Re: [WSG] Browser Checks
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 07:06:21 +0100, Andy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If your code is compliant then just about every browser out there will be able to generate it with a 90% accuracy regarding design and 100% accuracy regarding content. What kind of make believe web do you design for? Every day I deal with horribly incorrect (according to spec) rendering across all but the latest of browsers -- and before you respond, I can assure you the code in question is clean as driven snow (well, valid at least :p). Unless your '90% of browsers' refers to the browsers used by 90% of your traffic and not 90% of the browsers available (of which there are over 30 semi-common ones, to my knowledge) then I think you may just be opening a can of worms purely for the sake of it. Andrew. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Browser Checks
On Tue February 8 2005 09:22, Andrew Krespanis wrote: What kind of make believe web do you design for? Every day I deal with horribly incorrect (according to spec) rendering across all but the latest of browsers -- and before you respond, I can assure you the code in question is clean as driven snow (well, valid at least :p). Well I suggest you name names and show examples of compliant html 4.01 that doesn't show 100% of the intented content and doesn't at least resemble like what you intented. Remember that the most important part of your webpages are to provide content. If your content is worth it, people will return regardless of little design issues. Unless your '90% of browsers' refers to the browsers used by 90% of your traffic and not 90% of the browsers available (of which there are over 30 semi-common ones, to my knowledge) Possibly but those 30 semi common ones are almost always based on a common engine (like Geko, Mozilla, etc) and their quircks mode will horribly deform your pages thats why it's so important to set doctype and use coding that forces them to stick to standards compliant mode and not their quircks mode. Your reference to worms is misplaced. Obiviously your opinion differs from mine but that is no reason for insults or insinuations. Andy --- Registered Linux user number 379093 --- ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Browser Checks
OOPS! I just swore on list SORRY :) http://leftjustified.net/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Browser Checks
Well I suggest you name names and show examples of compliant html 4.01 that doesn't show 100% of the intented content and doesn't at least resemble like what you intented. Compliant html pages styled completely with CSS displaying bugs? Easy, I would make some examples for you now if I wasn't already doing an all-nighter. Table based design with bugs? A little harder to find. Remember that the most important part of your webpages are to provide content. If your content is worth it, people will return regardless of little design issues. I couldn't agree more, though display bugs can and will turn visitors away. A simple example is a multi-column layout whereby the columns are rendered with a miniscule width -- a common problem with IE mac and complex float layouts (even with all floats having declared widths, as per spec) Possibly but those 30 semi common ones are almost always based on a common engine (like Geko, Mozilla, etc) and their quircks mode will horribly deform your pages thats why it's so important to set doctype and use coding that forces them to stick to standards compliant mode and not their quircks mode. Don't bring quircks mode into this, I'm talking solely about 'standards mode' -- there are still bugs in ALL browsers. If you haven't found them, push a little harder, you will :) Your reference to worms is misplaced. Obiviously your opinion differs from mine but that is no reason for insults or insinuations. My reference to a 'can of worms' is entirely related to your initial post -- echo opened $what; I had no intention of insulting you, merely disagreeing in a loud fashion. Andrew. Registered shit-stirrer No. 30077. ;) http://leftjustified.net/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Browser Checks
Andrew Krespanis wrote: OOPS! I just swore on listSORRY :) --- LOL. First time a long while I've actually gotten a laugh from this list. Cheers, Mike Pepper Accessible Web Developer Internet SEO and Marketing Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.visidigm.com Administrator Guild of Accessible Web Designers [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gawds.org ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Browser Checks
G'day Paul wrote: This is more of a general standards question, but if you are designing a page for the public in general (in my case a university) at what point ( % wise _or_ # of browsers) do you say 'Okay this is the site, no more trying to accommodate obscure browsers/older versions of browsers. ? I know there is no stand pat answer but I would like to know what particular people use and if there is a common thinking. Really depends on the audience, the client, etc but I usually draw the line at 5th generation browsers (MSIE5+, Opera 5+, Netscape 6/7, Firefox, Mozilla, Safari, etc) Having said that... if you use structured, valid (x)HTML and CSS, people who for some reason still use an antique browser should still be able to use the site. HTML is not print. Pixel perfection is not achievable in an uncontrolled environment. That's my general approach anyway and I'm not too fussed about IE5.0 unless logs show a lot of visitors use it (as long as it's still usable). Matters little to me if the site does not *look* quite the same, as long as it's usable. Make it valid and accessible. Don't add ##kB of CSS hacks, nested tables, spacer images and deprecated elements/attributes to make the site pixel perfect for 1 visitor a month who uses an antique browser. Percentage? Again, depends on the intended audience. If you're in the business of selling computers, would you ignore a small percentage of visitors with old browsers (on old computers)? What if you were selling software that can only be operated by expert users with the latest equipment? Different audience. Regards -- Bert Doorn, Better Web Design http://www.betterwebdesign.com.au/ Fast-loading, user-friendly websites ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Browser Checks
