Location: Ohio, USA
Remote: Yes
Willing to relocate: No
Technologies: JavaScript, Ruby, Swift, React, Docker, HTML, CSS, etc.
Résumé/CV: on request
Email: md@slowscan.net
GitHub: https://github.com/mdaines
I wish there were more games that exposed their internal operation or made it part of the gameplay. It seems like many hacker news readers would enjoy a game in which you assemble an AI in competition with other AIs -- what I'd like is a game that allowed you to do that with varying levels of abstraction. A nice API for an RTS engine would make that possible, I guess.
And, on a tangent: it'd be cool if more games responded to the way people "cheat" at computer games, like if there was a game that made saving and restoring state an actual part of the gameplay...
Yes, sometimes when I'm playing a game I'll come up with an algorithm to handle some aspect of it (e.g. adjusting the tax rate), but the game doesn't allow scripting so I have to run the algorithm by hand.
Also, check out Bolo and the many bots available for it (if you can find a way to run it - maybe someone should clone it in Flash).
"It seems like many hacker news readers would enjoy a game in which you assemble an AI in competition with other AIs -- what I'd like is a game that allowed you to do that with varying levels of abstraction."
A research project in neural networks for games called NERO at the University of Texas is along the lines of what you are talking about:
Obviously this sort of thing is an improvement over all the various contortions one must do to achieve that w/o "css tables"... nesting and negative margins and what-have-you, but I feel like using "display:table-cell" obscures the designer's intent, kind of. That sample layout isn't a table, it's a layout.
Yes, but it functions like an HTML table, and that's the point. While a Firefox tab may look completely different from what a tab originally is (like one in a folder), it functions the same, and so the term is carried on.
I think the important thing is that CSS can finally model behavior identical to using a table tag. And as I said in my other comment, it's about time, since tables are one of the most used HTML design (what CSS is for, after all) elements.
The two problems with html table designs are loss of accessibility and semantics. CSS tables do indeed combat both of these by separating content from presentation.
The part that you're sore over is just the name. I agree, as it goes, but that doesn't mean CSS tables are obscuring intent.
Of course avoiding tables doesn't automatically make things accessible. It makes it possible to be accessible.
Accessibility is tricky. For instance, one of the largest things that HTML tables break is the linear flow of the page. For people using screen readers or text-only browsers it becomes far, far more difficult to understand the content of a page.
CSS tables can be applied with consideration only against the hierarchal structure of the page allowing you to write pages that are accessibly legible yet stylish.
That is unless you want to make whole new versions of your site for any number of accessibility domains: modern browsers, IE 6-, blind people, lynx, mobile browsers, mobile safari, colorblind people, &c. Good luck with SEO on all of those, too.
Real, successful sites do make multiple versions for mobile and regular browsing. If neither of those work for you then you are a rounding error on a rounding error that's ignored.
Regardless, use of tables means absolutely jack * as to whether real life sites are "accessible." Lots of this anti-table stuff makes sites less accessible to regular users.
Regular and mobile browsing is one major exception. It's also generally not the trend that I'm referring to. A good site probably does make up to three versions for screen, mobile, and print views. Some sites might even, serendipitously, make out by just changing the stylesheet.
Avoiding table based layouts is not the definition of accessibility and I never implied that. They are frequently a symptom of poor accessibility, however, and then they almost always obscure the intended hierarchy of a page which defeats accessibility for text based browsers and screen readers and messes with SEO.
Exactly--tables (CSS or otherwise) are meant for _tabular_ data, like you would see in a spreadsheet, not page layouts. And if you want to use a table, the semantic way is to use a <table> tag, not a <div> or something else disguising as one.
No, CSS tables are not meant for tabular data. The fact that something is tabular data is semantic information, not style information. Markup should denote tabular data. CSS should denote display style. There is nothing wrong with having CSS that says "lay this out in the style of a table" while the markup shows that it isn't semantically a table.
I love you tim2. Or maybe I'm just fed up at people who never have to deal with cross-browser design getting uppity about someone using a table tag to ensure consistent display.
Either way, you're right. Lack of cross-browser consistency in CSS display support (vertical centering anyone?) is what makes implementing tables in CSS a living nightmare.
One thing I've always been curious about is why the same people (not referring specifically to you, illicium) who decry the use of tables for layout use unordered lists (ul) and definition lists (dl) for their forms. If a table should only be used for data, then so should an unordered or definition list.
It's as if they still need a tag for layout, but just can't bring themselves to use the table tag and resort to other markup to accomplish essentially the same thing.
It seems like it's a matter of fashion over function (and reminds me somewhat of the "cool kids" dynamic in music, clothing, gadgets, etc.).
Disclaimer: Yeah, so I'm using divs for mostly everything now, too.
It mystifies me to see clocks on news & customizable websites like this -- the abundance of chrome was mentioned, and I've always thought cute little clocks fall into the same category. It is perhaps "computer administrative junk" or whatever Edward Tufte calls it. Who looks at a clock on a web page to tell the time?
It's certainly chrome, but in the BBC's defense that particular clock has a special place in the hearts of its viewers. It's the one that used to be used in the run up to "Programmes for Schools" broadcasts and is therefore very familiar to everyone of a certain age.
There's also the fact that the BBC is a broadcaster with schedules, so while you might not care if you know the time, the BBC wants you to know it so that you don't miss broadcasts.
For these reasons I think it's superfluous but in-offensive.
Way to be in line with all the most popular stereotypes... Girls are totally making animated glitter art and podcasts about their inane personal problems!! Meanwhile, boys are very pragmatic!!
An interesting anecdote:
My friend tutored a girl in math because she was getting bad grades. She said this was because girls are bad at math. However, once my friend was able to get this idea out of her head, she became very good at math.
I've noticed this happens to everyone in math, especially in college. A lot of times the hardest part of finding a proof is getting over the mental block of "there's no way I can prove this".
reply