Skip to: site navigation/presentation
Skip to: Thoughts From Eric

Feedback on ‘WaSP Community CSS3 Feedback 2008’

Back before holiday season hit, Elika Etemad—better known as Fantasai—published WaSP Community CSS3 Feedback 2008.  I gave it a read and came away with a number of things I wanted to say.  So many things, in fact, that I’ll need to split them up into a series of posts.  This here post will serve as introduction and hub, with links to the follow-on entries added as they’re published.  All very Bray-ny, no?  (Go ahead, groan.  It only encourages me.)

Here you go:

  1. Selector blocks
  2. Layout
  3. Wanted: Layout System
  4. Animated Shapes
  5. Graphical Thoughts

I want to make clear up front that I’m not going to address every single point in the feedback document: it’s just too incredibly huge.  I did think about making my own copy and then just filling in my reactions to each point, but that didn’t scale very well.  Not only did it seem really overbearing and maybe just a touch egotistical, but some of my reactions were based on related topics in separate areas of the original.  Besides, I know what it’s like trying to read a really, really long article, so breaking it up and just focusing on the parts that got me fired up made way more sense.

There is one thing I want to address before I start serving up the follow-on installments.  At the end of Fantasai’s post, there’s a link to my 2006 post about the benefit of having a community liaison, someone who bridges the gap between the WG and the public.  She then asks if anyone is interested in volunteering, but personally, I don’t see the need.  The WG already has a community liaison:  it’s you, Fantasai.  It has been for some time now, thanks to your regular and informative CSS WG blog posts and other outreach work such as “WaSP Community CSS3 Feedback 2008”.  The job is being done, and being done very well, I don’t think there’s any doubt that the Working Group is much, much better for it.

Five Responses»

    • #1
    • Comment
    • Wed 11 Feb 2009
    • 1720
    Ryan Roberts wrote in to say...

    Very interesting article, having just read through it I found many of the suggestions – especially those being considered already – very exciting.

    I look forward to reading your response to the results.

    • #2
    • Pingback
    • Tue 17 Feb 2009
    • 1221
    Received from Eric Meyer dissects WaSP Community CSS3 Feedback 2008 | Wisdump

    […] Meyer has started poring over the WaSP community’s suggestions for CSS3 with a series of posts on his weblog—3 so far in less than a week. The original feedback compiled by Fantasai is a […]

    • #3
    • Comment
    • Tue 17 Feb 2009
    • 2037
    fantasai wrote in to say...

    I’m flattered that you think I’m doing a good job, despite taking a full year to respond to the WASP feedback. :) But really, I’m only doing half the job of a liaison: I can bridge from the WG to the design community. But I can’t effectively bridge back from the web design community to the WG. I’m not a part of that community. I don’t share its skills or its frustrations. I barely keep up with the fringes of its news. It will take the opposite of me to make up the other half.

    • #4
    • Pingback
    • Thu 19 Feb 2009
    • 1010
    Received from We Need Better Tools | R.A. Ray - Designer in Texas

    […] Eric Meyer is going off about it. When experts get passionate good reading ensues. « “Starting […]

    • #5
    • Comment
    • Sun 22 Feb 2009
    • 0435
    pepelsbey wrote in to say...

    “Animated Shapes” link is broken — /eric/thoughts/2009/02/17/wanted-layout-system/

    [Fixed. Thanks! -E.]

Leave a Comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address required but never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Remember to encode character entities if you're posting markup examples! Management reserves the right to edit or remove any comment—especially those that are abusive, irrelevant to the topic at hand, or made by anonymous posters—although honestly, most edits are a matter of fixing mangled markup. Thus the note about encoding your entities. If you're satisfied with what you've written, then go ahead...

February 2009
January March