Nathan Smith gets input from several buddies of mine, including Anton Peck, Jared Christensen, Patrick Haney, and Jenna Marino, on their preference for either Fireworks or Photoshop. The comments are definitely an interesting read, so I encourage you to check it out. I think it’s important to keep some perspective, though: the only people who really care whether you use Fireworks or Photoshop are other designers. Clients couldn’t care less. Debating the pros and cons can be fun for us design nerds, but ultimately it doesn’t really matter what you use — keep that in mind. Visit site »
Nathan Smith talks about the 960 Grid System CSS “framework” (I say in quotes, since that word seems divisive when applied to CSS) he recently released. It all looks very impressive to me, and I’m quite tempted to use it over Blueprint. Blueprint has changed several things since the work Nathan, Christian, and I did at the Lawrence Journal-World, and much of it is not necessarily to my liking (that’s not to say it’s bad — just not now I want it). Nathan’s 960 is a bit closer to what I want, grid-wise (and is a bit lighter weight, as it doesn’t really bother with typography). I’ll definitely be giving it a closer look in the near future. Visit site »
The awesome Nathan Smith has released a CSS framework for grids. It’s very similar to Blueprint, but uses some different naming conventions and a 12 or 16 column default grid, instead of Blueprint’s 24 columns. Looks very useful. Nice work! Visit site »
Although I’ve been using YUI a lot lately, I have definitely felt tempted by jQuery. I think I’m going to give it a shot and see what I think — Nathan Smith’s crash course looks like a great place to start. Visit site »
Roger says:
IE 7 does not, repeat not, resize pixel-sized text. It partly compensates for that by allowing the user to scale/zoom the entire page, including images (which quickly leads to massive horizontal scrolling because of its bad implementation).
He’s right, of course. However, anyone who uses this fact that suggest that there’s still an accessibility issue with pixel-sized text in IE7 is wrong.
IE7 can increase the size of text set in pixels. Roger can make the distinction between text zoom and page zoom all he wants, but the bottom line is that you can increase the size of text set in pixels in IE7. Yes, it’s a full page zoom and not just a text zoom, but it’s still resizing the text set in pixels — right?
The fact that IE7’s implementation doesn’t make resizing the text as convienent as Firefox or Safari’s doesn’t matter. Accessibility and convienence are not the same thing. Don’t confuse them.
Accessibility gurus can no longer claim this as an accesibility problem with IE7. Period.
Me, I’m with Nathan Smith:
At least IE7 can zoom. As for me, I’m done baby-sitting Microsoft’s sorry attempts to produce a browser. We can only coddle the weakest link for so long, until it’s time to just say - Goodbye, laggards. Visit site »
So the web design community is all up in a huff over this company, LogoMaid, who has crafted logos that look a lot like those from Apple, GodBit, and SimpleBits. My take? People should relax.
Yes, these guys are rip-off artists. Yes, it’s pathetic and lame. Yes, I would probably be irritated if they stole my work, too. But, if you stop and think about this logically instead of reacting so emotionally, you have to ask yourself: how does this hurt Apple? How does it hurt GodBit? How does it hurt Dan Cederholm? Answer: it doesn’t.
The kind of thing can only hurt two groups of people. The first is LogoMaid themselves, who clearly are going to have their business ruined over this. But who cares? They brought it upon themselves. The second is companies or people who have purchased LogoMaid’s work. These people were manipulated and conned into paying for something that could get them sued. They have good reason to be very angry, as LogoMaid — at the very least — has cost them money, and at the worst could cost them a lawsuit from Apple.
But Dan, GodBit, and Apple are not hurt by this. Not one bit. So while it’s perfectly understandable that they would be irritated, I’d suggest they shake it off and relax a bit. You’re not really going to let a third-rate rip-off artist get you down, are you? Visit site »
Nathan Smith wrote a very positive review of Pro CSS Techniques over at Godbit.com. Thanks so much, Nathan! Visit site »
Nathan blames me for the recent brouhaha over frameworks, and then goes on to say some very intelligent things about the whole fuss. Visit site »