I woke up this morning with a profound realization. “Why not put print stylesheets at the bottom of the page so they load last?”, I thought to myself. It makes perfect sense to any performance-conscious web developer who savors every last millisecond of performance gained. Your print styles aren’t needed until you print the page, so it is okay if it takes a little while longer to download.  Unfortunately the quirkiness of the browser makers trumps our otherwise sound logic.

According to tests done by Steve Souders, web performance guru extraordinaire, Internet Explorer blocks the rendering of content until all of the stylesheets have been downloaded regardless of their media type. And since Internet Explorer is the dominant browser by visitors to most mainstream sites, there is absolutely no benefit to including the print stylesheet at the bottom of the page.

A possible workaround would be to dynamically insert the print stylesheet (using JavaScript) into the web page after it has finished loading. This just feels icky to me as the poor sap who is most likely to print out the webpage I so meticulously coded is also the poor sap using Internet Explorer 5.5 with JavaScript turned off and BonziBUDDY turned on.

Every web developer is looking forward to the new HTML spec, HTML 5. The new spec will birth 20 new elements to add more underlying semantic meaning to content. The new elements came out of popular IDs and Class attributes for common situations in web design: <nav> is just like <div id=”nav”>. But these new elements are just a stop gap.

I wish the web community could move beyond pigeon-holing ourselves with specific elements. Why can’t we make our own elements to better describe our content? If I had my way <div>s would be ancient history and any element not already defined in the HTML spec would be treated by browsers like a <div>.

There are many benefits to opening up the element nomenclature like this.

1) It will be much easier to describe content. No longer will we need to shoehorn our content into quasi-relevant elements. Did you know the <address> tag is to define the contact information for the author or owner of a document and not to hold a plain street address?

2) No more div-itis. Web developers will no longer have to wade through a dozen </div> tags. <div> tags are the least-semantic structural elements in a web designers toolbox; it literally means ‘division’ of a page and is used to mark off different sections within a document. Things can get pretty messy when using too many <div>s however as it is hard to tell where they end. Take a look at this code example:

<div id="container">
   <div id="article">
      ...
     <div id="chart">
      ...
     </div>
   </div>
</div>

Look how much better this markup looks from both a readability and maintainability perspective:

<container>
   <article>
      ...
     <chart>
      ...
     </chart>
   </article>
</container>

A benefit to free-form elements is the semantic closing tags making it clear where each element begins and ends.

3) Microformats might actually work. The movement to create semantic markup using loosely agreed upon Classes slowly died off due to the extra bloat it introduced to the underlying code. With the ability to create your own tags, Microformats could flourish and we can begin to set-up our own best practices for describing content.

4) Faster JavaScript. Not many browsers support the JavaScript method getElementsByClassName but every browser supports getElementsByTagName. Because of this many libraries have had to write their own implementations which are many times slower than native methods. Faster DOM traversal = faster JavaScript!

What will it take to make this a reality? Boogers

We’re already going to have issues with older browsers supporting brand new elements with HTML 5. We might as well go all the way and make sure every browser can support whatever element we can come up with. After all we only have one shot to get HTML right for this generation according to John Allsopp.

Many browsers already support free-form elements both with CSS and JavaScript. To really flesh this out I created the Booger Test and below are my findings.

• Firefox 3+ supports the <booger> tag as if it were a native element but has to be explicitly set to display:block.
• Firefox 2 has no problem with CSS unless there children elements in which case the <booger> tag collapses. Weird!
• All versions of Internet Explorer don’t know what to do with the <booger> tag but they do function normally when using a JavaScript shiv
• Safari and Chrome have no problems.
• Every browser I tested passed the JavaScript portions (getElementsByTagName(“booger”)) of the booger test with flying colors!

So as you can see, we are really close to being able to use our own elements. HTML 5 is already going in this direction but it would be a real shame if everyone got hung up on what frivolous new element names we should all agree to use instead of coming up with new functionality to move the capabilities of the web forward.

