i wont only 2nd it, ill be taking action on the means to get to the goals.
Jeff, at least one has changed his mind here :D if i am to say, the whole posts and comments thing came up with a nice understanding at least of mine.
:D i agree to that.
this is cool
031 // Pat Thornton // 11.26.2007 // 8:22 AM
Jeff, I like the idea. I think the user ultimately cares about the quality of the feature and not the technology behind it.
It’s not the tool, but I think many people rely on the same tools no matter what the job is. Sometimes you need a hammer, while other times you need a screw driver.
One of the things I don’t like is when someone always uses Flash, even though it doesn’t work for that instance or the opposite where someone doesn’t use Flash and it could have really made their product special. Unfortunately, many people have limited skill sets and cannot properly adapt to unique situations. This problem can be solved when people work on teams.
032 // Jeff Croft // 11.26.2007 // 10:45 AM
This is true. It’s unfortunate job descriptions tend to be written this way.
That having been sad, I’m not at all saying that learning tools and talking about them is a bad idea. I’m just saying that i don’t want to make this blog all about that, especially when it means devolved childlike conversations.
033 // James Asher // 11.26.2007 // 11:20 AM
Regarding this blog, I’d rather see less about the web in general and more about Tech9ine vs. Prince - who is better, the best technique for making a Caribou Lou, and a discussion as to how black Jeff actually is versus what he claims to be.
034 // Jeff Croft // 11.26.2007 // 11:31 AM
Apples and oranges, my friend. They’re both awesome.
This is already well-documented. TechN9NE says:
Half a bottle of 151 off in a jug/ One cup of Malibu rum/ Baby that’s what’s up
Then you fill the rest of the jug/ With pineapple juice, and it’s cracking/ The only defect is waking up like “what happened?”
035 // Keri Henare // 11.26.2007 // 12:01 PM
There’s been a little bit of the arguing in the comments even though the article is about not arguing?
Good thoughts though Jeff, your site was starting to get a bit sticky with all of ‘stuff’ flying around.
036 // Jeff Croft // 11.26.2007 // 12:18 PM
I haven’t really noticed any arguing in the comments of this post — specially not anything I’d consider to be out-of-hand.
This article isn’t really about “not arguing.” I don’t mind arguing (I actually like a bit of debate). I just want that arguing (here at jeffcroft.com) to be:
I’ve been guilty of both these things, myself, so I’m not blaming anyone. I’m just saying that it’s time for me to start putting an emphasis on avoiding them on this site in the future. Since these out-of-hand arguments tend to happen most when people talk about tools, I’m going to try focusing on design, strategy, and other higher-level concepts from now on. This is the stuff that really interests me anyway — the tools are just a means to that end.
Yep, it was. Hopefully I’ll be able to clean it up. :)
037 // Scott Nelle // 11.26.2007 // 2:24 PM
Though I am 100% on your side regarding the use of tools, I wanted to point out why I think you have trouble escaping these flame wars. Each time you make it to the point where you’re ready to wash your hands of a conversation and move on, you stick in what I think a lot of people see as a final jab at them, which prevents them from moving on. In this post, it’s the following:
The quotes around the word “craft” and use of the word pedantic makes it pretty clear that you are unconvinced by these people, which is fine. Both make it seem like you’re looking down on them and their ideas, though, which is why they’ll probably continue trying to drag you into an argument. When you’re truely ready to drop it though, you’ll probably have more success if you walk on eggshells and avoid any unintentional (or intentional) jabs.
038 // Jeff Croft // 11.26.2007 // 2:27 PM
I am unconvinced by them.
I definitely disagree with their ideas. I don’t look down on them as people, though.
Thanks for the tips, but walking on eggshells isn’t for me. I’m not about that. I say what I think, and people can choose to deal with it or not.
039 // Scott Nelle // 11.26.2007 // 2:38 PM
That’s clear, and it’s one of the reasons you’re fun to read. I don’t mean to suggest that you change your voice, just wanted to offer my opinion as to why these things tend to blow up on your site, and a tip to help you eventually put them to bed if you choose.
040 // Jeff Croft // 11.26.2007 // 2:47 PM
I appreciate your opinion, and the tip, Scott. Thanks. :)
041 // Arik Jones // 11.26.2007 // 8:29 PM
Flash has a place, but 80% of its use cases are bred out of the abuse of the tool. 100% Flash sites are a disgusting reality that we still prefer “cool” over usability and functionality. The population of web designers who know how to use flash sparingly is close to non-existent and I am willing to bet those people don’t really follow the huff and puff arguments surrounding their craft.
