Return to Candy by James homepage

CSS3 @font-face browser support table 2010

Update: Have a look at the browser sup­port table for 2012 here.

It’s time for a CSS3 @font-face browser sup­port table. One that doc­u­ments spe­cific­ally how browsers act when either the whole font fam­ily is spe­cified (reg­u­lar, italic, bold, bold-italic & small-caps) or only the reg­u­lar ver­sion of the font is spe­cified. The test-case that this based on uses the ideal, easi­est (lazi­est) imple­ment­a­tion and can be found on its own page here.

Here’s the res­ults of how cur­rent browsers render the test case, com­pared to the ref­er­ence rendering.

Can the browser pick up the style natively?

Firefox 3.6 Safari 4 Chrome 5 Opera 10.5a
Regular (Normal) Yes Yes Yes Yes
Italic Yes Yes Yes Yes
Bold Yes Yes Yes Yes
Bold-Italic Yes Yes Yes Yes
Small-Caps Emulates Fallback system-font Fallback system-font Emulates
Extras? Ligatures! - - Ligatures!

Can the browser emu­late from the reg­u­lar version?

Firefox 3.6 Safari 4 Chrome 5 Opera 10.5a
Regular (Normal) (implied) (implied) (implied) (implied)
Italic Yes Fallback to regular-style Fallback to regular-style Fallback to regular-style
Bold Yes Fallback to regular-style Fallback to regular-style Fallback to regular-style
Bold-Italic Yes Fallback to regular-style Fallback to regular-style Fallback to regular-style
Small-Caps Yes Fallback system-font Fallback system-font Yes
Extras? Ligatures! - - Ligatures!

The most up to date sup­port table, with pretty col­ours, can always be found on its own page along­side the test case. It also has more notes on lig­at­ures and small-caps support.

Why is fall­ing back to reg­u­lar style so bad?

It makes sen­tences full of expres­sion look like sen­tences full of expres­sion. Thus remov­ing part of the typo­graph­ical ele­ments of a text, whereas @font-face is meant to embel­lish it typographically.

So what does this mean we should do?

Browser developers:

  • Please work on emu­lat­ing bold, italic, bold-italic, etc. when they’re not present. Browsers already do this for system-fonts, which means web developers expect this to work. Falling back to the reg­u­lar style (i.e. font-style:normal) is hor­rible as you lose all styling.
  • Also give some thought to pick­ing up “font-variant:small-caps;” in your @font-face code. It’s the only way to ensure proper fall-back. Emulating, like Firefox & Opera do, is a step for­ward, but it’d be a pity to stop there.
  • If HTML 5 has taught us any­thing, it’s that browsers should be more bul­let­proof, not web designer’s code. Also: ask­ing web developers to spe­cify as little as pos­sible is better.

Web design­ers:

  • Using @font-face when you only have the reg­u­lar ver­sion of a font at your dis­posal is not a good idea. Especially for body text.
  • If you use small-caps text, chances are vis­it­ors will see the fall­back system-font. So make sure you spe­cify a system-font that matches your @font-face font nicely when rendered as small-caps. (The test-case uses an espe­cially jar­ring one on purpose.)
  • Use a (less lazy, less prac­tical) more bul­let­proof way of spe­cify­ing your @font-face fonts is recom­men­ded (alas) for now.

Best blogs of 2009

Hi Internet! Happy New Year! Here’s a list of the best web­logs on the inter­net in 2009:

  1. Run expertly by Jason Kottke — live from New York — the blog links to new inter­est­ing things every hour of the day (except week­ends). Sometimes the links have little accom­pa­ny­ing notes, some­times it’s just straight-up link­age when it’s clear enough.

The end. Stay tuned for a new list next year!

Refreshed Candy

Just a quick note to com­mem­or­ate a design refresh of this site. Have been look­ing for ways to cre­ate seper­ate atten­tion for main text and the side­bar. Can’t say I haven’t been inspired by Jon Hicks (and oth­ers) who has also just imple­men­ted a differing-colour-main-part-with-border on his site. Kept the main nav in the middle, to add ugli­ness give the design a quirky edge. If I have time to put the search­bar up top the nav may be able to move over to the left.

You’ll notice the logo is a lot smal­ler. What can I say? My cream ran out, plain and simple. I’m much hap­pier with it, now it’s smal­ler. I’ve still to update the logos for the inspir­a­tion square.

