It’s time to get naked again
By Ian Lloyd | April 3rd, 2007 | Filed in CSS
Dustin Diaz has plans for us all – it involves us getting naked. But only for a day and a bit.
Skip to comment formYep, it’s T-minus one day to CSS Naked Day, brainchild of Dustin Diaz (of Naked Cameron Diaz fame – go Google, do your thing!). But enough of this childish, but oh-so-much-fun, tomfoolery. What’s this all about? From the site itself:
The idea behind this event is to promote Web Standards. Plain and simple. This includes proper use of (x)html, semantic markup, a good hierarchy structure, and of course, a good ‘ol play on words. It’s time to show off your
<body>.
If you feel like shedding your CSS for the day and revealing all, you can pledge your allegiance to nudity here.
Your Replies
- #1 On April 3rd, 2007 10:50 am runway airlines » Blog Archive » It’s time to get naked again replied:
-
[...] Dean Cantu wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptYep, it’s T-minus one day to CSS Naked Day, brainchild of Dustin Diaz (of Naked Cameron Diaz fame – go Google, do your thing!). But enough of this childish, but oh-so-much-fun, tomfoolery. What’s this all about? From the site itself: … [...]
- #2 On April 3rd, 2007 11:49 am WaSP Member ccasciano replied:
-
Every day is CSS Naked day when you read all your favorite blogs through a feed reader! Heh.
- #3 On April 3rd, 2007 12:32 pm John replied:
-
I’m transitioning from my old site to my new, both of which are in shambles, so… no nakedness for me this year… :_-(
- #4 On April 3rd, 2007 12:43 pm Motoko replied:
-
While surely good to advocate the W3C (X)HTML recommendations, changing the design of a website for one day is really a bad usability and accessibility move. Graphical design is not just to make things look nice… page layout, content separation (I mean separating pieces of content from the rest of the content), typography, maximum use of memory, and general usability, accessibility and ergonomy, largely depend on graphical design.
The default styles of most or all Web browsers generally fail at looking nice, and at all other functions of graphical design.
There is another problem: most users will think there is a problem with the website, or with their own Web browser, even if every websites used the message at the top of their pages (with an h1, not an h3… -what were they thinking?), a number of users will probably miss it (at least at first).
Oh, and if you wanted to show the design of the website to someone, or make a demonstration of some kind, using the website, it sure will be a problem.
Of course, some webmasters might give some way to reacticate the design, but I’m pretty sure most won’t.
I believe people should think, before doing anything, and most notably, before stripping (it’s not that hard -I mean, except if the design is really cute).
- #5 On April 3rd, 2007 2:15 pm Motoko replied:
-
I was just thinking that all the problems I listed were in fact clearly demonstrating that this was a very bad event to advocate the W3C (X)HTML recommendations… (more simply, mostly everyone will think it is just plain ugly), so I seriously suggest no one takes part in it… (I’ll try to contact the person responsible for this…).
- #6 On April 3rd, 2007 3:32 pm Katie replied:
-
Oh my goodness, it’s going to look like 1994 all over again!
For fun, maybe I’ll turn off CSS on all the pages I visit.
- #7 On April 3rd, 2007 7:24 pm Dustin Diaz replied:
-
Mokoto, there would of course be something wrong if everyone thought this was a great idea. The question of usability is an obvious point that no doubt is in the back of people’s minds. Tell me though, does this craigslist job listing page look broken when you disable styles?
The fact of the matter is that while indeed it may break sites and even cause frustration for some users… it makes many of us think twice and take a double look. Consider the phrase “break a few eggs to make an omelette” which I believe is exactly what CSS Naked Day is doing. Many folks over email expressed their gratitude from last year’s event that it was the first time they were exposed to Web Standards, and in turn they changed their development habits. With that in mind, I think CSS Naked Day has served its purpose.
- #8 On April 4th, 2007 6:03 am Motoko replied:
-
>
> Tell me though, does this craigslist job listing page
> look broken when you disable styles?
>Well, it does not seem to be the best example of a proper (semantic) HTML website to me… they regularly use tables for design, they use <,p> for lists, and they still use some presentational HTML markup (`<p align=”center”>`, `<font size=”4″>`, etc.)… It even worse on their homepage.
And even if that was the case, craigslist is known to have a very basic design. Most other websites have a far more complex design, and I surely cannot see anyone not feeling something is broken ^_^;.
>
> [...] it makes many of us think twice and take a
> double look. [...] Many folks over email expressed
> their gratitude from last year’s event that it was
> the first time they were exposed to Web Standards,
> and in turn they changed their development habits.
>I never said such event was useless, and could not convert anyone. Of course it can. What I am saying, is that it has many negative aspects, which should be taken into account, so the event can be improved to be better understood. In its current state, I can easily see a number of people staying away from Web standards, *because* of this event. I cannot see many members of the general public getting interested in Web standards seeing such ugly and badly designed interfaces. For webmasters, most will not see anything else than an ugly and badly designed interface either…
Of course, some people will go beyond the first impression, but this should be compared to the number of people this will annoy, and who will associate Web standards with ugly and badly designed interfaces… (which is already what quite a number of people are thinking, although less and less).
As said in my email, you really should rethink the next year event, so it can be less forced, and more educative, notably to people who do not know anything about HTML, CSS, and Web standards in general. A message at the top of the website, with a link to deactivate the styles, and with informations oriented to members of the general public, and to webmasters (well, and anyone having anything to do with Web development).
(I won’t follow the replies, because of lack of time.)
- #9 On April 4th, 2007 8:02 am Keri Henare replied:
-
I’m sure that most people will be able to tell the difference between no design and bad design. CSS Naked Day helps us appreciate many things and I don’t think that it will scare anybody with at least half a brain away, infact it’ll entice people. It’s a fun community event.
- #10 On April 4th, 2007 8:16 am John replied:
-
Mokoto,
I know you may not reply to this, but that is exactly what I did last year. I put a “What happened to my website?!” link at the top with an explanation, links to supplemental information and an option to toggle, not just switch back on, my styles. I think it would be a good idea for event organizers to encourage this implementation of Naked Day, but with the number of different ways people implement Naked Day, it would be impossible for them to force designers to use any specific implementation.
That being said, I stand by the event as it is today. I have personally converted three nested-table designers by stripping their sites next to mine and pointing out the differences to them. Most developers and the general public are ignorant to the proper use of HTML and CSS; this event forces people to see what goes on beneath the shiny “Web 2.0″ interfaces they’re used to, and if we as industry leaders tell them that this is what a properly-done website is supposed to look like when the styles are removed, a good number of people will listen. This event isn’t meant to tell users that standards advocates don’t care about attractive interfaces. It’s meant to illustrate the importance of CSS and graceful degradation.
- #11 On April 4th, 2007 8:37 am Aja Lapus replied:
-
And even if that was the case, craigslist is known to have a very basic design. Most other websites have a far more complex design, and I surely cannot see anyone not feeling something is broken ^_^;.
A site, originally with a complex design, rendered without styles and is still easily readable will prove the point of the event. The explanation is there to prevent the confusion, and
<h3>is just a sample, of course you could edit it to suit your own needs.I cannot see many members of the general public getting interested in Web standards seeing such ugly and badly designed interfaces. For webmasters, most will not see anything else than an ugly and badly designed interface either…
No design is very different from bad design. The HTML recommendation has these default styles for a reason that when there is no CSS, the page will still be readable (given that the page is semantically marked up).
And, IMHO, accessibility isn’t really affected without style sheets. In fact, most people to whom these accessibility guidelines are made for would view [or just hear] Web sites without any regard to design at all.
- #12 On April 4th, 2007 12:04 pm WaSP Member ccasciano replied:
-
It’s meant to illustrate the importance of CSS and graceful degradation.
My interpretation on it is that it is meant to illustrate the importance of good HTML and markup practices as much as anything else — that CSS is great, but it should overshadow it all. Or maybe that’s just my own philosophy bleeding through. I surely would have called it “Naked HTML day” had I thought the idea up, and explicitly included scripting in the ‘stripped’ category.
