3 ms·

> Yes, tailwind might make css a lot easier, and github copilot might make coding a lot faster... but is this really easier than in the early 90ies, when you co

by Mezzie 5y ago

> Yes, tailwind might make css a lot easier, and github copilot might make coding a lot faster... but is this really easier than in the early 90ies, when you could just type <html> into notepad and make a website that didn't require any CSS or images or JS or even more than just the most basic html tags? I mean you still can, it's just that nobody's going to hire you to do that and nobody is going to be impressed by it. Even back in the 90s when it was that easy, it was all hobbyists. By the time the dot-com boom started taking off, it was complicated. CSS + JS, no responsive design (remember designing 3 different sites to deal with the 460x640, 600x800, and 1280x1024 resolutions? Frames and no frames? Different sites for each browser [or ones that only worked in one bc things were even less standard than now - 'this site only works in IE'?] etc.) Now it's the tools adding the complexity, but back then it was hardware, browsers, etc.

leephillips 5y ago
“no responsive design (remember designing 3 different sites to deal with the 460x640, 600x800, and 1280x1024 resolutions?” Using media queries with breakpoints, and doing exactly what you describe, was the original “responsive design”. What you have in mind (I think) is what might be called “fluid design”—responsive design without media queries. You could always do this to some extent with such things as inline blocks, auto margins, and other ancient CSS technology (and an unstyled site also reflows responsively), but flex and grid allow more elaborate fluid designs. There is also some advantage to making separate designs carefully crafted for a variety of screen shapes, that you give up with fluid design techniques.
- Mezzie 5y ago
  Thanks for the correction/deep dive here. I was a kid + don't have an official education in cs, so I mix up terminology and what things were called sometimes. I remember when media queries came out. It was so nice. Amazing. 10/10 for the time. You can do a lot with auto-margins and other ancient CSS, but there are definitely quite a lot of limits. (Sighs in someone who does a lot of email design and academic CMS design... let's party like it's 1999...) > There is also some advantage to making separate designs carefully crafted for a variety of screen shapes, that you give up with fluid design techniques. I agree strongly with this from a UX/UI point of view and as an educator.

by Mezzie 5y ago

leephillips 5y ago

“no responsive design (remember designing 3 different sites to deal with the 460x640, 600x800, and 1280x1024 resolutions?” Using media queries with breakpoints, and doing exactly what you describe, was the original “responsive design”. What you have in mind (I think) is what might be called “fluid design”—responsive design without media queries. You could always do this to some extent with such things as inline blocks, auto margins, and other ancient CSS technology (and an unstyled site also reflows responsively), but flex and grid allow more elaborate fluid designs. There is also some advantage to making separate designs carefully crafted for a variety of screen shapes, that you give up with fluid design techniques.

Mezzie 5y ago
Thanks for the correction/deep dive here. I was a kid + don't have an official education in cs, so I mix up terminology and what things were called sometimes. I remember when media queries came out. It was so nice. Amazing. 10/10 for the time. You can do a lot with auto-margins and other ancient CSS, but there are definitely quite a lot of limits. (Sighs in someone who does a lot of email design and academic CMS design... let's party like it's 1999...) > There is also some advantage to making separate designs carefully crafted for a variety of screen shapes, that you give up with fluid design techniques. I agree strongly with this from a UX/UI point of view and as an educator.