You’re living in a fantasy world

Always an example of the best the web design industry has to offer, this year 24 ways, the advent calendar for web geeks, has its focus firmly set on moving your web design forward.

Having had an advance preview of Tim Van Damme’s CSS space animation, I wrote on Twitter.

Just seen something that, at 12pm tonight, will change the web forever! (link)

That isn’t hype-mongering. I am speechless, stunned, flabbergasted. And you will be too. (link)

OK, maybe I was a little enthusiastic but this was not mindless hyperbole. I was excited, because after several months of researching examples and learning CSS animations for my next book, finally here was one of the world’s best designers putting his huge talents to work to demonstrate some of the myriad of new possibilities.

And what did you do? Whinge? Play the eternal pessimist? Harp on about browser support or performance?

This is nothing new. In June I wrote about being fearful about the state of mind of web designers after an excellent article by Inayaili de Leon was drowned by a chorus of:

Great article, thanks but I think to wait that the most of browsers support CSS3 totally to develop websites for my clients.

I can’t wait to start using the new CSS3 standard, but I don’t think we can start just yet. Especially when IE isn’t supported in some of these.

I hope CSS3 will be a standard in the near future, right now you cant really use anything of it ’cause not every browser supports it.

If you’re one of those people who is hiding behind the outdated notion that web sites should look, or be experienced, exactly the same in every browser, you are in for a nasty shock. The real question is not should web sites look the same in every browser but can they? The answer is no. Live with that, move on.

If you are one of those people who is waiting until using progressive CSS is safe because all major browsers support the same CSS at the same time, you’re living in a fantasy world.

Unlike CSS1, 2 or 2.1, CSS3 is not one single specification. Instead CSS3 is a series of modules that are designed to allow browser makers to implement them when and if they choose. Browser makers will make implementation decisions based on their own business agendas and timetables. That is why the prospect of widespread CSS3 compatibility among browsers is unlikely for the foreseeable future.

You should accept that, today. Move on. Do the best work that can you can with the best tools available. Learn how to explain the facts of life to your clients or employers. Give them realistic expectations. Dismiss their preconceptions. Above all, have fun.

Or find another career.

There have been 72 replies

  1. 1

    Eric

    Forgive my pessimism but I’m not the problem, my boss and my customers are.  I have been preaching, demoing, and using CSS3 and HTML5 for a while now in a number of my experiments and proof-of-concepts, but they never make it to production because some executive is still using Windows ME because nobody wants to tell him it’s outdated.  I have yet to find somebody willing to pay to have their own site gracefully degrade in their own browser of choice, if they can’t see it they don’t want to pay for it. 

    Maybe I just need out of enterprise development, but this is nothing if not frustrating…

    15th Dec 2009
  2. 2

    DanC

    I completely agree.

    Not much more to add really…......

    15th Dec 2009
  3. 3

    Dan Millar

    Well said!

    15th Dec 2009
  4. 4

    Cole

    My thoughts entirely, which have tried to summarise thus:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/cole007/4187641210/sizes/m/

    15th Dec 2009
  5. 5

    Wez Maynard

    Sweeping generalization coming… BUT

    I think Designer/Developers will embrace this - and Developer/‘Designers’ will continue to whine.  Its a creative mind set against a nuts and bolts one.

    Keep moving forward Andy - and here’s to MORE sterling work from Tim.

    Here’s to progressive enhancement on the web!  Vive la Révolution!

    15th Dec 2009
  6. 6

    Chris Hill

    Most clients neither know nor care about CSS3 and HTML5 support, they care that their website works for their customers. If you think you can dismiss what a client sees as a broken website with ‘those are the facts of life’ then you are the one living in the fantasy world.

    Using CSS3 is a wonderful, wonderful thing but until its supported by the browsers with the biggest market share, you would be crazy to use it commercially.

    15th Dec 2009
  7. 7

    John Oxton

    I agree, in principal, but the help I need from people like you is selling these ideas to my employers and making them understand the real value they will bring to the business. I struggle daily just to sell ‘the basics’

    15th Dec 2009
  8. 8

    Chris Johnson

    Ouch!

    I have been trying to bring more and more CSS3 goodies into my designs while relying on the practice of progressive enhancement. With that said, I do it because I love trying out new things and adding new tricks to my repertoire.

    However, the vast majority of these new techniques aren’t going to help me with client work today. CSS3 support is too spotty to rely on for anything but added flair, unless you want to add a bunch of nasty fallbacks with JavaScript and conditional code. Even if you restrict yourself to flair, it seems like a waste of precious time when only a tiny fraction of visitors will see it.

    In any case, I’m crossing my fingers in the hope Microsoft adds at least some of this great new tech to the next Internet Explorer.

    15th Dec 2009
  9. 9

    Kean

    I’m totally behind the idea that sites don’t need to look the same in all browsers, because like you said they can’t but when it comes to CSS animations I’m a little way of jumping in just yet.

    Unlike the some CSS3 stuff, CSS Animations look like they’ll take a bit of learning, at least to start with. So with the minority of browsers supporting animations and with few visitors likely to see them I don’t think it’s quite worth the investment just yet. But it’s definately something to keep an eye on and slowly introduce over time as other browsers catch up.

    15th Dec 2009
  10. 10

    Yaili

    This morning I went to a shoe repair shop, hoping to repair my favourite cheap, old boot. The main said “I’m sorry, but there’s nothing we can do about it. If you really want to, you can try super glue yourself, but we can’t help you with that here, it’s ruined.”.

    I was a sad for a moment, but I moved on.

    I wish more people in our business approached their clients with the confidence of that man. He knows his business, I don’t. I believed him, because it’s not my job to repair boots.

    15th Dec 2009
  11. 11

    Chris Gillis

    agreed “If you are one of those people who is waiting until using progressive CSS is safe because all major browsers support the same CSS at the same time, you’re living in a fantasy world.” 

    Nice post.

