> the only sane way to build the layouts was to absolutely/manually position every paragraph
To me, this looks like the most INsane way to build a layout. What is wrong with a "let browsers and users choose their font size, their text widht, etc."?
For instance, both my wife and I are Kindle users, we have different font size, the text reflows almost always correctly, and who prefers bigger font has bigger font. My father is also a Kindle user and use an even bigger font because of his age. Soon he will have to read book on this device, because all fixed-font books will be too small for him.
There are two big "design movements" on the web, and dustin represents one end of the spectrum. His side argues that great design makes things better, and that we all should put more time into design.
The other side says "design is not needed", and that each user can manage their design settings themselves. These are the people that pushed for RSS and Responsive design, and that see design as more of an optional addon.
In the end, designing for the web is designing for a lack of control. I can't control your screen geometry, display technology, browser compliance, fonts, and more. There is no fixed canvas like I had in print.
This isn't a limitation, this is simply the medium. Designing for this medium means that you must take your canonical ideal and figure out how it would be transformed under different stresses: tiny screens with partial user attention, big screens viewed from couch distance, monochrome screens which don't refresh quickly, modern browsers with fast javascript, and old broken browsers.
Great design does make things better, but it isn't about pushing the design decisions onto the user. There's no argument that Dustin produces beautiful works of art, but designing with manual layout of the kind he describes is designing against the grain of the medium. CSS has limitations, but so does print. Design is what you accomplish within those limitations, and how you go about accomplishing it in a timeframe that allows you to complete your project and make a living.
I read this, thought "gee, this guy gets it", then clicked on your profile and saw "developer/designer hybrid unicorn".
From my experience, it's mainly such hybrids that have this perspective on designing for the web. It makes it hard to work with people who don't see it the same way - either designers like Dustin or developers who don't fully appreciate the value of design.
Wait, are you arguing that the "developer/designer hybrid unicorn" isn't a worthwhile pursuit? I think it's these people who are the ones pushing things forward by experimenting with their designs and trying to think of new ways to approach designing for the web.
This is half true; you still can't achieve exact output even with CSS (try viewing even very large sites with FF vs Chrome, they won't be identical to the pixel).
Media queries also let you adapt to devices/monitors, but realistically you can only cover the largest 5 or six cases.
At some point you're going to get user who's on some crazy screen resolution with a sideways monitor, or a strange tablet, and you'll have to sacrifice total control. 'Nature of the beast.
Total control is an optical illusion. Even with books you'll have printing defects, bad lighting in readers room, coffee cup rounds, and so on. A solid design is the one that can survive in worst environment. It do not have to be pretty, pretty is optional and often not really desirable (Mona Lisa is not pretty is she?)
To me, this looks like the most INsane way to build a layout. What is wrong with a "let browsers and users choose their font size, their text widht, etc."?
For instance, both my wife and I are Kindle users, we have different font size, the text reflows almost always correctly, and who prefers bigger font has bigger font. My father is also a Kindle user and use an even bigger font because of his age. Soon he will have to read book on this device, because all fixed-font books will be too small for him.