Posts in the Tech Category

Adam Kalsey shares a method for rounding corners that has minimal HTML impact.  I explored the same basic concept (along with several others) in Project 10 of Eric Meyer on CSS, although in my case I used it to provide rounded corners between two differently-sized sections of a document; sort of the visual inverse of what Adam demonstrates, but using the same fundamental techniques.

It’s always interesting to see ideas emerge in different places, mutate, evolve, advance, and generally act like they have a life of their own.  Did somebody say “meme?”

The thing is, of course, that we’d be better off not having to hack in bits of HTML just to get these effects.  CSS3 offers proposals for corner-rounding properties, and that’s a good step forward.  One can also use XBL to dynamically insert the needed bits and style them, without having to clutter up the source document.  Here’s my XBL-based recreation of Adam’s demonstration.  Now here’s a variant employing more complex corner and border effects.  And then there’s blockquote styling with great big background quotation marks and rounding of some corners.

The above examples will only work fully in Gecko-based browsers (as of today, anyway), but what’s interesting to note is that they don’t look bad in non-Gecko browsers.  Take the blockquote example, for one.  In a Gecko browser, you get all the eye candy.  In a non-Gecko browser you get a visually distinct blockquote with less eye candy.  It still looks pretty good, or at least not bad; it could probably use some padding, but these aren’t polished examples.  The document structure is clean, and semantically appropriate.  What’s not to like?  This seems like another aspect of the concept of graceful flexibility—or, if you prefer, progressive enhancement—and one worth further investigation.

• Rounding A Corner was published on Friday, July 25th, 2003.
• It was assigned to the CSS category.
• There have been no replies.

I don’t think I mentioned this before, but there’s an aural-CSS supporter besides Emacspeak out there.  It’s called Fonix SpeakThis, and while its aural CSS support is pretty limited, it does exist.  (A tip of the hat to The Literary Moose, by the way, for passing along the information.)  I find the existence of another aural-CSS browser, however limited, to be interesting in light of the aural style sheets appendix of CSS2.1, which says in part:

We expect that in a future level of CSS there will be new properties and values defined for speech output. Therefore CSS 2.1 reserves the ‘speech’ media type… but does not yet define which properties do or do not apply to it.  The properties in this appendix apply to a media type ‘aural’, that was introduced in CSS2. The type ‘aural’ is now deprecated.

In other words, aural is a dead end, and speech will be used in the future.  At some point.  Really.

Fans of complexspiral‘s visual groove might also appreciate Atlantis, which looks a whole lot more professional.  As is to be expected.

Raffi Krikorian raises some long-term problems arising from URL-shortening services that are worth pondering.  It isn’t the case that absolutely everything has to be preserved for all time, but how many links would suddenly break if a popular shortening service disappeared?  I already don’t like such services because they hide the ultimate destination, which robs me of an important piece of information in my quest to decide whether or not I should follow a given link.  How many times have you seen a post that says, basically, “This is interesting!” followed by a shortened link?  It could be a political story from the BBC, a collection of Battlestar: Galactica fan fiction, the official site of the Malaysian legislature, or an outrageously disgusting fringe-porn site.  How can you tell?  By following the link.  It’s like Web roulette.  Place your bets!

I guess it’s also true that shortening services irk me because they should be utterly unnecessary.  In the first place, there’s almost no excuse for URLs to be so long that they need some kind of shortening service.  Okay, maybe mapping programs have some excuse, but that’s about it.  The kind of enormous cryptic URLs that most database-driven sites generate is just sloppy and wrong.  In the second place, as for putting URLs in e-mail and newsposts, you can contain the URL in angle brackets—<http://like.this/>—and any client worth running will understand that the whole string is a single URL, and ignore any line-wrapping that might occur within the brackets.  If your program can’t handle that, especially if it tries to interpret the bracketed text as an HTML tag, then it’s time to get another one.

Incidentally, the title of today’s entry is a hand-shortened form of “Speech, Shells, and Shortening.”  Which is better?  Granted, it’s kind of cool having an entry title that sounds like a door on Star Trek, but it isn’t what I’d call particularly useful for determining the contents of the entry before you actually read it.  See what I mean?