    15th Dec 2009
  12. 12

    Ian Parr

    Yes, you’re correct.  But so many agencies (and thus potential young-web developer employers) don’t seem to understand this.  So clients don’t understand this, and time is spent (wasted) working on making IE6 look as good as possible, whilst the ever-growing hoard of Chrome users miss out on potential awesomeness!

    15th Dec 2009
  13. 13

    Dan Millar

    I’m sure I can hear Andy screaming!

    I think some of you guys are still missing the point. We should start using CSS3 and HTML5 techniques now to offer people with the best browsers the best experiences. Where deemed necessary - such as in many commercial sites - offer a degraded, but functional, experience…possibly with a notice suggesting how the site could be better experienced if they upgraded their browsers.

    If we as an industry don’t start pushing people towards the more advanced browsers now we’ll never get rid of the shit browsers which are holding us back!

    15th Dec 2009
  14. 14

    Divya

    It is a great demo, but the CSS exclusively uses webkit custom extensions. In my world, that is not “web standards”. I will be glad to use these slick animations when more browsers implement them. Till then, it is no better than using IE filters and Transitions.

    15th Dec 2009
  15. 15

    Aaron Witherow

    Andy maybe you should do a post about how you convince your clients to agree to using these techniques. In most cases in is not that designers are not progressive but that clients want the design to look the same in every browser, how to convince them that this is not how they should be thinking is very hard.

    I personally sneak CSS3 enhancements into my sites as drawing attention normally does more harm than good with “Can you get that to work in IE6”  popping it’s ugly head up.

    We all want to use this stuff, we get excited by it… Clients don’t how do we convince them otherwis?

    15th Dec 2009
  16. 16

    Rick Nunn

    You’ve got my vote.

    15th Dec 2009
  17. 17

    Jason Cale

    @Wez Maynard

    What kind of idiotic statement is that, and what on earth does it have to do with this article? You are as close-minded as the idiots who are moaning about support for all browsers, surely.

    Such arrogance isn’t going to win anyone over ..

    15th Dec 2009
  18. 18

    Drake

    I would agree with this article if I couldn’t be sued for not offering interoperability for every user.

    15th Dec 2009
  19. 19

    Alex

    I use CSS3 for personal designs, and I enjoy playing around with the latest browser-specific developments. I consider myself very active in the development of new standards. But at my job? No. Not going to happen.

    Professionally, I design sites for pixel perfect consistency in ALL modern browsers, including Internet Explorer 6. And I can do it, because I’m damn good at what I do. And this is somehow supposed to make me a lesser designer, who needs a career change? Get over yourself.

    (This comment was left on For A Beautiful Web)

    15th Dec 2009
  20. 20

    Andy Clarke

    <strong> warning: Blunt responses ahead.

    Alex : Professionally, I design sites for pixel perfect consistency in ALL modern browsers, including Internet Explorer 6. And I can do it, because I’m damn good at what I do. And this is somehow supposed to make me a lesser designer, who needs a career change? Get over yourself.

    — Well bully for you. Perhaps if you were less of a big girl and brave enough to leave a URL, we could all marvel at your work and learn something.

    Drake: I would agree with this article if I couldn’t be sued for not offering interoperability for every user

    — What the hell are you talking about Nathan? No one gets sued for progressive enrichment or using progressive CSS techniques.

    Aaron Witherow: Andy maybe you should do a post about how you convince your clients to agree to using these techniques. In most cases in is not that designers are not progressive but that clients want the design to look the same in every browser, how to convince them that this is not how they should be thinking is very hard.

    — Look out for my article on a certain annual web publication on the 23rd.

    Ian Parr: Clients don’t understand this, and time is spent (wasted) working on making IE6 look as good as possible, whilst the ever-growing hoard of Chrome users miss out on potential awesomeness!

    — So either tell them they’re wrong or don’t discuss the issue at all. Again, look out for my article on the 23rd.

    John Oxton: I need from people like you is selling these ideas to my employers and making them understand the real value they will bring to the business.

    — I thought that it was me that learned from you.

    15th Dec 2009
  21. 21

    Steve

    re:

    “I personally sneak CSS3 enhancements into my sites as drawing attention normally does more harm than good with “Can you get that to work in IE6”  popping it’s ugly head up.”

    —I find that “No, IE6 can’t do that. Did you know IE8 is out?” works with non-tech-savvy clients. And the tech savvy ones aren’t using IE6 anyway.

    (This comment was left on For A Beautiful Web)

    15th Dec 2009
  22. 22

    Don

    Andy’s already proven the point of this post with the DVD animation.  It’s progressive enhancement for those with capable browsers and accessible content for those without.  This is technical innovation; waiting for everyone to “catch up” will not move anyone forward.

    Bravo to Tim for his incredible, inspirational demonstration and Andy for pointing out the absurdity of whining about it.

    15th Dec 2009
  23. 23

    Rolo

    If anyone takes a look at current browser statistics you’ll notice that the use of IE6&7 is steadily declining (~1% a month) and the share of all three version—I know, just the fact that there are three browsers, with specific quirks, alone makes me shake my head in disgust—is less than firefox alone, which is most likely the latest stable release. Add to that, a steady increase in webkit (Safari, and Chrome), and you really have to ask yourself “Why am I spending precious time making dying browsers look even remotely close to modern browsers, that take less time—and look better—with CSS3???”

    I’m a big fan of CSS3+HTML5+jQuery, and with over half the browser market share able to use 90% of it, why wouldn’t I use it?? It’s all about forward thinking, in my opinion. IE6&7 are oldschool, IE8 was an ok attempt, but almost made things a little worse. IE9 is, apparently, supposed to support HTML5 and more CSS3, but I’m really hoping that IE’s market share in total will be a minority by that point. Here’s hoping!

    15th Dec 2009
  24. 24

    Eric Meyer

    To those moaning that clients don’t understand: Do you talk to your clients? Didn’t they hire you to consult? My clients wouldn’t understand progressive enhancement either, but then I explain it because that’s my job. I’m the expert. That’s why they pay me. I make that clear upfront and everyone is happier for it. If you’re clients don’t respect your expertise, there is no possible way to do your best work.

