Happy CSS Naked Day 2007 !!

Posted By: Sourcecode | Apr 5th, 2007 @ 5:00 AM
page 1 of 1
Comments: 17 | Views: 5351
#Apr 5th, 2007 @ 5:00 AM
Sourcecode
Sourcecode
Whatever it is, I didn't do it.




Never heard of this one before. I suppose the idea is to strip all css out of your web page to support standards. Different way of encouraging standards use.

W3bbo get Naked!!

Details

Andy Jarrett wrote:

The idea behind this event is to promote Web Standards. Plain and simple. This includes proper use of (x)html, semantic markup, a good hierarchy structure, and of course, a good 'ol play on words. It's time to show off your...


Quote link:

http://www.andyjarrett.co.uk/andy/blog/index.cfm/2007/4/5/Im-naked-and-you-should-join-me

#Apr 5th, 2007 @ 5:20 AM
stevo_
stevo_
Human after all
Stripping CSS doesn't make you support standards, you write the html structure by standards guidelines, just as you would structure any programming.. The css just makes that structure pretty!
#Apr 5th, 2007 @ 5:20 AM
Massif
Massif
aim stupidly high, expect to fail often.
For a second I thought you were encouraging us to design with no cloths on... Which isn't going to happen anytime soon in this office I can tell you.
#Apr 5th, 2007 @ 5:22 AM
W3bbo
W3bbo
The Master of Baiters
Massif wrote:
For a second I thought you were encouraging us to design with no cloths on... Which isn't going to happen anytime soon in this office I can tell you.


No, it's just that if you design a web-page properly it should "degrade gracefully" when the CSS is inaccessible or disabled, making all the content readable.

Not something C9v4 will do, I'm afraid.
#Apr 5th, 2007 @ 5:31 AM
Sourcecode
Sourcecode
Whatever it is, I didn't do it.

stevo_ wrote:
Stripping CSS doesn't make you support standards, you write the html structure by standards guidelines, just as you would structure any programming.. The css just makes that structure pretty!


Did you read before posting ?

It’s meant to show your support for standards. No one said CSS makes you support standards… Expressionless 

I think most folks here are fully aware what CSS is for, but thanks.

#Apr 5th, 2007 @ 5:31 AM
Bas
Bas
It finds lightbulbs.
W3bbo wrote:

Massif wrote: For a second I thought you were encouraging us to design with no cloths on... Which isn't going to happen anytime soon in this office I can tell you.


No, it's just that if you design a web-page properly it should "degrade gracefully" when the CSS is inaccessible or disabled, making all the content readable.


Like CSS-less, non-standard IE6 only pages. Tongue Out
#Apr 5th, 2007 @ 5:37 AM
CannotResolveSymbol
CannotResolveSymbol
{insert caption here}
W3bbo wrote:

Massif wrote: For a second I thought you were encouraging us to design with no cloths on... Which isn't going to happen anytime soon in this office I can tell you.


No, it's just that if you design a web-page properly it should "degrade gracefully" when the CSS is inaccessible or disabled, making all the content readable.

Not something C9v4 will do, I'm afraid.


The current Channel 9 degrades quite nicely if you disable the CSS--  not something you can say about most of your sites with completely CSS-based layout (using divs and such).

I'm not really sure whether this is encouraging the use of CSS or table layout--  because the only way your site will degrade nicely without CSS is if you either have a very simple layout or are using tables for layout (which is supposed to be bad).
#Apr 5th, 2007 @ 6:52 AM
stevo_
stevo_
Human after all
Sourcecode wrote:


stevo_ wrote:Stripping CSS doesn't make you support standards, you write the html structure by standards guidelines, just as you would structure any programming.. The css just makes that structure pretty!


Did you read before posting ?

It’s meant to show your support for standards. No one said CSS makes you support standards…  

I think most folks here are fully aware what CSS is for, but thanks.



Nice attitude.
#Apr 5th, 2007 @ 7:21 AM
Sourcecode
Sourcecode
Whatever it is, I didn't do it.
stevo_ wrote:

Sourcecode wrote: 

stevo_ wrote: Stripping CSS doesn't make you support standards, you write the html structure by standards guidelines, just as you would structure any programming.. The css just makes that structure pretty!


Did you read before posting ?

It’s meant to show your support for standards. No one said CSS makes you support standards…  

I think most folks here are fully aware what CSS is for, but thanks.



Nice attitude.


Your right; that was a little harsh. My apologies.


#Apr 5th, 2007 @ 8:32 AM
TadejK
TadejK
Illuminate me
CannotResolveSymbol wrote:

W3bbo wrote:
Massif wrote: For a second I thought you were encouraging us to design with no cloths on... Which isn't going to happen anytime soon in this office I can tell you.


No, it's just that if you design a web-page properly it should "degrade gracefully" when the CSS is inaccessible or disabled, making all the content readable.

Not something C9v4 will do, I'm afraid.


The current Channel 9 degrades quite nicely if you disable the CSS--  not something you can say about most of your sites with completely CSS-based layout (using divs and such).

I'm not really sure whether this is encouraging the use of CSS or table layout--  because the only way your site will degrade nicely without CSS is if you either have a very simple layout or are using tables for layout (which is supposed to be bad).


My question exactly!
#Apr 5th, 2007 @ 8:53 AM
blowdart
blowdart
Peek-a-boo
TadejK wrote:

CannotResolveSymbol wrote:
W3bbo wrote:
Massif wrote: For a second I thought you were encouraging us to design with no cloths on... Which isn't going to happen anytime soon in this office I can tell you.


No, it's just that if you design a web-page properly it should "degrade gracefully" when the CSS is inaccessible or disabled, making all the content readable.

Not something C9v4 will do, I'm afraid.


The current Channel 9 degrades quite nicely if you disable the CSS--  not something you can say about most of your sites with completely CSS-based layout (using divs and such).

I'm not really sure whether this is encouraging the use of CSS or table layout--  because the only way your site will degrade nicely without CSS is if you either have a very simple layout or are using tables for layout (which is supposed to be bad).


My question exactly!


You're assuming that degrading means it has to have the same layout. It doesn't. Consider that degraded browser tend to be those used to be crawled, or in braille/speech browsers where layout is not important.
#Apr 5th, 2007 @ 9:21 AM
Harlequin
Harlequin
http://twitter.c​om/TrueHarlequin
blowdart wrote:
 You're assuming that degrading means it has to have the same layout. It doesn't. Consider that degraded browser tend to be those used to be crawled, or in braille/speech browsers where layout is not important.


Like the CSS Zen masterpiece here Smiley

Turn CSS off on that and you get nice simply oldskool text. Almost magical....hehe
#Apr 5th, 2007 @ 11:44 AM
W3bbo
W3bbo
The Master of Baiters
blowdart wrote:
You're assuming that degrading means it has to have the same layout. It doesn't. Consider that degraded browser tend to be those used to be crawled, or in braille/speech browsers where layout is not important.


Right on!

"Graceful-degredation" is about ensuring the page and its content is still readable and functional when additional features are unavailable.

...that includes normally AJAX forms sending data back using POST or GET if JS or HttpXmlRequest is unavailable, or fonts and colors reverting to defaults if it cannot render CSS.
#Apr 5th, 2007 @ 1:16 PM
Sampy
Sampy
This will be the sixth time we have destroyed it and we have become exceedingly efficient at it
I can have sympathy for site creators who don't do this, however. What you are asking them to do (especially with the AJAX part) is build two sites.

While this may be "right" or "good" it's by no means easy.
#Apr 5th, 2007 @ 2:31 PM
W3bbo
W3bbo
The Master of Baiters
Sampy wrote:
What you are asking them to do (especially with the AJAX part) is build two sites.


Er...no.

When you do it properly, it's like making 1.25 sites. Hardly two different websites.

The "two websites" scenario happens when you build the website bottom-up, if you start off with the basics then move down it's easier to add the nifty extras (I call 'em "croutons" for some reason) with less work.


#Apr 6th, 2007 @ 11:35 AM
HumanCompiler
HumanCompiler
Compiling humans...and code
W3bbo wrote:

Sampy wrote: What you are asking them to do (especially with the AJAX part) is build two sites.


Er...no.

When you do it properly, it's like making 1.25 sites. Hardly two different websites.

The "two websites" scenario happens when you build the website bottom-up, if you start off with the basics then move down it's easier to add the nifty extras (I call 'em "croutons" for some reason) with less work.




Properly?  Would you like to define what "properly" means in this context?  Is this properly according to W3bbo?

Properly for the Channel 9 team means following standards while building the best browser experience possible.  We're going to push the limits and use the latest and greatest.  It's what we do.

I personally don't believe in degradation at all!  If you're using a modern browser (read: IE, FF, Safari, Opera), CSS and Javascript will be there.  Our Safari and Opera story isn't that great, but it's getting better.

If you're referring to mobile devices, well then we need a completely different experience for those and it's definitely an area we're interested in.  But we won't support running the main C9 site on a phone.  Sorry!  I guess you could try Deepfish for that.  Wink
#Apr 6th, 2007 @ 12:14 PM
W3bbo
W3bbo
The Master of Baiters
HumanCompiler wrote:
If you're referring to mobile devices, well then we need a completely different experience for those and it's definitely an area we're interested in.  But we won't support running the main C9 site on a phone.  Sorry!  I guess you could try Deepfish for that. 


But you can use the same document, just a different stylesheet for mobile devices. This is what I'm on about.
#Apr 6th, 2007 @ 12:37 PM
HumanCompiler
HumanCompiler
Compiling humans...and code
W3bbo wrote:

HumanCompiler wrote: If you're referring to mobile devices, well then we need a completely different experience for those and it's definitely an area we're interested in.  But we won't support running the main C9 site on a phone.  Sorry!  I guess you could try Deepfish for that. 


But you can use the same document, just a different stylesheet for mobile devices. This is what I'm on about.


"Can" being the keyword there.

Each "device" in your arsenal has a difference experience.  Sitting at your couch, your Xbox, Media Center, whatever has a 10 foot experience.  Sitting at your desktop or laptop computer you have a 2 foot experience.  On your phone you have a 6 inch experience.

Sorry for all the american measurements.  That's just what we say here at Microsoft.

Each experience should be different in what functionality you can participate in.  Do you really want to type a reply on the coffeehouse from your phone?  Maybe if it's short, but not likely.  What do you want to do from your phone?  Probably view low bandwidth videos or just see what's going on on Channel 9.  We will eventually deliver that experience, but again it is not the same as what you'll experience on your computer at your desk.
page 1 of 1
Comments: 17 | Views: 5351
Microsoft Communities