• SpShSh was published on Wednesday, July 23rd, 2003.
• It was assigned to the CSS and Tech categories.
• There have been no replies.

Apparently I’m a desirable emigrant.  In response to yesterday’s comment-in-passing that Kat and I had been kicking around the idea of moving to another country, I’ve had three people write encouraging me to emigrate to Canada, and one other person recommend the United Kingdom.  The Canada people actually make a pretty good case, since apparently there’s a plan afoot for Canada to make the Turks and Caicos Islands their eleventh province.  That sounds pretty sweet, even if I would have to spend the whole year encased in zinc oxide.

Personally, I’ve always liked Toronto as a city.  Their weather isn’t significantly different than what we experience here in Cleveland, plus I know a number of very cool folks who already live there.  I can’t comment on places in the UK, since I’ve never actually been there (although I hope to fix that within the next year or so).  For the record, the country we had in mind was Norway.  I also gave some thought to the Bahamas, but then we’re back to the prospect of me resembling a lobster on a semi-continual basis.

There’ve been a whole lot of XHTML-and-CSS redesigns announced in the past ten days, and I’ve been remiss in pointing them out.  Here’s a list of the ones I noticed: The Open Championship, Quark, Message Digital Design Ltd., Phish.com, Lawrence, Kansas Weather, Adaptive Path, and Inc.com.  There were some others, I think, but the URLs seem to have escaped me.

On that last one, Dan talks a bit about the particulars of the Inc. redesign, and Doug points out that the markup size reduction for Inc.com’s redesign was just about the same as that for the redesigns of Adaptive Path and Wired News.  I’ll add that it’s very close to the markup size reduction seen when ESPN.com redesigned.  So yes, Doug’s absolutely right: there’s a trend here.  Old-school table-and-spacer designs can be visually recreated using lean, structural markup and CSS, and the process cuts page size by about half.  Some sites will see less savings, but some will see more.  As an example, my off-the-cuff guess (having peeked at the source of a typical page) is that eBay could drop its page weight by 66% or so.  They could probably reduce their annual outgoing bandwidth by several petabytes.  Tell you what, eBay: I’ll show you how to do it and do it right, and you can pay me five percent of your savings over the next five years.  Deal?

• Moving and Shaping was published on Friday, July 18th, 2003.
• It was assigned to the CSS and Personal categories.
• There have been no replies.

If you’re feeling safe (in a computing sense) you might want to rethink that view.  I just came across a USA Today article that leads off with:

Microsoft acknowledged a critical vulnerability Wednesday in nearly all versions of its flagship Windows operating system software, the first such design flaw to affect its latest Windows Server 2003 software.  Microsoft said the vulnerability could allow hackers to seize control of a victim’s Windows computer over the Internet, stealing data, deleting files or eavesdropping on e-mails.

Yes, there’s a patch, so if you’re using Windows, go get it before crackers reverse-engineer the patch to figure out the flaw and start attacking systems.  As it turns out, Windows ME is immune to the problem, so those folks are safe, at least in this case.  Oh, and there have been two more security bulletins and patches published since the one in question, which was released yesterday.

Hardly a week goes by any more that I don’t see one of these and feel really, really glad that all my important personal data—like my books and a current mirror of this Web site—is on a Macintosh.  One running the Classic OS, I might add, so it’s even less vulnerable than OS X machines, which are pretty darned safe.  Plus the system crashes a whole lot less often than Microsoft releases Windows security patches, and when it does crash it’s usually because of Microsoft Word.

Anyway, back to the article I was reading.  Near the end of the piece, the author adds a really chilling note:

The announcement came one day after the Department of Homeland Security announced that it awarded a five-year, $90-million contract for Microsoft to supply all its most important desktop and server software for about 140,000 computers inside the new federal agency.

Just the other day, Kat and I were kicking around the idea of moving to another country as sort of a grand adventure and interesting career move for us both.  Now the idea almost seems like a reasonable personal safety measure.

• Open Door Policy was published on Thursday, July 17th, 2003.
• It was assigned to the Tech category.
• There have been no replies.

