What are you working on? v2

[a2h]

I've been rewriting loads of spray's backend over the past two weeks, but there was something added to the frontend that fades in and out as you select a form element (and I added dash of colour to highlighted form elements)... I'll post a screenshot :buddy:

[img]http://cl.ly/1f2892dac00f59de9af4/content[/img]

[editline]02:49PM[/editline]

Oh and, the bubble's entirely CSS thanks to [url=http://nicolasgallagher.com/?p=486]this[/url] :science:

[jaybuz]

[QUOTE=a2h;23293782]I've been rewriting loads of spray's backend over the past two weeks, but there was something added to the frontend that fades in and out as you select a form element (and I added dash of colour to highlighted form elements)... I'll post a screenshot :buddy:

[IMG_thumb]http://cl.ly/1f2892dac00f59de9af4/content[/IMG_thumb]

[editline]02:49PM[/editline]

Oh and, the bubble's entirely CSS thanks to [URL="http://nicolasgallagher.com/?p=486"]this[/URL] :science:[/QUOTE]

Those are some hot bubbles.

[KmartSqrl]

Working on redesigning my portfolio and hitting things from a new angle.

This is only about an hour in so far and is all in photoshop still. Going to play around with some character design tomorrow. I've decided I want a simple mascot sorta guy to help bring a bit more personality and memorability to the website. I'm actually probably going to do 2-3 different ones and see which one people favor.

I'm also planning on doing some fun flash stuff on the logo to bring in a bit more interaction (maybe the character will be up there too).

[img]http://cl.ly/7f71f4a5e076931abb34/content[/img]

I'm fairly happy with it so far.

[editline]02:07AM[/editline]

oh and the colored swipes in the corner of the content area are going to be changed up quite a bit.

[jaybuz]

That navigation reminds me a bit of [URL="http://chrispederick.com/"]chris pederick's site[/URL]. Like the explanation of what the link does. I like it but the whole design seems plain, if you know what I mean. Content should probably fix that though.

[DEADBEEF]

[QUOTE=KmartSqrl;23325119]I'm also planning on doing some fun flash stuff on the logo to bring in a bit more interaction[/QUOTE]

....no

[KmartSqrl]

[QUOTE=DEADBEEF;23327211]....no[/QUOTE]

ITT: someone who hates flash because he always sees it done wrong. If you really want to get in to this with me be my guest, but for now I'll leave it at this:

When used right interactive can be a very powerful tool, and they type of subtle interactivity I've got in mind is also the kind of polish that [i]really[/i] impresses potential clients.

It's not like I'm going to make it spin every 2 seconds or play an annoying intro or music or anything like that. It's going to be tasteful and subtle.

Also we both know if I would have said html5 and JS you wouldn't have shot the idea down before having the faintest idea what I'm planning.

[editline]11:45AM[/editline]

[QUOTE=jaybuz;23325706] Content should probably fix that though.[/QUOTE]

Yep, it will. :) Especially once the character illustration is done.

[thelinx]

[QUOTE=KmartSqrl;23334376]ITT: someone who hates flash because he always sees it done wrong. If you really want to get in to this with me be my guest, but for now I'll leave it at this[/QUOTE]

But how will it look for people without flash?

If you're going with html5, then it'll look work in all browsers, and for the browsers that support html5, it'll have that additional flare that you're planning.

[KmartSqrl]

[QUOTE=thelinx;23334487]But how will it look for people without flash?

If you're going with html5, then it'll look work in all browsers, and for the browsers that support html5, it'll have that additional flare that you're planning.[/QUOTE]

It will look like the comp for people without flash, there's obviously going to be a seamless fallback. And there's more people with flash installed than there are users on browsers that support the HTML5 features that I would need to recreate what I want to do, so if I'm aiming for wide support flash still wins out easily.

Not to mention the whole thing where it takes about a tenth of the time to get the same (if not better) results from flash, which is very important for me.

[thelinx]

Well, if there's a seamless fallback then I don't really see the issue.

[KmartSqrl]

[QUOTE=thelinx;23334777]Well, if there's a seamless fallback then I don't really see the issue.[/QUOTE]

:)

There should always be seamless fallback for flash or silverlight or any javascript.

[arienh4]

[QUOTE=KmartSqrl;23334707]It will look like the comp for people without flash, there's obviously going to be a seamless fallback. And there's more people with flash installed than there are users on browsers that support the HTML5 features that I would need to recreate what I want to do, so if I'm aiming for wide support flash still wins out easily.

Not to mention the whole thing where it takes about a tenth of the time to get the same (if not better) results from flash, which is very important for me.[/QUOTE]
And it'll pass all the time you save right back to the consumer as loading time!

[brooo]

[QUOTE=arienh4;23335689]And it'll pass all the time you save right back to the consumer as loading time![/QUOTE]

:sigh:

[editline]07:44PM[/editline]

Just for the record, Ariën actually uninstalled Flash from his browser - HTML5 is the future and Flash is "slow" and because Ariën can't live without using bleeding edge technology he uninstalled it. Fuck the online experience he's losing on so many sites that use Flash for nice presentation.
I don't know about you guys, but I'd rather have good-looking and easy to develop stuff than a 0.5s speed increase.

I think that sometimes people use stuff like HTML5/canvas only to fascinate themselves with their intellect and/or capacity to "keep up with technology", when it actually negatively impacts their results (fact of which they're ignorant).

[editline]07:50PM[/editline]

[img]http://ahb.me/92l[/img]
[url]http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/does_html5_really_beat_flash_surprising_results_of_new_tests.php[/url]
[url]http://www.streaminglearningcenter.com/articles/flash-player-cpu-hog-or-hot-tamale-it-depends-.html[/url]

[editline]07:52PM[/editline]

[img]http://www.adobe.com/products/player_census/images/stats_432x309.gif[/img]

[editline]07:55PM[/editline]

I'm not saying HTML5 isn't great, but at the moment Flash is just a better option. That is, for professional web development, not "look how cool I am".

[KmartSqrl]

[QUOTE=arienh4;23335689]And it'll pass all the time you save right back to the consumer as loading time![/QUOTE]

ITT: Another guy who has no idea what he's talking about.

When flash has long load times it's largely caused by time spent loading external assets (video, images, etc) the only reason you see it in the first place vs a normal browser is because instead of dynamically loading files as they are requested people batch load a bunch of assets at the start.

You know how big that logo is when it's pulled in to flash as a vector asset? 1.3kb, that leaves plenty of room before I even have to worry about preloading anything. Especially since all the interactivity is going to be strictly procedural.

I've done a a number of flash projects where initial load time was critical and was able to easily eliminate it by actually taking the time to set up the file to load things in a more strategic way than just snagging everything at the start.

[editline]01:21PM[/editline]

Further proof that you are clueless if you think flash = long load times: [url]http://www.thefwa.com/[/url]

[editline]01:37PM[/editline]

[QUOTE=brooo;23335777]I'm not saying HTML5 isn't great, but at the moment Flash is just a better option. That is, for professional web development, not "look how cool I am".[/QUOTE]

Exactly, but I'd say flash still has more "look how cool I am" potential anyways, since a lot of the advanced things you can do with flash can not be done with HTML5/JS with any kind of reliability yet.

[thelinx]

[QUOTE=brooo;23335777]
[img_thumb]http://ahb.me/92l[/img_thumb]
[url]http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/does_html5_really_beat_flash_surprising_results_of_new_tests.php[/url]
[url]http://www.streaminglearningcenter.com/articles/flash-player-cpu-hog-or-hot-tamale-it-depends-.html[/url]

[editline]07:52PM[/editline]

[img_thumb]http://www.adobe.com/products/player_census/images/stats_432x309.gif[/img_thumb][/QUOTE]

Those are just benchmarks for video performance, are they not?
That's only a small part of the entire featureset of HTML5.

[brooo]

[QUOTE=thelinx;23337171]Those are just benchmarks for video performance, are they not?
That's only a small part of the entire featureset of HTML5.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, all I could find in like 10 min.

[KmartSqrl]

Flash's drawing API is also significantly faster than canvas: [url]http://www.craftymind.com/guimark2/[/url]

[editline]01:56PM[/editline]

In the first test on firefox 3.6.6 on mac I get 33.4 fps on the flash version and an abysmal 3.53 fps on the HTML5 version.

