text-shadow - Teh Forum

From:	af (CAER)	20 Sep 2011 15:23
To:	Drew (X3N0PH0N)	5 of 35

38939.5 In reply to 38939.2
Not always :( caerphoto.com

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	Peter (BOUGHTONP)	20 Sep 2011 15:37
To:	af (CAER)	6 of 35

38939.6 In reply to 38939.5
On big text (so titles, menus, etc) it's fine, and might even make things look good. And if there's a noisy background image, it can (if done properly) help make things readable. But for anything that's going to appear in a sig (i.e. small text, plain background), it can't look anything other than shit, and you should be ashamed with yourself for even considering it. `3.1415P265E589T932E846R64338`

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	af (CAER)	20 Sep 2011 15:39
To:	Peter (BOUGHTONP)	7 of 35

38939.7 In reply to 38939.6
Oh ye of little imagination (fail) caerphoto.com

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	ANT_THOMAS	20 Sep 2011 15:44
To:	af (CAER)	8 of 35

38939.8 In reply to 38939.7
MOD MADNESS :(( ┌─────┐ │ │ │ ┌─┐ │ │ │ │ │ │ └─┘ │ │ │ │ ┌─┐ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ └─┘ └─┘

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	koswix	20 Sep 2011 17:16
To:	af (CAER)	9 of 35

38939.9 In reply to 38939.7

Write your sig HTML in a normal HTML document, open it, take a screen shot and save it as a mother fucking GIF and use that for your sig. That'll show the Bougthon. :C

                                                
                                                
                                                
                           ▪                    
             ┌────┐    ┌────┐                      
          │    │    │    │ ▪                    
          │    └────┘    │                      
          │   ──┐  ┌──   │ ▪                    
   ┌──────┤    ▪    ▪    │                      
  ┌┘      │              │ ▪                    
┌─┤       └──┐  │  │  ┌──┘                      
│ │          │ ││  ││ │   ┌─┐                   
│ │          └─┼┤  └┴─┴───┘ │                   
│ │           ─┘│           │                   
│ │   ┌──────┐  └┬──────────┘                   
  │   │      │   │                              
  │   │      │   │                              
  └───┘      └───┘

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	af (CAER)	20 Sep 2011 17:21
To:	koswix	10 of 35

38939.10 In reply to 38939.9
I might make a PHP thing on my site that returns a .bmp, that'd probably annoy him more. I could do some interesting things if I could use JavaScript, too :C caerphoto.com

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	koswix	20 Sep 2011 17:26
To:	af (CAER)	11 of 35

38939.11 In reply to 38939.10

(giggle)

                                                
                                                
                                                
                           ▪                    
             ┌────┐    ┌────┐                      
          │    │    │    │ ▪                    
          │    └────┘    │                      
          │   ──┐  ┌──   │ ▪                    
   ┌──────┤    ▪    ▪    │                      
  ┌┘      │              │ ▪                    
┌─┤       └──┐  │  │  ┌──┘                      
│ │          │ ││  ││ │   ┌─┐                   
│ │          └─┼┤  └┴─┴───┘ │                   
│ │           ─┘│           │                   
│ │   ┌──────┐  └┬──────────┘                   
  │   │      │   │                              
  │   │      │   │                              
  └───┘      └───┘

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	99% of gargoyles look like (MR_BASTARD)	20 Sep 2011 20:49
To:	af (CAER)	12 of 35

38939.12 In reply to 38939.10
SVG FTW! bastard by name, bastard by nature

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	Drew (X3N0PH0N)	21 Sep 2011 00:36
To:	af (CAER)	13 of 35

38939.13 In reply to 38939.5
Ok, some of those look nice. But some are a bit 'home DTP app from 1995'. But ok, I accept that with a bit of imagination and sensitivity it can be used well. (handshake) , , , , , , , , , , `' (o,o) (o,o) (o,o) (o,o) (o,o) \ \|)__) \|)__) \|)__) \|)__) \|)__) ''`>-,--”-”---”-”---”-”---”-”---”-”---- ,'.*''`

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	Peter (BOUGHTONP)	21 Sep 2011 00:56
To:	Drew (X3N0PH0N)	14 of 35

38939.14 In reply to 38939.13
See, this is why I wont play Civ with you, you fucking traitor. :@ `3.1415P265E589T932E846R64338`

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	Drew (X3N0PH0N)	21 Sep 2011 01:01
To:	Peter (BOUGHTONP)	15 of 35

38939.15 In reply to 38939.14
:'D I still have a problem with it. I mean this shit should've worked 5 years ago. But now everyone's so used to doing anything like this in photoshop. And there's no downside to doing it that way, and it's quicker and far more flexible. I kinda feel like CSS should be designed on how we use the web and make sites, not on some ideology of how we should be making the web. , , , , , , , , , , `' (o,o) (o,o) (o,o) (o,o) (o,o) \ \|)__) \|)__) \|)__) \|)__) \|)__) ''`>-,--”-”---”-”---”-”---”-”---”-”---- ,'.*''`

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	Peter (BOUGHTONP)	21 Sep 2011 01:18
To:	Drew (X3N0PH0N)	16 of 35

38939.16 In reply to 38939.15
quote: I kinda feel like CSS should be designed on how we use the web and make sites, not on some ideology of how we should be making the web. Fuck that! I want alpha-transparency and layers. :@ And I mean properly - with masks and grouping and so on - not having to hack about and save photos as PNGs and stuff. Applying (text-)shadow should basically be a convenient shortcut to all the stuff that a graphics editor can do. And then I can just tweak a text file or two, instead of having to output half a dozen images for different screen sizes, and re-generate files because the background is now a different colour. And yeah, this should all have been done ten years ago. Stupid W3C twats. :@ `3.1415P265E589T932E846R64338`