The side­bar still suf­fers from mixed header styles head­ers have been updated too. Haven’t man­aged to add any other col­ours to the red & gold col­our scheme yet though!

Make sure you visit my (on site!) Tumblr page. An upcom­ing post will describe how I man­aged to cre­ate internal links to the con­tent there — the “latest inter­est­ing stuff” links in the side­bar are gen­er­ated on the fly.

Of course, if you find any quirks, let me know.

Full page zoom (update)

Good news! Google Chrome is get­ting full page zoom, and it’s the default! That only leaves Safari to imple­ment it, as IE, Firefox & Opera have had it for a while now. [1]

Full page zoom is import­ant because it means no more muck­ing about with elastic lay­outs (em-based) or liquid lay­outs (%-based). That just leaves fixed lay­outs (based on pixels), which is good because images, videos and other media are in pixels too!

Note: I’m not say­ing it’s good to use pixels for font-size: prop­er­ties! (Just all the other prop­er­ties, like height, width, mar­gin, pad­ding, etc.)

[1] Update: Safari 4 (beta) has imple­men­ted full page zoom too! All major and minor browsers have imple­men­ted full page zoom. Until wide­spread updat­ing of Safari 3 with 4 and (more import­antly) IE 6 with 7 or 8, approx. a quarter of vis­it­ors will only have text-based zoom avail­able to them. IE 6 users are likely not to know any­thing about zoom-capabilities however.

Improve your WordPress: related posts for 404’s

Second in a series of art­icles about tinker­ing with improv­ing your WordPress install­a­tion, we return to cus­tom 404 error pages; adding a list of pos­sibly related posts when vis­it­ors have fol­lowed an out­dated link. Other 404 error page improve­ments can be found in the first art­icle of this series.

One of the most use­ful things on a 404 page is a dir­ect link to the page vis­it­ors were try­ing to get to. Now we can’t read minds, but we do know the URI (explained in the third para­graph of the pre­vi­ous art­icle) and that’s good enough. The fol­low­ing code is adap­ted from this archGFX art­icle. The method used to trans­form the URI into a search query is very simple. If you would like a more advanced please refer to “A bet­ter 404 — Redux” at Urban Mainframe, where Jonathan Hollin expounds on his (down­load­able!) 404 page code.

There are two parts to this “related posts” code. The first part makes it pos­sible to get from “/wrong/link.html” (the URI) to “wrong link” (the search query). Read the rest…

Improve your WordPress: the 404 error page

First in a series of art­icles about tinker­ing with improv­ing your word­press install­a­tion, today we tackle cus­tom 404 error pages; the page every­one dreads get­ting when they’ve fol­lowed an out­dated link.

Four-Oh-Fours are hot again! Just recently came a across the art­icle A Better 404. I remem­ber read­ing the A List Apart art­icle “A Perfect 404″ ages ago, but had never done any­thing about it. Time to improve.

First some quick vocab: the part after your .com (or is called the URI, so if is the address,  /analytics/provision/ would be the URI. The URI is the part that’s wrong when someone’s fol­lowed an out­dated link. This means we can use the URI to cre­ate a more help­ful 404 page. To cre­ate a 404 page for your WordPress theme just cre­ate a 404.php file in the dir­ect­ory of your theme (/wp-content/themes/default/ is the default). Read the rest…

Bugzilla Thoughts

Bug report­ing is tricky. Bugs are prob­lems in soft­ware where the soft­ware doesn’t work as it should. “It doesn’t work.” doesn’t get you any­where with the developer of the soft­ware in ques­tion, so the key is to report exactly what hap­pend and what should hap­pen very clearly. Steven Frank (of Panic, Inc. software-makers) has made a list explain­ing what you should and shouldn’t do when report­ing bugs. One of the things Frank spe­cific­ally men­tions as being good ways to con­vey bug reports are images and video.

A lot of open source pro­jects use Bugzilla (of Mozilla ori­gin) to track bugs and make dis­cus­sion of those bugs pos­sible. Shouldn’t Bugzilla make it pos­sible (and easy!) to include images and video in bug reports?

If Buzzfeed can do it

Photoshop disasters

You see, when a pic­ture loves another pic­ture very much, they get together and do some­thing very spe­cial. Son, I’m going to use a word I’m sure you’ve heard before — they get Photoshopped together. And this is how a dis­aster comes into the world; it’s a beau­ti­ful thing.