Let us also be clear, the group of participants in this event are self selecting, that is no one is forcing a site to remove their CSS [and perhaps other features such as JS that may manipulate style information]. Therefore I don’t see some of the objections to the promotion holding much water, or at least are made up of valid but misdirected concerns.
The maintainers and stakeholders of the sites participating shouldn’t do so lightly, but probably are not, and I would also suspect they aren’t doing so without considering all of the problems involved. And for the rare few that are participating for other motives [e.g. publicity alone] perhaps seeing their work in the unstyled state will lead to improvements.
And for the record, neither of my personal sites will be involved again this year. For most other sites I work on the group of stake holders is far too large to get a change like this through for what is primarily a social or quasi-political statement with little concrete benefits. But that’s the corporate world for you.
- #13 On April 4th, 2007 6:14 pm Michel replied:
-
I have a personal blog (optimiced.com) and since midnight local time (EET, or GMT + 2 hours) it’s with no CSS clothes at all:)))
I think it is a good thing for promoting Webstandards and semantic html/xhtml! So I support Dustin in this and I’m all in!
Somewhere in the comments I read the following:
While surely good to advocate the W3C (X)HTML recommendations, changing the design of a website for one day is really a bad usability and accessibility move.
Let me not agree with that.
Why would the switch off of the CSS styles, intended for presentational use only, be a bad usability and accessibility problem? Especially for websites, based on strong semantic XHTML and relying solely on CSS for their layouts?
Well, yes, they won’t be so nice, when stripped from their CSS, that’s true – but it’s for 24 hours only, and — what’s more important — they will remain totally accessible and usable!
The point of the campaing is to raise awareness for Webstandards and the more websites are in, the better the goal will be achieved:)
I work with Webstandards and good semantic xhtml in mind for quite a long time. And still, even in 2007, I see new designs coming up, which rely solely on tables, use the famous
FONTtag and look terribly distorted when text in them is resized even a tiny little bit.These types of ‘design’ are quite OK, as long as you see them in a contemporary browser, at their default font size, with CSS and JS switched on.
But open them in a PDA browser, text reader, switch off CSS of JS, try to resize the text in them, and results will be: total, inaccessible, unusable mess.
So if I have to get rid of my CSS for 24 hours, and thus help a campaign which is there to promote the use of semantic XHTML and CSS for presentation, I am all in :-)
Cheers, my $ 0.02 :)
- #14 On April 4th, 2007 6:55 pm optimiced.com » Blog Archive » CSS Naked Day, издание 2007! replied:
-
[...] Повече информация: две думи в блога на Dustin Diaz, на webstandards.org, и, разбира се, на уебстраницата на тазгодишните участници :) Списъкът със записали се в момента за Naked Day ‘2007 е над 900 и расте (ето още линкове и от technorati). [...]
- #15 On April 4th, 2007 7:16 pm optimiced.com » Blog Archive » CSS Naked Day, 2007 Edition! replied:
-
[...] More information: two words by Dustin at his blog, at webstandards.org, and, of course, at the official webpage of the participants :) The list of participating websites is over 900 and growing (see also technorati). [...]
- #16 On April 4th, 2007 7:31 pm Bluelime Media Weblog » April 5th is CSS Naked Day! replied:
-
[...] Css refers to the “Cascading Style Sheet. This CSS file contains all the information about the presentation of our website. Colours, font size, font types, widht of columns, etc… It’s all in there. By turning off the css we’re showing you our body. Yes its a bit goofy, but the idea behind this is to promote Web Standards. This includes proper use of (x)html, semantic markup, a good hierarchy structure. In other words, withouth the css, you should still be able to figure out the site and navigate through it. [...]
- #17 On April 5th, 2007 3:17 pm Trevoca Dev Adventures replied:
-
I went naked today-April 5, 2007…
Yes, this year I finally mustered all bravado to show off my .
This is the annual CSS Naked Day as declared by Dustin Diaz every April 5.
And we pledge allegiance to web standards (and to nudity).
