4 ms·

I’d honestly prefer an inline PDF. At least then I would probably be able to print it. This thing has all the drawbacks of a Flash-only site, except instead o

by teddyh 4y ago

I’d honestly prefer an inline PDF. At least then I would probably be able to print it. This thing has all the drawbacks of a Flash-only site, except instead of just requiring a browser plugin, it requires Google Chrome to browse (I found multiple things which did not work in Firefox). The Web was created to have many levels of fallback rendering; “alt” attributes on images, <noscript> tags, font lists in CSS, etc., not to mention the large number of semantic tags not only present in the original HTML, but kept and increased in HTML5. This thing burns all that to the ground and establishes a new lowest acceptable level of web browser (and user able to view it). I mean, don’t get me wrong: this thing is cool and all, and I, too, have experimented with SVG web pages. But this is not making the web any better.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
nashashmi 4y ago
JPGs/PNGs are not making the web any better either. We still use them. SVGs are slightly better. They have readable content and don't pixelate. Plus they react. Reminds me of the dreamweaver slicer days.
- teddyh 4y ago
  If you made an entire web page be a JPEG or PNG image with Javascript to handle clicks, I would not like that, either.
  - AndrewSwift 4y ago
    If it was JPG or PNG, you could not select the text, embed links, or reuse parts of the page. And nobody could copy the source code to make the web a better place. When someone says that SVG is just a big image — well, that is not always the case. We have gone to great lengths to preserve text as text, to preserve images as images, and to use regular links. That is why we require Adobe Illustrator — it's the only SVG-capable editor that allows for real text and images. If you look at the source for a Svija page, it's a mess — but it does look like web page source.
    - teddyh 4y ago
      > If it was JPG or PNG, you could not select the text, Maybe not select the text, but images has always had “alt” and “title” attributes. > embed links, Even HTML 2 (RFC 1866¹ from 1995) had image maps, and HTML3.2 implemented client-side image maps (RFC 1980²). > or reuse parts of the page. It’s an image, anyone can just screenshot it or download the image file, and then crop it. > And nobody could copy the source code to make the web a better place. How is this hypothetical page using Javascript and images better, in this aspect, than an SVG-based one? The huge drawback which this kind of hypothetical image page has, compared to a page made with SVG, is that pixel-based images do not scale well with increasing resolutions. 1. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1866.html#section-7.6 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1866.html#section-7.6 2. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1980 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1980
      - AndrewSwift 4y ago
        By reuse parts of the page, I meant more that on a website where each page has the same 20 images, they don't have to be loaded by the browser after the first page because they're cached. I don't think I'll be able to convince you that our idea has much merit, but I really do appreciate your willingness to share your thoughts.
extra88 4y ago
I didn't notice any problems in Firefox but the layout is totally broken in Safari for Mac.
- teddyh 4y ago
  The “Transparency” and “Combination” buttons are not working for me.
  - extra88 4y ago
    All the buttons in that area require not just a click but holding mousedown for effect to occur, Transparency and Combination work for me in Firefox if I do that.
    - teddyh 4y ago
      Oh, right, I see. They do work. It was not obvious that you have to hold down the button.
      - AndrewSwift 4y ago
        I modified the animation so it starts much more quickly. If I made them instantaneous, then a quick click would be enough but it wouldn't really be an animation — it would just be a state change. If I made the animation start with a click, then I'd have to have a reset button. This seemed like a good compromise, although it's true that a few people were confused.
AndrewSwift 4y ago
If you can be specific about what is broken in Firefox, I would be grateful. I have tested it on both the Windows and Mac versions of Firefox and didn't see any bugs. I did notice that Firefox isn't able to handle the animation as smoothly as Safari or Edge/Chrome. · · · As far as PDF's, I actually thought about using PDF's, but: - browsers don't display them at the right size (there's a big border around the edge in Safari, Chrome displays a toolbar and a left column, and Firefox displays it much smaller than the window size - it's difficult to link between PDF's without special authoring tools - it's a proprietary format - the same page as PDF is a much bigger file than as SVG - no reusable content: the same photo on two pages has to be reloade - no visible source code (I consider this one of the most important principles of the web) - no animation (a complete dealbreaker for any serious web content) · · · As far as printing, you will be able to print Svija pages — it's one of our favorite features. Right now, there's a conflict with the fact that we use the Display P3 color space that messes up the colors. I turned that off, and if you go to https://svija.love/content https://svija.love/content and print the page at 40% you will see that it looks great. It's one of our main use cases — online documentation (for a camera for example) that can be printed and look the SAME as the web page. Obviously, with animated elements that aren't in the correct position etc., it won't work well. I'll turn the bright colors back on tomorrow, so after 16:00 GMT on November 10th, this will no longer work.
- teddyh 4y ago
  1. OK, it does seem to work in Firefox. 2. OK, I guess you can (almost) print it. However: 3. PDF is not a proprietary format. It’s actually a real standard, ISO 32000. 4. You completely ignored my main point, which was about graceful fallback rendering and semantic markup. Honestly, All-SVG websites seems like the XSL Formatting Objects fiasco all over again.
  - AndrewSwift 4y ago
    It's true that I didn't answer your main point. Our objective is to create a format that is sufficiently stable that it won't need a fallback solution. SVG is incredibly consistant from machine to machine, much more so than HTML. Can you give me an example of a case where fallback would be necessary (leaving aside questions of accessibility)? Semantic markup is an issue for search engines, but we are building websites for people to read. Visitors to a website never see the tags. They have no idea if something is <h1> or <div> or <strong>. Are you suggesting that semantic markup is important for people, or for Google? Is this purely an accessibility issue (I don't mean to diminish the importance, it's just a question)? Our plan is to automatically create parallel content for accessibility requirements, including semantic information. Sort of like the <noscript> tag, an imaginary <nosvg> tag. If you feel like I am missing the point of semantic markup, I would love to know why, (or you can just post a link).

