Re: re. designing for the mac

Michael:

" .... And if a media format "breaks" a browser I'm not
happy. So what do we do?"

You're allowed three snaps--then you have to punt!!

Seriously--you have grasped the essential problem dead center.

It is no longer the HTML "code" that we have trouble with. There are any
number of point and click and/or WYSIWYG editors around that write accurate
code. After all, their databases will not let them write anything else. And
while it's very true that one can still use these "tags" in a silly and
incoherent manner and produce imperfect web pages--just as one can do the
same with hand coding--the actual plain vanilla HTML is rarely an issue.
Lets face it--for simple HTML tags, these editors are in effect, self
validating.

So--You will notice that lately--except for hand coders--all the fuss over
validation is about the way the tags are integrated with each other. And
which DTD to use with the "stuff" we have added to plain old HTML.

Our HWG-Basics list is evolving into discussions over the USE of HTML and
related scripts--rather than HOW to write the basic tags. Dreamweaver,
FrontPage and a host of other editors are now making good old NotePad
obsolete. And hence, the problems associated with NotePad equally obsolete.
Now--anyone can create correct tags. We just have to learn what to do with
them. And--what we can use WITH them.

So what DO we do with all these bells and whistles and multi media??

Some of us kind of lean toward using the KISS principle. But for all others,
Michael has pointed out the direction that a Basics list must inevitably
take. The integration of SSI, CSS, XML, RealAudio, etc. etc. etc. --  And
also, discussions over forming guidelines as to where the average web master
must draw the line as far as obsolete browsers and/or operating systems
support.

It is a problem that seems to have no pat answer as unique websites attract
unique visitors with unique equipment and problems. Still, I for one, think
such discussions and argument is very healthy. If for no other reason than
to give each one of us several different perspectives on which to base our
own decisions.

Best wishes
Ted Temer
Temercraft Designs Redding, CA
temer(at)c-zone.net
www.temercraft.com/novels/
www.newsredding.com/
www.ramac-rc.org/



> >At 03:28 PM 6/27/01 , mikemckee(at)cablespeed.com wrote:
>  >[ . . .]
>  >Hope this clarifies any questions you might have about the differences
>  >between Mac and Windows web design.
>  >[ . . .]
>
>  >Thanks! and it does. Except for one.
>
>  >."Why not just use ratified code?
>
> Well, yes and no. I agree with using standard code. But what about
> multi-media? IE for Mac is *more* standards compliant than the Win
> version. NN about the same. Where the whole issue breaks down is with
> other technologies like Java, streaming media, instant messaging and
> plugins. I wish there was a standard for those additions to the web
> experience. But I certainly don't want to be limited to static text and
> images.
>
> Most of the discussion on this forum seems to involve CSS and getting NN
> to display correctly. Those are important concerns. But that isn't the
> whole of the picture. Flash, Shockwave, Director, Quicktime, Realmedia,
> Windows media, SVG, Beatnick, MP3 and who knows what else are very much
> a part of the WWW. We know that the web is moving toward a more complex
> experience and I as a designer feel I need to keep current. We may be
> seeing the final stages of the browser wars but the multimedia wars are
> just getting started. And if a media format "breaks" a browser I'm not
> happy. So what do we do?
>
> best,
> michael
>
>
>  >That way it 'works' for everyone. Pretty much, regardless of the
> browser/platform/OS.
>
>  >Fuzzy
>  ><confused as usual>
>

HTML: hwg-basics mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA