Dec 28 2007, 3:53 pm
This was originally was a response to a comment on my last blog post, but it ended up being a great topic for a blog post.
Regarding the structure of the code on my new site, and the methods behind it:
I purposely did not include fall-backs for handicapped readers, and didn't include fall-backs for readers with CSS turned off. Reason is, they don't visit my site. I am not providing a "general audience" service with this site, just about everyone who visits my site is a designer, programmer, or someone looking for one.
As a matter of fact 56% of my visitors are on Firefox, and 18% are on Safari. One very important aspect of being a web developer is knowing who your target is. There is no need to spend the extra time on making sure you have all the fall-backs in place for 2% or less of your visitors. Especially if your website/business is not targeted to them.
This should be a point for all web developers to consider. Think about who your are trying to reach, and spend your energy reaching them.
For instance, on my website I have CSS shadows on all the text. No one but Safari users will see it, but a good majority of everyone I have worked with in the past (other designers/developers) use Safari. I am purposely catering to them (much like Shaun Inman) And those are the people I want to be "WOW'd" by my work.
In contrast, if your project requires a website that will reach the majority of readers (those people on IE 6, and with no Javascript or CSS), put the proper fall-backs in place. Its all about reaching your target. Not spending time coding things that will never be needed (that's basic "Cost vs Benefit").
Remember your target. Code with standards, but remember your target.
Regarding the structure of the code on my new site, and the methods behind it:
I purposely did not include fall-backs for handicapped readers, and didn't include fall-backs for readers with CSS turned off. Reason is, they don't visit my site. I am not providing a "general audience" service with this site, just about everyone who visits my site is a designer, programmer, or someone looking for one.
As a matter of fact 56% of my visitors are on Firefox, and 18% are on Safari. One very important aspect of being a web developer is knowing who your target is. There is no need to spend the extra time on making sure you have all the fall-backs in place for 2% or less of your visitors. Especially if your website/business is not targeted to them.
This should be a point for all web developers to consider. Think about who your are trying to reach, and spend your energy reaching them.
For instance, on my website I have CSS shadows on all the text. No one but Safari users will see it, but a good majority of everyone I have worked with in the past (other designers/developers) use Safari. I am purposely catering to them (much like Shaun Inman) And those are the people I want to be "WOW'd" by my work.
In contrast, if your project requires a website that will reach the majority of readers (those people on IE 6, and with no Javascript or CSS), put the proper fall-backs in place. Its all about reaching your target. Not spending time coding things that will never be needed (that's basic "Cost vs Benefit").
Remember your target. Code with standards, but remember your target.
Best Regards, Francisco C.
Maybe that's because you're not a handicapped visitor, or a search engine:)?
The point is the issue is moot - you can know your audience, but never know your audience 100%. Why not build for fail safe accuracy? Why not build in the standard method we recommend for a complete audience? It takes no more time to build with semantics, and the benefits are reaching a potential demographic you may not have imagined you have. Building for the unexpected, semantics are about building for content, and design is content.
Ah, old debate, I understand the reason for the frustration, but I thought this was an old discussion that had long been won over:).
Well done.
Sorry, but I don't allow tags in comments. So unfortunately none of your code examples showed up.
I see what you mean now and agree with you 100%. If I doubled up my class declarations (ex: class="classname1 subclass2") it would slim down my code. That is something I must make a habit of, and don't do enough. I use the technique here and there, but not enough.
Thanks again for the great point.
Peace,
Drew
I'd think aside from the SEO benefits, and the smaller code, it'd be easier to read your code as you redevelop later, and structure your CSS by calling in the above manner instead of excessive classes/ids. You also get the benefit of styling a whole slew of elements on the fly (which I'm sure you're already doing in the posts).
Just seems like the less you use repetitive code without a structural meaning, and the less you use lots of classes and ids, you get smaller code, better searching, etc. It looks great, and that's the goal of a designer, but it can look great and function with pluses as well. That may also be the years of code beatings put into me by designers of old... and my own team has to suffer now.