Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:>I don't belong to the group of screaming developers.
Hi Georg,
Sorry for this misunderstanding --I didn't mean to group you in any way. It's just that I was a bit amazed about your view when in general, the web standards 'society' regards IE as the largest obstacle in standards-compliant webdesign.
I'm sure I belong in a group, somewhere. Not sure which one though. :)
IE6 should be seen as an obstacle from a users point of view, as well as
from a web designer's position. I'm not a user and I don't design for IE6 either. I just whip it into conformance with my wishes, that's all. If it looks too bad in IE/win, well... that's too bad. I can always give it something it _can_ handle-- if I care to spend the extra time. Yes, I am lazy... :)
To me it seems that 'we as webdesigners' (pro or amateur doesn't matter) should show some appreciation towards MS for steps they do take, not just complain about what they don't do.
I'm not complaining about what MS do or don't do. It's not my problem. I _am_ complaining some about what doesn't work well. IE6 isn't working well, so I throw it back to where it came from: IE5.
IE6 still doesn't work well, but it doesn't loose any of its "standard
functionality" when in quirks mode, and it becomes more predictable and is in need of less attention.
That's the whole issue in a nutshell-- to me.
I can understand that you want to minimize the number of hacks and time invested in them, but I don't think a designer's opinion on a browser matters. If a majority of visitors to his clients' site use IE/win, then he should cater for that. And in my opinion he should do that in the best possible way (i.e.: use IE6 standards mode whenever possible).
"Standard mode" sounds nice, but that doesn't help one single bit on the appearance in IE6. All I see is some extra code and styles, and I don't think visitors care much about what they can't see.
What mode a browser is in is caused by "doctype-switching". The fact
that I switch IE6 into quirks mode doesn't make my use of code and doctype any different. HTML Tidy keeps a close watch on my code and doctype, and the validators are good tools for finding my typing-errors. I recommend both (but I don't like those yellow buttons).
Also; it's easier to code for Lynx when I don't have to change things to make IE6 happy. _That_ matters to me.
Could you explain this to me? In the end, the website visitor matters. I think we agree on that. But if I were to choose between using an extra hour to improve a design for 80% (or more) of the visitors or using that hour to improve it for a browser like Lynx (or Omniweb, or iCab, for that matter), I'd go for the 80%.
Yeah, I'm a demanding personality. :) More on the subject: http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/main_author.html (still testing that design btw.)
I can't cover all browsers because I don't have access to them all. But since I don't get a penny for what I'm doing, I might as well have some fun in my attempts to cover as many as I can. It doesn't hurt my bottom-line, you know.
Also-- more important-- I have visitors who are in need of accessible
web pages, and some who need knowledge about how to improve access on their own sites. That makes it even more fun to try to find the balance between good access and graphical styling / design.
I don't have to choose, because I've found that coding for Lynx (or
similar) actually provides me with more solid page-structures for all
sorts of visual styling. So why make choices when I can have double of both and save some time while I'm at it?
I don't need to spend 5 minutes on Lynx in the process of creating a new web design. However, I'm beginning to have serious doubts about the use of time spent on IE/win... but it's more or less routine now so it doesn't take all that long once a web page is up and running in a standard compliant browser. Guess it's the power of standards that's kicking in, and 25 years of software creation and manipulation.
Don't get me wrong: I'm all for semantically correct, usable, accessible and standards-compliant sites that look great and degrade gracefully. But practice --as usual-- is far different from such theory, and every designer has a limited supply of time and money for any given project, so you have to choose how and where you invest your resources. I think those resources should go where they have the largest impact on the largest audience.
I'm somewhat relaxed on what's semantically correct and valid and all that. It matters, but it isn't ruling my day. However, I won't move or change one single (x)html element to suit _one_ weak browser if it disturbed the sequence in any good browser. I wouldn't misuse html-elements to achieve visual appearance either, if I can find the right element for that particular use. That part is slightly confusing at times, but I do my best. W3 documents and browser-support makes good reading.
This is not theory-- it's a matter of research and preference. I want my
source-code sequenced the way I want to see it if CSS is turned off,
also because it is so much easier to maintain that way. I can allow myself to cheat some, but only to a small degree.
If / when some software are reasonable in line with the standard code I use, it will be supported by me. That includes everything Microsoft launch-- but only if it is up to the job.
Can you point to a case where IE is not 'up to the job'? What constitutes 'not up to the job'?
What I wrote above says it well; the sequenced source-code, access, ability to style and restyle... Maybe I should add; CSS1 & CSS2.
I could have shown some examples if I had kept them... :)
Had to rearrange some complex but well sequenced code because IE6 was
the only browser that couldn't be styled to rearrange them the way I wanted for my graphical browsers. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but couldn't find any good reason to spend time on it.
I "forced" IE6 into quirks mode, and deleted all extra code and
stylesheets for IE6's "standard compliant mode". Saved me a lot of code
and CSS, and I got what I wanted in CSS and non-CSS browsers alike. What
more could I ask for?
Which browser I use is not that important (other than that developing in Mozilla is faster and more reliable than in IE, for instance). What the people out there use, who visit the site I design, that's important.
I agree (it is much faster-- in Opera). That's why my pages (usually)
looks pretty much the same in Opera, Moz/FF, Safari... and IE6.
OTOH: "pretty much" is not the same as "exactly", and it doesn't have to be. It just has to look right and work right...
(think I have been through that one before, but memory-refreshing doesn't hurt)For more background information on the exact differences between IE6 in standards mode and IE5+ quirks:
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/dnie60/html/cssenhancements.asp>
Once again, thank you.
regards
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 ******************************************************
