Re: [WSG] Site Deconstruction, those crafty Germans
Chris Blown wrote: Thats _really_ bad Browser checking is a thing of the past and should be gladly forgotten. Something that we can all thank the web standards project for. Is there a valid reason to do browser checking? I can't think of one... There are plenty of reasons to do so server side, log files being the most common. I use sniffing to determine whether I should serve up XHTML 1.1 or HTML 4.01. Even client side, the use of @-rules to hide CSS from certain browsers, and for that matter, all CSS hacks, are a form of browser checking. Also, many mobile phones use the wrong style sheet (screen instead of handheld). Browser sniffing is a way around that. * 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] Site Deconstruction, those crafty Germans
Once user agent if...else or switch statements enter your code, you begin the walk down the slippery slope to code obsolescence, especially with mobiles. Kyle On 2004 Jun 25, , at 17:35, Mordechai Peller wrote: There are plenty of reasons to do so server side, log files being the most common. I use sniffing to determine whether I should serve up XHTML 1.1 or HTML 4.01. Even client side, the use of @-rules to hide CSS from certain browsers, and for that matter, all CSS hacks, are a form of browser checking. Also, many mobile phones use the wrong style sheet (screen instead of handheld). Browser sniffing is a way around that. -- mobile web gear | pukupi.com * 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] Site Deconstruction, those crafty Germans
Kyle Barrow wrote: Once user agent if...else or switch statements enter your code, you begin the walk down the slippery slope to code obsolescence, especially with mobiles. True, but I never suggested indiscriminate usage. While in most cases it over used, and therefor best to avoid, judicious use can both be proper and beneficial. In the case of mobiles, I would recommend, where a suspect browser is involved, send the same CSS via both handheld and screen types. At least that way, if they fix their browser, it still works. If a new browser comes along (which isn't built broken), you're still safe. * 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] Site Deconstruction, those crafty Germans
Hi, Thanks, as this topic caused a bit of unrest last evening. After looking in terms of a gathering in which diverse taste need accommodation, serving one vegetarian entree as an alternative is just courteous. Browser sniffing, can be used in such a manner to allow a seamless experience for non-plug in users, or wireless. Serving (1) standards based alternative, not a buffet of little hacks to please every UA. So I look forward to adding this technique to my tool kit, as with any tool, to be called upon only when needed. Complexity is good, complicated is bad. Paolo Soleri On Friday, June 25, 2004, at 01:35 AM, Mordechai Peller wrote: Chris Blown wrote: Thats _really_ bad Browser checking is a thing of the past and should be gladly forgotten. Something that we can all thank the web standards project for. Is there a valid reason to do browser checking? I can't think of one... There are plenty of reasons to do so server side, log files being the most common. I use sniffing to determine whether I should serve up XHTML 1.1 or HTML 4.01. Even client side, the use of @-rules to hide CSS from certain browsers, and for that matter, all CSS hacks, are a form of browser checking. Also, many mobile phones use the wrong style sheet (screen instead of handheld). Browser sniffing is a way around that. * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * * 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] Site Deconstruction, those crafty Germans
Are you serious? Is this possible? Shane On Jun 24, 2004, at 5:48 PM, ckimedia wrote: Hi, I found this wonderful site (http://www.mbusa.com/brand/index.jsp) listed at the WSG section for full CSS sites(http://webstandardsgroup.org/resources/#cat9). As today is my Review and Research day, I've been peeking under the hood. If my interpretation of the rather elegant code is correct, this site has a second layout that is rendered if FLASH is not present. Can some one please confirm or correct my observation. I've sent an e-mail and poked around for other examples, but have come to rely on this rather savvy bunch for my final analysis. C * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * * 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] Site Deconstruction, those crafty Germans
The site may be wonderful in many ways but I dont approve of how they handle an opera user: You are using Opera 7.23 In order to view the online Mercedes Experience, either Netscape 6.2 or above or Internet Explorer 5.x or above is required. We recommend you update your browser by following the links below. Choose a recommended browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer for Windows Microsoft Internet Explorer for Macintosh Netscape -- Neerav Bhatt http://www.bhatt.id.au Web Development IT consultancy Mobile: +61 (0)403 8000 27 http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/neerav ckimedia wrote: Hi, I found this wonderful site (http://www.mbusa.com/brand/index.jsp) listed at the WSG section for full CSS sites(http://webstandardsgroup.org/resources/#cat9). As today is my Review and Research day, I've been peeking under the hood. If my interpretation of the rather elegant code is correct, this site has a second layout that is rendered if FLASH is not present. Can some one please confirm or correct my observation. I've sent an e-mail and poked around for other examples, but have come to rely on this rather savvy bunch for my final analysis. * 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] Site Deconstruction, those crafty Germans
I found this wonderful site (http://www.mbusa.com/brand/index.jsp) If my interpretation of the rather elegant code is correct, this site has a second layout that is rendered if FLASH is not present. Can some one please confirm or correct my observation. I've sent an e-mail and poked They don't serve an alternative layout. Using Javascript they check for the Flash plug-in, and if found they write the Flash code to the document, else they enable a couple of stylesheets. I haven't delved into the scripts or CSS, but looking at the page source, I assume they display:none; the HTML version. If Flash isn't found, the enabled stylesheets make the HTML version visible again. You can see the effect by using this url: http://www.mbusa.com/brand/index.jsp?noflash=1 Clever, but not foolproof. No/disabled Javascipt and you get nothing. If you like this idea, you might be interested in Shaun Inman's Flash Replacement technique. http://www.shauninman.com/ -ben * 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] Site Deconstruction, those crafty Germans
On 25/06/2004, at 10:06 AM, Shane Helm wrote: Are you serious? Is this possible? On Jun 24, 2004, at 5:48 PM, ckimedia wrote: Hi, I found this wonderful site (http://www.mbusa.com/brand/index.jsp) listed at the WSG section for full CSS sites(http://webstandardsgroup.org/resources/#cat9). As today is my Review and Research day, I've been peeking under the hood. If my interpretation of the rather elegant code is correct, this site has a second layout that is rendered if FLASH is not present. Can some one please confirm or correct my observation. I've sent an e-mail and poked around for other examples, but have come to rely on this rather savvy bunch for my final analysis. I have no idea if it's *possible*, but I've just disabled Flash in Safari IE5Mac, and all I get is a white page with the footer HTML -- no Flash, and no content in replacement of Flash. So, at the very least, it's not working well -- if at all. Can't find a way to disable the plug-ins in Firefox and Mozilla, so who knows if it works for them, or for IEWin (the big target I guess). --- Justin French http://indent.com.au * 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] Site Deconstruction, those crafty Germans
Thats _really_ bad Browser checking is a thing of the past and should be gladly forgotten. Something that we can all thank the web standards project for. Is there a valid reason to do browser checking? I can't think of one... Regards Chris Blown On Fri, 2004-06-25 at 10:30, Neerav wrote: The site may be wonderful in many ways but I dont approve of how they handle an opera user: You are using Opera 7.23 In order to view the online Mercedes Experience, either Netscape 6.2 or above or Internet Explorer 5.x or above is required. We recommend you update your browser by following the links below. Choose a recommended browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer for Windows Microsoft Internet Explorer for Macintosh Netscape * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
