Re: [WSG] Developing for Mac Browsers

[Joseph Taylor]

I would try to get an old cheap G3 or something on ebay, you can get 
them very cheaply and often with OSX installed.


The rendering differences between Firefox etc will be similar, but the 
respective font sizes will be a little different (a little smaller on 
the mac).


Joseph R. B. Taylor
/Designer / Developer/
--
Sites by Joe, LLC
/"Clean, Simple and Elegant Web Design"/
Phone: (609) 335-3076
Fax: (866) 301-8045
Web: http://sitesbyjoe.com
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Peter Mount wrote:

Hi

I'm tossing up whether to buy a Mac or to save my money and buy a new 
PC and just have Linux and Windows on it. I've read that Safari for 
Windows will help Web Developers without a Mac be able to develop for 
that.


Is there a difference between Mac versions of browsers like Firefox 
and Safari or can I safely develop in non Mac versions and expect my 
web sites to behave the same on the Mac?


Currently my main OS is Kubuntu but I'll soon be trialling Red Hat 
Desktop 5 Multi OS.


Thanks




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***begin:vcard
fn:Joseph Taylor
n:Taylor;Joseph
org:Sites by Joe, LLC
adr:;;408 Route 47 South;Cape May Court House;NJ;08210;USA
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Designer / Developer
tel;work:609-335-3076
tel;fax:866-301-8045
tel;cell:609-335-3076
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
url:http://sitesbyjoe.com
version:2.1
end:vcard

Re: [WSG] Developing for Mac Browsers

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

There are some differences between the windows versions and the mac
versions, but if it works on windows, it is very likely it will work on mac
as well.
But aside from buying a mac, you can try to use an emulator or a virtual
machine and test the website from there.
You can also try to use this site (browsershots) .

Good Luck!

On Jan 13, 2008 7:51 AM, Peter Mount <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi
>
> I'm tossing up whether to buy a Mac or to save my money and buy a new PC
> and just have Linux and Windows on it. I've read that Safari for Windows
> will help Web Developers without a Mac be able to develop for that.
>
> Is there a difference between Mac versions of browsers like Firefox and
> Safari or can I safely develop in non Mac versions and expect my web
> sites to behave the same on the Mac?
>
> Currently my main OS is Kubuntu but I'll soon be trialling Red Hat
> Desktop 5 Multi OS.
>
> Thanks
>
> --
> Peter Mount
> Web Development for Business
> Mobile: 0411 276602
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.petermount.com
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***
>
>


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] standards-compliant designers

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

That's a great idea, I think i'll do that too.
it's really annoying that people disregard the fact that there are other
browsers out there, and make their site solely for ie6 and they don't even
think about validating it...
But your idea is good, to tell them about it will hopefully bring a change,
especially if it gets a following and more people do it.

