So, I'd say it's not really feasible - and not a very visitor friendly thing to do in any case ;)
If people have CSS turned off, they've probably done it for a reason and that should be respected IMHO.
It's a painful realization, but I console myself with the knowledge that anyone who has their browser/system set to a very large font size, or has CSS or javascript turned off, or has their own custom style sheet turned on, etc., etc., had to go to some effort to set their system up that way, and probably understands that it's their own fault 50% of the web looks bizarre and ugly.
Anyone with enough computing savvy to screw with their system/browser settings to that degree won't blame me entirely for the way my pages look to them... they obviously know what's going on.
My own css file basically consists of a) link coloriaztion and underlining for all forms of hrefs, b) background graphic removal c) forced to white background and black text, d) a default font of most text to verdana 12pt.
"The simple nature of the Web and the Web's user-friendly character will be killed even before we see the tenth anniversary of the first GUI browser. A slow, buggy, complex, daunting Web awaits. I'm not looking forward to it." (-John C. Dvorak, 04-04-2000)
Good point. My major concern with folks overriding site-bound CSS is in the positioning. I've seen some VERY odd layouts from folks who didn't Netscape-proof their CSS positioning. That wouldn't be a problem with folks who have personal style sheets turned on, but those who run with CSS turned off entirely would see a lot more wacky layouts than I do.
Setting your own text styles isn't any more disruptive than changing your browser's default font size. But you also understand that your choices may very well alter the fundamental appearance of the pages you view in ways the designer had not intended.
The white background/black text thing in particular would make the web an awfully bland place IMO, but I'm not the one looking at it that way! :)
(I kept link underlines in the CSS-based design I'm working on... it's WAY too fundamental a visual clue to get rid of)
Just white backgrounds and black text ?
Euuuggghhh!!
I dont even use underlines on hrefs *shock*, *horror* AND i turn of the visted link so that there is only mouse over and mouse off.
I cant ever remember a time in recent web surfing whrere i forgot where i had been and needed to be reminded by a link.
Any page that uses gifs for navigation etc wont have underlines. The links on my pages stand out and anyone with half a brain cell will realise that its a hyperlink
Read as much usability info as you can find, the statistics on graphic based navs without links is pretty shocking (notice not a single large site uses them?) and not a single large portal turns off underlines of links. The one study I've seen, showed click production of links without under lines drops to sub 1% of what it could with the underline. If it isn't underlined, it's not a link to all but a fraction of users. Turn on underlining, and watch your click-to-user ratio jump.
I'm not quite as extreme though, I have to say if everything was the same colour things would get a little dull.
I too think its bad form to have normal words underlined but as for links I'm not going to change them ;)
You also have to take into consideration where you are using them - most of the sites I have done dont require a lot of scrolling. Perhaps in a large directory or text heavy page i might consider using underlines but providing you clearly label links as links I dont see it being a problem.
However, on most the sites I do I dont need to point out to people that the links are links as they are dead easy to spot anyway.
Thats the whole point of CSS, it's there so you can pretty up your page.
But people who don't want to, or are dissabled and use a special browser, or other browsers like WAP, Lynx, and PDA browsers can still view the site with out the flashy stuff.
I strongly suggest you change your design habbits.
I personaly, make it look just how I want it using only CSS (no tables anymore). Anyone who has an old browser, a 'special/other' browser, or anyone that dosn't want a flash site, gets plain old HTML, complete with times new roman and blue links (or what ever they set them to be).
That way, everybody wins.
Don't forget, the web isn't like print. You can't expect to have control over everyting. It can be annoying at times. But you just have to accept it.
You are right on track. The web isn't print. In print you have control over every pixel. If you want that, use PDF files. As time goes on, there is going to be more diversity of web browsers, as people start using handheld devices, car devices, blind readers, etc. to read web pages.
The purpose of markup is not to control every pixel, but to give the text meaning. The purpose of CSS is to apply structure to the meaning. However the CSS that you use is only a suggested formatting, not necessarily the formatting that the end user is going to use.
