digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Time breakdown of modern web design [PICTURE]

i-marco.nl — Outlining things such as: Time spent making the site W3C compliant, time spent trying to get the bastard to work in "Internet ***** Explorer" and time spent wishing a slow painful death on Bill Gates.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • wiifm69, on 10/10/2007, -8/+14Unfortunately the graph has got it wrong, there is much more swearing then it suggests, perhaps contributed by the '***** i hate you, i hope youe die ie' portion of the pie
  • fuzzmeister, on 10/10/2007, -8/+95How about "5%: Time spent considering coding a virus that would install Firefox on every computer in the world".
  • meshman, on 10/10/2007, -46/+9"time spent trying to get the bastard to work in "Internet ***** Explorer""

    ?? We design web sites every day, IE is the least of our worries.
    • 10001110101, on 10/10/2007, -3/+39Are they good websites?
    • monsterofNone, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6shill.
    • daonlyfreez, on 10/10/2007, -0/+32That is because you use FrontPage and think you are a webdesigner
    • TenebrousX, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3using tables for layout and font tags don't count
  • Suricou, on 10/10/2007, -25/+1Burried for highly unreliable and openly biased source. Information Clearinghouse? I know of them. They will publish anything at all claiming it as fact. Its run by someone who thinks rumor is always valid news, and anyone who says otherwise is part of the global media conspiricy.
    • 10001110101, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8What glue are you sniffing? It comes from some dude's blog - his name is Marco. And he swiped it from Alan Foreman of poisonedminds.com
    • monsterofNone, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5shill.
    • sleastack, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Hey.. Jam it OK?
  • willis77, on 10/10/2007, -1/+111Getting my sites to work in IE has wasted more of my life than I ever thought a browser could.

    Die, IE6, Die a slow, painful, and cascading death.
    • sublimer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+42I think we want a quick death. Slow just makes IE6 hang around longer.
    • davidhildreth, on 10/10/2007, -20/+1it's still the most popular, get over it and just design it in IE6 to begin with
      • zwaldowski, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Are you saying we should use Microsoft (R) Office (R) FrontPage (TM) 2003? With tables and font tags, no less? How about ALL CAPS HTML TAGS?
      • simpleid, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4it seems this is a good idea, but it's actually bad, because
        in the hierarchy of things, standards > company
        and microsoft does not follow these specific standards well
      • tothemax64, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Go to heck you piece of garbage!
      • sleastack, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Jam it up your ARSE!!
    • fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -20/+2You need to learn html and css better than. The difference between spending hours making something compatible and making it compatible from the start is your understanding of the languages and environments.

      Every industry that uses has old software that has to be worked with or around. A lot of it is older and worse than IE has ever been.
      • Lorian, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15"You need to learn html and css better than."
        What? You can write perfectly good code that works great in every other browser, but when you go to test it in IE suddenly everything breaks. Maybe Microsoft needs to learn how to code better software?
        • fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -11/+1Microsoft is making better software. IE6 however is not going to change. How many *more* years do you need to familiarise yourself with html and css and how to use them 'properly' in the sense that they function across the common browsers?

          You can blame the browser if you want but your failure to learn how to accommodate it is not Microsoft's fault.
        • ultrafez, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10@fkr3, technically if it is written in W3C standards HTML (or XHTML) and standard CSS that validates correctly, then the page is written correctly. If Microsoft's browser can't follow the W3C specification for rendering HTML and CSS onscreen properly then that's not the web designer's fault, it's clearly Microsoft's fault. Firefox and Opera can manage it...
        • fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -10/+1@ ultrafez - there is compliant code, and then there's compliant code that's cross browser compatible. There's a difference, and anyone who does this stuff for a living should be aware of it.
          • melat0nin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2No, code which has to be tailored for IE and which departs from W3C standards is, by definition, not compliant.
        • shortarabguy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I thought that the point of compliant code was that it was cross browser compatible.
          But then I don't know anything about this.
    • slothlovechunk, on 10/10/2007, -19/+1ie7 > firefox, etc.
      • zwaldowski, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5In what universe?
      • tothemax64, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Didnt your parents teach you not to eat paint chips as a child?
        • darkphoenix939, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5maybe he played with the dora dolls ?
    • tuxracer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Die IE6? Please. IE7 is *marginally* better when it comes to CSS support. I can write a stylesheet and load it up in Firefox while I'm developing it. When I'm done I'll pull up Safari, Konqueror, and Opera to check on how it looks and with maybe some minor hicups it looks and behaves almost identical. Then I load up IE7 and it's still a mess. I mean sure, now the :hover will work on more than the a tags and the pngs are finally alpha transparent. But it's still an absolute headache to deal with.