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	Drew (X3N0PH0N)	21 Sep 2011 02:15
To:	Peter (BOUGHTONP)	17 of 35

38939.17 In reply to 38939.16
Yeah but even with all that it's: a few clicks in photoshop Vs. half an hour of typing, looking, tweaking, typing, looking... (unless someone makes a visual thing) , , , , , , , , , , `' (o,o) (o,o) (o,o) (o,o) (o,o) \ \|)__) \|)__) \|)__) \|)__) \|)__) ''`>-,--”-”---”-”---”-”---”-”---”-”---- ,'.*''`

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	Peter (BOUGHTONP)	21 Sep 2011 02:25
To:	Drew (X3N0PH0N)	18 of 35

38939.18 In reply to 38939.17
The "visual thing" is called Photoshop? :P Just needs a plugin to read styles from CSS, produce the appropriate image, then save again, instead of worrying about bloated image files. `3.1415P265E589T932E846R64338`

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	Drew (X3N0PH0N)	21 Sep 2011 03:21
To:	Peter (BOUGHTONP)	19 of 35

38939.19 In reply to 38939.18
I dunno, it would be such a small subset of what photoshop does. Would you have a cutdown UI which only allows what CSS can do or would you just make it discard anything not catered for in CSS when you export? Either way is going to be unsatisfactory for people who know PS but not CSS, which is most of the people who do this sort of thing at most web design/dev places (ones large enough that coders don't design and designers don't code). The designer is just going to want to use Photoshop and image files because they do far more. You'd be asking them to revert to something on the level of Paint.NET for the sake of saving a few kb? , , , , , , , , , , `' (o,o) (o,o) (o,o) (o,o) (o,o) \ \|)__) \|)__) \|)__) \|)__) \|)__) ''`>-,--”-”---”-”---”-”---”-”---”-”---- ,'.*''`

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	Peter (BOUGHTONP)	21 Sep 2011 03:45
To:	Drew (X3N0PH0N)	20 of 35

38939.20 In reply to 38939.19
What? No, I want CSS to be expanded to cater for all the relevant extra functionality. So when a client says "can we have that in cerulean not navy", it's not a two week wait for the creative dept to get around to it, and a developer can just change one colour and have everything updated. `3.1415P265E589T932E846R64338`

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	Drew (X3N0PH0N)	21 Sep 2011 05:33
To:	Peter (BOUGHTONP)	21 of 35

38939.21 In reply to 38939.20

So you want Photoshop to output to an editable text based format, basically?

(SVG?)

             , ,   , ,   , ,   , ,   , ,   
  `'        (o,o) (o,o) (o,o) (o,o) (o,o)  
   *\*      |)__) |)__) |)__) |)__) |)__)  
     ''`>-,--”-”---”-”---”-”---”-”---”-”----
,'.*''`

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	99% of gargoyles look like (MR_BASTARD)	21 Sep 2011 07:32
To:	Drew (X3N0PH0N)	22 of 35

38939.22 In reply to 38939.17
I'm sorry to say that I agree with Peter on this. Reworking a whole site's graphics text because of design changes, rather than tweaking CSS, is bonkers. Besides, text (even pretty text) should be text, not graphics. bastard by name, bastard by nature

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	af (CAER)	21 Sep 2011 09:33
To:	Drew (X3N0PH0N)	23 of 35

38939.23 In reply to 38939.17
A visual thing you say? (ironic that it tries very hard to look exactly like Photoshop) Ok it only does gradients, but still, I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to knock together a text-shadow (or box-shadow) example. In fact, I might just do that... edit: Plus, it's more than just "a few clicks in Photoshop" – you first need to create the image, specifying what size you want it, then enter the text, then do a few clicks, then need to upload it to the server in the right place, then change some text files to actually reference the image, then like Peter said, possibly make another version that looks good on a smaller screen. Also, using CSS like this means you can make your fancy effects big as you like without affecting filesize, and including it in an existing CSS file means one less HTTP request, = faster site. caerphoto.com

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	Drew (X3N0PH0N)	21 Sep 2011 09:57
To:	af (CAER)	24 of 35

38939.24 In reply to 38939.23
You're missing my point. Even if there were a visual thing which did everything CSS can currently do, which that certainly isn't, it would be able to do about 0.01% of what Photoshop can do. As I say, if you want something very trivial or looking like 1990s home-publishing then great, CSS has caught up. If you want something genuinely rich you still have to use Photoshop anyway. The few clicks thing was clearly hyperbole. For anything beyond the most trivial of decorations, it's going to be far quicker to do with direct manipulation and feedback. quote: Also, using CSS like this means you can make your fancy effects big as you like The tiny subset of fancy effects which CSS can now do. quote: without affecting filesize Cos people really notice a 20k hit these days. quote: one less HTTP request 1. You're scraping the bottom of the barrel now 2. You're well aware that you can put image data in CSS anyway. , , , , , , , , , , `' (o,o) (o,o) (o,o) (o,o) (o,o) \ \|)__) \|)__) \|)__) \|)__) \|)__) ''`>-,--”-”---”-”---”-”---”-”---”-”---- ,'.*''`

0/0

Reply Quote

More