From Photoshop Disasters, a site which I enjoy, espe­cially since I dabble a bit in Photoshop too.

Px vs Em: Is it still relevant?

You used to have to choose. Choose between an easy, but inflex­ible, px-based lay­out or a hard to con­trol, but flex­ible, em-based layout.

Now with full-page zoom being imple­men­ted (as default!) in Internet Explorer 7, Firefox 3 and Opera 9*, it’s a dif­fer­ent story. Full-page zoom­ing means your easy px-based lay­out will be fully flex­ible. Even more flex­ible than most em-based lay­outs in fact, as images will scale along too.

So I’m ask­ing myself, why bother with hard-to-keep-from-breaking em-based layouts?

[update] I don’t think liquid lay­outs are rel­ev­ant any­more either.

[update 2] * And now Safari too! That’s all of the major browsers.

PS. This still leaves percentage-based lay­outs of course, but they max­im­ise screen real estate. Which is very dif­fer­ent from max­im­ising read­ab­il­ity (line-lengths and all that jazz). As far as I can see, %-based lay­outs are good for some web-apps (like gmail) but aren’t optimal for other uses.

Pogues’ Imponderables: Impondered

David Pogue pon­ders a few things about the world. I decide to answer them. Wish me luck.

* Why is Wi-Fi free at cheap hotels, but $14 a night at expens­ive ones?

That’s an easy one. At the core it’s price dis­crim­in­a­tion, or the art of mak­ing people pay the max­imum of what people are will­ing to pay. The way it works is that rich people at expens­ive hotels have more than enough cash (and value their time online highly) to buy WiFi for their room. At cheap hotels you have crummy cheap people who aren’t will­ing to pay one penny extra for WiFi, but for whom it’s still a fea­ture which’ll make them choose the WiFi-hotel over the Non-WiFi-hotel.

* What hap­pens to soft­ware pro­grams when their pub­lish­ers go out of business?

Some cus­tom­ers cling on to them but in the end every­one switches over to some­thing newer and worse.

* Would the record com­pan­ies sell more music online if it weren’t copy-protected?

They’d sell more because it’d ‘work every­where’. Which is to say that if they’d sell mp3’s then yes, and if they sold (hypo­thet­ical) mp7’s (which would only play on one line of hypo­thet­ical devices), then it’d lessen that effect con­sid­er­ably, until the other device man­u­fac­tur­ers caught up.

* Do cell­phones cause brain cancer?

In sci­entific stud­ies only the people who believed it would be bad for them had (any­where near sig­ni­fic­ant) neg­at­ive effects. Pretty much a neg­at­ive placebo effect.

* What’s the real reason you have to turn off your laptop for take-off?

It ads con­fu­sion in an emer­gency and stew­ard­esses are sad­istic little creatures who want you to exper­i­ence the dis­pleas­ure of tak­ing off in all its glory. Muhahahahaha.

* Why can’t a digital S.L.R. cam­era record video?

Because they’d have to reconjig’re it to do so which would cost time and money. Given that the people who are in the mar­ket for a digital S.L.R. cam­era wouldn’t be happy with a stuck-on-video mode if they really wanted video and that the rest of the people wouldn’t want video any­way, makes that they’d have a hard time earn­ing their invest­ment back.

* Wi-Fi on air­planes. What’s tak­ing so long?

Airlines didn’t believe that Wi-Fi would be a major enough selling point to give them an edge in attract­ing cus­tom­ers up till now. I don’t think they were wrong, and I also ima­gine that 3G mobile tech (woo! inter­net!) on a plane would make many more people hap­pier in the com­ing years.

* Who are the mor­ons who respond to junk-mail offers, thereby keep­ing spam­mers in business?

Two groups: The nice naive people with time on their hands and the mor­ons who watch and order from Tell-Sell.

* I’m told that they could make a shirt-pocket digital cam­era that takes pic­tures like an S.L.R., but it would cost a lot. So why don’t they make one for people who can afford it?

Because the people who can afford it can be flogged a digital S.L.R. AND a shirt-pocket digital cam­era at the moment.

* How come there are still no vir­uses for Mac OS X? If it has 6 per­cent of the mar­ket, shouldn’t it have 6 per­cent of the viruses?

