I've started a new blog that's based on my 100 Random Colors website. The blog is (drum roll please) 16 Colors.

My idea here is fairly new– it's called "Colorblogging." In 16 colors, the posts will be all colors. 16 squares of different hues with their hex equivalent.

I hope the users of 100 Random Colors will embrace its younger brother with its ability to be accessed on feedreaders, news aggregators and other blogs.


CSS Cookbook

Tables have long been the layout tool of choice for designing sites since the 90's. Although it's semantically incorrect, many web designers have been keeping this practice and doing almost nothing to correct it.

CSS Cookbook from O'Reilly presents developers with quick 180 degree turn to CSS. The good thing about this book is that it shows how CSS can do the typical table-based layouts. For example, the customary 2-column layout is given adequate attention. One very nice chapter demonstrates how CSS can create semanitcally correct code for web form layout.

But the book also explores the workarounds (or "hacks") in dealing with the quirks you have to deal with (Hint: it involves browsers).

Web developers looking for a quick fix of standards-compliant layout and techniques will really appreciate CSS Cookbook.

CSS Cookbook

Quick answer: Absolutely yes.

Then the next question: How?

Web Standards IS the face of Web 2.0. This 2005 article from Digital Web Magazine supports this idea. The app that users control content, search and do stuff with ("mix and remix") is written with standards-compliant code, is developed with semantics in mind, and implemented with content separated from presentation.

Flickr, Google Calendar, 30 Boxes, Basecamp, the list goes on and on and one thing is clear: web 2.0 means web standards.

At the start of the year, I predicted that several fonts were going to make it big in 2006.

I've prepared a little survey to check if I'm getting it right. Please do answer and/or share your thoughts.

10 Web Predictions for 2006

December 12, 2005

Yeah, I know. The year is at its tail-end and this is basically your "predictions" article where the author does a Nostradamus and predicts what's in store for the next year. So drum roll please…

  • Blogs with AJAX – People on the bleeding edge of web technology will eventually find a way to integrate AJAX into the mix, with all this Web 2.0 hulabaloo. Functionalities like on-the-fly article display, collapsing, etc. may be getting a lot of screen-time.
  • Browser Wars – Internet Explorer 7 vs Firefox 2.0! It's going to be like 1999 all over again. IE7's has been impressive with the demos I've seen Microsoft– the multiple window preview may turn out to be the perfect compliment to tabbed browsing. The question a few months from now is what feature Firefox will have to compete with IE7.
  • Web 2.0 Saturation – This is actually a misnomer since only the mainstream sites will incorporate functionality while the rest of the world haven't even heard of Web 2.0.
  • More Minimalist Look – Interface-wise, more and more sites will settle for subtle aesthetics. But that doesn't mean creativity will be fettered– Think more iPod-esque visuals. Designers will try to achieve that look.
  • Hot Colors – There will be a lot of experimentation with strong colors– yellows, oranges and reds for mainstream sites, with off-beat accents. Of course, subtlety is the key here.
  • Tables, Still – Unfortunately, web development IDE 2006 releases would still not be able to fully integrate Web Standards in the presentation layer (VS, Sun Enterprise, etc.)
  • New Tools – At the heels of the acquisition of Macromedia, Adobe will churn out a web development tool that will dominate the market, but it will be a "miss." It will suffer from the growing pains of integrating the strengths of the Macromedia product line.
  • It won't be the year of Ruby on Rails – Despite demonstrating great potential for web development, Ruby on Rails won't go mainstream yet. The PHP-ASP(.NET)-JSP elite club won't be accepting new members in 2006. Maybe 2007.
  • Bigger Resolutions – 800 x 600 will see a massive reduction in monitor resolution share (~15-20% share) and designing for 1024 x 768 will be the de facto standard (~50-60%).
  • Up and Coming Web Fonts Rule – Gainers: Lucida and Vera. Loser: Verdana. Stay-put: Trebuchet and Georgia.

Make sure check back here a year from now and see how far off I am. 🙂

Upgrading to Web Standards

October 5, 2005

Here's a fantastic article from Mozilla!

The article is a bit technical as it discusses replacing old techniques and some advanced aspects of upgrading to web standards. Be warned though, geekery is required. 🙂

I read somewhere that print designers have it easy, as compared to web/screen designers. I agree with that statement and the fundamental thing that gives gives web/screen designers fits is the screen itself.

Yes, browsers (actually, only a certain one) are a big issue for web standards and designers, but I even if you are not designing with web standards, you still need to consider the display. Here's are three reasons why it's harder more than ever for designers:

  1. Screens nowadays are no longer confined to the usual 4:3 screen ratio; 16:9 screens are increasing. It's hard to design liquid layouts to fit a huge gap.
  2. There are now monitors that swivel so the display is actually in portrait orientation (i.e. 3:4 ratio or 9:16). Now, thats a real bummer in adding design considerations
  3. Resolutions, the original web design baffler, now range from 800×600 pixels to 1280×1024 (or even greater). Plus, add to that the weird combinations in between. It used to be designing for 640×480, 800×600 then 1024×768.

Ah, print designer do have it easy.