I’m sick of the developer community whining and moaning about IE6. It’s amazing how many different campaigns have been created in an attempt to get people to upgrade. From the simple brochure sites like stopie6.com to the unethical IE6 update script which tricks a user into thinking an IE upgrade is a critical update. There was even a CNN story about the anti-IE campaign on the front page (which I think they ran mostly because they stood to benefit from people upgrading). And lets not forget the jovial tweets when news broke that YouTube would be dropping support for IE6.

The only major site that has a valid plan for leaving IE6 behind is Digg.com which was a business decision. According to their stats, IE6 accounts for 10% of visits and 5% of all pageviews. The biggest IE6 headaches for Digg is supporting the functionality to digg a story, bury a story, or leave a comment. IE6 only accounts for a mere 1% of these actions which Digg can’t justify the extra development time needed to support them for such a small group of users. They even conducted a survey to find out why people don’t upgrade their browsers with a majority of the respondents stating they aren’t allowed or they don’t have the proper rights to install new software on their computers.

All of this hoopla so the lives of developers are easier. After all it is the job of developers to build a site and make sure it works across a variety of operating systems, browsers, and devices in order to serve its audience. Martin Ringlein put it best in his post Stop being a dick, support IE6, “We are in the business of creating usable, accessible and intuitive experiences for our users; we are not in the business of changing users, user agents and user behavior all in a pursuit for what we’ve deemed a ‘better’ web.”

I became a developer because I enjoyed solving problems. Internet Explorer is just another obstacle to get over when solving a problem. Rather than wasting energy on things I couldn’t control like trying to persuade the public to upgrade, I dove into learning how to get past the quirks of IE. Here are my 5 tips:

1. Start with a reset stylesheet – This removes any default styles set by the browser so you can start styling on a consistent base. I prefer Eric Myer’s CSS Reset Reloaded , but there are many to choose from.
2. Use a strict HTML doctype – Doctypes tell the browser how to interpret the HTML and transitional and loose doctypes introduce rendering quirks known as triggering “quirksmode“. Any XML doctype (including XHTML flavors) triggers quirks mode in IE as well.
3. Don’t be afraid of CSS conditional hacks – Did you know you can send IE a different property by putting an underscore in front of it? It works like this:

   .style {
   margin-left:15px; //Caught by every browser
   _margin-left:10px; //Caught by IE 6 & 7
   .margin-left:8px; //Only caught by IE6
   }

   You can also use conditional stylesheets to serve different stylesheets but that becomes difficult to maintain.

4. Learn to love the AlphaImageLoader filter for transparent PNGs – There is no way around it.
5. Learn to clear floats the simple way – Just set the “overflow” property of the container to auto or hidden and set the width or height to something other than auto. This applies to all browsers not just IE. I hate seeing the overly complicated clearfix solution.

Other tips for taming IE quirks:

• Definitive Guide to Taming the IE6 Beast – SixRevisions.com
• 10 Fixes for IE6 Problems – Sitepoint.com

So if studying up on these workarounds and techniques sound like too much work, then maybe you shouldn’t be a developer. Perhaps a professional lobbyist is right up your alley. They’re pretty good at ignoring the details of reality.

Here’s a list of some of the more prominent anti-IE6 sites:

• StopIE6.com
• IE6Update.com
• StopLivingInThePast.com
• SaveIE6.com (April Fools Joke)
• IEDeathMarch.org
• DearIE6.com
• IDroppedIE6.com

And David DeSandro agrees with my attitude towards IE6.

After reading through Smashing Magazine’s latest article, 50 New CSS Techniques For Your Next Web Design, I came across an article glossing over a technique for creating a triangle using pure CSS. A triangle using just CSS? That blew my mind! How is that even possible?

After playing around with the sample CSS I started to get it. Using an empty HTML element and the border properties, you can make all kinds of shapes. Here is how it works.

Note: As expected, Internet Explorer acts a bit wonky especially IE6. These experiments were done in Firefox 3.5 but you can see what they should look like in a screenshot I took.

Per the box model, the border outlines the perimeter of an element. When an element has a width and height of 0px the border-width’s make up the dimensions of the element.The corners of borders meet at a 45° angle which is apparent with larger border widths and what makes pure CSS shapes possible. The final CSS to make a 200 pixel tall red triangle pointing up looks like this:

But let’s see how we got to this conclusion step by step starting with a basic square and borders. Each border will be given a different color so we can tell them apart.