I agree whole-heartedly with the “use what fits” methodology, but who actually practices it to its full extent? I try my best to in my daily practice, but its tough. Personally I think the argument and discussion of topics such as these will not sway anything now or in the future. The web will continue to evolve and tools/techniques will continue to be abused beyond recognition.
Abuse and irresponsibility exists in every tool (and profession). A true professional understands that their craft is not simply mastering techniques, tools or even the consumption of knowledge. Its simply a task of measuring tools and techniques against the intended end-product. It takes careful consideration and high attention to details.
042 // Jeff Croft // 11.26.2007 // 8:38 PM
Just to be clear: this post has nothing to do with Flash. The comment quoted above that referenced Flash is four years old. I only included it to illustrate the point that we’ve been arguing over tools for years, and we still will be arguing over tools for years. And I’m bored with it. Today, the arguments are wether or not to use CSS frameworks and XHTML vs. HTML5, but that’s not my point: my point is simply that we’re still arguing about stuff that really doesn’t matter.
Airk, I generally agree with everything you’ve said — but I don’t really think it’s very relevant to this discussion. My point was simply to say: I’m tired of arguing about tools; I’d rather talk about higher-level concepts. Your points are good, but they’re ultimately about tools, which is precisely what I’m tired of talking about. :)
043 // Ryan Berg // 11.26.2007 // 9:17 PM
I for one hope you still write educational bits about the tools we use. Certainly no need to evangelize, attempting to convince others to use the same. But there’s always value to information helping people who choose to use these tools use them better.
044 // Grant // 11.26.2007 // 10:55 PM
Excellent. One of my new favorite quotes. When I look at my own desire to learn technologies of any kind, it’s always driven by seeing something really cool and saying, “how’d they do that?” That’s pretty much the only reason I know any of the stuff I know in the web design world today. And I would love to be exposed to more and more cool stuff so I can keep asking that question and challenging myself.
045 // Peter Kaizer // 11.26.2007 // 11:03 PM
This is an interesting thread. Jeff I completely agree with you, lets focus on building great websites, one of the tenants of which is knowing the audience (and client) you are building for (also an important usability consideration!) and using the right tools to accomplish the job. Keep up your progressive (and provocative) thinking. Thanks for some great reading!!
046 // Arik Jones // 11.27.2007 // 12:42 AM
@Jeff Croft,
The comment on Flash was purely objective. It was solely to prove the point; no matter the tool, just get the damn job done. I was also getting at the fact that we need to stop putting so much stock in “tools” and measure against something else that has more value. As far as what? I don’t really know at this point.
Realizing that you’re (also) tired of talking about tools, I think many can agree that its not really about minimizing how much we talk about them, but more about getting extended value out of our tools to innovate. If that means discussing the undiscussed, then so be it. Either way you bake it, all things are always in a mode of discussion and discovery.
047 // Jeff Croft // 11.27.2007 // 1:18 AM
Right, I agree. And, it’s not so much that I’m tired of talking about tools (although, to some degree, I am), it’s more than I’m tired of pedantic arguments about details which, most of the time, are relatively meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
The hallmark arguments of our industry — fixed vs. liquid, Flash vs. HTML, HTML5 vs XHTML2, AJAX vs. traditional pages, etc. — all have no true right or wrong answer and therefore will never be won by either side. They can be fun debates, when they’re kept on topic and non-personal, but they grow tiresome after a while.
I’ve sort of prided this site on being a place where those discussion could take place openly and without censoring — but I’ve just seen one too many of these arguments devolve into personal attacks and other poo-flinging here. I considered taking the site down all together or shutting off comments, but ultimately decided to give steering the direction of the conversations more towards higher-level topics that may not incite such ill-conceived rage a go before I took more drastic measures.
048 // Dustin Diaz // 11.27.2007 // 2:44 PM
Just like a typical guy. It’s now how you get there, it’s “there” that matters. I’m willing to bet that “she” would beg to differ ;) It’s all about details Croft. People love their tools.
FYI: Don’t take my post too serious. I’m just trying to create havoc.
049 // Jeff Croft // 11.27.2007 // 3:17 PM
Heh. nice, Dustin. :)
In all seriousness: I know people love their tools, and a lot of people love to talk about. That’s totally cool. I’m just kind of bored of that conversation myself and it seems to incite a bit too much anger around here, so I’m going avoid those discussion here and let people have them elsewhere.