Aside from the fact that we don’t know if 6 % is big enough for it to be prof­it­able, it’s the same reason Apache has 50.48% of the web-server mar­ket (down from 70% a year or two ago) and still doesn’t get the most vir­uses or hack­ings. (Hint: It’s a Microsoft product that does!)

* Do share­ware pro­gram­mers pay taxes on all those $20 contributions?

Most would as either they’d be hon­est or it’d rep­res­ent a size­able chunk of income.

* How are we going to pre­serve all of our digital pho­tos and videos for future generations?

On YouTube.

* Why are there no fed­eral rebates or tax cred­its for solar power?

Because at this point there’s no tech on the mar­ket that’s effi­cient enough and/or you don’t live in Germany.

* Why do you have to take tape cam­cord­ers out of your carry-on at air­port secur­ity, but not the tape­less kind? Couldn’t you hide a bomb equally well in either one? (Actually, I have about 500 more logic ques­tions about the rules at air­port secur­ity, but I have a feel­ing they’ll remain answer­less for a very long time.)

Because That’s How the Rules Are.

* Laptops, cam­eras and cell­phones have improved by a thou­sand per­cent in the last ten years. Why not their batteries?

There has been ground­break­ing work with altern­at­ive meth­ods (i.e. other than Lithium-Ion) like sugar and fuel-cells. From the mouth of an HP researcher: (para­phrased) “Lithium-Ion tech is at its end, we don’t believe it can be improved much more.”

* SmartDisplay, Spot Watch, U.M.P.C., Zune… when will Microsoft real­ize that it’s not a hard­ware company?

Not until it finds another high-margin won­der to com­ple­ment (and replace) windows/office cash-flows.

* Why don’t pub­lic sinks have foot pedals?

They do in (our) trains. It’s most likely more expens­ive to install.

* Why don’t all hotels have check-in kiosks like air­lines do?

In the high-end, there’s no way the level of expec­ted ser­vice could be achieved and at the low-end it’s handy to have human eyes, ears and noses to sniff out poten­tial trouble-makers.

* Five bil­lion dol­lars a year spent on ring­tones? What the?

I know. It’s like people want to show the world they have an indi­vidual taste. Who knew?

* How come cell­phone signal-strength bars are so often wrong?

If you’re in a part of the world where it Just Works Everywhere, you stop look­ing at them.

* Do P.R. people really expect any­one to believe that the stand­ard, stil­ted, second-paragraph C.E.O. quote was really uttered by a human being?

Do P.R. people know from their train­ing that the stand­ard, stil­ted, second-paragraph C.E.O. quote will have the desired effect?

* Why aren’t there recyc­ling bins for bottles and cans where they’re most obvi­ously needed, like food courts and cafeterias?

Because that’d mean that the food courts and cafet­er­ias would have to deal with that recyc­ling for you instead of just throw­ing everything in the dumpster.

* Why doesn’t someone start a cell­phone com­pany that bills you only for what you use? That model works O.K. for the elec­tri­city, gas and water com­pan­ies —and people would beat a path to its door.

We have that. I can get a nice nor­mal mobile (cell-phone) for 35 euro, without giv­ing up any per­sonal inform­a­tion, with 10 – 15 euros of phone-credit to start me off included, free voice­mail and never-deprecating phone-credit.

Still, most people have a plan because it’s cheaper.

* Why doesn’t every­one have lights that turn off auto­mat­ic­ally when the room is empty?

In Korea you can turn the lights on and off with your mobile. WAY COOLER.

* What’s the deal with Palm?

They didn’t have a clue (any­more). People left, struc­tures got reconjig’red and stuff just kept trudging along. There are new people at the top now, who might actu­ally know what they’re doing, so don’t give up hope!

* Why are so many people rude on the Internet?

I present you with John Gabriel’s Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory, as recor­ded by Jerry Holkins and Mike Krahulik.

Phew, that’s a lot of ques­tions answered. Hope that sat­is­fies you Pogue! If you think you have bet­ter ones, or are simply deeply awed by my insights, don’t for­get to speak up!

John Gruber can be unfair too.

