Re: Images & mouseovers

At 01:28 PM 9/23/2000 , KathyW wrote:
>Kynn ... what is the gameplan with Strict - it seems so restrictive and so
>difficult to do simple things (image rollovers, javascript etc). Following
>Tamara's comments it would seem nearly impossible to recreate the look and
>function of some perfectly valid HTML4.01 or XHTML1.0Transitional pages in
>XHTML1.0Strict. 

Yeah, basically Strict is the "theory" and Transitional is
the "practice."  In theory, you should be able to use Strict + CSS
to get all the effects _and more_ possible in Transitional.  In
practice, the browser support for CSS is so weak that you can't
rely on Strict + CSS (and Strict is not really meant to be used
alone), so to be safe, Transitional is "it" for at least the next
few years, minimum.  (I would be surprised if it were safe to
use Strict+CSS as early as the end of 2002, for example.  Maybe
by 2004.)

>I'm a graphic designer, my world is very visually oriented. I'm not prepared to
>forgo design aesthetics for strict adherance to an incomplete or inadequate
>"standard". What is / is there any solution?

This is not a criticism of you, but just advice -- it's hard
sometimes for people who are graphic designers and who think
visually to see all of the possibilities of the Web.  With the
Web as an information medium first, and one of the expressions
of that information being visual, it's easy for all of us (even
non-artists like me) to get caught up in the idea that the Web
is "what I see."

In truth, one of the strengths of the Web is the ability to
express the _same_ information (content) in a way that is most
useful to the _user_.  This means that the Web graphic designers
of the future -- those in 2005 or beyond -- will not only be
designing _one_ user interface but will actually be designing
a multitude, simultaneously.  This is the kind of stuff that
Edapta (the company I work for) is developing; adaptive user
interfaces that fit the user (not the designer).

For now, though, what you'll want to do is stick with Transitional
+ CSS -- not really optimal, since the ideal is Strict + CSS,
but that ideal doesn't exist!  The "+ CSS" extends the ability
of Transitional XHTML and gives you the ability to create a
number of effects that you can't actually get now with Transitional
XHTML alone.

And why XHTML instead of HTML?  By coding to XHTML standards, you
can prepare for the future which will include CC/PP, XSLT, XML
Schemas, and a variety of technologies which have yet to be
developed.  One of the powers of XML is the ability to convert
easily and quickly from one format to another.  If you have your
pages in XHTML (not HTML) you can convert pretty painlessly.
For example, if the HWG site were written in XHTML instead of
HTML, a single XSLT stylesheet could change not only the
appearance of the site (as can be done now in CSS by changing
the global style sheet), but also change the structure of each
and every page.

I love XSLT.  I may have mentioned this before. :)

Anyway, to answer your question:  Transitional XHTML 1.0 + CSS
(safe styles) for the near future, at least until the end of
2002.

--Kynn

-- 
Kynn Bartlett                                    mailto:kynn(at)hwg.org
Board Member, HTML Writers Guild                 http://www.hwg.org/
AWARE Center Director                    http://www.awarecenter.org/

HWG hwg-xml mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters