I’ve been a desktop Balsamiq user for some time now and am finding it more and more indispensable with each project. It’s been replacing project specification docs to the point where I don’t really have to write any other instructions. By linking pages together and viewing it in fullscreen mode, we can see how the home page, section pages, contact pages, and even modal popup windows and AJAX behaviours should work.

I can “knock together” a basic site in a few minutes – and an intranet in a few hours. In each case, the result is much clearer and easier that written briefs or specification docs. Clients can understand them just as easy as programmers and designers!

And when the client approves the mockups, we can refer back to them if there are any additional requests. “That wasn’t in the mockups you approved. We can do it, but it will cost an additional $x…”

The webapp will make collaboration that much easier. Really looking forward to its release!

Often the reason given is that the corporate sector is tied to it through intranets and other applications that rely on it.

So, why not release IE6 as a single-site browser (SSB), like Mozilla’s Prism for example?

1. Corporates can run their intranets via the IE6 SSB
2. The general-use browser can then be updated to the latest version (IE8), which has to make security easier for their IT department
3. Microsoft can then officially drop support for IE6, and only need to support the SSB in its corporate environment
4. The rest of us can breathe a sigh of relief as we watch IE6 usage fall rapidly!

It seems like a simple solution to me, but perhaps it’s not that simple. Otherwise Microsoft would have done it already. Yes?

But Joel on Software has put things into perspective: Neither side is right, and neither side is wrong. Because there is really no right answer here.

It’s a long read, but worthwhile if you’ve been following the debate. It also add some understanding as why Vista is so plagued. (And yes, I’m one of those who has gone back to Windows XP)

Before reading Joel’s article I didn’t really have an opinion on what IE8 should default to. At least now I can say that maybe having no opinion is the right one!

If things stay as they are, we may all have a lot of work to do – going back and fixing old sites. Grrr.

The saving grace in my case might be the use of very specific stylesheets for Internet Explorer. We have used a conditional comment to call a stylesheet for IE6, another one for IE7, so IE8 shouldn’t read either of these – and just worry about the main stylesheet designed for Firefox etc.

I hope. I’ll have to check…

Netscape probably started it’s decline when IE4 was released - a far superior browser at the time. Netscape never really recovered, nor reinvented themselves to create a case to change back. And it’s probably fair to say that Firefox helped to make Netscape obsolete as well.

Like sands through the hourglass…

We have come so far with browsers, but unfortunately most email clients are, well, a long way behind. If you have ever tested an HTML email in a few different clients you’ll know the frustration.
Yesterday’s launch of the Email Standards Project hopes to remedy this situation. Some people love it, some hate it, but HTML email is here to stay. And if we could have the proper standards support in email clients then it’s probably fair to say that a lot of those opposed would change their mind.

We have a long way to go, but at least now we have a vehicle!

I’ve had a few beers and am not in the right frame of mind to write anything deep and meaningful – I’m just submitting this post on the odd chance I might get a freebie tomorrow!

Well, you never know…

I think this is the most important lesson:

“Ironically, the negative word of mouth and worldwide media coverage criticising 2Clix for trying to silence its critics seems to have damaged the firm’s reputation far more than the forum threads that were the subject of the lawsuit.

“Some people even like receiving HTML email.” (I have replaced his italics with my bold.)

Okay, so I’m weird, wrong and stupid.

But the thing that gets me the most is this:

“I still don’t do HTML email though. As long as support for Web Standards in email clients is as crappy and unpredictable as it currently is, well I’m sorry, but I’m not going back to nested layout tables and spacer GIFs just to create an email. Until the situation improves I’m happy to hand over the job of creating HTML email to somebody else.”

Well, I’m sorry too, Roger, but in the real world we just have to work with what we have. Were we all evil in the 90s for using tables and spacer GIFs for layout? No, we weren’t. We were just doing the best we could with the available technology.

Imagine saying back then, “I’m not developing any websites until browser manufacturers improve their browsers.”

Yep, right.

I’m not saying we should be happy with the status quo either, and David Greiner’s excellent post on why we need improvement in the area of standard support in email will hopefully shake a few things up.

I’m sure the day will come when we have decent standards support in our mail clients, but in the meantime those of us that flirt with reality have to deal with HTML email. That includes using layout tables and all sorts of other ‘evil’ measures.

But we just have to do the best with what we have.

This could set a nasty precedent. Does that mean that nobody will be allowed to criticise anything online for fear of getting sued?

Do we have follow America’s lead in getting lawyers involved in everything?

Anyway, here’s the story.