by teddyh 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

nashashmi 4y ago

JPGs/PNGs are not making the web any better either. We still use them. SVGs are slightly better. They have readable content and don't pixelate. Plus they react. Reminds me of the dreamweaver slicer days.

teddyh 4y ago
If you made an entire web page be a JPEG or PNG image with Javascript to handle clicks, I would not like that, either.
- AndrewSwift 4y ago
  If it was JPG or PNG, you could not select the text, embed links, or reuse parts of the page. And nobody could copy the source code to make the web a better place. When someone says that SVG is just a big image — well, that is not always the case. We have gone to great lengths to preserve text as text, to preserve images as images, and to use regular links. That is why we require Adobe Illustrator — it's the only SVG-capable editor that allows for real text and images. If you look at the source for a Svija page, it's a mess — but it does look like web page source.
  - teddyh 4y ago
    > If it was JPG or PNG, you could not select the text, Maybe not select the text, but images has always had “alt” and “title” attributes. > embed links, Even HTML 2 (RFC 1866¹ from 1995) had image maps, and HTML3.2 implemented client-side image maps (RFC 1980²). > or reuse parts of the page. It’s an image, anyone can just screenshot it or download the image file, and then crop it. > And nobody could copy the source code to make the web a better place. How is this hypothetical page using Javascript and images better, in this aspect, than an SVG-based one? The huge drawback which this kind of hypothetical image page has, compared to a page made with SVG, is that pixel-based images do not scale well with increasing resolutions. 1. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1866.html#section-7.6 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1866.html#section-7.6 2. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1980 https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1980
    - AndrewSwift 4y ago
      By reuse parts of the page, I meant more that on a website where each page has the same 20 images, they don't have to be loaded by the browser after the first page because they're cached. I don't think I'll be able to convince you that our idea has much merit, but I really do appreciate your willingness to share your thoughts.

extra88 4y ago

I didn't notice any problems in Firefox but the layout is totally broken in Safari for Mac.

teddyh 4y ago
The “Transparency” and “Combination” buttons are not working for me.
- extra88 4y ago
  All the buttons in that area require not just a click but holding mousedown for effect to occur, Transparency and Combination work for me in Firefox if I do that.
  - teddyh 4y ago
    Oh, right, I see. They do work. It was not obvious that you have to hold down the button.
    - AndrewSwift 4y ago
      I modified the animation so it starts much more quickly. If I made them instantaneous, then a quick click would be enough but it wouldn't really be an animation — it would just be a state change. If I made the animation start with a click, then I'd have to have a reset button. This seemed like a good compromise, although it's true that a few people were confused.

AndrewSwift 4y ago

If you can be specific about what is broken in Firefox, I would be grateful. I have tested it on both the Windows and Mac versions of Firefox and didn't see any bugs. I did notice that Firefox isn't able to handle the animation as smoothly as Safari or Edge/Chrome. · · · As far as PDF's, I actually thought about using PDF's, but: - browsers don't display them at the right size (there's a big border around the edge in Safari, Chrome displays a toolbar and a left column, and Firefox displays it much smaller than the window size - it's difficult to link between PDF's without special authoring tools - it's a proprietary format - the same page as PDF is a much bigger file than as SVG - no reusable content: the same photo on two pages has to be reloade - no visible source code (I consider this one of the most important principles of the web) - no animation (a complete dealbreaker for any serious web content) · · · As far as printing, you will be able to print Svija pages — it's one of our favorite features. Right now, there's a conflict with the fact that we use the Display P3 color space that messes up the colors. I turned that off, and if you go to https://svija.love/content https://svija.love/content and print the page at 40% you will see that it looks great. It's one of our main use cases — online documentation (for a camera for example) that can be printed and look the SAME as the web page. Obviously, with animated elements that aren't in the correct position etc., it won't work well. I'll turn the bright colors back on tomorrow, so after 16:00 GMT on November 10th, this will no longer work.

teddyh 4y ago
1. OK, it does seem to work in Firefox. 2. OK, I guess you can (almost) print it. However: 3. PDF is not a proprietary format. It’s actually a real standard, ISO 32000. 4. You completely ignored my main point, which was about graceful fallback rendering and semantic markup. Honestly, All-SVG websites seems like the XSL Formatting Objects fiasco all over again.
- AndrewSwift 4y ago
  It's true that I didn't answer your main point. Our objective is to create a format that is sufficiently stable that it won't need a fallback solution. SVG is incredibly consistant from machine to machine, much more so than HTML. Can you give me an example of a case where fallback would be necessary (leaving aside questions of accessibility)? Semantic markup is an issue for search engines, but we are building websites for people to read. Visitors to a website never see the tags. They have no idea if something is <h1> or <div> or <strong>. Are you suggesting that semantic markup is important for people, or for Google? Is this purely an accessibility issue (I don't mean to diminish the importance, it's just a question)? Our plan is to automatically create parallel content for accessibility requirements, including semantic information. Sort of like the <noscript> tag, an imaginary <nosvg> tag. If you feel like I am missing the point of semantic markup, I would love to know why, (or you can just post a link).