“The idea behind this event is to promote Web S… - #18 On April 5th, 2007 8:17 pm Travis McCrea replied:
-
1st my website (http://www.geeksparadox.com) is going completely nude today.. and has been nude since yesterday. Now, this might not be a good idea for some major corp. like AOL… or something, but for us normal folks it is just something fun and out of the ordinary.
And there are some sites that use HTML so well that they look good even without CSS. For a good example please see http://www.bugrain.plus.com - #19 On April 8th, 2007 10:01 am Motoko replied:
-
In fact, I came back. I’m just too curious.
[...] this event forces people [...]
Do not force people. Never. You will always be wrong. Always.
And again, when you mean “forcing people”, the result is really “most people will simply not understand anything, when they *can* understand, and will think it is broken and/or leave”.
This event isn’t meant to tell users that standards advocates don’t care about attractive interfaces. It’s meant to illustrate the importance of CSS and graceful degradation.
Of course, I know everyone means good. I’m simply here to tell you it is, in fact, bad (in its current form, at least, as I said in my previous comment).
From:
And, IMHO, accessibility isn’t really affected without style sheets. In fact, most people to whom these accessibility guidelines are made for would view [or just hear] Web sites without any regard to design at all.
… and:
Why would the switch off of the CSS styles, intended for presentational use only, be a bad usability and accessibility problem? Especially for websites, based on strong semantic XHTML and relying solely on CSS for their layouts?
Accessibility is not just Braille readers and text-to-speech systems for blind people.
There are learning or attention problems, there are visual deficiencies, there are muscular deficiencies, there are paralyses (for any reason, even a broken arm). You can be sick, you can be tired, you can be depressed, you can lack motivation. These all cause access problems.
Now, I’m surely not saying that the design meant by the website authors is always better than the default HTML styles of browsers, but a temporary change is worse, in all cases.
And there are some sites that use HTML so well that they look good even without CSS. For a good example please see http://www.bugrain.plus.com
This is called table design for non-tabular data, and this is exactly what CSS Naked Day is meant to see change.
The W3C HTML 4.01 recommendation says: Tables should not be used purely as a means to layout document content as this may present problems when rendering to non-visual media.
It says so since the 1997-11-07 proposed recommendation of W3C HTML 4.0. It was not in the first draft, but W3C HTML 3.2 says: HTML 3.2 includes a widely deployed subset of the specification given in RFC 1942 and can be used to markup tabular material or for layout purposes. Note that the latter role typically causes problems when rending to speech or to text only user agents.
It also, obviously, is mentionned in the W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0, guideline 3 and guideline 5.
Their horizontal menu also use basic links, without any separation, instead of proper lists. Without the styles, the links are glued together.
Without styles, there is also a wide empty area, near the top of the website (at least in Firefox, but I guess it is here in the other browsers too).
They use single quotes for attributes, which is illegal XML (c.f., definition of the AttValue token, in XML 1.0 (http://www.w3.org/TR/xml/#NT-AttValue)), meaning illegal XHTML. They have an XHTML doctype, with an XML declaration.
With JavaScript, they write links including litteral ‘&’ characters as a query string parameter separator, instead of “&” (again, it means the document is malformed).
They have numerous CSS rules in the markup (including many identical long series of rules), meaning very bad separation of content and presentation.
They don’t follow guideline 7 of the HTML Compatibility Guidelines (http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#C_7), on the need to use both the “lang” and “xml:lang” attributes to specify the language of the document.
They also have many other problems.
Well, it is now too late to think, because you already stripped (and, I hope, now got your clothes back on), but it is never too late to think about next time (and certainly, what you can do in between…).
Hoping you will all, always stay as motivated as you are,
Cya.
PS: How about a “don’t break your website with misplaced antispam measures day”? Three-link limit, in comments, notably on a technology-oriented website? (and without specifying it, moreover…). It’s just plain wrong.
- #20 On April 8th, 2007 3:32 pm Dominic Shiells replied:
-
What has this got to do with web standards is this not more profane than marketing.
Is not there better ways to promote web standards.
Dom - #21 On May 3rd, 2007 1:24 am Paveo replied:
-
:) My homepage is aways naked,I show people the beautiful XHTML structure.