Rob: Thanks for your reply. I'm happy to report that one of our major goals is accessibility and cross-browser compatability. We want to be as accessible to as many of our users as we can; we have no interest in abandoning anyone.
That said, good code does not mean it will be implemented correctly in all browsers. I blame browser differences more than our code. For example, CSS is a standard now, yet some of my users have browsers so old they do not display CSS. It seems to me a fine line between following standards and implementing a good, usable, accessible, yet visually appealing website. Regardless, I need to be able to reproduce as many people's errors as possible. Most of the time this has nothing to do with the website, but with their setup. Believe me, the site is anything but dressed up. Javascript is basically not allowed and css is the fanciest we get. Can i ask which versions of browsers you run on 8.6? Thanks! On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Rob Kersting wrote: > Carrie: > > As far as I can tell, good code will work with all browsers. Stick to HTML > standards and you'll be fine. > > It's only when people start "dressing up" their websites with ActiveX and > JavaScript and lots of bells and whistles that accomplish nothing except to > feed the ego. > > An example, I had to wait almost two minutes on a DSL for a website's > JavaScript applet to load. Know what I waited for? A damn digital clock. > Displaying the same time my computer displays in the menu bar (and in the task > bar on Windows). What a waste of time and bandwidth. > > My point is, just because something can be done, doesn't mean it must be done. > > Stick with the KISS principle, you'll be better off. You can get the same > point > across with basic HTML as you can with the complicated add-ons. > > rob > > PS- Don't get worried that you're "only running 9.2." I still use 8.6 here in > the office with great success and in a great state of happiness. > > > Carrie Yandell wrote: > > > In answer to your question about why not X.. I definitely use X at home > > and I love it :) > > > > Unforunately, I work for a church organization which doesn't have the > > funding to give me nice computers. Also, I am trying to emulate our user > > base which are generally churches and home users with not up-to-date > > equipment. We have 90% using IE and nearly 10% Netscape with others being > > absolutely negligible, less than .05%. For platforms, we have 10% mac and > > almost 90% windows with, again, others scoring less than .05%. Of the > > windows we even have 3.x users, so we're not working with high quality > > stuff! > > > > I have access to an old powermac with 9.2 and id on't even know if X will > > go on it. Nevertheless they're not about to go buy me a license for it - > > at least not this year! So I'll do my OS X testing at home :) > > > > On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Jerry Yeager wrote: > > > > > Netscape 7 seems to have overtaken the earlier versions in that the > > > number of users hitting the sites is largely 7.x users. > > > Don't overlook the rest of the Mozilla based line though. Mozilla itself > > > has a large number of Mac users as does Chimera (which is rapidly > > > gaining users). Opera and iCab also have significant userbases. > > > > > > IE tends to be 5.x for the most part, though there are still a small > > > number of 4.x users out there. > > > > > > You are running 9.2...why not run X? The number of X users is quite > > > large and all of the browser developers are nowadays putting their > > > efforts into X versions. > > > > > > Jerry > > > > > > On Tuesday, October 1, 2002, at 04:19 PM, Carrie Yandell wrote: > > > > > > > Hi! > > > > > > > > I'm putting together a 'testing suite' for work and of course I'm > > > > demanding to have a Mac to test the website on. We only have one, and it > > > > runs 9.2. My question is, if you were to pick the version of IE and > > > > Netscape that most mac users on 9.2 will have, what version would that > > > > be? > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The next meeting of the Louisville Computer Society will be October 22 > > > > For more information, see <http://www.aye.net/~lcs>. A calendar of > > > > activities is at <http://www.calsnet.net/macusers>. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The next meeting of the Louisville Computer Society will be October 22 > > > For more information, see <http://www.aye.net/~lcs>. A calendar of > > > activities is at <http://www.calsnet.net/macusers>. > > > > > > > > > > The next meeting of the Louisville Computer Society will be October 22 > > For more information, see <http://www.aye.net/~lcs>. A calendar of > > activities is at <http://www.calsnet.net/macusers>. > > > The next meeting of the Louisville Computer Society will be October 22 > For more information, see <http://www.aye.net/~lcs>. A calendar of > activities is at <http://www.calsnet.net/macusers>. > > The next meeting of the Louisville Computer Society will be October 22 For more information, see <http://www.aye.net/~lcs>. A calendar of activities is at <http://www.calsnet.net/macusers>.
