![]() *All* designs would have been reasonably responsive, because no one relied on fixed width layouts - they weren't even possible. Back in "bad old days" of original-recipe HTML (early 90's), this would have been taken for granted. I have to laugh sometimes when I read about "responsive design" - building a site that works well on different devices. You simply must have other standards in mind besides what *you* see. But expecting what they show you on screen to be an accurate representation of what any other human being on earth will see is not reasonable. What *you* see is just not all that relevant except as a quick saity check that you aren't doing something *completely* stupid.ĭon't get me wrong - it's not that tools like BG are a bad idea. So you need to design for that, and that's why the whole notion of WYSIWYG is kind of flawed with regard to web design tools. You simply have to accept that what *you* see is not necessarily what anyone else will see. In fact, *you* might get something different the next time *you* look at the same page, if you do so in a different browser or on a different device.īottom line, relying on what you see at any given moment as your way of designing a web page just plain does not work. So it really can be not just "what you see is what *you* get", but "what you see is what *everyone* gets" - just as we would hope.īut for web design, the best one could say is that a tool is "what you see is what *you* get, but everyone else may see something different, because they may have a different screen size or resolution or browser settings than you". That's true even if you output to PDF instead of physical paper, because PDF is still completely tied to specific sizes. For tools designed to produce printed output, WYSIWYG makes sense, because no matter what kind of system the designer is using, we will all see the same printed result. > I had thought that BlueGriffon was a wysiwyg web editor.Īctually, as I think about it, it occurs to me that the whole notion of WYSIWYG is flawed when it comes to the web. On Jan 25, 2013, at 4:19 AM, Greg Chapman wrote: And I suspect you'll find BG makes creating properly designed web pages easier than ay of the other tools you mentioned. ![]() So why switch to another tool that makes it easier to create a *terribly designed* web page? Instead, you should be focused on creating *properly designed* web pages, and tools that make this easier. There are reasons that web standards call for different approaches to be used. Whatever it is you are trying to accomplish with direct font size control might look good on your screen but terrible on someone else's. Which is to say, almost anything you might be trying to do to access font sizes directly is the *wrong* thing to do when designing for the web, which is why web standards have developed to discourage people from even trying. So font sizing is just inherently different affair, and it is an enormous mistake to try designing for the web as if you were designing for a printed document. But anyhow, you simply must understand that the difference between Word and Office one hand and BG on the other is that the former are tools that are intended to produce results on *physical paper* in which everything has a specific *physical size* that will nit ever change once you print the document, whereas BG is a tool for producing results that are to be displayed on *web pages* which might be viewed on any of a zillion different screen sizes, with any of a zillion different user resolution settings. ![]() > somewhat like Microsoft Word, Open Office or even KompozerĪs Daniel mentions, mentioning Kompozer here is ironic. > editor that claims to be wysiwyg to work ![]() > I had thought that BlueGriffon was a wysiwyg web editor. On Jan 24, 2013, at 8:57 PM, James Holland wrote:
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |