Re:Are We Taking CSS Too Far?
by earnubs on Wednesday August 18, 2010 @06:38PM
(#1615852)
I'm not entirely sure I understand your point. All of these examples were likely designed in PhotoShop (or Gimp) and then realised as PNGs, GIFs or in this case CSS. Beyond that adding a button is pretty simple regardless how you do it; however, how that button is rendered, which is the point, is certainly simpler with an image (and can be made trivial for developers with appropriate use of CSS).
[ Parent
| on HN ]
I think what tptacek is getting at is programatically describing the button which then gets created in an automated way rather than manually creating it using a graphical tool such as photoshop.
Re:Are We Taking CSS Too Far?
by w1ntermute on Thursday August 19, 2010 @12:20AM
(#1616493)
Is that a practical option right now when support of legacy browsers is still a necessity?
I think it is highly practical, since one very skilled designer and CSS programmer with enough programming skill (or a team) can create a template that many other less skilled and less experienced designers can then take and use at will. The template, while being rather complex compared to the hand-coded and "beautiful" markup that Thomas was talking about, can also have enough dumb logic in itself to degrade gracefully on legacy browsers.
Re:Are We Taking CSS Too Far?
by w1ntermute on Thursday August 19, 2010 @02:42AM
(#1616699)
Wouldn't the degraded version depend upon the same old Photoshop approach? If so, you might as well keep using that approach until all major browsers support the necessary components of CSS3.
I was thinking more along the lines of:
<a href="#"><div class="mybutton">Button</div></a>
.mybutton {
padding: 10px 5px;
border: 1px solid black;
background: red;
width: 100px;
text-align: center;
}
Instead of a gradient background and rounded corners, which is still trivial to write by hand.