Daring Fireball is a site I fre­quently read. John Gruber links to, and com­ments on, a lot of inter­est­ing things on Daring Fireball. Just the other day, John linked to and com­men­ted on an inter­est­ing piece in Good Magazine. The piece describes the base meas­ure­ment of the met­ric sys­tem (the meter) in a series of info graph­ics. Here is what he said:

What’s a Meter? ★
Good Magazine on the his­tory of the offi­cial defin­i­tion of the meter. Includes this humi­li­at­ing nug­get: “There are only three coun­tries that do not use the met­ric sys­tem: Liberia, Myanmar, and the United States.”
(Thanks to Rab Barari.) #

It’s con­cise, clear and even has a friendly nod to Rab Barari, who ostens­ibly mailed him the link.

For those of you who haven’t read Daring Fireball, you should know that John Gruber fol­lows Apple. He calls journ­al­ists out when they write up silly biased art­icles about Apple’s products.That’s a good thing. He does it so much in fact, that he even has a fea­ture “Jackass of the week” for very silly journ­al­ists. It can, and has been, awar­ded sev­eral times a week. But — John Gruber can be a Jackass too.

He recently wrote the following:

Adobe Adds H.264 Support to Flash Player 9 ★
My bet is that it per­forms like total crap, at least on OS X, but I’d love to be proven wrong. #

And bam! He slams a great devel­op­ment in video on the web in one sen­tence — just like that. Sure, Flash reportedly per­forms weakly on OS X. The Flash Player Beta — which includes the H.264 — is right there to down­load.

He could have, at the very least, tried it and repor­ted his find­ings before slam­ming it. Otherwise, it’s just weak con­jec­ture. Just like the con­jec­ture from the hack journ­al­ists or (shud­der) hack sci­ent­ists he so rightly calls out.

Improving the SXSW panel voting

Coming up in March is the next South by Southwest (SXSW) Interactive con­fer­ence. It’s one of the biggest gath­er­ings of new media people (mean­ing web folk) and it’s held in Texas. The con­fer­ence time-table is filled with talks. Who gets to talk at SXSW? That gets decided by online vote. While that seems like a neat idea at first, it has attrac­ted cri­ti­cism for not deliv­er­ing a qual­ity panel line-up.

Greg Story, over at Airbag, is quite artic­u­late on this matter:

There are six-hundred-and-eighty-three pro­posal sub­mis­sions for next year’s South by South West, and once again it’s up the the Internet to fil­ter through all of them and choose which ones are worthy of becom­ing real events.

How abso­lutely absurd.

I didn’t like the crowd­sourced vot­ing last year and with this aston­ish­ing amount of sub­mis­sions I fail to see how the qual­ity of the SXSW exper­i­ence is going to improve. I heard a lot of com­plaints about the lack of qual­ity in many of the pan­els so I don’t under­stand why the con­fer­ence lead­er­ship is extend­ing the program.

Source: Cross, Airbag.

Hugh Forrest, one of the organ­isers com­men­ted on the post and explained SXSW’s stance on the mat­ter. I still found myself agree­ing with Greg, and com­men­ted on pos­sible improve­ments for the choos­ing mechanism:

Hugh: Why not extend that idea by hav­ing the would-be pan­el­ists upload a snip­pet of their talk. That way you (and us) could rate their speak­ing abil­it­ies (fil­ter­ing out the mono­tones) and get an even bet­ter idea of the route they’re going to take their talk in.

Of course, it needn’t be lim­ited to audio…SXTube FTW

Source: Myself at Cross, Airbag.

I was hap­pily sur­prised Hugh then took the time to respond to me by email!


I’ve been fol­low­ing the dia­logue on Airbag. Good stuff there — mean­ing, all dia­logue is good dialogue.

Re the sug­ges­tion of let­ting panel pro­posers add rich media to the Panel Picker, this is a good idea. And, one that we talked about last week.

Reasons we have decided not to do this for this year:

1) Still hav­ing some tech issues. So, best to try to work those out with the site as is before adding in new features.

2) Philosophically . . my con­cern is that the experts (who we most want to speak at SXSW) have the least time to put together a video for the site. So, in some ways, this might be coun­ter­pro­duct­ive to the ulti­mate goals here.

But . . again . . it’s a really good sug­ges­tion and some­thing that we are still kind of mulling about. Thanks for the feedback!

Best regards,

Hugh Forrest
(Published with his permission)

My response:

Hi Hugh,

I’m glad you’re enjoy­ing the con­ver­sa­tion on Airbag — all atten­tion is good atten­tion, right?

Thanks for get­ting back to me, I’m flattered that you took the time to respond personally.