[editline]01:58PM[/editline]

6.77 FPS average in HTML5 on the second test with 19.2 in flash.

[editline]02:02PM[/editline]

And the results are essentially the same in safari if you just add 2-3 fps to all the numbers for my firefox results.

[arienh4]

[QUOTE=brooo;23335777]:sigh:Just for the record, Ariën actually uninstalled Flash from his browser - HTML5 is the future and Flash is "slow" and because Ariën can't live without using bleeding edge technology he uninstalled it. Fuck the online experience he's losing on so many sites that use Flash for nice presentation.
I don't know about you guys, but I'd rather have good-looking and easy to develop stuff than a 0.5s speed increase.[/QUOTE]
What the hell are you talking about? It's nice that you're going to use my real name and all, but I still have Flash installed. It's even built-in to Chrome nowadays.

I'm just saying that loading Flash is slower than say loading images, and while there's all kinds of broadband connections now there's also more people using them in the background for downloads and what not, turning those 0.5 seconds into 50.
I'm only going on personal experience here, not benchmarks. Sites using Flash load slower than sites using CSS and Javascript to achieve the same thing.

[torekk]

Then again, it's more compatible yet. If you buy new clothes, you also get ones that comfort you well and not only because they look good.

[KmartSqrl]

[QUOTE=arienh4;23337904]I'm just saying that loading Flash is slower than say loading images, and while there's all kinds of broadband connections now there's also more people using them in the background for downloads and what not, turning those 0.5 seconds into 50.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=KmartSqrl;23336684]Further proof that you are clueless if you think flash = long load times: [url]http://www.thefwa.com/[/url][/QUOTE]

That whole website is flash and it loads fast

[arienh4]

[QUOTE=KmartSqrl;23338820]That whole website is flash and it loads fast[/QUOTE]
Why do I even bother explaining myself?
[QUOTE=arienh4;23337904]there's also more people using them in the background for downloads and what not, turning those 0.5 seconds into 50.[/QUOTE]
That site doesn't load fast for me while I'm downloading games for example.

[KmartSqrl]

[QUOTE=arienh4;23340124]Why do I even bother explaining myself?

That site doesn't load fast for me while I'm downloading games for example.[/QUOTE]

That has absolutely nothing to do with the technology itself, and everything to do with you saturating your connection with a large download. Which makes it completely irrelevant. An image heavy website like that would still load slow if it was not done in flash when your connection is being used up by a download.

[Maccabee]

Does the navigation look odd being aligned with the text instead of the div it is in? The links fade from 50 to 100 percent opacity on hover.

[IMG]http://imgkk.com/i/-7_l.png[/IMG]

Also, on the note of flash. Don't use flash. It's just dumb. If you haven't noticed everyone is trying to move away from it jquery, html5 and css3 can do so much of what flash was used for.

[KmartSqrl]

[QUOTE=Maccabee;23340862]Also, on the note of flash. Don't use flash. It's just dumb. If you haven't noticed everyone is trying to move away from it jquery, html5 and css3 can do so much of what flash was used for.[/QUOTE]

Pssst, read the whole flash debate before you act like you know what you're talking about. Especially the bits regarding the context in which it's being used.

[editline]04:14PM[/editline]

Also you should either be aligning the button part of the nav with the outside of the content div, or the text in the nave with the text in the content div.

[arienh4]

[QUOTE=KmartSqrl;23340238]That has absolutely nothing to do with the technology itself, and everything to do with you saturating your connection with a large download. Which makes it completely irrelevant. An image heavy website like that would still load slow if it was not done in flash when your connection is being used up by a download.[/QUOTE]
I'm just saying, don't assume high bandwidth. The only real argument against mine I've seen is that 'it loads fast' which you can't just assume for everyone.

[Sharpshooter]

[QUOTE=KmartSqrl;23336684]ITT: Another guy who has no idea what he's talking about.

When flash has long load times it's largely caused by time spent loading external assets (video, images, etc) the only reason you see it in the first place vs a normal browser is because instead of dynamically loading files as they are requested people batch load a bunch of assets at the start.