.triangle {
border-color: yellow blue red green;
border-style: solid;
border-width: 200px 200px 200px 200px;
height: 0px;
width: 0px;
}

We won’t need the top border so we can set its width to 0px. This makes our triangle easy to measure without any extra space on top; a border-bottom value of 200px will result in a triangle that is 200px tall.

.triangle {
border-color: yellow blue red green;
border-style: solid;
border-width: 0px 200px 200px 200px;
height: 0px;
width: 0px;
}

To hide the two side triangles we set the border-color to transparent. If we set the border-left and border-right widths to 0px then the whole shape would collapse, leaving us with nothing. Since the top-border has been effectively deleted, we can set the border-top-color to transparent as well.

 .triangle {
border-color: transparent transparent red transparent;
border-style: solid;
border-width: 0px 200px 200px 200px;
height: 0px;
width: 0px;
}

There you have it; a triangle using only a single, empty HTML element and some CSS. The same technique can be applied to the other three sides for different orientations. Where might this come in handy? A JavaScript toggle to indicate a container is visible comes to mind. And using a pure CSS triangle is a lot more convenient than coming up with new images for each variation.

Try playing around with different widths to create different kinds of triangles. You can also get some funky effects by changing the border-style; dotted produces a neat effect on our regular bordered square.

.funkyShape {
border-color: yellow blue red green;
border-style: dotted;
border-width: 200px 200px 200px 200px;
height: 0px;
width: 0px;
}

I even managed to come up with the del.icio.us logo.

.delicious {
border-color:#FFFFFF #3274D0 #D3D2D2 #000000;
border-style:dashed;
border-width:150px;
height:0;
width:0;
}

And a heart shape.

.heart {
border-color:red;
border-style:dotted;
border-width:0 150px 150px 0;
height:0;
margin-left:90px;
margin-top:90px;
width:0;
}

I wasn’t the first one to explore CSS shapes, it turns out Tantek Çelik was playing around with these ideas way back in 2001.

The target attribute of a link forces the browser to open the destination page in a new browser window. Using _blank as a target value will spawn a new window every time while using _new will only spawn one new window and every link clicked with a target value of _new will replace the page loaded in the previously spawned window. Try it out for yourself:

Links with target=”_blank”

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Links with target=”_new”

Google | Yahoo | Bing

target=”_new” is not a standard target value. You could use any term you like and any link that has the same target value will open in a previously spawned window. See the target=”booger” example below.

Links with target=”booger”

Google | Yahoo | Bing

How can I force a link to open in a new tab instead of a new window?

There is currently no way to force a window to open in a new tab for browsers with this feature. This functionality can only be set in the preferences of the browser (see other resources section below).

What if I want the new window to display at a certain size?

The only way to do this is by using JavaScript. I recommend the method outlined at Quirksmode.org.

Other Rescources

• http://reference.sitepoint.com/html/a/target – Sitepoint reference for the target attribute.
• http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Options+window+-+Tabs+panel – How to configure Firefox to open new windows in new tabs.
• http://www.tech-recipes.com/rx/1164/internet-explorer-7-open-new-windows-in-tabs-in-ie7/ – How to configure IE7 to open new windows in new tabs instead.

Of course all of this is moot since opening pages in new windows is a usability annoyance.

Drew Wilson is proposing the HTML IMG tag get a new attribute called fullsize. The fullsize attribute would reference “a larger (or fullsize) version of the SRC image. Browsers could then include native support to display the fullsize image in a [modal] pop-up.” according to addfullsize.com, Wilson’s site dedicated to the effort. Mr. Wilson has even gone to the trouble of creating a jQuery plug-in that simulates how the behavior would work. He hopes the Internet will make enough buzz about it to get the attention of the W3C in order to get the fullsize attribute included in the official HTML spec. As of this writing, the petition to add a fullsize attribute has 185 “signatures”. I am not one of them.