Take my mother, for example. She has eyesight problems. I'm going to construct a CSS file that boosts the font sizes for her, which you can install into IE using the Accessibility dialog. However, if you could override that, you could only be stopping her from reading your web site.
But, hopefully there will be more standards support among web browsers. I want to make my pages look a certain way in graphic browsers, and eventually make them look a different way in WAP browsers, etc., etc...
I don't think there's anything wrong with a designer having control of his/her output... the one line I draw is that a site should never override a user's personal style sheet. If a user is savvy enough to create their own style sheet (or have their son create one for them), they obviously know what's going on and have their own reasons for doing it. They'll understand if everything doesn't line up perfectly.
I'm not going to second-guess them. They obviously know enough to resent me for trying... ;)
Huh? Are we talking about the same web? It's fastly turning into a one browser world. Handhelds will end up getting dominated by CE too. Within 3 years, there will be only one viable browser. All the rest will have to emulate it entirely. This is very close to being the case as it is right now. Throw what they are getting ready to do with .net and xp, and your choices for design and usage are 1 of 1.
Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. The Extend phase is actually a form of the extinguish phase. Tried looking at some sites in alternative browsers lately like Moz or Opera? You can't even connect to MSN with Opera - most banks are IE only - even the British govt is building a site that is IE only. It doesn't matter that you can fake the agent name and walk right it, they are still discriminatory against alternatives. I'd guess that 70-85% of the development time Opera spent from v3 to v5 was to get IE compatibility. They'd met and exceeded the web standards and then had to try to make the thing work with all the Front Page generated and IE specific sites.
As much as everyone (especially me) pulls for the underdog, the future for alternative browsers is bleak. They'll get CE and IE cranked up within a year and just like they've done time and time again (netscape, wordperfect, novell, stacker, lotus), they'll squash the competition out like a bug.
However, on most the sites I do I don't need to point out to people that the links are links as they are dead easy to spot anyway.
How can you tell? The attention span of a surfer is about 3 seconds maximum to scan the page. They ignore: banners, graphics, left side menus, and right side menus. The majority of surfers look right in the sweet spot of a page (content zone) the instant the page comes up. If they don't see the info they are looking for in the title, or in a link in the center of the page - most of them are gone.
Certainly your regulars will look longer and harder, but that initial first impression is what counts. Did you fulfill their need, or did they go back button outta there?
Visual clues - hyperlinks are mostly blue and underlined, I keep most my links blue and feel they are easy to spot. As long as the links look different from the rest of the page and use markings such as arrows I don't see a problem.
I'm not arguing that underlines are not more obvious just that they are not always necessary. Obviously this isn't always the case and I would say that sometimes it is necessary to have underlines.
But if not underlining links is such a bad idea then why are major sites like BBC News and BT Internet not using them either?
Looking at the front page I have to mouse around it to try and find out what are actually links, it is not obvious.
I think there will be more diversity of web browsers too-- just not desktop browsers. Not that I've seen anything show up in the logs yet, just a forecast. Even if IE does take over embedded, which isn't at all a certainty, the embedded version is different from the desktop version. In any case, the different browsers I could think of include:
Pocket IE - Microsoft
Mobile Explorer - Microsoft
Opera
ICE (java-based) - Wind River Systems
Escape (java-based) - Espial
Netfront - Access Japan
Clue (java-based) - Netclue
esurfer - Ravisent/STMicroelectronics
HTML Engine (based on spyglass) - PowerTV/Scientific Atlanta
Fresco - ANT
AvantGo
Planetweb
Kbrowser Palm - 4thpass
There are lots of others. The embedded market is highly fragmented, with lots of operating systems in competition and being used for set top boxes, handhelds, mobile phones, tablets, automotive entertainment systems, and other Internet appliances. The OS fragmentation pretty much guarantees a variety of browsers will be used for devices like this. Personally, I think java-based browsers have a better shot a capturing a fragmented market like this than those written in a compiled language like C, which probably doesn't include Microsoft. It'll be interesting to see how it all shakes out in any case.
there are some attempts being made to turn this into a bit more of a scandal or better yet head it off at the pass
*looks at list of phone calls to make*
amazing how many journalists I've gotten to know over the last twenty years