As for your argu­ments, #1 I can sym­path­ise with, but #2, well… If the experts can take the time to pre­pare a panel and go to a week long con­fer­ence, I ima­gine they can put in the extra 20 — 30 mins to say some words into a micro­phone and upload it to one of the many audio/podcast sites.

The non-experts (who you’re try­ing to fil­ter out) will prob­ably have more time, and might dis­cover dur­ing the pro­cess of record­ing some­thing that they need to get their act together.


Again, thanks for tak­ing the time to mail me,


So what do you, the reader think? Is the choos­ing mech­an­ism fine? Is it com­pletely broken? Or do the (often lack­ing) descrip­tions of pan­els just need some audio or video to give voters a bet­ter idea of what they’re vot­ing for?

(Hat tip to John Gruber who’s link I fol­lowed to Airbag in the first place.)


A place for the weird stuff, the funny stuff, the wrong stuff, the totally way-too-cool stuff and a whole lot more:

Testiculating Launches (10x7 wallpaper)

[update] We’re done with Testiculating.

Andrei’s back

See that lil’ flame in my “Inspiration” block? It used to lead to a dusty old site. But now it’s back, with a ven­geance! Yes. Design by Fire, the crit­ic­ally acclaimed journal on design, life & everything by Andrei Herasimchuk, has risen from the ashes.

Can’t wait to see what wis­dom he has to share with us!

And no, I’m not just say­ing that because it might help my chances in the (very old) DxF Recoding Challenge…

Noscope redesigned: Pangea launched!

Joen, my Danish friend who runs a journal and graph­ical instal­ment out­let, has just launched the new design of his site. (You heard it here first kids!) And what a design it is! As I said on Joen’s site itself:

May I be the first to con­grat­u­late you on Pangea! It really does take good care of your sites whole eco­sys­tem, while being so clear and effect­ive it pos­it­ively hurts! It’s nice to have a use­ful homepage, the instal­ment box in par­tic­u­lar is a great fea­ture. For the rest, great align­ing, fant­astic white space — not that we expect any­thing less of course :)

The atten­tion to detail is pretty darn good too. Even the X to close the comment-formatting-box has a high­light state! And to my sur­prise the wee bite you’ve taken out of the top-right of the boxes break up the boxxy­ness enough — even though they’re really small bites.

Solid design, and I can’t wait what col­ours you’ll inject with one of your (semi)-monthly redesigns.

~ source: Noscope Pangea

Candy: rebooted

I’ve finally got­ten round to tweak­ing this site into shape. I’d already ditched the ver­tical bars, but the align­ment still wasn’t right and the code was get­ting mud­dier and mur­kier. Seeing as how the spring 2006 CSS Reboot was just around the corner, I had a dead­line: 1st of May 2006.

Notable changes are the gen­eral shifts in align­ment (not just for improved flow, but also to give me more room for in-line images), the back­ground and nav­ig­a­tion bar col­our shift (both are now slightly lighter) and boxes around the com­ments (just like noscope — I plead guilty!). I’ll have to redesign the com­ments once I enable gravatars too (instead of just favicons), but this will have to do for now.

screen shot of Candy 2

New addi­tions are Cameron Moll’s icon to my inspir­a­tions list (not that he’s a recent find, but up till now I didn’t have a good icon to work from), “latest com­ments” in the side­bar and a (slightly dif­fer­ent one from on the main page) side­bar for the single-post pages (just click a title to get to them).

Funnily enough, the thing I’m most proud of is mov­ing the previous/next page nav­ig­a­tion on single-post pages to the side­bar. It’s a very little change, but I really feel they work a lot bet­ter there.

What do you think? (Oh and don’t for­get to vote for me on the CSS Reboot site!)

Bite Size Standards launches

Bite Size Standards: Bite back the web

Bite Size Standards, a pro­ject that has taken up quite a lot of my time has launched today. It was ini­ti­ated by John Oxton of Joshuaink fame, but as CSS guy all parties had to deal with me, so I ended up doing and influ­en­cing a lot. It’s been really fun to work with the whole team and it’s been par­tic­u­larly great to finally shush out some semantic and access­ib­il­ity quer­ies. So for now, I’ll just leave you with a descrip­tion of what Bite Size Standards is.

Bite Size Standards aims to offer con­cise web devel­op­ment tutori­als, tips and tricks. Written by design­ers and developers who are pas­sion­ate about web standards.