I’m not against the idea of including a reference to a larger version of an image right inside the tag. HTML is all about structuring and describing content, and the fullsize attribute is just another piece of meta-data. My biggest problem is this is already possible today by wrapping a link pointing to the fullsize image around the original image. Is it sexy? No. But it is still flexible. It can be customized and jazzed up with JavaScript and CSS but for devices that don’t support those technologies, a link around an image would still be accessible.

What I’m weary wary about is letting the browser manufacturers determine the default pop-up behavior and then relying on them for easier customization options. Take drop down input elements for example. Getting these to look consistent across all of the different browsers and operating systems in the world today is impossible. Roger Johansson went through the effort and documented them on his blog 456bereastreet.com. Any saved time from browsers handling a pop-up would be wasted trying to work around the different limitations for each browser.

To summarize:

• I’m all for a fullsize attribute for meta-data purposes
• Browsers handling the pop-up functionality will do more harm than good

Kristina had been toying with the idea of her own website for a couple weeks now. However, this past weekend, she got around to comping one together. She has been fascinated with the eclectic desk style that seems popular these days. While she was busy in Photoshop, I was setting up the domain and basic file structure. Since it’s a small site, the preparation didn’t take long. In fact the most time consuming task involved cutting images up from the comp and organizing them. Coding was a snap. The site is a basic 3 column layout and most everything is an image.

Creating the carousel to page through her resume was a custom job that took me about 20 minutes using jQuery. I had hoped to just go out to the jQuery community and find a nifty carousel plugin that I could just drop in and be on my way. Unfortunately this wasn’t the case. While there were plenty of options out there, everything was over engineered and too rigid. Most require the content to be an unordered list but I was using a set of divs. This shouldn’t make a lick of difference as any jQuery selector could be used.

Carousel scripts are pretty basic. You need a set of items to rotate through, a container to hold the items, and a frame to mask off the ugly parts. Some basic styling is used to line the items up in a row. The container is given a postion of absolute so it can be freely moved left and right and a large width to hold all of the items inside. The frame needs the overflow property set to hidden to mask out the items that we don’t want the user to see. To pull off the animation we use jQuery’s handy animate() method for the left and right positioning of the container element. This lets us set a key point and jQuery will handle the interpolation from the current value to the key point. Attach this function to a next and previous button and you’re ready to go with your own custom carousel that works the way you want it to.

It was a lot of fun to create a brand new site from scratch without any legacy content or rigid CMS. Simple websites are fun! And if you haven’t checked out the fruits of both of our labors, then please immediately proceed to KristinaNaude.com.

Web developers like to rag on Microsoft’s Internet Explorer every chance they get due it’s sub-par support for HTML/CSS standards. But one thing Microsoft did get right was support for background-position-x and background-position-y. The background-position property lets you control the placement of the background image of an element. Background-position-x and background-position-y let you control the placement independently.

What are some practical uses of controlling the background position independently? Take a card game, for example. Instead of assigning a separate background image for each card you could make a single image that has all the cards in a grid (see below). To show every card you would only need 18 classes: 1 for the common card styles, 4 for the background position of each suit, and 13 for the background position of each value (Ace, two, three etc.)

The CSS for the image above would look like this…

.card {
height:78px;
width:52px;
display:block;
background-image:url(/foo/card-image.png);
background-repeat:no-repeat;
}
/* Suites */
.clubs { background-position-y:0%; }
.diamonds { background-position-y:25%; }
.hearts { background-position-y:50%; }
.spades { background-position-y:75%; }
/* Values */
.ace { background-position-x:0%; }
.two { background-position-x:7.5%; }
.three { background-position-x:7.5%; }
.four { background-position-x:7.5%; }
.five { background-position-x:7.5%; }
/* etc. */

The HTML would be simple, elegant, and look like this:

<a class="card hearts five">Five of Hearts</a>
 
<a class="card spade jack">Jack of Spades</a>

Alas if only life were that simple. Currently only IE 5.0+ and Safari 1.2+ support background-position-x and background-position-y. Every other browser ignores the properties, defaulting to the upper left position.

