4 ms·

Get the goal of pixel perfection out of your mind. It can't be done, because you don't have a clue how each person's browser/system is configured. And it should

Get the goal of pixel perfection out of your mind. It can't be done, because you don't have a clue how each person's browser/system is configured. And it shouldn't be done, because then it's too easy to forget about graceful degradation. For example, on account of my accessibility issues, Facebook looks like crap and its horizontal scroll bar is even defective. And, no, I'm not changing my configuration just to suit Facebook, or Google, or whatever. Sorry I'm so testy, but pixel perfection really hits my buttons.

unalone 18y ago
Let me be testy back. Get the goal of pixel perfection out of your mind. It can't be done, because you don't have a clue how each person's browser/system is configured. And it shouldn't be done, because then it's too easy to forget about graceful degradation. That's ridiculous. You don't stop striving for perfection just because there's no such thing as absolutely perfect. Are you suggesting designers not develop pixel-by-pixel until the site looks like exactly what they want it to be in their minds? Yeah - that won't work for everybody. At the same time, that's no reason to stop designing as anally and as focused as possible. I hate that mindset: by that standard why design at all? Why not make everything black-on-white, no borders, no margins, just a list of features you can click on? Either you design, or you don't design. There's no in-between. If you're designing something, you had better be designing with everything you've got, and yes: that means jiggling pixels until they look absolutely perfect. Apple does it, Facebook does it, I do it. Lots of designers do it. There's no reason for you not to do it. For example, on account of my accessibility issues, Facebook looks like crap and its horizontal scroll bar is even defective. And, no, I'm not changing my configuration just to suit Facebook, or Google, or whatever. With respect, are you complaining that because you changed your browser's interpretation of the web, something on another site broke? So now you're saying that because of the things that you changed on your computer, it's a fault with Facebook's design. Am I missing something here? Because that sounds pretty snotty. If you've got accessibility issues, then you're going to see drawbacks when you're using things. Yes, that's the job of the designer to fix, but if they work on fixing it and it's not a completely perfect fix, that's not saying anything bad about their original design. Sorry I'm so testy, but pixel perfection really hits my buttons. It's okay. We've all got buttons that get pressed. Mine are pressed when people suggest that it's not worth aiming for perfection. Every great thing that's ever been made had people saying it wasn't worth trying.
- ewiethoff 18y ago
  > Let me be testy back. This is kinda fun. > because of the things that you changed on your computer, it's a fault with Facebook's design You're assuming my computer came out of a box all set for Facebook and your anally perfect site. It didn't. And then I had the gall to do something outrageous to it. I haven't. You know, a person doesn't need to have major ooga-booga accessibility problems for sites to be "broken." Try fiddling with the width of your browser window. Monitor resolutions are all different, plus some people want the browser window to take up, say, half the width. Facebook does have a design problem when its horizontal scroll bar is borked. > We've all got buttons that get pressed. Mine are pressed when people suggest that it's not worth aiming for perfection. Just don't lose sight of graceful "degradation." Plus it prepares the site for whatever new platforms come along, like the next iPhone.
  - unalone 18y ago
    You're assuming my computer came out of a box all set for Facebook and your anally perfect site. It didn't. And then I had the gall to do something outrageous to it. I haven't. Hm. I just installed Windows XP out of the box, and Facebook works on IE6. That's as strict a test as need be applied. Facebook has a fixed width. Is that anything new? Lots of site have fixed-width. Even if you're too narrow, can't you scroll normally? Just don't lose sight of graceful "degradation." Plus it prepares the site for whatever new platforms come along, like the next iPhone. There isn't going to be a "next" iPhone. There's the iPhone. The next big thing will not be compared to the iPhone at all. I don't like making things gracefully degrade past a point. I would never design my web site to work for the iPhone. When it comes to making things iPhone-accessible, I'll make a separate thing. Same to when I design a Facebook app for my site.
    - jinglebells 18y ago
      If you're testing against IE6 XP that's the worst test you can do. We test against IE6 + 7 on XP, Firefox on XP, OS X, Safari XP, OS X minimum. With checking Opera and Chrome to make sure. A complicated design can easily render significantly differently and break very easily. IE 6 is possibly the worst browser you can develop for. Get it working for Firefox and most phones can render it just fine.