There has been more detailed information written about yesterday’s events, so it’s worth reading if you still care.  Personally, I thought Dave Shea’s summary was quite amusing.

I indicated yesterday that DevEdge would likely not be updated.  That’s because the standards evangelism team has been disbanded.  Two team members were among those let go, and the rest of us went to different places within AOL.  I’m really not sure what made the difference between those who were axed and those who were not. 

As much as I’m unhappy that we’ve come to this pass, I don’t regret for one second having taken the position of Standards Evangelist.  While it lasted, Netscape funded close to ten full-time and part-time positions whose job was to promote standards, not proprietary technology, and to spread that message as far and wide as possible.  They may well have been doing it for selfish reasons, but that hardly matters.  We were able to inform, educate, and proactively help a lot of sites get better cross-browser behavior by using standards.  In our own way, we helped make things better, and we made a difference.

So here’s to Bob Clary, Marcio Galli, Katsuhiko Momoi, Chris Nalls, Tristan Nitot, Arun Ranganathan, Doron Rosenberg, and Susie Wyshak.  We fought the good fight and created a lot of great material, including information about the redesign of DevEdge itself.

Moving forward, I have to decide what I will do: accept the position into which I was reassigned, turn down the reassignment and look for another position within AOL, or decide to take the severance package and leave AOL altogether.  This isn’t exactly an easy call, partly due to the economy, but also because the importance of standards to AOL is not, at present, clear to me.  Perhaps the message has sunk in and there will be a place for someone like me, and perhaps not.  I hope to find out which over the next week or so.  No matter what, I face some tough choices, but at least I have choices.  I can’t say the same about 50 former co-workers.

Meanwhile, DMX Zone just this morning (my time) published an interview with me, so those interested in such things can click away.  Love that Dark Jedi groove thang!  [insert lightsaber sound effects here]

• Standing At a Crossroads was published on Wednesday, July 16th, 2003.
• It was assigned to the Browsers, Interviews, and Work categories.
• There have been no replies.

It’s true: Netscape is no longer a viable entity.  I’ll leave it to others to draw conclusions regarding how this move is related to the agreement AOL and Microsoft reached a while back.  Y’all can probably do a much better job of it anyway.

From what I can discern, there will be no more new versions of Netscape; the browser will go into maintenance mode, whatever that means.  More than half the staff was let go today, and Mozilla has been spun off into an independent, non-profit foundation supported by AOL, IBM, Sun, and others.  I have no idea what will happen with netscape.com itself.  DevEdge will cease producing new content, it would seem, which is a shame.  We produced some really good stuff, and had more in the pipeline.  Hopefully that forthcoming material will find another outlet.

For now, I still have a job, although my team’s been split up and sent to different organizations within AOL.  I don’t know yet how this will turn out for me, but I do know that today I’m saddened by the loss.  Yes, Mozilla will go on, but another pioneering force of the Web has just been painfully dimmed.  It’s worth a moment to reflect on where we’ve been… and where we might be headed.

• Moments of Transition was published on Tuesday, July 15th, 2003.
• It was assigned to the Browsers and Work categories.
• There have been no replies.

There’s been some speculation that Microsoft’s recent browser moves may actually be good for Web standardization, not bad.  It’s a side of the issue I hadn’t considered, and it does make a certain degree of sense.  Suppose you’re a large bank and you want a browser that you can rely on to protect your data.  You might well decide that adopting an open-source browser, one which you can influence and even improve if your staff programmers contribute to the project, makes more sense than being beholden to a glacially developing and poorly secured product.  Ditto for companies who care about security—and now that spam-filtering’s built into at least one product’s mail client, ditching Outlook and IE for Mozilla or a variant makes a lot more business sense.

But there’s a down side to the whole situation, which is effectively that the adoption of standards is limited by the available browsers.  If IE/Win stays in its present state for the next two or three years, then use of CSS, XML, XSLT, RDF, P3P, PNG, and pretty much everything else will be constrained by the support IE/Win embodies—not totally beholden to it, but still definitely affected, in the same way the poor CSS support of NN4.x retarded CSS adoption for years.  When IE7 comes out in 2005 or 2006, it will help determine the standards-use landscape by how far its support advances (or doesn’t).  Maybe that’s a good thing.  Maybe having bigger updates less often is better than smaller updates all the time.  It just feels a little too much like stagnation, especially for an industry as drunk on change as ours has been.