    (This comment was left on For A Beautiful Web)

    15th Dec 2009
  25. 25

    Alex

    Nothing says class like a sexist ad hominem response to somebody with a legitimate point. Yes, I’ll stay anonymous, because frankly I’d rather have my name on the fewest of these absurd debates as possible. My clients require sites to look absolutely consistent in every browser. This is because they need to keep their branding consistent and user experiences identical. Progressive enhancement, as much as I enjoy using it, simply does not fit into their business strategy. It is not my job to redefine their business strategy or “enlighten” them.

    I certainly will read your article on the 23rd, but color me skeptical as to whether or not your advice is going to help sway the minds of clients with considerably higher expectations than your “Oh, just upgrade to IE8.” attitude seems ready to deal with. Welcome to the real world, where people don’t appreciate being told to find a new career due to differing professional opinions, and certainly don’t appreciate offhand sexist remarks.

    Have fun coding and blogging, but you seriously need to learn to respect your peers, on your soapbox and off of it. And please respect my privacy.

    (This comment was left on For A Beautiful Web)

    15th Dec 2009
  26. 26

    Andy Clarke

    Alex: I’m actually glad that I don’t work with your clients who think that keeping their branding consistent and user experiences identical has anything at all to do with what I’m discussing here. I suppose they demand fixed-width replicas of Photoshop comps too? Those clients? You can keep them.

    (Hey, if anyone can find the bit where Alex says I mentioned Oh, just upgrade to IE8 — let me know. I lost that part.)

    Oh, and in the real world where I come from, calling someone a big girl isn’t a sexist remark. We’re made of tougher stuff.

    15th Dec 2009
  27. 27

    Ryan Brunsvold

    Counter-punching aside, the best strategy I’ve ever found for progressive enhancement v. clients is the old “under-promise, over-deliver” adage. Any clients I’ve ever worked with that demand a “pixel-perfect” design really mean that they want their site to look a specific way in a specific browser. Since I’m thankfully capable of doing that, any modern CSS enhancements in competing browsers they discover on their site have always produced two positive outcomes:

    1.) They see the benefit of a modern browsing experience.
    2.) Their faith in my professional experience (and consequently, their decision to hire me in the first place) has been rewarded beyond their initial expectations.

    Client happiness + Motivation to keep my skills current = Happy Designer.

    (This comment was left on For A Beautiful Web)

    15th Dec 2009
  28. 28

    Alex

    I’ll gladly keep my clients- everybody needs to make a buck, myself included. I’m still not sure why you’re so zealously attacking those who refuse to hop onto CSS3 at this point in time. My code is completely standards compliant, uses minimal hacks, and works the same in all browsers. What fault you see in this strategy, which my clients love and pay for, and I feel proud of due to it being the current zenith of accessible design?

    I took issue with your point where you said the question was whether you could make sites work the same in all browsers - of course you can do that, and with a little elbow grease you can do great things in all browsers. And, of course, I took great issue with your implication that I should seek another career for not agreeing with you. I have made my case very plain as to how I felt slighted by your words (not to mention the immature comments) - dare I ask how I have angered you so?

    As to the IE8 part, my mistake. That was Steve, who posted after your prior replies.

    (This comment was left on For A Beautiful Web)

    15th Dec 2009
  29. 29

    Nick Toye

    I think anyone who has the minerals to backup their claims can get on as many soapboxes as they like - if they feel passionate about a subject, as Andy certainly does.

    I also find it strange that someone who wants to maintain their privacy actually posts on a very public website. 

    Where I work I don’t serve up the same pixel perfect designs across all browsers, because quite simply you can’t do it - not effectively anyway.

    I don’t want to spend half my day coding for a browser that should have been binned years ago.  As long as they can read the content, navigate the site, and it’s not too dreary for them in their broken browser - than that’s just the way it is.

    It’s no different than people who have low-quality tv sets, should they get the same quality as someone who has a HD set?  Nope.

    15th Dec 2009
  30. 30

    Eric

    Nick Toye: Love the HD analogy, never heard that one before and if you don’t mind would love to use it!

    15th Dec 2009
  31. 31

    Nick Toye

    Eric:  Well it’s the same in anything really - progressive enhancement.  A web designer evolves with the technology.  If it’s there bloody well use it.  It’s not like were serving up bad designs for IE6.

    I mean I will choose to have a rounded box for an element in Firefox or Safari, it’s fine for that box to be square in IE6.  It’s no less an experience for the user.

    I also feel that the longer we still say we are supporting IE6, the longer it will be here.  It’s a dreadful browser and a really poor attempt by the self-proclaimed leaders of software development.

    15th Dec 2009
  32. 32

    Jim Moran

    Bah, it appears I’m getting a reputation as a backwards compatibility bore. I agree that Tim points to the future, but I still think right now I can’t ignore our clients and their customers. I also think I chose the wrong article to discuss this issue.

    I do realise that this is our own making - we attract clients who have a certain expectation. Not of pixel perfection (well, not all of them), or of identical experiences, but certainly they expect the bulk of the budget to be spent on the bulk of their users. You are in a position where you have spent years pushing boundaries and publicly stating that you do so. As a result of this, you probably attract customers who are looking for someone who does this.

    It’s just not how the world works for me and numerous others right now. For what it’s worth, we do use CSS3 progressive enhancements where we can, but we’re some way away from having a universal IE6 CSS for example. If we did that, we wouldn’t get paid.

    I am looking forward to your article on the 23rd, as this was an issue I hoped we’d all have time to get our teeth into at the Erskine social event.

    15th Dec 2009
  33. 33

    Alex

    Nick, trust me, I agree with you. My point is that in my reality my clients do not wish to film in HD if that means that some people are going to be watching it with bunny ears. I spend my time making that all views are at least able to watch at a happy medium quality, so that nobody has to suffer the bunny ears experience. Is it HD? Nope- but everybody gets the same level of “good” and for some clients that is very important (more important than providing HD for the minority). That’s my reality; Andy may dub it a fantasy world if he so chooses, but reality it is.

