I disagree with Cameron on both of his points.
First, doctype. I use XHTML because it is standardized – lowercase tags, consistently self-closing tags, etc.
Further, HTML5 does add more semantic meaning, yes. But this does not mean the div with a semantic class = meaningless. On the contrary, even <video> can be made more semantic thusly, <video class="documentary">, just like XHTML. Really, this is the strength of HTML. Whatever your flavor DOCTYPE, it can be extended by classes. This is it’s beautiful strength and flexibility. Because of it’s lack of inherent meaning, the designer can imbue it with their own meaning. Isn’t it a small miracle that technology like RDFa and microformats can be built into simple HTML with only the attributes that HTML comes with? And that with those technologies, a veritable world of connected data is possible? Yes, it is a miracle. HTML 5 is not such a huge advancement.
Richard made a good response to Cameron’s argument on px measurements for type. But I think there is even more. For me, building a site with ems, despite the periodic necessity of minor calculations, is an act of truth in the medium. Using ems, each part of the design has a relationship to the whole. The design is beautiful when each part has a relationship to the whole. And when that beauty has it’s roots in the math beneath the design, it approaches the beauty found in nature. A px is a bludgeon to force your taste on the design. The em is a friend, it counsels the design and takes advice from it.
It seems like you are biasing one unit of measurement over another based on the design they have been associated with in the past: “Using ems, each part of the design has a relationship to the whole.” and “A px is a bludgeon to force your taste on the design.” Ems and pixels are both only units of measurement. Neither one inherently makes a design beautiful. A px based design could be just a beautifully proportioned and mathematically based as an em based design. Likewise an em based design can be just as ugly and lacking in rhythm as a poor px based design. I’m not saying px is better than em; I currently use ems myself. I’m just not seeing the direct correlation between the unit of measure used by the designer and the mathematical rhythm or proportional beauty of the design.
5 Jun 2009 at 8:56 am
Good point.
What I’m trying to say is that with ems as the base for type and layout elements the design can automatically inherit a relationship to each other – increasing the designer’s chances of creating good design. Also, when a user is scaling text, those proportions will stay intact if you base the design on ems. And since we don’t know whether users are scaling text or zooming, we increase our chances of creating bullet-proof designs by using ems.
You’re right, though, the unit of measurement will not automatically create good design.
5 Jun 2009 at 10:40 am
More clarity on HTML5 and XHTML: http://adactio.com/journal/1595/
15 Jul 2009 at 10:50 am