You know how big that logo is when it's pulled in to flash as a vector asset? 1.3kb, that leaves plenty of room before I even have to worry about preloading anything. Especially since all the interactivity is going to be strictly procedural.

I've done a a number of flash projects where initial load time was critical and was able to easily eliminate it by actually taking the time to set up the file to load things in a more strategic way than just snagging everything at the start.

[editline]01:21PM[/editline]

Further proof that you are clueless if you think flash = long load times: [URL]http://www.thefwa.com/[/URL]

[editline]01:37PM[/editline]

Exactly, but I'd say flash still has more "look how cool I am" potential anyways, since a lot of the advanced things you can do with flash can not be done with HTML5/JS with any kind of reliability yet.[/QUOTE]

That site at first pretty much crashed my firefox, but I think that was down to an issue which wasn't related to the flash, loaded fine after a few seconds on second attempt (un-cached ofcourse).

I agree with KmartSqrl, I don't see why people are jumping on the whole HTML5 bandwagon. Flash can be more widely supported than HTML5 generally, as it can be considered a retro-fit to older browsers due to the fact its a stand-alone addon were as HTML5 is built into the web engine itself therefore at the current point in time, I would say Flash > HTML5 anyways in terms of compatibility and its not like you can't degrade flash easily if users don't have flash installed. Of course HTML5 is nice, but I don't see why there are so many haters because he is using to choose flash to give his site an interactive flare.

You don't get exactly blazing-ly faster speeds than flash at the minute anyways with HTML5 on browsers which support it. You can't exactly assume that HTML5 is going to load quickly for all visitors to a given site either.

[brooo]

[QUOTE=Maccabee;23340862]Also, on the note of flash. Don't use flash. It's just dumb. If you haven't noticed everyone is trying to move away from it jquery, html5 and css3 can do so much of what flash was used for.[/QUOTE]

hahahahahahahaha

[QUOTE=Maccabee;23340862]just dumb[/QUOTE]
for a second there I thought you were describing yourself

[arienh4]

[QUOTE=Sharpshooter;23341606]That site at first pretty much crashed my firefox, but I think that was down to an issue which wasn't related to the flash, loaded fine after a few seconds on second attempt (un-cached ofcourse).

I agree with KmartSqrl, I don't see why people are jumping on the whole HTML5 bandwagon. Flash can be more widely supported than HTML5 generally, as it can be considered a retro-fit to older browsers due to the fact its a stand-alone addon were as HTML5 is built into the web engine itself therefore at the current point in time, I would say Flash > HTML5 anyways in terms of compatibility and its not like you can't degrade flash easily if users don't have flash installed. Of course HTML5 is nice, but I don't see why there are so many haters because he is using to choose flash to give his site an interactive flare.

You don't get exactly blazing-ly faster speeds than flash at the minute anyways with HTML5 on browsers which support it.[/QUOTE]
You mean Flash, supported by most any browser out there with a plugin, versus HTML5, supported by most any (modern) browser out there without a plugin?

I wasn't even saying 'use HTML5'. I was saying 'don't use Flash when it isn't needed'.

[Sharpshooter]

[QUOTE=arienh4;23341679]You mean Flash, supported by most any browser out there with a plugin, versus HTML5, supported by most any (modern) browser out there without a plugin?

I wasn't even saying 'use HTML5'. I was saying 'don't use Flash when it isn't needed'.[/QUOTE]

Firefox, Chrome and Safari have decent support for HTML5 on all their latest versions.

Internet Explorer and Opera however do not, IE currently has roughly 50% market share.

Flash content reaches 99% of internet viewers.

Do the math.

[KmartSqrl]

[QUOTE=arienh4;23341679]You mean Flash, supported by most any browser out there with a plugin, versus HTML5, supported by most any (modern) browser out there without a plugin?

I wasn't even saying 'use HTML5'. I was saying 'don't use Flash when it isn't needed'.[/QUOTE]

It is 'needed' to provide the experience that I'm planning on providing with it. In effect you're saying "don't paint the car a beautiful color because the body shape looks fine". The extra level of polish matters a [I]lot[/I], especially on a portfolio.

[mdakin]

Holy shit when did we get to page 50? That took awhile.