On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Hetz Ben Hamo wrote: > I would like to say a few words about $SUBJECT.. > > As you know, in many companies (be it Egged, government offices, etc) they > place a bid for a 3rd party company to build them a site according to specs > given by the company. > > As my previous boss in Tehila told me: > > "Hetz, there are 2 ways to choose from: > > 1. A repsectable company who will build the site with PHP, MySQL and will > fully check that their web site will work on various browsers - those > companies ask for X*2 price > 2. A small company who will build the site on IIS, with ASP and will only > check it against latest version of Explorer - they will ask for X price.." > > Guess who wins the bid?
Company X made a good investment. THey know that they'll be called again next year to fix the site when version X+1 of Explorer will be out and the site will break. > > There are also 2 ways of browsers: > > 1. Konqueror, Opera - these browser do whatever they can to support what > Opera's CEO calls "streets HTML" - which means either non standard HTML or > buggy behaviors - both browsers support those kind of HTML in addition to the > W3C standards - that way you can browse many problematic sites. > > 2. Mozilla and browsers based on Gecko - those browsers stick to the W3C > standard, so when you approach a site which doesn't support the standard well > enough - you'll get either bad rendering or you won't be able to use the > sites. > > Financially speaking - writing a web site and maintaining it work with the > latest variant browsers is a PITA. You got tons of quirks to do in order to > make the site look good on MSIE and Mozilla, and that part alone sometimes > costs more then maintaining 1 browsers - and companies don't want to pay for > it - they are fine with Explorer... Why? Because browsers implement standards poorly. Because some browsers (Kon* Op*) don't really care about standards. They're bound to forever invest time in chancing undocumented stanadards. > > Just for a kick - try to take the google web site and pass it through the W3C > validator. It fails. Many people have asked Google about it and they simply > refuse to make it fully W3C compatible. Do you want to boycott Google? good > luck, I won't be one of the participants... However, it is usable with a large veraity of user agents (not only graphical agents with resolution of 800x600 and above). And google probably activly test this. Other site builders probably don't have the resources to test their site with all the of those browsers. Writing the site according to the standards is one of the simplest testing form. > > So yes, you can complain to the webmasters of those web sites (start with > Egged, Bank Discount, Globes, Ynet, etc) - see how much they are willing to > make their web site work in Mozilla - not much, although THERE IS hope - look > at the Visa CAL case for example. As for Egged: I really don't care now, because I have a better and faster alternative. Now an interesting this will be to try to give this alternative a higher google value than egged.co.il (because this is what I personally need from "egged") -- Tzafrir Cohen mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.technion.ac.il/~tzafrir ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
