6 ms·
I'm not entirely sure I understand your point. All of these examples were likely designed in PhotoShop (or Gimp) and then realised as PNGs, GIFs or in this case
by earnubs 16y ago
I'm not entirely sure I understand your point. All of these examples were likely designed in PhotoShop (or Gimp) and then realised as PNGs, GIFs or in this case CSS. Beyond that adding a button is pretty simple regardless how you do it; however, how that button is rendered, which is the point, is certainly simpler with an image (and can be made trivial for developers with appropriate use of CSS).
- jacquesm 16y agoI think what tptacek is getting at is programatically describing the button which then gets created in an automated way rather than manually creating it using a graphical tool such as photoshop.
- w1ntermute 16y agoIs that a practical option right now when support of legacy browsers is still a necessity?
- uxp 16y agoI think it is highly practical, since one very skilled designer and CSS programmer with enough programming skill (or a team) can create a template that many other less skilled and less experienced designers can then take and use at will. The template, while being rather complex compared to the hand-coded and "beautiful" markup that Thomas was talking about, can also have enough dumb logic in itself to degrade gracefully on legacy browsers.
- w1ntermute 16y agoWouldn't the degraded version depend upon the same old Photoshop approach? If so, you might as well keep using that approach until all major browsers support the necessary components of CSS3.
- uxp 16y agoI was thinking more along the lines of: <a href="#"><div class="mybutton">Button</div></a> .mybutton { padding: 10px 5px; border: 1px solid black; background: red; width: 100px; text-align: center; } Instead of a gradient background and rounded corners, which is still trivial to write by hand.
- earnubs 16y agoYou still have to "manually" create it in the first place. After that you can automate it regardless of how you choose to render it.