    Do I look forward to when I no longer have to support IE6? Of course. But for me, personally, that day has not yet come, and I will use reality (e.g. actual browser numbers, not my personal preferences) to determine when I am personally ready to stop supporting it.

    And on a semi-related note, what a peculiar tone the web development community has garnered over the last few years! Goodness, by the hostility presented here, you’d think the only choices were CSS3 or using tables. I’m glad to remind us all that there is such a thing as a shade of gray, and best practices don’t require using technologies that break older browsers.

    And as to my privacy, I will simply restate that I hope it is respected.

    (Ed says: Why would it not be?)

    (This comment was left on For A Beautiful Web)

    15th Dec 2009
  34. 34

    Nick Toye

    “Jim Moran: Do you not think as designers we have the responsibility to educate our clients on what is reasonable?  There are always ways where we can say that 10% or whatever of the world’s browser population use IE6, so rather then spend x amount of hours (on which it is billable) on developing forked code and graphics and hacks, we can put the time and clients money to better use and target the majority rather than the minority.

    15th Dec 2009
  35. 35

    Alex

    Ed: Because the owner of this blog does not seem to have a wholly respectful approach to discourse, and after receiving an ad hominem response to my initial post I immediately regretted entering my actual email address. That’s a good sign that something is very wrong with your tone. I am not a particularly paranoid person. :)

    (Ed says: Perhaps if you hadn’t ended your comment with Get over yourself and inferred that people who choose not to design to a low common denominator or outdated software were somehow not damn good at what [they] do, we might have got off on a better footing. I’m sorry, you happen to have participated on one of our grumpy days. We encourage respectful, constructive discourse ‘round these parts. If you’re not a regular reader, I hope you’ll stick around.)

    (This comment was left on For A Beautiful Web)

    15th Dec 2009
  36. 36

    Nick Toye

    Alex: Support IE6 sure, but nothing wrong with them having square boxes instead of nice round ones, or flat text rather than nicely shadowed text, and so on and so forth.

    IE6 is almost 10 years old, there are 2 newer browsers from the same family and another in development.  I really don’t think it is reasonable to be able to view sites that have evolved in 2010 on a browser created a decade earlier - do you?

    15th Dec 2009
  37. 37

    Alex

    I design in browser for my own work, but for my job, I am still one with the Photoshop and work closely with a team of graphic designers. So what happens is they come to me with rounded corners for a box, and I’ll just use background images. It works on all browsers, and everybody’s happy. Sure, I could make it a plain old box and add rounded corners via CSS, but then it won’t match the design in IE6. Big deal, right? Well- it is for me. Somebody, somewhere, is seeing a box that was meant to have rounded corners.

    I don’t see anything wrong with my approach - it may not be the simplest or fastest, but it will look just as good for all users, and that’s well worth an HTTP request in my book. The end result is superior and controllable. Is it a reasonable situation for me? That’s not really for me to say: Microsoft crippled the web severely, but the good news is that it will slowly heal itself. In time we will have better things. The healing is speeding up exponentially, and soon this will all be just a bittersweet memory. But to pretend that we are somewhere that we are not yet: that is the very definition of fantasy.

    (This comment was left on For A Beautiful Web)

    15th Dec 2009
  38. 38

    Jim Moran

    @Nick Toye

    As I explained over on 24 Ways, we get way higher IE6 usage than that, although thankfully it’s falling all the time. Some extreme cases of near 40%. Of course we educate our clients, but we would be wrong to ignore these stats. I don’t think there is a person in the world who actively chooses IE6, but I am hopeful that the corporate IT world decides that Windows 7 is the way forward and we lose the “Win XP with IE6” setup forever.

    Of course, if a client came to us and showed they had <10% of IE6 usage, we’d take the sensible approach.

    15th Dec 2009
  39. 39

    Nick Toye

    I don’t agree really.  Sorry lads.

    I won’t stroke IE6 and keep it sweet.  It will get from me a design that is good enough for the quality of the browser.  I won’t waste time and money on a broken browser.  Broken, lacking in features, poorly presented, slow, etc…..

    How else is the industry going to evolve?  We may as well be developing in tables and spacer gifs.

    Harsh?  Sure, but I really don’t care anymore - I’m done giving IE6 the respect it doesn’t deserve, and if my clients can’t upgrade their browsers then me spending more time, effort and money giving them as close an experience as possible to what Safari and Firefox get - well that’s not really going to encourage them to upgrade their browsers is it?

    15th Dec 2009
  40. 40

    Alex

    Tables and spacer gifs? Definitely not. We have come very, very far from that point. Accessible markup, clean and maintainable CSS, gracefully degrading JavaScript, true frontend optimization: we have come far indeed!

    And it’s not a bad thing that some people are ditching IE6 support: it’s a natural evolution. But I don’t think it’s a bad thing to support it, either. And, honestly? After so many years of battling it, it certainly remains disappointing in its limitations, but the beast has long been tamed. It really doesn’t take me a great deal of extra time to support IE6. Those battles were won long ago, and any designer worth his salt knows every quirk in the book- and should be able to handle them with ease.

    And to say that I’m doing the equivalent of designing with tables and spacer gifs because I go out of my way to deliver a better experience to more users—that’s a viewpoint that I simply can’t get behind.

    (This comment was left on For A Beautiful Web)

    15th Dec 2009
  41. 41

    Jim Moran

    Fair enough Nick, I can see your point, but I disagree.

    This isn’t about educating users, it’s about educating IT managers who have a million user intranet that only works in IE6 that will cost millions to upgrade, or the lazy company boss who’s locked down his employees machines so they can’t choose Firefox or Chrome. And it’s also not about my clients, it’s about *their* customers. I can live with my client not having the best experience we can provide, but I’m not doing my job if I ignore their customers.

    Did I tell you about the HTML emails we do? :)

    15th Dec 2009
  42. 42

    Nick Toye

    Alex:  It’s the level of support though.  For me it’s not just about getting it to look right in every browser.  I can do that, I can create your sliding doors effect for boxes, I can apply the png fixes.  I just believe by serving up the same level of design you are making a statement to those who don’t know that IE6 is fine, when it really isn’t.

