MickNov 19 2009 12:25 AM
Agree with these comments completely. And I have already begun employing these ideals with things such as rounded edges.
I find myself stripping back some of the superfluous design elements for older browsers - those subtle elements that add a little something extra, but aren\'t essential.Tor Løvskogen BollingmoNov 19 2009 4:34 AM
\"If you are reading idsgn with Internet Explorer you might notice our rounded buttons look square, or if you are using an iPhone you’ll have to read our headlines in Georgia instead of Auto—but that’s okay, it doesn’t affect the overall user experience.\"
If typeface has zero to do with the UX, why use Auto in the first place? Typeface /does/ have something to do with the UX-feel.Ryan RobertsNov 19 2009 5:22 AM
Try explaining this to clients, or worse other design agencies demanding accurate brand representation across browsers (if you\'re a freelancer you may well work with/for other design agencies as a supplier).
While I agree with the article overall sometimes small touches like round corners can have a large effect on a design, they soften it up providing a different atmosphere and possibly a different experience to some degree.tonyrocksNov 19 2009 8:47 AM
Finally! I can stop trying to make things look good in Netscape Communicator! woowhoo :)
My friend LinZ swears by IE6 though...I need her to reread this article.
SkylarNov 19 2009 9:00 AM
@Tor,
You\'re right, typefaces do have something to do with the UX-feel. But the point is, if you are on a device that doesn\'t support it, the website is still 100% functional. By planning for degradation, you can ensure usability remains for all users.@Skylar – Should the aim for designers be 100% function, and then end there? I always aim for 100% function, and 100% form. Ofcourse 100% is almost always unachievable - but my designs would suffer if I didn\'t have a aim for 100% form aswell as function.
Ben WeilandNov 19 2009 11:53 AM
Does this mean that improvements to fonts online should be treated as an extra treat? I don\'t feel like this lends itself to advancing design for the web. It seems that not being able to choose your font is like sending a file to print, and the printer is going to replace it with his closest match.
Alex O\'NealNov 19 2009 4:17 PM
I subscribe to the school of evolutional design. In evolution, species change not to reach for some progressively-closer-to-perfection goal, but in response to each other and their ever-changing environment. My design must do likewise.
Rather than reach for pixel-perfect, which is relatively unattainable outside of print, (and is probably only \"perfect\" to myself and possibly my client), I reach for what\'s best for my users, which is in the interests of my client. I expect that \"best\" to change as my users change, and as my client\'s services/products change. This approach makes it much easier to design for UX.
Part of evolutional design is stepping away from the graceful degradation concept.What you want is differently adapted experience, not degraded experience.In other words, it\'s not necessary that one version of a design be best. Two or three versions can be equally good, so long as the experience is valuable. Think of the differences simply resizing a window can have on well-planned liquid design, without hurting usability. Are the different sizes bad? Of course not.
Those who complain that this hurts design are limiting their understanding of design. Design operates at many levels:
* Taxonomy. How do our users think about us? How do we think about us? How do we change/optimize/engage those contexts?
* Print: engages at the 2-D level.
* Simple web page: visually 2-D, but provides access to 3-D
* Rich media/interactive (beyond simple navigation). This may meet site flow and similar needs.
* Site flow/navigation. 3-D thinking.
* Searchability, internally and externally. If they can\'t find it, they can\'t use it.
* Technological compatibility. Not making something pixel-perfect in every app or smart phone or OS, but making it useful and accessible to everyone who needs it.
* Brand design, extending beyond the site to include print, product, advertising, press releases, etc. The atomized, distributed content UX.
* Perception & learning theory (affects all of the above).
* User experience.All of the above.
William James pointed out that \"my experience is what I agree to attend to,\" and this is key to designing UX. I must design so that my users are willing to participate in the experience I design. It\'s a contract between us, and identical typography in different OS is not a clause.Randy JensenNov 21 2009 3:06 PM
I appreciate the thought behind this article and I think for some things you can go ahead and forge ahead (especially things like rounded corners for moz/webkit which I already use religiously and have found not to degrade the user experience much if at all).