It’s not at all that I think talking about tools is useless (the arguments are useless, but healthy discussion certainly isn’t)…it’s just that I’m tired of doing it here. :)
050 // Dustin Diaz // 11.27.2007 // 9:03 PM
We can move this discussion to my place if you like. You just never asked me before. I have brothers and sisters I want you to meet too…
051 // Shut Theory // 11.27.2007 // 9:26 PM
aaaaaabsolutely, I second and third and forth that :) I have always been a supported of: do it right the first time, do it GREAT the second time, if we paid any more attention to those tools (CSS and HTML) and were any more hectic about the greatness of XHTML, noone would have invented AJAX, because believe it or not, you have to break many rules to come this far :) and one more thing, helvetica looks awful on this browser, but dont change it, its worth the try ;)
052 // Andrew W // 11.29.2007 // 7:59 AM
Yo Jeff, I typically stay out of the comments because typically these discussions are just out of my league and I’m long winded. But… as an end user(!) I have to say a resounding “AMEN” to this post because ultimatly I don’t care how you built it, I just want it to look nice and work. Still, I absolutely have an opinion on how design, functionality, and features overlap. Take your typical major motion picture website. I hate them all. On the other end of the spectrum, you have craigslist.com - highly standards compliant I’m sure, very functional, but a major turn off for me. In the middle you have google maps, and even yahoo mail’s nice auto-completing email recipient field. Point is, balance the approach. And finally, in the spirit of last jabs, remember that even when you’ve done something beautiful and compliant and validated and all that, there is still going to be some poor guy out there with a work computer and no admin rights stuck on IE6.0.2900.2180.xpspsp2gdr.070227-2254 who has to look at the page source code to match comments to the poster name because the entire left column of the page has been lopped off and is invisible. Sure the blind guy can read it, but I can’t. just sayin’ :) and now back to lurking.
053 // Baxter // 11.30.2007 // 12:14 PM
On the one hand, any serious craftsman tends to take their tools pretty seriously. Ask a good auto tech about Snap-On sometime and stand back as he gushes and fawns over how much better they are, and how they make his work go better, faster.
On the other hand, most discussions of tools invariably end up in angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin category, and if our hypothetical auto tech prefers Matco to Snap-On, well, whatever, so long as he can do the job well.
And although I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again… I’ll use fairy dust and gnome whiskers if I think it’s the best way to get the job done.
Of course, on the web “best way to get the job done” is awfully situational.
054 // Mike Cherim // 11.30.2007 // 5:46 PM
Sorry for this being somewhat off topic, Jeff, but I just had to comment when I saw the title of this post. It would have fit perfectly as the title for a post I published today, though it is in an entirely different context :D
055 // JOhan // 11.30.2007 // 7:45 PM
All that talk about social webdesign , Facebook, machine tags, Flickr is also boring as a dry toast with nothing on it …
056 // Alan Gresley // 12.07.2007 // 1:19 PM
You seem have come through the trench all tattered and wearisome. Trench warfare is not good for anyone.
Are you aware of what you say..
Maybe that why trench warfare starts since people like to have their own opinions.
Anyway coming out of the trenches you can have a look around the country side and see what all the tools when combined looks like.
Reflecting I wonder what that makes me. Obsessed by bugs from inadequate
adherence to tool standards. Sounds quite odd don’t you think :-)
057 // Shaal // 12.08.2007 // 5:11 PM
The title of the post reminds me of Garo Green (from the Dreamweaver tutorial), and i’d always lol, people learned alot from the chap and he himself never came up with something extra ordinary. It really is about the way you use the tool, even Ms-Paint application is good enough for creative artists to make logos( i know one personally ). Ahh, too similar to its not much the car but the driver~
058 // Zinni // 12.10.2007 // 8:27 PM
This is one of the most realistic and fanboy destroying posts I have read in the last year at least. You are so totally spot on, it is not about the medium, it is about the message! We as web designers should focus on creating amazing user interfaces, solving clients communication problems, and strengthening brand identities!
059 // Rob // 12.12.2007 // 6:51 AM
I’d say a more appropriate analogy is
Or:
And the answer to those, for good architects, is: yes! A web designer’s tools (XHTML/CSS/Javascript/Flash/whatever) are far more closely tied to the end result than what an architect uses to sketch out buildings with, and will have far more impact on those who take on the project in the future.
While it is perfectly valid to skip over the “how” to do things, and concentrate on “what” to do, that rather converts things from design to styling - you’re not debating how to solve problems, you’re simply making things look cool/pretty. The Bathing Ape salutes you!
060 // Wreck // 12.13.2007 // 3:05 PM
“Flash vs. HTML vs. CSS”
To me it’s all about Flash “and” HTML “and” CSS or rather how can these three be used in conjunction to create a visually appealing design.
061 // nageKayarlele // 03.20.2008 // 2:27 AM
Snx for you job! It has very much helped me!