Rob, you're preaching to the choir here. My intention was to ask the mac user group about which browsers they utilise, to help me make a more informed decision in deciding which browsers to install on the one mac I have access to at work. I am well aware of the need to test on different browsers and platforms since that is the entire reason I am addressing this topic. Thanks for your input, it's very helpful having other mac users opinions since i'm a newbie in the mac department.
Continuing off-topic, I'd have to disagree with you about CSS not being a standard. To be technical, there is a CSS (1 and 2) Recommendation, which is as high as the W3C go. There isn't a document called the CSS Standard, but neither is there an HTML Standard. A Recommendation is a concensus among the W3C advisory committee and accepted as ready for widespread use. This is as close to a standard as you'll get in the WWW. Furthermore, the W3C has been promoting CSS as a standard since its inception. HTML has many deprecated tags, such as the <font> tag and many other descriptors that CSS replaces. Just because many designers don't utilise the functionality of CSS properly, or that many browsers have yet to meet the W3C's Recommendations, doesn't mean it doesn't have or isn't a standard. It's more than handy, it's eventually going to be absolutely necessary in the development of HTML. http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/ http://www.w3.org/Style/ As far as I'm concerned, standards are standards regardless of how microsoft, apple, or whomever decide to implement them. This is why, like you said, one needs several test arenas to catch all the bugs. Not bugs in your code, but browser bugs that don't implement your code properly. Feel free to email me direct for more discussion, I imagine not all the mac user group are interested in this topic, so we should probably stop spamming them. :) On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Rob wrote: > Carrie, you're almost absolutely right. > > I can't imagine that CSS can be termed a "standard," based on the > hundred or so websites I visit that don't use it. It's handy, I'm sure, > but I don't even understand what it's about. > > If you fully want to understand what your site looks like, you'll have > to see it on several different browsers as well as different browsers on > different platforms. One site I designed looked TOTALLY different on a > PC box running Linux. > > As for what I use, Netscape 4.8 is my regular browser at the office. > It's clunky and outdated, but it works 90% of the time. For difficult > sites, (ie the "non-standard" ones) I'll use Opera 5.0, ICab 2.8 and > sometimes (but only under strong pressure) IE 5.2. I've also got a > couple of text-only browsers for quick information retrieval. > > I preach two things to website designers: Make it easy to find your way > around and make it load quick for those of us who still use dialups. > > rob > > > Carrie Yandell wrote: > > 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>.
