On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 22:44:39 +0100 Paulo Pinto <[email protected]> wrote:
> Am 23.03.2013 20:09, schrieb Nick Sabalausky: > > On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 15:07:58 -0400 > > Nick Sabalausky <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 19:29:55 +0100 > >> Paulo Pinto <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> And don't get me started to discuss about customers that only pay > >>> projects when the web application is pixel perfect with the given > >>> Photoshop design. > >>> > >> > >> if(request.userAgent == "IE" && request.ip in > >> paityHairedIPAddresses) { > >> response.send(smokeAndMirrors()); > >> } > >> else > >> { > >> response.send(normalSite()); > >> } > >> > > > > Ugh, stupid buggy NG client. Ignore this semi-duplicate post... > > > > You forgot the thousand and one versions of Webkit available around > the web. > Yea, I guess my key point was the "request.ip in paityHairedIPAddresses". I was just thinking "graphic designer who expects pixel-perfect == doesn't know what a web browser is == always uses IE". But then, "graphic designer" tends to imply Mac anyway, as Mac has always tended to be the artist-type's OS, so no IE. > I already had to explain to a few customers why Safari on Windows, > Mac OS X, iOS on iPhone and on iPad all have different behaviours, > even though it is always "Safari Browser". Heh, I think the first explanation I would have tried would've been "They're all different *because* it's Safari." :) Not necessarily to bash on Safari, but whatever makes the dumb questions go away ;) "They're different because they're different, dammit! Now shaddup and lemme finish making your stupid little site..." <-- Heh, if only we could get away with that... "They're different because the people who make browsers just like to piss me off." Tons 'o fun to be had with that one!