      I had really high hopes for IE7. What an absolute joke IE7's CSS support has turned out to be. Not even remotely close to Firefox, Opera, or Safari (aka EVERY OTHER FREAKING BROWSER)
    • RockinRoel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yes, we've all been disappointed by IE7.. The dream of finally one standard, supported by all, shattered.
      IE7, Windows Vista, I've had enough of it. Innovation is not what it used to be.
  • Bricks, on 10/10/2007, -4/+22Trivial Pursuit: Web Designer Edition

    also I think the guy left off a tiny sliver for "making hilarious pie charts" though perhaps it fits into the green piece.
  • effektz, on 10/10/2007, -11/+29Mirror at http://bestpicever.com/pic-885-Modern-web-design
  • albiniak, on 10/10/2007, -0/+21Time spent finding a quality web host: Failed to load.
  • over90000, on 10/10/2007, -29/+1Yeah, that's right. Blame everyone on Microsoft.
    • grapeape25, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8There is something in there about Firefox...
    • TheCosmicFool, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Microsoft is responsible for everyone now?
    • mistermoxy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Dude, seriously, have you ever tried to make a compliant page in IE 6? You have to hack like Uwe Boll. And that whitespace recognizing ***** in Firefox is stupid too.
  • pixelbasic, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Hmmm...site down from all the invalid sytax IE hacks.
  • ydt89, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4Whooo! Tables ftw!
  • cnldelta, on 10/10/2007, -13/+6Eurgh, that CSS share is too big. Writing out a site in tables takes much longer than writing it out with css. The post's more humorous than anything else.
    • eleven, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2Honestly that depends on how complex your layout really is. Tables are just so much more "flexible" by design and for that reason can still do some things that a div could only dream of. All that being said, using tables for layout should not be your first or second choice.
  • joggan, on 10/10/2007, -10/+0Bring back frames!
  • bstockwell, on 10/10/2007, -19/+1Or you could use Complient code and only ahve to spend 1% of the time tweaking for IE
    • stickguyws, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10It's ok guys. IE means Firefox in Crazyland.... which is where he's from.
      • bstockwell, on 10/10/2007, -13/+1No, with enough experience you know what to use to get around problems or not cause them in the first place.

        most errors just come from sloppy code
        • mistermoxy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10yeah, no. The CSS rendering in IE is craptastic. They improved it a little bit for 7, but 6 makes me die inside.
    • IIIKrazyKiDDIII, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11not all compliant code works in IE6 as well as IE7.
      • bstockwell, on 10/10/2007, -9/+1yes, and that takes some getting used to, but doesn't occur in all development cyles.
    • bstockwell, on 10/10/2007, -6/+0Don't worry guys, I get the joke
    • sleastack, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3STFU!!!
  • wphj, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1http://www.duggmirror.com/
  • prosperolt, on 10/10/2007, -7/+0Blog Free Mirror at http://img441.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pic092872001188920844nr6.png
  • themarco, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4I'm baffled how this pic that I posted over a year ago and is present on quite a few other blogs all of a sudden ends up on here ;)

