Today, April 5th, is CSS Naked Day. This means that if you are reading this on the website and not via RSS, what you are seeing is Clagnut with the CSS stripped off. (Technically you are still seeing the CSS applied by the browser, but let’s not split hairs).
So why CSS Naked Day? The original idea came from Dustin Diaz and is intended to promote Web Standards, but more particularly proper use of semantic, meaningful markup. Even the inventor of CSS, Håkon Wium Lie, is keen on the idea:
This is a fun idea, fully in line with the reasons for creating CSS in the first place. While most designers are attracted by the extra presentational capabilities, saving HTML from becoming a presentational language was probably a more important motivation for most people who participated in the beginning.
So is your site laid bare? Is it site still understandable with the CSS peeled off?
Web standards · CSS techniques · Mark-up techniques
James Asher wrote:
Forgive me if I’m wrong here, but isn’t today the 4th?
Rich wrote:
That depends on where you are. In Australia it’s already the 5th. A day lasts 48 hours in this big ol’ world of ours.
trovster wrote:
James: Heh, that’s why one day things don’t work on the internet!
Proved my point about confusing-ness… really confused when I was looking for something, landing on here and accessify with no styles… closed coz I KNEW it was the wrong site.
James Asher wrote:
Ok, I’ll give you that, but doesn’t Richard live in Brighton? It’s still the 4th there.
Just sort of playing the devil’s advocate here…
Dave S. wrote:
But…. what’s the point being made here that CSS -> Disable Styles can’t do on its own?
Jemaleddin wrote:
I don’t know, but the point I get is that Richard needs to move Recent referrers below the comment form. =-)
And that I think I like my site better with styles off than on.
Dustin Diaz wrote:
Dave, you of all folks should know the point. The idea was very simple and it’s to promote semantic markup.
Richard, thanks for getting on board! The field of nakedness is wonderful!
Small Paul wrote:
My site doesn’t make sense regardless of how you look at it.
I reckon the point is to raise awareness. This does it forcefully, cos everyoe is forced to see just the HTML and JavaScript.
Rich wrote:
Jemaleddin, I think you might have a point about moving the Recent Referrers. Perhaps an ‘add comment’ link would do it, or at least help a bit.
Dave S. wrote:
Dustin – you didn’t answer my question.
Let’s save a few steps:
So, is it worth it? We may differ in our answers.
Rich wrote:
In fairness the textarea was always too small. I’ve made it bigger now though.
For a one-day initiative, I think CSS Naked Day is definitely worth a go. Sure, anyone who knows that CSS -> Disable Styles actually exists probably knows why and what to do with it, and so the message is teaching them to suck eggs, and they’ll get pissed off.
However if the lack of styles – call it shock tactics if you will – makes someone (anyone) less markup savvy think ‘I wonder what my site looks like with CSS turned off’ and then do something about it, then the project has succeeded.
ross wrote:
bloody brilliant. Just found this site (on naked day).
I thought the site was good (if not a little plain) even before I saw the naked post.
...why, because the post that google led me to had good, useful, accessible, informative content.
Funny thing was, I was just working on a site, and had been testing it with styles off, and images off :)
I’ll be sure to check back to see the site with it’s clothes on.
Thanks, I’ll join the campaign.
P.S. thanks for the tips on font sizing
Simon Jessey wrote:
I think it is interesting that almost everyone who is doing this is getting comments about their textareas being too small!
To Dave Shea: It’s only a bit of fun, my friend. I’ve already found it a useful exercise because I’ve received feedback from one or two folks who have noticed flaws in my markup (like the textarea thing). I find I have been guilty of designing a site with CSS in mind, instead of designing a site that may not have access to CSS at all.
Matthew Pennell wrote:
Dave S:"Take for example this ridiculously small textarea I’m typing in right now that was never a problem with CSS enabled. It’s pissing me off."
So you're complaining because the naked day idea has uncovered a usability problem? Surely that is the entire point, and proves that it is a worthwhile event to participate in.
trovster wrote:
Actually, naked day doesn’t show any semantics of id/class names, they could still be left, right, center, bold, red etc…
I’m currently wondering why there is a br after the website label, where there isn’t ones on the others.
Also, notes about filling in forms should appear before the form / where they’re mentioned. No point sweating through a form, only to find help when you get to the end.
Dave S. wrote:
Hey, if “it’s only a bit of fun” had been the sole reason for this, I’d have been all for it. It’s not like I’ve never considered running my site unstyled for a bit.
All I’m getting at is that it strikes me that forcibly degrading the user experience for everyone isn’t the most effective method of promoting something. Call me crazy.
trovster wrote:
Dave, you’re crazy!
Dustin Diaz wrote:
Dave: To which I’ll reply, the response I was looking to prove is in fact the shock factor. Markup is beautiful when done correctly. Sometimes websites are even easier to use without a style sheet.
With roughly a 1,000 folks on board it says a statement, and that, I think is also important. It’s hard to miss. It got your attention, didn’t it?
Throughout the entire event I’ve received quite a number of emails letting me know that they’ve re-thought the way they write markup and by looking through the list of sites it has opened up their eyes on how to write more elegant markup. Sure, there’s a billion tutorials on the web by now that tell us how to do just that, but in essense, this was a different way of communicating it.
To which you would reply? (btw, I find it totally wierd that we’re discussing this on Richard’s blog of all places)
Rich wrote:
It’s fine by me. Good discussion, all in all.
Dave S. wrote:
Dustin – if it works, it works. I’m not necessarily right, and we don’t necessarily have to agree. 1000 participants suggests many people thought this was clearly a good idea. Overall, I’m glad to hear you’ve had folks learning from it despite my reservations.
I’d be curious to know if there have been other complaints besides my own, though.
raff wrote:
nice site!
Dustin Diaz wrote:
[at] Dave: Oh there definitely have been other… disagreements. What I commend you most on is your approach toward listing reasons why it’s potential non-beneficial. For what is was worth, those who learned something… yey, it was a good thing. But surely, I will admit that it wasn’t for everyone. I duely mentioned it in the original reference article. Those who run e-commerce sites or actually have real users that aren’t tech-oriented.. that they ought not participate.
I think we can agree on the fact that there are definitely pros and cons toward the whole thing. Now let’s get a beer in London and forget about this ;)
Rich wrote:
Just testing the coComment system.
Zona Prestiti wrote:
Cool idea, anyway a webdesigner who understands the philosophy of CSS rather than just seeing it as a tool to make his/her page prettier will make sites that work fine without CSS