The perfection should be downstream of the project's coded standards, not downstream of the faithful implementation of the designer's work. Some designers are really good about maintaining standards-- but the book would argue all that effort should be spent elsewhere.

It's basically "the arbitrary padding the designer liked in the moment" vs. "the standard padding that's everywhere in the project." This book argues you should always use the standard padding. Your product should be pixel-perfect, just not in the PSD-to-HTML sense.

> It's basically "the arbitrary padding the designer liked in the moment" vs. "the standard padding that's everywhere in the project." This book argues you should always use the standard padding. Your product should be pixel-perfect, just not in the PSD-to-HTML sense.

Oh yeah - I remember my first job things had to be pixel perfect to what the boss had mocked up in Photoshop. Thankfully at my next job it was just use whatever the project's CSS gives you unless it looks terrible.

I don't do much frontend any more but my current marketing team is happy with anything that looks reasonable.

Not even pixel perfection but also coming up with UX ideas by people who don’t understand technical details.

Like QA not passing some detail because they think it should be different. Where in reality it is what it is because of framework etc.

Yes you mostly can do everything - but not everything is worth spending time/money on.

It's amazing how much the initial intent of the web has been perverted. Not all for the worse, but still.

On the other hand, personal sites and side-projects are where you can afford to take as much time as you want in order to achieve pixel perfection without the pressure of shipping anything.