    Basically it’s papering over the cracks.

    May I ask, if a client says to you - don’t worry about IE6, do you?  Do you see it as your duty to strive to give every browser the same level of experience, regardless of client requirement?

    Jim:  Give me an Intranet that only works in IE6 and I will fix it so it works in IE8/FF and Safari, oh and Opera too if you like.  My fee?  £500,000 - saving them money already.

    15th Dec 2009
  43. 43

    Alex

    Nick: I can’t honestly say, as I’ve never had a client say they don’t worry about looking their best for 20%-30% of their customers. When I’m designing backend admin UIs, I’ll take shortcuts if I know the person using them will be using a modern browser. But I still make sure the backend structure is rock solid, and would look “about right” in IE6. But no, I do not make it my life mission to make every pixel align on admin UIs. But for anything customer-facing, yes, I don’t think I’m doing a very good job if grew nonchalant about IE6 users. Papering over the cracks is my business (and business is good).

    (This comment was left on For A Beautiful Web)

    15th Dec 2009
  44. 44

    Nick Toye

    Who’s getting nonchalent? 

    The only people who are going to change the face of the web are us.  People in the industry out there writing the code.  Sure we are paid to do a job, but we are also paid to have an opinion and offer a certain level of expertise.

    Who is going to tell the user that they should be using a better browser?  Bill Gates?  Probably not.

    Those who have the ability to change the face of the web, also have the responsibility.  Now I know I am borrowing a line from a famous US document, but I feel it is valid.

    People are accepting rather than looking forward.  That’s fine if it earns you the money, and that puts food on the table - but for some, seeing the web evolve and change is exciting - and it’s certainly why I chose this career path.

    People remember pioneers don’t they?

    15th Dec 2009
  45. 45

    Alex

    My responsibility as a designer and programmer is to write the best code I can write: nothing more, nothing less. By writing the best code I can, I am pushing myself, and hopefully I am encouraging others to write better code as well. And by “best code” I do not mean the newest and glitziest: I mean the most stable, the most efficient, the most accessible, with the greatest longevity. “Best code” is a subjective term; by taking pride in the code I create, I know that I am quietly telling others about my vision of what “good code” looks like.

    I can’t mold the web in the image I would like to see it. If I were to do so, it wouldn’t involve CSS3 and likely not even HTML. I digress. We’ll get to the point where nobody uses IE6 anymore, and it won’t take a rebellion to do so. When you speak of pioneering and change, I’d rather see the entire game upended than see a relatively small improvement in web standards be widely adopted. Of course I want to use the latest and greatest, but I also want to create the best sites for the largest target audience. Patience, pioneers!

    (This comment was left on For A Beautiful Web)

    15th Dec 2009
  46. 46

    simon r jones

    I agree lots of us are forced to work with IE6 day in and day out. Many of my clients are forced to use it in their corporate infrastructure, so it’s clear I have to support it.

    But I think that misses the point somehow. Tim Van Damme’s 24ways article is pointing out the new, and quite frankly incredibly exciting, CSS3 techniques that are available here and now in multiple modern web browsers.

    For ages I’ve been waiting for things like rotations, transformations and other more sophisticated ways to use CSS. And the stuff coming out of HTML5 like email and URL form elements (which are terribly useful for mobile devices) is wonderful. It’s great these technologies are starting to be properly supported and as modern web designers/front-end developers we should be exploring this stuff and using it where appropriate.

    To learn and experiment is what defines web design. I hope articles like Van Damme’s help to build the critical mass behind CSS3 & HTML5 and encourage people to explore

    15th Dec 2009
  47. 47

    Darren Azzopardi

    Oh my God (should it be a capital G even if I don’t think he exists?)

    I’m sick to the back teeth of these fookin web designers moaning about their clients not giving a monkeys unless it’s achievable in friggin IE6.

    Lets ignore all the advancements in CSS3 and HTML5 for a second.

    Your the fookin reason their thinking IE6 is the best thing since slice bread. You lack communication skill. You lack the ability to put your ideas across passionately and confidently and most importantly, to make the client feel confident in your own ability.

    Most of you are nodding dogs that happily do what your client says and then vent your frustration else where.

    C’mon guys, people like Andy have done great in the world of web design. Your all happy to suck his dick, “Great article Andy…”, “I agree…” but you don’t put it into action because when your not sucking his your sucking the clients dick.

    The next time a client frustrates you with anything IE6 related…phone them up and request 30 minutes of their time. Make it relaxed, have a coffee and tell them the ins and outs of browsers.

    I did, I drove from Hull to Flintshire (North Wales) with a purpose of telling them that the core reason people visit their site is because of the content they offer. And depending on how people look at it, their experience varies.

    Love your friggin job people!

    (Sorry Andy, too many dicks mentioned)

    15th Dec 2009
  48. 48

    Jason Neel

    Love hearing people talk like this (referring to the post; can’t bring myself to read all the comments).

    16th Dec 2009
  49. 49

    Nick Toye

    Alex: So clearly not the ability then.  Fair enough.  Hope it all works out for you.

    16th Dec 2009
  50. 50

    Chris Martin

    At the moment, my leaning on the subject is weighted in favour of not adopting HTML5 and CSS3 too early. Don’t get me wrong, for personal projects I’m looking to employ more of the new stuff since I’m my own client, but because I work for an agency that deals mostly with large corporate clients we need to hold off on immediate and extensive early adoption.

    The reason for this is that most client websites I work with feature a much heavier IE user base than average (typically, between 15-20% of all traffic is IE6). I strongly believe it’s very important to use whatever data you have about user demographic to work out what browsers to cater for. Granted, IE6 can be a pain (though not so bad once you’re experienced in its limitations) but if a sizeable proportion of your audience are using it and you have the means (and of course budget) to achieve the desired visual across the board, then why not?