    And of course Dreamhost doesn't handle the traffic so it's (close to) down...
    • SebHughes, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4My site got on the digg.com homepage nto a while back. Dreamhost decided to disable my site since I was getting so much traffic. I'm swapping soon.
  • RadicalEdward, on 10/10/2007, -5/+10I love the "time spent trying to code everything in css and breaking down and using tables" section. I think that would be about half the pie for me.
  • robdowns, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14Since when is it "Fire Fox?"
    • IllBeBack, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9"Since when is it 'Fire Fox?' "

      Since idiots came to be. The non-idiots are still using the correct "Firefox".
    • DNABeast, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Hey! You just found the one extra space character that was freaking out the javascript!
  • samuelcotterall, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3I just took five minutes away from development and saw this. I agree with the shouting and swearing, but it's when you close off your DIV with the DIV's class name rather than the DIV tag and spend half an hour looking for the problem.
    It happens to the best of us.
    • el_taco, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4HTML Validator and Web Developer FF toolbar
    • Syntaxis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Use a code editor with tag completion. Like HomeSite. You will never not close a tag and you can build your own tag completion scripts, too. Ever work with XSL? I type "" and it fills out: "", but with linebreaks and indenting tabs, regardless of how many tabs you were indented at when you were typing.
  • MoZo1, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1Just to show a possibe Firefox bug where IE acomplish better. http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?p=3035288#3035288 (But to be complete, this behaviot is worse if you use FTP, cause multiple connections easily get you banned.)
  • vsaint, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3web timeline : goatse-tubgirl-meatspin-lemonparty-bioshock-bioshock-bioshock-goatse in bioshock
  • OutThisLife, on 10/10/2007, -10/+3Buried: You can apply CSS to all elements, which even includes the dreaded table.
    • jeffgtr, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I don't think that was his point. He was trying to do the layout in css. Tables can be styled with css but they are only for tabular data.
      • Matt2k, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1They're for whatever the ***** you feel like using them for.
        • pengu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2yeah, when you're a ***** and don't know the meaning of semantic
  • projectI, on 10/10/2007, -6/+0Time "BREAK DOWN"
    Is correct.

    Great Chart THough
    • shealer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3You can not correct the title, when you say "Great Chart THough".
      Think, and use spell check, before commenting, for our sanity, if anything.
  • Bulk70, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1So very old, but dugg for truth.
  • MoZo1, on 10/10/2007, -5/+0Well, then compare this with writing a part of a multithreaded program, and debuging a race condition. The problem is that designers write web pages. A programer can easily work arond stupid bugs. (But maybe wishing more painfull death to Bill Gates seeing how stipid that bug is.)
  • mikeyhell, on 10/10/2007, -0/+21great news... it's all billable!
  • jeffgtr, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Totally agree with the huge slice trying to get the thing to work with Internet Explorer. The collective amount of time wasted with IE is enormous. Disagree with giving up and using tables...someone needs to buy a good css book.
  • Nanobe, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Here was the approximate breakdown of my last big project:

    10% doing the design mockups and approval process
    2% implementing the design using valid semantic markup/CSS and support for Firefox, Safari, Opera, text browsers, etc.
    45% backend work
    30% adding Internet Explorer support
    13% General testing and tweaking
  • jads, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17tables still have their place, but I don't think I've ever really gone 'bah ***** it, I'll use tables instead' when designing a layout in CSS. tables should be for tabulated content, not for layouts.
    • Lorian, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I feel dirty when I think that and force myself to carry on trying to make it work with CSS.
  • Topher06, on 10/10/2007, -7/+6I think its more like spending the time to get it to work on other browsers after getting it to work on something 70% of the world uses. Honestly, if someone is still not designing their website for IE first they are wasting their time and should find a new job. Regardless of what your personal biases are, you have to cater to the greatest audience (or lowest common denominator, your pick). Making a website that is superb on Opera is simply a waste of everybodies time and money.
    • Bulk70, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Hi, the 90's called, they want their ignorance back.
    • Nanobe, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13There are several reasons why people usually develop for IE last:

      - Since IE has more bugs and inconsistencies, it's easiest to develop for browsers that are more predictable first.
      - IE provides easy ways to write workarounds for bugs (via conditional comments and other CSS hacks), so IE support can be added after the base is in place.
      - Other browsers do not have straight-forward ways to write workarounds, so it's more difficult to add Firefox/Safari/Opera support if the site is already made for IE.
      - Firefox has more web development and testing tools available than IE has (through extensions like Web Developer, Firebug, and HTML Validator).
      - Future versions of IE will become more and more standards-compliant, so it's best to develop for the standards *first* and then deal with the individual bugs. Since Firefox/Safari/Opera are dramatically more standards-compliant than IE, they're the better choices to test the "standards-compliant" rendering.
    • MoZo1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2When something changes in IE or Firefox or ppl pick up another new browser, your page will still be W3C valid.
  • persist1, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1I really do hope that this is reasonably ancient. The excuses I would accept from a professional for eschewing CSS for layout are [a] mental entrenchment in old-school approaches; [b] not having the knack, or [c] working for the government or some other uber-huge content provider that's stuck in 10-year-old amber for reasons good and bad.

    People who identify with one of those three classes of developers are invited to withstand my self-pimpage and give a whirl at http://www.alistapart.com/articles/12lessonsCSSandstandards
  • akatherder, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2Should be titled "Excuses and failures".

    Hey, I'm a little behind because I can't get the darn thing to work right in IE. Stupid Bill Gates and Micro$oft! Amiright?!
  • fullphaser, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2actually these days I have gotten so used to designing for IE bugs that just by instinct I write them into the code. At this point I can just about figure out what IE is going to mess up before it does and just work with that in mind. The oddball recently has been getting a hold of Safari and figuring out that despite the fact that it and Opera both pass the Acid 2! test that Safari will always have the oddball problems. And they are problems that after Opera, firefox, and IE 6 & 7 I was just like "lol what? safari gets it wrong?"
    • insomniac8400, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Passing the Acid2 is the same thing as saying we decided people don't know how to code, so our browser renders ***** code the way the designer wanted it to show up, but couldn't take the time to figure out how to do it correctly. Passing that test is a very bad thing for a browser.
  • malaak, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Where's the chunk of the pie for: "Dealing with the ignorance of clients" ?
  • w3weasel, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3thats an amazingly accurate chart.
    • el_taco, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2It's amazingly accurate for people who decided to try table-less design last week. If you've been using css for a while you generally know what's going to cause problems and avoid using anything that forces one to use hacks in the fist place. safari.. now that's a different story.
  • Adrianc333, on 10/10/2007, -1/+435% time spent reposting old images.
  • sickthoughts, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Getting it working in ie6, ie7, firefox, opera and safari = mission impossible

    having to put "margin-top: 0px;" in one of the classes just to make it work in opera = ftl
  • nonconformist, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Years....old. And it needs updating. Who still uses tables for design layout? Maybe some lazy programmers but I would sack anyone on my design team who went back to tables.
  • designbysnow, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1where's the site? compliancy & compatibility is tough, but maybe he sucks at design.
  • andywebb95, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1All I can say is I have been there and I can relate.
  • rootadmen, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I'll rape you one of these days, IE...
    • psykiv, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I wouldn't do that. You'd DEFINITELY catch something ;)
  • sleastack, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1This is pretty on point.. that damn ***** IE..
  • nationalist, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1this is four years old...
    • MoZo1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Lol, it was about IE5 the newest one back then.
  • Junkyarddawg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2***** developers.
    Four years old story.
    Buried.
  • RockinRoel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I smiled at that chart. I didn't laugh out loud when I realised the sad truth: it's true.
  • Syntaxis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It would appear there are a lot of novice web developers here. If you have any clue what you're doing it's a smooth ride. I guess that's the difference between making websites for a living (like me) and hobbyists. Sigh... frustrating - I suddenly realized why there are so many awful websites out there: retards like guy who made that pie-chart are responsible for them.
  • erichnwise, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0cheers to success!
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.