But I think when you start to get into things like fonts, transitions, rotation, shadows, etc. the site can end up drastically different for the end user.
Does it make sense to use a css shadow on a font if it\'s going to be harder to read in a browser that doesn\'t support it? What about losing a transition on a critical element? As a designer there must be a better way to call attention to an element that is cross browser friendly.
I just gave a talk to a class of some up and coming web designers and told them to be ready for a somewhat unpleasant and fragmented environment as we move forward.
IE and Opera are never going to support a moz or webkit based style. So are we going to end up adding moz/webkit/presto/trident to our css in order to round a corner on a simple div?
I\'m glad this article finally got written, I just think throwing all the new toys we as web designers have under the same umbrella and saying screw everyone not on browser x and y is a bit much for certain properties.PierreNov 21 2009 3:42 PM
I agree with this article. Whatever the forthcoming new possibilities to design websites and all the problems that can happen on the differents browsers. We always have to focus on user xperience.
CliraNov 21 2009 3:49 PM
Looking the same way in all browsers (older one as well)? Just today I was thinking about it and wrote something about wedesign revolution http://bit.ly/4IEoJ7 - as I call it. Maybe that would be solution to this... What do u think?
Irwin ChenNov 21 2009 5:15 PM
The problem isn\'t with fonts not being the same, or a few rounded corners missing. It\'s when entire containers are either completely missing or lopped off, or mysteriously positioned where they\'re not supposed to be.
I agree with the basic premise of your post (that we should see font support, rounded corners, opacity, and drop shadows as enhancements, and not not use them because IE can\'t support them) but where\'s the line? As Ryan points out above, people who work in larger companies don\'t have the luxury of saying \"I\'m going to use css rounded corners and let IE suffer\". Their boss is going to say, 70% of our visitors use IE so you have make it work in IE as well. I know from experience that a large portion of your time as a web developer is spent tweaking stylesheets to make things appear not broken because of IE\'s interpretation of the box model. There\'s no simple way to \"let it go\" (short of putting a disclaimer for IE users).keifNov 21 2009 8:38 PM
Okay, I get it. From a design point of view, we should design for the highest order and others (often IE) can just \"not get it.\"
Try explaining to a client that the kick-ass design you made \"won\'t work in their corporate standard IE6.\" I\'m sure they\'ll understand.
From a \"design\" portfolio perspective, being able to know the ins and outs of differences in browsers is good. From a development perspective, it\'s better to know how to duplicate CSS3 in JavaScript for the other browsers. Most importantly, it\'s important to know your audience, and not promise something to a client that a smaller percentage will see.
(p.s. check your email validation, it wouldn\'t accept my personal address xx@myhost.name)Randy Jensen – The \'-moz-border-radius\' is just implemented temporarily, and when it\'s standard CSS, it will work in all modern browsers with just \'border-radius\'. So you should add that last one to your stylesheet too.
Abhijit ShirsathNov 24 2009 12:47 AM
Liked the way, u describes the most problem developers face...about browser compatibility.
JoshNov 29 2009 12:14 AM
The message of this post is spot on. I have begun to use \"progressive enhancement\" in my designs. I\'m thinking about switching my personal site over to HTML 5, but I\'m not sure if it\'s that time yet.
AdamRedwoodsDec 2 2009 8:03 PM
I respectfully disagree with the above article.
User experience can be shaped via visual consistency. For example, the value of a brand, or the customer\'s level of confidence for an e-commerce site. If something looks broken for one viewer, but looks ok for another, your brand suffers and you could lose a potential client.
Especially if graphical items are off-center, as in the above example. You don\'t want your work to look sloppy.
I almost feel the article should have touched more on the subject of antiquated browsers-- if it looks broken, the user may opt to blame the browser, thus upgrading to more modern technology.
I know it\'s a tough racket, but that is why pressure should be put on the actual browsers to adopt standards, and push less rogue enhancements.