Alex smashes all the silly arguments CSS spec editor Bert Bos tried to use against the concept of CSS “variables” (really constants). I’m sorry, but anyone who thinks CSS variables are a bad idea just isn’t living in the real world of web development these days. Go Alex! Visit site »
Bert is, of course, referring to symbolic constants, which many people seem to want to call “variables,” even though they’re really not. Anyway, he contends that the idea of constants in CSS is flawed, in large part because added complexity makes CSS more difficult to learn. I think this is kind of absurd. CSS is easy to learn. Really easy, in fact (I’ve said for years that the only hard part of HTML and CSS is browser bugs. Take browser bugs out of the equation, and CSS is child’s play). If symbolic constants are really so complicated that non-programers can’t grasp them (which they’re not), then they simply don’t have to use them.
But even more importantly than that: why is keeping CSS easy to learn so damned important? The only people that need to know CSS are web developers. This notion of keeping it simple so “regular people” can read and understand it is silly. Doctors, lawyers, and pharmacists don’t keep their specs and documentation simple so regular people can understand it, because regular people don’t need to understand it. Why does the W3 seem to place such an emphasis on making CSS palatable to everyone? Visit site »
August 20th, 2007, 6 PM in Seattle, WA
Building on his post at Wired’s blog earlier this week, Scott Gilbertson now has a full article on the Wired front page, and again quotes me. I know it seems silly, but this is really cool to me. I’ve been reading Wired since its inception in the early 90s, so to be quoted on their website is pretty neat. And, they didn’t even get me using an F-bomb, this time. :) Visit site »
A life long goal of mine is to be mentioned in Wired magazine. Today, I’m in their blog. That’s pretty close, right? It even calls me a “prominent developer.” But most importantly, it quotes me (accurately, even!), dropping an F-bomb. Classy, Jeff. Real classy.
Thanks, Wired. :) Visit site »
Stuart responded to the same Alex Russell piece I did, only less positively. Stuart makes good counter-arguments to many of Alex’s points. Alex then shows up in the comments and the two politely debate back and forth — it’s a really great discussion. The conclusion? Stuart seems to be coming around to many of Alex’s ideas.
It’s tough to talk openly in this community about things that aren’t “compliant.” The second you mention trying something outside of the standards world, you get clubbed with the giant Internet stick, even if you’re a standards advocate 95% of the time. I’m glad people are starting to talk openly about what’s *really important — innovation and moving forward — rather than just about how we can all fall in line and be compliant all the damn time. Visit site »
My former co-worker James ahres his insights on some of the stuff we’ve been discussing here at JeffCroft.com. Gotta say, I sort of hate how James always manages to come off as such a level-headed dude in his blog posts. If only you guys could see what he’s like in real life…
Just teasing, James. :)
Kind of. Visit site »
In which I feature and respond to some of the excellent points in Alex Russell’s post, The W3C Cannot Save Us.
Andy says that Opera’s latest filing against Microsoft is evidence that the CSS Working Group (which contains mostly representatives of the various browser manufacturers) must be disbanded and a new strategy put into place — one which includes more representation from designers and developers.
I’ve written about this before, so obviously, I generally agree with the general principles. However, I’m unsure what motivation browser makers would have to implement standards if they were less involved with creating them. And, quite frankly, I’ve pretty much give up on the idea of the W3C as a relevant body in our industry. The W3 basically feels to me like the 55 year old store manager who has been working at your local WalMart for 30 years. He’s slow, old, tired, obsessed with policy and procedure, and resistant to change — people just kind of let him think he’s in charge while the rest of the company moves on around him.
Bottom line: I generally agree with Andy, but I see no reason to believe a change will ever happen. Visit site »
As I previously mentioned, I’m on the roster for Andy Clarke’s CSS Eleven, an international group of designers and developers working together to help the W3C’s CSS Working Group in delivering the tools that real-world designers need. I’ve been pretty pessimistic about the W3C lately, and I figured this was my change to try and do something about it, rather than just bitching all the time. I’m a bit cynical as to whether or not it’ll help, but we’ll never know if we don’t try — and like I said, I can’t really complain if I am unwilling to help. Visit site »
Andy Clarke has announce CSS Eleven, a group of web designers working with the W3C’s CSS Working Group to help shape the future of CSS. I am thrilled to be part of it! Visit site »
I’ve only just skimmed this, but I must say that it looks pretty promising. Great to see that the W3 is at least thinking about this from a designer’s perspective. Visit site »
The new W3C HTML Working Group, who will create the next version of HTML, will be initially chaired by Microsoft’s Chris Wilson. Although my impression is that Chris is a good person and has good intentions, I agree with Roger that it’s hard not to be a little leary of Microsoft being in this position of power — what with their attitude towards web standards over the years. Still, I remain cautiously hopefully that Chris Wilson will use this position to influence Microsoft to do the right thing, rather than for Microsoft to influence the W3C. Visit site »
While the article itself is somewhat interesting, the title alone once again proves my theory that many of those in the accessibility community are incapable of discussing their field without turning into whiny little bitches and making matters personal. I tried to comment on Martin’s post, pointing out that it was one more example of accessibility discussions degenerating into personal attacks and name-calling, and he e-mailed me to tell me that he wouldn’t approve my comment because there’s “no trolling (allowed) on this blog.” Once they grow the hell up, maybe someone will start paying attention to them. Visit site »