Paul wrote: This is more of a general standards question, but if you are designing a page for the public in general (in my case a university) at what point ( % wise _or_ # of browsers) do you say 'Okay this is the site, no more trying to accommodate obscure browsers/older versions of browsers. ? I you want to sell something, then you may want to include any browser that helps you do just that. - You may start by including all standard-compliant browsers by default-- no matter the purpose of a site, and give older browsers what they can manage-- limited by the time you want to spend on the job. - Dead browsers are dead, thus should be excluded by default - no matter how many who still use them. Users of dead browsers are probably aware of what to expect, and we can't make their software rise from the dead anyway. - I personally couldn't care less about which browser people choose for surfing. It's their choice to make, and I never read stats. I think that's a pretty general answer to a general question. I know there is no stand pat answer but I would like to know what particular people use and if there is a common thinking. I like to include any browser - even though I haven't got the slightest interest in 'selling' anything. I think any site on the web should be 'open to the public', and it doesn't hurt trying to make them so. I often use a text-only browser, like Lynx, myself, but my preference is the latest versions (at any time) of Opera. Just curious, Me too, Georg ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Browser Checks
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 23:57:06 +0800, Bert Doorn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Really depends on the audience, the client, etc but I usually draw the line at 5th generation browsers (MSIE5+, Opera 5+, Netscape 6/7, Firefox, Mozilla, Safari, etc) You can totally ignore Opera 5 and 6. 92% of Opera users have version 7 or 8. Same with Netscape 6 - only 4% of Netscape users. (stats from ranking.pl) -- regards, Kornel Lesiski ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Browser Checks
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 10:03:30 -0330, Paul wrote: This is more of a general standards question, but if you are designing a page for the public in general (in my case a university) at what point ( % wise _or_ # of browsers) do you say 'Okay this is the site, no more trying to accommodate obscure browsers/older versions of browsers. ? I pick the set I think will work for the proposed audience, and test across that. Its pretty broad, but doesnt include V4-- browsers without string data. Once the site is live, I look at the stats, but I take the percentage from visits, not page views, ie I want to catch those people who leave at the first page because it looks awful. Then I may re-evaluate. A browser has to get above about 2.5% before I will consider doing extra work to support it, and often a lot higher than that if there is a small audience. I suppose that is the reverse of your question - I decide how far I will go, rather than where I will stop :) HIH Lea -- Lea de Groot Elysian Systems - I Understand the Internet http://elysiansystems.com/ Search Engine Optimisation, Usability, Information Architecture, Web Design Brisbane, Australia ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Browser Checks
This is more of a general standards question, but if you are designing a page for the public in general (in my case a university) at what point ( % wise _or_ # of browsers) do you say 'Okay this is the site, no more trying to accommodate obscure browsers/older versions of browsers. ? I know there is no stand pat answer but I would like to know what particular people use and if there is a common thinking. Given that you have a university client... 1) Find out what is in their standard desktop install right now, AND also what will be in their next release. That way you'll get an idea of how the standard install is skewing the stats. eg. you might find a disproportionate amount of IE5.5 or Netscape 6 users, since that's what everyone on campus is using. The good news is that standard installs can be updated - that's why you do them. 2) Universities have to support everyone to some extent, although there are still limits. The key term I'd use (for any client) is supported via graceful degradation - don't say a browser is unsupported, since that sounds negative. Instead use @import and other tricks to make sure old browsers get an absolutely vanilla - but functional - version of the site. Voila. supported. 3) If you're looking at % of market, rank each browser in terms of incoming or outgoing. A new browser with a 5% share is very different from an ancient browser with its last 4% trailing away. That will help. 4) Watch out for obscured browsers - Opera for instance is set to identify as IE6, which makes it a major pain to get real stats if your browser sniffer doesn't see past that. Similarly, some versions of Safari will identify as Mozilla in many stats setups (it has a long and strange ID string). You might also want to collate/collapse the many variations of Firefox and Mozilla - both tend to fragment really badly so to get a real idea you have to add all the bits up. Hope that helps. h -- --- http://cheshrkat.blogspot.com/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Browser Checks
Hi Altough others may use other standards, I for one don't care all that much about browser percentage. HTML 4 exists more then 10 years now and users with browsers that don't understand HTML 4 can't be all that interested in your site anyway. So with this in mind, I set my doctype to 4.01 transitional and use the w3c validator to check that my code and css is 100% compliant Making sure your code is compliant is more important then hunting down a few pixel displacements between browsers. If your code is compliant then just about every browser out there will be able to generate it with a 90% accuracy regarding design and 100% accuracy regarding content.echo opened $what; With love Andy --- Registered Linux user number 379093 --- ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