    I recall seeing your article recently about the CannyBill redesign (very nice work, by the way) and thinking it was great to see all the CSS3 stuff coming into play. However, at the same time I was left thinking that aspects of the design need not have been different in different browsers. Websites don’t need to look the same in every browser, granted, but it did feel like there was a more deliberate step to actually create differences? Having said that, I can only imagine the joy that comes from your work flow using CSS3 - it’s sure to result in a lot less time in Photoshop and even less time squashing browser bugs!

    Related to the above point, and to add a different twist on things that I don’t believe has been covered on the subject of cross browser visual consistency, I’d like to talk about the matter of conversions. The agency I work for markets websites to our clients based on driving conversions, the basic notion being that every website needs to serve a purpose and have goals, whether these be filling out an enquiry form, completing an e-commerce transaction or advertising products for purchase offline. If a website isn’t doing anything like this, there’s not much point in it existing - every website needs some sort of goal.

    Now, we run a lot of A/B and multivariate tests with Google Website Optimiser, iteratively improving the performance of key pages in a website. From experience, we’ve often found that small and seemingly inconsequential differences in a design can directly result in better conversion rates. It could be different text; colour; a rounded corner; practically anything. With this in mind, it becomes apparent that big/noticeable differences in cross browser visuals should be eliminated wherever possible. So if that button with the rounded corners improves your conversion rate, for example, using CSS3 to render it at present would negatively impact the conversion rate for the browsers that can’t display the curves, to the detriment of profit/sales for the client.

    I’d be really interested to get some feedback on this side of getting visuals to match as, from a user experience point of view, gracefully degraded visuals aren’t necessarily jarring and will often look fine, but what they will do is subtly influence the user in their actions. Personally, I’m itching to encourage more of our own clients down the route of using more modern CSS, but will find this difficult to justify if there is a measurable negative impact on their bottom line.

    The notion that websites need to look the same in all browsers from a purely aesthetic point of view is not something I agree with, and in this respect Andy I am with you. But if the differences are costing money, perhaps there is a case from this different angle that they do need to look the same?

    16th Dec 2009
  51. 51

    Chris Lienert

    Hand up anyone who, when seeing the box shadows Andy’s applied to :hover form elements, isn’t impressed? Hands down confused IE users.

    If you have a client who believes every site should look the same, grab IE 8 with a site of your choice and flip to IE 7 rendering mode. Marvel at their shock at seeing the even subtle changes. IE doesn’t even look the same as IE.

    Pixel perfect is a myth. You can get close, but you’ll never get that cigar.

    16th Dec 2009
  52. 52

    Rodrigo Soares

    Thanks again for reminding website authors what to do :)

    I’m one of the guys behind the latest soft launch at MySpace that includes 6 of most used features written using HTML5, CSS3, microformats and so on… How did we do it?

    We’ve decided to stop supporting FF2 (1% of our traffic) and degrade the IE6 experience significantly (progress enhancement) without removing the users’ access to the content.

    As expected, we got complains. We advised the users that it was time to upgrade, some them understood and some stopped visiting the site. We took the hit to move the web forward and take advantage of new technology available for us (such as offline storage).

    About pixel pushing, it has always been a problem with any big websites. We took care of it by educating the upper management and one of the main arguments were performance and SEO (POSH = SEO).

    I hope others big websites will join us pushing the web forward.

    Cheers.

    (This comment was left on For A Beautiful Web)

    16th Dec 2009
  53. 53

    Sean Delaney

    You couldn’t have said this any better and I totally agree with your view’s!

    16th Dec 2009
  54. 54

    SteveG

    I’m all with the progressive enhancement and embellishment where we can and javascript support where we can.  Andy you youraself use modernizr in an effort to bring the lastest support to browsers which don’t natively have it.

    Yes I agree that we should help other designers/developers start viewing browser differences as acceptable.

    But many of us don’t set our own rules, customer’s do.  I accept my responsibility in trying to educate customers but to put food on the table I often have to, frustratingly, concide to thier wishes on occasion.

    One thing I have found hard is getting customer’s past the “validated html/css” view, which we as an industry pushed in the first place. Right now HTML5 & CSS3 do not validate and can raise issues with customers.  So we have to be pragmatic on occasion.  That doesn’t put me or my colleagues in a fantasy world.

    It’s going to be a longer haul for some, but some like you Andy may be/get there earlier due to the way and who you work with.

    I would be very interested in an article from you about how you approach this with your customers.  I hope you’ll write it.

    16th Dec 2009
  55. 55

    Rob Mason

    Isn’t the whole point of “debate” to get two different sides of an argument and to understand the different viewpoints?

    For me the progressive enrichment thing is something I do with my clients - I just don’t tell them. They wouldn’t understand and I don’t have the time to explain it to them anyway. “What they don’t know, can’t hurt them”.

    As for pixel perfection in all browsers, well let’s leave that for another day shall we? Does it matter if there are minute differences in the various browsers? No. Is the client going to check? Not unless they have some OCD for pixel perfection…

    Anyway, I think the fact of the matter is that everyone has their opinions and choices to run their businesses. “Live with that, move on.”

    (This comment was left on For A Beautiful Web)

    16th Dec 2009
  56. 56

    Chris

    Andy, I really love you as a webdesigner (or whatever you call yourself) and really respect and honour your work - and Transcending CSS is without no doubt my favourite webdesign book. But in this case, CSS3, I sadly have to say that you are the one that partially lives in a fantasy world.

    Lets take the hard facts: In november, the website I am responsible for (http://www.kleinezeitung.at), has been visited by about 50 % of IE-users and 11 % of Firefox 3-users. The share of Firefox 3.5-users is at only 18 % and Safari is even only used by 4 %, Chrome by 1 %. So effectively only about 5 % of our users can experience the all new and shiny CSS3-effects. FF 3.5 doesn’t count because it even doesn’t offer support for transitions or gradients.

    So tell me, why should I use stuff in an production enviroment, that only 5 % of our users can see, but on the other hand is quite much extra work? CSS3 is really great and all, but until a bigger share of our visitors use a browser, that can properly display CSS3 (which will only be the case quite a time after Firefox 3.6 is released) it’s quite useless for me and not more than a gimmick.

