@media 2007 - part one

Last week I attended the @media 2007 conference in Islington - my third @media in a row. What did I think of it? Well, the first @media in 2005 was a real career-changing experience in many ways. I was new to using CSS for page layout and so I found those two days completely inspiring. I have found the subsequent conferences have given me a refreshed buzzy attitude to work, but I can't expect to get the same feeling as I did from the first. Something I have taken from all three, has been a renewal of enthusiasm for design, a desire to work harder (tinged with guilt that I don't, seeing these people talk and work tirelessly for their art!) and a comforting feeling that these speakers/experts/gurus/web stars, don't know all the answers and struggle over many of the things that us mere mortals do! I sometimes feel a twang of envy towards some of the more acamedic speakers when it seems that rules and high standards are so hard to apply in the real world when you're on the front line, so to speak.

SO - @media 2007. Well, venue was good, food was good (although trying to eat lunch standing up, whilst carrying bags & notepads, always a nightmare). I find it hard to decide on which presentations to attend when they run along parallel tracks - its impossible for me to make a decision at the best of times. I think I chose wrong on a couple of occasions, but was lucky enough to attend with a colleague who complimented my choices so we could share the jists of each one. A few themes seemed to permeate through:

• The importance of user experience
• Globalisation/localisation - website design across different cultures
• The continual debate over responsibility for accessibility issues - designer, browser/device and the role of standards
• Aspirations towards a partnership between design and implementation

I'm not great at getting details from these kind of events - I usually come away with impressions or messages with a few detailed technical tips here and there. I'm sure others will cover the sessions much more efficiently, but for what its worth, here are the presentations I attended on day one:

Beyond Ajax
Jesse James Garrett
I thoroughly enjoyed this session, discussing the importance of user experience (also liked the term 'ecosystem' for the web!). Jesse, from Adaptive Path, discussed the relationship between new technologies and existing human behaviour, how we should consider the terms 'applications, not sites' and 'interfaces, not pages'. He exemplified views on simplicity in design through the story of the kodak camera. He encouraged us to consider the highest compliment an application could receive - the idea that a consumer couldn't live without a product. He also conveyed the point that people interact with technology as they would interact with another person and how this can be exploited. Traditionally, its been data that has driven applications but this doesn't always result in a great product. A great product has a clear function - 'knows who it is', has personality and integrity and has been designed from the 'outside in'.

The Broken World: Solving the browser problem once and for all
Molly Holzschlag
This was probably a poor choice for me really as I felt a bit at a loss part way through. I plumped for this session as I thought I might pick up some useful philospophies or at least tips for cross-browser development, but think it was probably aimed at the more technical than me! However, it was interesting and I guess I came away with the message that there are always reasons for browser differences and that there is no quick and easy solution to getting all to conform to a single behaviour. Standards compliance aside, I often bizarely find myself sympathising with browsers. I swear and curse at them for making my life hell sometimes - the fact that their different or similar features are presented or behave in different ways, but then you think, well, they are products at the end of the day. Its business. Its competition. You don't buy a pair of trainers to look like every other pair of trainers, you buy a pair that suits your purpose, looks appealing to you and offers a brand that presents you in the way you want to be presented. Browsers are no different and if people use 'em, then why on earth should they change? That's a weird, overly simple view, but I do sometimes think we lose sight of these things.

High-noon shoot-out: design vs implementation
Drew McLellan and Simon Collison
An entertaining mock debate between designer and developer. Very well done and an opportunity to voice everyone's rants on the issues designers, developers and indeed, designer/developers have to face daily. Really found Drew's references to 'pencil twirlers' and 'turtleneck wearers' very amusing! Completely empathised with Simon's points about the designer's lot in the web world: how designers are 'stifled', 'restricted', 'limited' by the demands of browser conformity and accessibility issues. One part that did particularly interest me as I had been discussing just that on the train during my journey to London, was how print designers don't seem to have the weight of accessibility responsibility pressed on their shoulders. As Simon mentioned, the closest they get to the subject, is to print a large phone number at the bottom of a publication with a suggestion that you ring it for large print versions. So why on earth do designers of websites have to be experts in disabilities?! Do book designers consider how someone with Parkinsons Disease might struggle to hold their product in order to read its contents? No - its accepted that not everyone can hold a book. Again, this is a hard-line argument and I'm not suggesting its right, but that in other fields of design, there is less pressure to conform to issues of accessibility. It does seem that often the web designer has to be jack of all trades, expert in everything (or master of none?) and where it will all lead.
Drew's argument was really on how designers want to control the uncontrollable and I guess how often they don't get the true nature of the web and try to enforce their own ego and principles from a bygone age on to an inappropriate medium. True indeed. His final slide said it all - an image of the London Olympics logo!

Interface design juggling
Dan Cederholm
An interesting presentation with some nice tips. I enjoy listening to designers share their thought processes. Good to see how Dan recycles background images throughout his work to add a coherence to the page and of course to be green! Also nice to hear that a limited font set doesn't necessarily have to be restrictive. I do get a little tired of hearing how bored everyone is of verdana etc and yes its true, we do have to endure system fonts, but I don't think its the be all and end all of typography. Typography is as much about the control of type and you don't really need a library of typefaces to make something beautifully functional or functionally beautiful. Dan also raised the profile of the humble favicon so we're all scuttling off to beaver away at 16x16 icons. Not sure whether I zoned out or quite how Microformats were introduced, but Dan spent some time presenting their advantages.

Five simple steps to better typography
Mark Boulton
I struggled a little with this presentation. It was certainly well-presented and raised some good points, but a little too much maths involvement for my liking! Mark gave a really interesting, formulaic principle to maximising type colour on screen - summising the right line height in relation to font size for maximum legibility. I admire this level of commitment, but have always found that, within reason, the more you try and control with the web, the more it can fall apart. However, I can't possibly back this up without trying it so won't knock it. Someone did question how this approach is affected by the user enlarging the type etc (that old accessibility responsibility issue raises its head!) and his answer, I believe, was that it can be done so proportionally. I'm not sure its as simple as that as if you're going to be really picky and perfectionist, I think you would need to intervene and adjust when a font size is increased, rather than rely on formula. However, I was a poor typography student so really am not qualified to comment! Oh and can people please leave Comic Sans alone?! The poor old thing gets dragged out for every typography presentation to convey the appropriateness of type selection. Its great for that, but let's pick on some other poor font next time!

When web accessibility is not your problem
Joe Clark
Loved the title of this as the lazy, irresponsible and downright bad side of me longs to know, and then go work in that area! I'm also so confused by what are good and bad practices, that if I hear the merest whisper that something isn't my responsiblity, I'm there! However, I found myself struggling with Joe's controversial suggestion that responsibility for equal access to the web lies with the browser suppliers. Its great to think that should be the case - that if a browser doesn't include a feature to enlarge text size, then that's not the designer's problem. I appreciate that unless a stand is taken and that people go elsewhere and use another browser that DOES include that feature, then browsers are never going to strive to improve. Part of me is behind this. The more we get things to work in browsers that don't support standards, the less the incentive to change. Its all about applying pressure. However, to the average browser user, there is no problem with their browser. If they visit a site that is broken to them, yet its standards-complient, presented by a non-compliant browser, what is the average visitor going to think? This site doesn't work - I'll go elsewhere. They are not going to know the reasons behind it and therefore change browsers - how do you get round that? Do we all sport logos on our site that say this won't work in this because the browser is non-complient? Its a difficult scenario but one that really strikes up a debate.

Day two to follow...