Instead this is how the CSS code would look if you were writing it for support with all browsers…

/* clubs */ 
.ace-clubs { background-position:0% 0%; }
.two-clubs { background-position:7.5% 0%; }
.three-clubs { background-position:15% 0%; }
.four-clubs { background-position:22.5% 0%; }
.five-clubs { background-position:30% 0%; }
.six-clubs { background-position:37.5% 0%; }
.seven-clubs { background-position:45% 0%; }
.eight-clubs { background-position:52.5% 0%; }
.nine-clubs { background-position:60% 0%; }
.ten-clubs { background-position:67.5% 0%; }
.jack-clubs { background-position:75% 0%; }
.queen-clubs { background-position:82.5% 0%; }
.king-clubs { background-position:90% 0%; }
 
 
/* spades */ 
.ace-spades { background-position:0% 25%; }
.two-spades { background-position:7.5% 25%; }
.three-spades { background-position:15% 25%; }
.four-spades { background-position:22.5% 25%; }
.five-spades { background-position:30% 25%; }
.six-spades { background-position:37.5% 25%; }
.seven-spades { background-position:45% 25%; }
.eight-spades { background-position:52.5% 25%; }
.nine-spades { background-position:60% 25%; }
.ten-spades { background-position:67.5% 25%; }
.jack-spades { background-position:75% 25%; }
.queen-spades { background-position:82.5% 25%; }
.king-spades { background-position:90% 25%; }
 
 
/* hearts */ 
.ace-hearts { background-position:0% 50%; }
.two-hearts { background-position:7.5% 50%; }
.three-hearts { background-position:15% 50%; }
.four-hearts { background-position:22.5% 50%; }
.five-hearts { background-position:30% 50%; }
.six-hearts { background-position:37.5% 50%; }
.seven-hearts { background-position:45% 50%; }
.eight-hearts { background-position:52.5% 50%; }
.nine-hearts { background-position:60% 50%; }
.ten-hearts { background-position:67.5% 50%; }
.jack-hearts { background-position:75% 50%; }
.queen-hearts { background-position:82.5% 50%; }
.king-hearts { background-position:90% 50%; }
 
 
/* diamonds */ 
.ace-diamonds { background-position:0% 75%; }
.two-diamonds { background-position:7.5% 75%; }
.three-diamonds { background-position:15% 75%; }
.four-diamonds { background-position:22.5% 75%; }
.five-diamonds { background-position:30% 75%; }
.six-diamonds { background-position:37.5% 75%; }
.seven-diamonds { background-position:45% 75%; }
.eight-diamonds { background-position:52.5% 75%; }
.nine-diamonds { background-position:60% 75%; }
.ten-diamonds { background-position:67.5% 75%; }
.jack-diamonds { background-position:75% 75%; }
.queen-diamonds { background-position:82.5% 75%; }
.king-diamonds { background-position:90% 75%; }

That’s a class for each card or 52 for those following along at home. Bloat city.

So kudos to Microsoft for letting developers be flexible in at least one area. Now if all the other CSS properties were as flawless as this we would be in business.

Román Cortés managed to create a dead-on recreation of Homer Simpson using nothing but HTML/CSS. To boot it is essentially a vector image that will scale if you increase the text size of your browser. Go to the page and press the control and the ‘+’ key at the same time to see what I mean.

The source code isn’t too pretty but for this spectacle it is certainly understandable. It just makes a good case that open technologies like SVG, which will make it easier to construct vector graphics out of XML code, need to be adopted much faster.

For the past month I have been working feverishly on the latest release of America’s Best Graduate Schools put out by U.S.News and World Report. Today we finally launched it to the public and I wanted to show the difference between last year’s release and this years.

The old Best Graduate pages were constructed with several year old PHP code and hosted on a couple of Apache servers. Much of the layout was done with tables (spacer .gifs ugh…) which became very difficult to manage after many annual revisions.

This year we decided to re-do the whole thing with a new look and a new Zope backend. The HTML and CSS code was completely modular for maximum efficiency. It was actually a lot of fun seeing the whole thing come together.

So have a look around the new site and let me know what you think. You can see the official blog post about all of the new features and functionality here. If you want to know some of the technical details, leave a comment. There was a lot of mental energy that went into the design of the site. But now I’m beat from the pre-launch stress and look forward to getting to bed before midnight.