    Besides that: Even in our office the majority of people use IE8 - and IE in generall won’t be able to use all the CSS3 in maybe 10 yeras or so. It’s great to use it for personal projects, but at big, commercial websites like newspapers or sites, that are visited by 100.000s of people, I can`t see the point.

    (This comment was left on For A Beautiful Web)

    16th Dec 2009
  57. 57

    Alex

    Another word on the gimmick aspect. Sure, the :hover effects are a nice bit of spice on this site’s comment form. But the form is still not a good example of moving the web forward! The tab index behaves unexpectedly, as users read from left to right and expect to finish one row of inputs before moving onto the next line. This behavior is caused by using two fieldsets as columns. As I suspect most of us reading this know very well, fieldsets are supposed to be used to group related input fields, not for layout. But let’s look further - why are there line breaks in the paragraphs, which are unnecessary? Just make the labels block. Why do we have the class “col” on the fieldsets? I can see in the CSS that they assign width and float them, but the class is superfluous, as they could be targeted by their parent element: the comment form. But the fieldsets are also superfluous, as all inputs in the comment form are intrinsically related and therefore should be in one fieldset. (Several inputs even get their own fieldset.) The correct form markup would be one fieldset, with a legend at the top to denote this as the form for Comment Submission. The layout for the inputs could be better achieved with a fixed width unordered list with block list items floated to the left - that would keep the tap index correct, while avoiding unnecessary markup for layout.

    Sorry to lay into the form’s markup, Andy, but I’d much rather see web designers get the basics correct before adding a :hover opacity effect to the form elements and thinking that they’re moving the web forward in some significant fashion.

    I’m very excited to see what designers will create when CSS3 is the standard, and is implemented consistently across all browsers. That’s when we’ll stop using it for gimmicks and start actually designing for CSS3, not thinking “Where can I add a bit of spice to this page?”

    (This comment was left on For A Beautiful Web)

    16th Dec 2009
  58. 58

    Sylvain

    Thanks Andy, this article is the perfect example of why we need you and why you are so important to the webdesign community : you’re trying to pull everyone up (that’s a tough job where you can get punch in the face…) ! Come on everyone, the CSS 2 we are using everyday was in the exact same situation yesterday and the comments also were the same at that time, but look at where we are today !

    If we’re always waiting for the others to do the job, to implement this or that, it will never be done.
    There never will be a perfect unified implementation because the web is open and that’s a strength. Let’s hope it will stay that way.

    Try progressive enrichment and forget about pixel perfection. My customers are always OK with that when I take the time to explain.

    16th Dec 2009
  59. 59

    Trevor Gerzen

    Gotta say, I’m using CSS3 commercially and my stuff works in IE6. Anyone who uses different browser types as an excuse to not use “progressive enhancement” techniques just doesn’t want to take the time to make things AWESOME!

    Andy Clarke isn’t saying ditch browsers that aren’t supporting CSS3, but embrace that you what is supported.

    I think we have a lot of left over baggage from the world of print where you design something once and it gets printed exactly the same. This is the web and unfortunately their are a shit-ton (that is a quantifiable measurement, in fact) of different browsers and a shit-ton of different ways that they are skinning the preverbal cat.

    Another dream that people are living in is that one day every browser will adhere to web standards. It sounds like blasphemy to even say it but as long as there’s this silly browser war going on where different vendors are competing for market share then they’re going to try and see how they can gain ground in their own ways. Enough with this particular rant.

    I agree whole-heartedly with Andy Clarke and haven’t found a good reason not to use advanced CSS whether commercially or for fun

    (This comment was left on For A Beautiful Web)

    16th Dec 2009
  60. 60

    Dan

    Boo.  Here’s an example:  I use CSS3 to easily make a nice-looking button.  The problem is, I still have to re-design that button the old-fashioned way to make it consistent in older browsers. 
    So why would I bother adding a step with the CSS3 button, when I can just do the old-fashioned button once and ensure consistency across all browsers anyway?
    I hear what you’re saying, but you’ve got to realize the impracticality of adopting CSS3- at least for any of the mainstream commercial sites I work on.
    Fantasy world or not, I’m still designing sites to work in IE6 until it loses at least another 10% market share.

    16th Dec 2009
  61. 61

    Trevor Gerzen

    I use CSS3 on a commercial site where we use rounded corners, transparent PNGs, webkit transitions and text-shadow on buttons. Looks great in IE6

    16th Dec 2009
  62. 62

    Trevor Gerzen

    Oh, yeah. We also use RGBA and back it up with hex value colors for browsers that don’t support :)

    16th Dec 2009
  63. 63

    Alex

    Trevor, by ‘looks great in IE6’, do you mean that IE6 users see rounded corners, transparency, animations & text shadows?

    If they do then I would agree that it probably looks great in IE6. But if they don’t then I simply don’t understand your motives: I presume you use those effects to make your designs look great. So why does IE6 look great without them? Especially given that all of those effects are very easy to implement for all browsers. (Minus complex CSS transitions, but JS still works just fine for the usual effects.)

    (This comment was left on For A Beautiful Web)

    16th Dec 2009
  64. 64

    Trevor Gerzen

    @Alex No. Andy Clarke’s whole deal is that things don’t have to look the same in all of the browsers. Why should I force IE6 to do something it doesn’t want to do in the first place ;) I’ll leave that to the haX0rs like yourself (that’s just a joke, BTW).

    My intent is that the content is available, readable and not obfuscated by a browser issue. So I will deal with double float margin bugs, etc. But what I’ve stopped doing is adding things unnecessary markup or superfluous images whether directly in the markup, via javascript or in my CSS.

    The prettiness isn’t what I’m concerned about regarding IE6. The content is what I’m focused on when dealing with browsers that don’t support advanced CSS or if they don’t they disregard the STANDARDS!