A full slightly longer write-up of what we actu­ally went through and why we did cer­tain things will come a lot later and can be found on my port­fo­lio.

How to fix your WordPress 2.0.1 feeds

If, like me, you waited to update your WordPress install­a­tion until 2.0.1 came out, you might have noticed that your art­icle feed turned into a com­ment feed. Which, as we can see from the fol­low­ing pic­ture, is rather det­ri­mental to your vis­itor figures:

It’s worth not­ing this doesn’t hap­pen to every­one — just to people who have index.php in front of their permalinks. The fix for this prob­lem is included in 2.0.2, but it’s a bit silly to have to wait until it comes out. Luckily there’s an easy two-step solu­tion to the problem:

1) As per the instruc­tions at Trac Bug Ticket 2379 :

Open the file ‘classes.php’ in your wp-includes/ folder. Find line num­ber 1321; it should look like this:

// Root
(blah blah)

// Comments
$comments_rewrite = $this->generate_rewrite_rules($this->root . $this->comments_base, true, true, true);
$comments_rewrite = apply_filters(‘comments_rewrite_rules’, $comments_rewrite);

That first line in the com­ments sec­tion (in bold) needs another ‘, false’ behind it. That means it should end up like so:

// Comments
$comments_rewrite = $this->generate_rewrite_rules($this->root . $this->comments_base, true, true, true, false);

2) Now go to your ‘Options’ panel in your WordPress admin centre. Click on the ‘permalinks’ tab. If you’ve chosen the 4th option, copy your cus­tom struc­ture to clip­board (ctrl+c). Select the 1st option. Click ‘update permalink struc­ture’. Now select your ori­ginal option again. If it the 4th, put your cus­tom struc­ture back in again. Click ‘update permalink struc­ture’ again. Or, because an image speaks a thou­sand words:

That’s all there is to it!

Update: WP 2.0.2 is out, and the fix is indeed included. Remember to use the spe­cial upgrade pro­ced­ure — it’s a quick delete/move & upload this time!

Current awesomeness

Recent pick­ings on the web have been rather fruit­ful lately, so I decided it’d be a good time to share them:

~ The proper way to use the Photoshop Colour Replacement Tool over on Veerle’s journal is a rather good read.

~ iTunes Library Updater: The best — and only? — way to prop­erly clean your iTunes lib­rary on Windows. Worked won­ders for mine.

~ Veerle’s journal itself. Recently redesigned, it’s received a lot of com­ple­ments and atten­tion from across the web. Seeing as how the design is well thought out on so many levels, that’s not surprising.

~ If Microsoft was in charge of the iPod pack­aging, what would it look like? A rather nice video visu­al­ising the dif­fer­ent mar­ket (and thus mar­ket­ing) Microsoft and Apple have.

~ High qual­ity (print qual­ity even!) PhotoShop brushes ran­ging from a ‘Fresh Foliage’ col­lec­tion to ‘Worn’ ones (linked at the bot­tom) by Jason Gaylor. It’d be an under­state­ment to say they’re good.

~ WTF 2.0 About how it’s not about cool stuff, but how to make money from cool stuff. And how mobile (unsur­pris­ingly) got thrown out of the web 2.0 mix, but is mak­ing bucket loads of dosh.

That’s all folks!

Guess who’s nr. 1 for ‘Webdesign Portfolio’ ?

Sooo…guess who’s occupy­ing the top-spot, the prime loc­a­tion, the num­bero uno place at Yahoo! for the search ‘Webdesign Portfolio’ ?

James at the nr1 spot for Webdesign Portfolio @ Yahoo

But what does one write on such an occa­sion? Is “I’d like to thank my fam­ily, my friends, the guys at, my cli­ents, Programmers Notepad, all the nice people at Adobe — oh and Johnny, couldn’t have done it without you! *cue tears* ” really over the top? A tad too much eh?

Well, how about “Thank you for this token of your recog­ni­tion of my hard work and pure SEO, but I refuse to believe that my Journal is a bet­ter web­design port­fo­lio than my Portfolio. It’s not right I tell you, It’s not right!”. Is that bet­ter? Make me seem like an ungrate­ful so-and-so? Hmm, you’re prob­ably right..

So what does one say on such a joy­ous occa­sion?

James John Malcolm MMXIV