Rafael wrote:
> Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
>> I think someone is defining "site stability" on the wrong premises.
>> No site will ever work and render the same in all browsers, no
>> matter what lowest common denominator one uses. Neither should
>> they.
>>
> Interesting... now I'm curious.
Curiosity killed the cat...
-- Molly 'the cat' :-)
> While I don't have any major problem with (a little) different
> versions in different browsers (or mayor when so was desired), I see
> no reason why they *shouldn't* render the same, given that the
> content is the same. Was this some kind of "typo" or there's a reason
> behind it?
No typo, but rather a reaction to the "lowest common denominator"
design-approach I responded to. I rarely ever see sites the way they are
designed - "stable" or not. I don't expect them to, and the mentioned
approach doesn't help one bit on the end-result.
Of course, if one doesn't push anything anywhere, then one probably
won't encounter many, if any, problems. However, defining "site
stability" on a limited set of conditions, or on a limited set of
browsers and use of browser-options, _is_ just a limitation with no
guarantee for anything.
Content being the same doesn't mean users get to or want to see it in
the same way across the board, and that is often the reason why users
learn about browser-options and/or switch browsers in order to get it
right - for them. Thus, what the designer sees when comparing across
browser-land and browser-options, and what an end-user sees, will only
be the same by chance.
Using a weak browser as "lowest common denominator" doesn't make sense
at all when one adds in all the resulting variables even in the few
browsers we usually regard as "major", and holding back use of the
latest implementations in any of the major browser for the sake of users
that can't "see it", makes (if possible) even less sense in this context.
Browsers don't use the same engines and same calculations, and their set
of options vary quite a bit. Sites designed with built-in "stability"
limitations, doesn't help much on anything. Sites (meaning design here)
should not be "stable", they should adapt to the environment the very
best they can - without disturbing the end-user.
There is in reality no "lowest common denominator" to design for - maybe
apart from the one called "ignorance", only some common standards with
plenty of play-room, common sense and varying degree of support.
Add in the growing number of hardware variables and see the world
evolve. Not much stability in there, and neither should there be if we
want some progress.
Some earlier thoughts related to the subject, for those who care to read
articles on a, by definition, pretty unstable site...
<http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_additions_21.html>
regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