Then again, if we’re lucky and Microsoft’s Web competitors don’t fold their cards just when they have a chance of winning back some of the pot, maybe in a couple of years IE/Win won’t be as weighty a gorilla as it is today.

• Salvation in the Storm? was published on Wednesday, July 2nd, 2003.
• It was assigned to the Browsers, Standards, and Web categories.
• There have been no replies.

Chris Hester wrote earlier to point out the CSS2 Test Suite’s main page was completely unreadable in Internet Explorer 6 if you had the “Text Size” set to “Smaller.”  This was news to me; I’d set my text to “Medium” the day I installed IE6 and never looked back.  So I went to the page, changed my text size, and winced.

The problem’s since been worked around, but to see the problem as well as read about the trigger and the solution, try this testcase.  Note that if you’re using IE6 and your browser is set to “Smaller” the testcase will start out completely unreadable.  Set it to “Medium” first and then go to the page and follow the directions.

The flaws in IE6 continue to amaze me, and now we’re stuck with it for another three years, minimum.  Great, just great.

Dave Hyatt recently made some observations about standards-support charts (starting with Standards Charts and continuing into three posts the next day).  I agree with most of what he has to say, actually.  Charts like the “master grid” are by their nature coarse.  They can do no better than provide support information for whichever tests the chart author happened to run.  In presenting an overview and comparison of CSS support, for example, depth-of-implementation testing is sacrificed.  It has to be.  The CSS support charts I published on Web Review for years, and now on DevEdge, are basically the work of one person: me.  I wrote most of what became the W3C’s CSS1 Test Suite in the creation of the original charts, back in late 1996 and early 1997.  Back then, it was easier—bugs were more obvious, and all implementations were shallow.  The charts could afford to be as shallow.

Now, thanks to years of experience, implementations are getting much, much better, and the bugs harder to find.  To fully test modern CSS implementations requires a far more complex set of tests than I could author in a lifetime of evenings (which is when I wrote the tests and the charts).  To be really comprehensive, you’d need to test every property and value combination on every element in HTML (or a markup language of similar complexity), which I think was once calculated to run into a few trillion combinations.  It’s a lot harder to create tests, to run tests, and to chart results than it used to be.  This fact was driven home to me recently as I worked on (finally!) updating the CSS charts.  For the tests I have at hand, most browsers score perfectly, or close to it.  I know that’s not true: every browser has bugs in its CSS support, some worse than others (*cough*WinIE*cough*).

(Aside: I feel either amused or gratified that there’s support for the concept of penalizing browsers for having bugs, a concept I used in compiling the “CSS leader board,” back in the day.  “Full” support earned a point, partial support got half a point, no support got zero, and a bug lost you half a point.  It was a touch crude, perhaps, but it worked.)

But I only have so many hours in every day, the same as anyone else.  It’s not reasonable to expect one or even five people to meet this challenge.  The only way to handle it is to find a moderately large crowd of CSS experts, all of whom trust the others completely, and distribute deep-test creation among them.  In a few months, they may have gotten far enough to run browsers through their tests.  A month or so after that, they could start compiling results, and eventually publish them.  But even assuming all of that data could be collected and presented, how useful would it really be to the Web community?  One of the keys to the original CSS support charts’ success was that they were easy to comprehend: their very shallowness made them useful.  Authors don’t have time for much more.

Implementors have different needs, of course.  If those needs are strong enough, they’re going to need to fund positions (and I do mean more than one) to coordinate the work necessary to fulfill their needs.  The money could come out of the Quality Assurance budget, even.  In any case, if standards support testing is a serious problem, then we’ll need a serious commitment to address it.  Who’s going to step up to the plate?

• Testing for Flaws was published on Tuesday, June 24th, 2003.
• It was assigned to the Browsers, CSS, and Standards categories.
• There have been no replies.