"Daniel Gibson" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Am 03.04.2011 01:31, schrieb Adam D. Ruppe: >> Daniel Gibson wrote: >>> or did you like writing a different version of >>> your websites for each browser? >> >> I've never found that to be actually necessary. Worst problems I >> ever had as a developer were actually Firefox 2... while IE6 and 7 >> might have needed a few hacks, they could always do the job. Firefox >> 2 often left me hanging. I hated that piece of junk. >> >> Anyway, with IE6 (IE5 is before my time), the worst that I ever needed >> was a few isolated lines of javascript - which can be abstracted >> into reusable functions - and a few little bits of CSS, easily >> done with conditional comments. >> >> It's really very little work, more like 10% more than the 100% more >> implied by "different version [..] for each browser". >> > > Yeah, it may not be 100% - however I've heard from other people and read > on the > web that supporting IE6 was really time intensive - more than 10%. > But it's just what I heard/read, I haven't got much experience with web > development myself. >
My experience with IE6 (from back in the day) has been much like Adam's. Yea, sometimes something would be a little bit different on the two or three different browsers that were out there, but I never found it to be a real problem. I suspect that most of the big complaints about it were from people who didn't understand the medium enough to know that being pixel-perfect wasn't (isn't) appropriate.