    (This comment was left on For A Beautiful Web)

    16th Dec 2009
  65. 65

    Joshua

    Using CSS3 is not a guarantee of poor aesthetics for IE6. Nor poor functionality, or accessibility. Brand consistency is achievable even with a ‘degraded’ version of a website. With the exception of large intranets with IE6 installed, how many site visitors are going to be checking a website in multiple browsers? Furthermore, if there were to be the off chance that something as universe altering as this happened, how long would a user continue to browse in IE6 if they experienced the site in a modern browser and saw the difference? I am going out on a limb with my assumption and say: not that long. Website users are not extremely stupid, if they find something better and are able to use it, then they will.

    16th Dec 2009
  66. 66

    Chris

    The problem is not that people don`t want to change their browser, the point is that some of them CAN’T! In many companies employees don`t have the choice of using a modern browser, they are forced to surf the web using IE7 or worse IE6 every day. Be it because their intranet software only runs in these outdated browsers or the administrators are too lazy to upgrade to a better browser. Especially in this case it must be very difficult for the people because they want to use something new but can`t.

    On the other hand, many private users don`t know how to update their browser or even don`t care about it, don`t care they they still use an 10 years old browser. Although those users may also don`t care that some websites look a bit “strange”.

    The best example is again the website I design for: on weekdays, when most of the people are at work, IE6 and outdated browsers have a far bigger share than on the weekends. Because then, Firefox 3.5 and IE8 users are the most frequent. That shows best, that most of the people, that have the choice, will upgrade. And the others simply can`t.

    Sure, it`s absolutely okay that IE6-users get a stripped-down version of the website when using modern CSS3-effects. But when there are only 5 % of users, that can see these effects it’s hard to justify, especially when the executives can’t see them. So instead of using native rounded corners you have to use images. I’d love to use border-radius in my designs but I can’t. Bad luck!

    (This comment was left on For A Beautiful Web)

    17th Dec 2009
  67. 67

    Chris

    Another thing: Like Alex said, before webdesigners start to use CSS3-effects, which are mostly not more than eye-candy, it would be much more important that they get the basics right.

    How many websites are out there, that still don`t validate, still use
    s instead of

    s or worse still use tables (even big ones like Amazon!)? Most people even don`t use the whole range of current selectors like +, > or even attribute selectors which are much more important for modern webdesigns than shadows, rounded corners of gradients. And these selectors are even supported by older browsers like IE7 and not reduced to Safari! It would be much nicer if every site would stop using extra classes and instead trust on selectors, instead of rounding every image, button or box! First get the basics right, then start using CSS3!

    (This comment was left on For A Beautiful Web)

    17th Dec 2009
  68. 68

    Chris

    Well, some content of my last post got swallowed, it’s meant to read “How many websites are out there, that still don`t validate, still use <br>s instead of <p>s or even worse still use tables ...”.

    (This comment was left on For A Beautiful Web)

    17th Dec 2009
  69. 69

    Ryan Brunsvold

    Reading through all these comments it seems as though there’s a misconception that keep being repeated: That CSS3 enhancements are merely aesthetic eye-candy and as such, inconsequential to the core functionality of the site. Regardless of browsing environment a good design (and consequently a rewarding experience) is in the details. If as a Designer you’re only adding “eye candy” to a design well then you’re not truly designing.

    To quote Mr. Spool, “Changing design changes behavior. Behaviors make up UX.”

    CSS3 and any future iteration of CSS offer Designers the ability to create more memorable, engaging experiences, plain and simple. Why any Designer would actively dismiss these tools is beyond me.

    (This comment was left on For A Beautiful Web)

    17th Dec 2009
  70. 70

    Derreck Dean

    I say let IE6 die in a fire.

    My sites look great and work fine in IE6. They just look a lot better in FF, Chrome, Safari, etc. Duct taping the site to make IE6 pixel perfect to other browsers is acknowledging its existence in the web development world, when what we really want is for it to die off. If sites don’t start looking FUBARed in IE6 people won’t ask why or bother to upgrade… “if it’s not broke don’t fix it” would be the proper term people with these mindsets will make.

    I make transparent PNGs work in IE6 so those users won’t see gray boxes everywhere, but everything else - rounded corners, drop shadows, etc. - if you want to see these effects, upgrade to a better browser. I’m done with duct tape solutions and hacks for aesthetic elements, just to appease people who can’t keep current. @Alex I’m curious as to what you charge for these pixel-perfect designs.

    19th Dec 2009
  71. 71

    Zaid

    ‘In most cases in is not that designers are not progressive but that clients want the design to look the same in every browser…’

    I would correct this to say… ‘clients want the design to look the same in THEIR browser…’ ...because their browser (in my experience) is the most popular. They don’t know that a better browsing experience exists and they are among the majority. In this sense, however ironic, they are right. Whatever fancy, png-strewn, fadtastic design you promised them via a neatly controlled jpg unveiling should be rendered as-is in IE.

    That said, I feel like some of the designers here are just being lazy, especially if all of this is being said in light of the 24 Ways series where, more often than not, each contributor has offered a means for dealing with IE. As long as you aren’t hacking your entire way through your CSS and you haven’t put a border radius and 50% transparent background on every single element on the page, it is a just a matter of adding a little futz here and there. You should know what the best practices are. So follow them and add the extra juice wherever necessary.

    20th Dec 2009
  72. 72

    Matt Bee

    Lets all just hope that Chrome’s mass advertising campaign means that we do see a lot of ‘average’ users downloading a better browser, ideally Mozilla and Opera will catch up on the CSS3 support webkit has been implementing and enter the competition. At worst, Google’s advertising might get people talking about browsers and using IE need not be caused by ignorance any longer. Maybe.

    Fair enough, target audience might make a business case to build for IE6, but that should be a decision made before any code is written, and designing and building for for IE isn’t hard. If you actually are designing and building *for* IE.

    And lets look forward to the fun we will have, and start having it now. Or you’ll wait until CSS3 is supported everywhere and you’re left with 3 years worth of developments to catch up on. Bad idea.

    22nd Dec 2009
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

From the archives

An archive of blog entries since 2004 on subjects including CSS, web standards, accessibility, website design and development.