unalone 18y ago

Let me be testy back. Get the goal of pixel perfection out of your mind. It can't be done, because you don't have a clue how each person's browser/system is configured. And it shouldn't be done, because then it's too easy to forget about graceful degradation. That's ridiculous. You don't stop striving for perfection just because there's no such thing as absolutely perfect. Are you suggesting designers not develop pixel-by-pixel until the site looks like exactly what they want it to be in their minds? Yeah - that won't work for everybody. At the same time, that's no reason to stop designing as anally and as focused as possible. I hate that mindset: by that standard why design at all? Why not make everything black-on-white, no borders, no margins, just a list of features you can click on? Either you design, or you don't design. There's no in-between. If you're designing something, you had better be designing with everything you've got, and yes: that means jiggling pixels until they look absolutely perfect. Apple does it, Facebook does it, I do it. Lots of designers do it. There's no reason for you not to do it. For example, on account of my accessibility issues, Facebook looks like crap and its horizontal scroll bar is even defective. And, no, I'm not changing my configuration just to suit Facebook, or Google, or whatever. With respect, are you complaining that because you changed your browser's interpretation of the web, something on another site broke? So now you're saying that because of the things that you changed on your computer, it's a fault with Facebook's design. Am I missing something here? Because that sounds pretty snotty. If you've got accessibility issues, then you're going to see drawbacks when you're using things. Yes, that's the job of the designer to fix, but if they work on fixing it and it's not a completely perfect fix, that's not saying anything bad about their original design. Sorry I'm so testy, but pixel perfection really hits my buttons. It's okay. We've all got buttons that get pressed. Mine are pressed when people suggest that it's not worth aiming for perfection. Every great thing that's ever been made had people saying it wasn't worth trying.

ewiethoff 18y ago
> Let me be testy back. This is kinda fun. > because of the things that you changed on your computer, it's a fault with Facebook's design You're assuming my computer came out of a box all set for Facebook and your anally perfect site. It didn't. And then I had the gall to do something outrageous to it. I haven't. You know, a person doesn't need to have major ooga-booga accessibility problems for sites to be "broken." Try fiddling with the width of your browser window. Monitor resolutions are all different, plus some people want the browser window to take up, say, half the width. Facebook does have a design problem when its horizontal scroll bar is borked. > We've all got buttons that get pressed. Mine are pressed when people suggest that it's not worth aiming for perfection. Just don't lose sight of graceful "degradation." Plus it prepares the site for whatever new platforms come along, like the next iPhone.
- unalone 18y ago
  You're assuming my computer came out of a box all set for Facebook and your anally perfect site. It didn't. And then I had the gall to do something outrageous to it. I haven't. Hm. I just installed Windows XP out of the box, and Facebook works on IE6. That's as strict a test as need be applied. Facebook has a fixed width. Is that anything new? Lots of site have fixed-width. Even if you're too narrow, can't you scroll normally? Just don't lose sight of graceful "degradation." Plus it prepares the site for whatever new platforms come along, like the next iPhone. There isn't going to be a "next" iPhone. There's the iPhone. The next big thing will not be compared to the iPhone at all. I don't like making things gracefully degrade past a point. I would never design my web site to work for the iPhone. When it comes to making things iPhone-accessible, I'll make a separate thing. Same to when I design a Facebook app for my site.
  - jinglebells 18y ago
    If you're testing against IE6 XP that's the worst test you can do. We test against IE6 + 7 on XP, Firefox on XP, OS X, Safari XP, OS X minimum. With checking Opera and Chrome to make sure. A complicated design can easily render significantly differently and break very easily. IE 6 is possibly the worst browser you can develop for. Get it working for Firefox and most phones can render it just fine.