On Jan 12, 2008 3:34 PM, Viable Design <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> There is blame to go around, for sure.
>
> I had an accessibility issue just this morning, while trying to find out
> about filing an insurance claim on my husband's car (which someone ran into
> in the middle of the night ... and took off). In Firefox, my browser of
> choice, the text on the page I needed was overlapping, and many of the links
> were not "clickable." I switched to IE, and the page was totally fine;
> everything was in perfect working order.
>
> I couldn't help but check the source code, and of course, it was designed
> using tables. There were 187 errors, according to the W3C validation
> service. I e-mailed the company and received a quick reply that they had
> recently discovered an error that was preventing "a small number of
> customers" from accessing their claim information. Pretty generic, as
> expected.
>
> The company is customer-service based, according to its policies and my
> experience, so why would the powers that be within it not choose to make its
> Web site accessible to all? It's not like they don't have the money to make
> it happen. I propose that most people would choose not to inform them of the
> difficulties they have in the first place.
>
> It reminds me of the days (long ago!) when I was a waitress. Most of the
> customers who had a bad experience due to the food or the service (from
> other waitresses, of course!) wouldn't complain or explain; they'd merely
> pay their bills and leave, never to return, intent on informing everyone
> they knew about that awful restaurant.
>
> And then I think about how many times I personally have chosen to just let
> bad experiences go in fast-food restaurants, convenience stores, gas
> stations. The girl who jerked my money out of my hand with a scowl on her
> face and no thank-you. The guy who took five minutes to wait on me because
> he was too busy on his cell phone. I have gone to the manager sometimes, but
> most of the time, I just consider it too much hassle and let it go.
>
> The same is surely true of Internet experiences, I propose, at an
> exponentially greater rate of occurrence. The next page is just a click
> away. If it's a page that must be accessed, however, as in my insurance
> experience this morning, it's a different story, of course. But most of the
> time, I personally simply leave the site and make a note of what not to do.
>
> I'm self-taught. I sorted through HTML as a sort of grief therapy when I'd
> lost my baby (and almost gone with him) in 1999 and was out of work for
> months. I began learning about CSS more than three years ago and only
> learned about accessibility/Web standards within the last couple of years.
> But I'm diligently learning as much as I can (with three kids and a
> full-time teaching job that invariably comes home with me most days...).
>
> I'm going to make it my personal goal to begin contacting the people who
> make sites that aren't accessible to let them know in what way I had
> difficulty using their site. Not in a lofty, condescending way, but in a "I
> thought you may want to know" way. Maybe they won't care. Maybe they'll be
> offended. Maybe they won't get it at all. Maybe it won't do any good.
>
> But maybe it will.
>
>
> Jo Hawke
> http://www.viabledesign.com
>
>
>
> On Jan 9, 2008 8:59 PM, Matthew Barben < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I tend to agree with Mark. IT guys in my experience tend not to be
> > 'joiners' you work in a corporate IT department and you will quickly
> > realise that people use terms like 'Crypt' and 'Beige'
> >
> > I have worked from both sides of the fence as both an indepentant but
> > also
> > as the main web guy within a large organisation. Yes there are
> > situations
> > where we have had to use external vendors to design websites purely
> > because they have to resources to deliver quickly...and I can see how
> > these agencies can produce very poor code and have the business owner
> > say
> > 'yes'. But there are also organisations where they will impose a set of
> > design guidelines upon these firms and really put the pressure on them
> > to
> > deliver (especially is industries where you are an essential service and
> > need to deliver to a wide audience of both abled and disabled people).
> >
> > Does it make the firm a bunch of non-compliant designers...perhaps. But
> > I
> > say for every poorly design website, there is someone who says  'Yes
> > that
> > is what I want' or  'that'll do'.
> >
> > > Steve Green wrote:
> > >> Of course I made up that 1% figure but I don't suppose it's far out.
> > >> Just
> > >

[WSG] Developing for Mac Browsers

[Peter Mount]

Hi

I'm tossing up whether to buy a Mac or to save my money and buy a new PC 
and just have Linux and Windows on it. I've read that Safari for Windows 
will help Web Developers without a Mac be able to develop for that.


Is there a difference between Mac versions of browsers like Firefox and 
Safari or can I safely develop in non Mac versions and expect my web 
sites to behave the same on the Mac?


Currently my main OS is Kubuntu but I'll soon be trialling Red Hat 
Desktop 5 Multi OS.


Thanks

--
Peter Mount
Web Development for Business
Mobile: 0411 276602
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.petermount.com


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] standards-compliant designers and shoddy work poor QA

[Steve Olive]

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 12:31:45 pm Michael Horowitz wrote:
> The answer is very simple.  100% of potential users of a website have IE
> on their computer.  
>
> Michael Horowitz
> Your Computer Consultant
> http://yourcomputerconsultant.com
> 561-394-9079
>

Sorry to spoil your fun Michael, but 100% of Apple Mac OS X 10.4 or better 
don't have IE installed at all. There are also 100% of Linux users who don't 
have IE installed by default. Nokia, Motorola, etc don't have IE installed on 
mobile devices. The Asus EeePC, the hottest selling bit of technology at the 
moment, does not have IE installed. IE can't be installed unless the 
custom-built default OS is replaced by Windows XP, which is not a simple 
process and unlikely to be be attempted by regular users.

Cross platform compatibility, with fluid designs, is becoming even more of a 
requirement as people start to use non-Microsoft products.


-- 
Regards,

Steve
Bathurst Computer Solutions
URL: www.bathurstcomputers.com.au
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mobile: 0407 224 251
 _
... (0)>
... / / \
.. / / . )
.. V_/_
Linux Powered!
Registered Linux User #355382
Registered Ubuntu User #19586


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] standards-compliant designers and shoddy work poor QA

[Michael Horowitz]

The answer is very simple.  100% of potential users of a website have IE 
on their computer.  Every user smart enough to know there are non IE 
browsers are smart enough to know sometimes you have to switch back to 
IE to make the website work.


The question becomes from a business perspective is the additional funds 
needed to train their developers to code in a compliants standard way, 
hire a proper qa department etc worth it.


I've seen worse issues.  Had someone ask me to review their new website 
and the first problem I found is you can't submit their contact form 
because the javascript is looking for a field that isn't there.  
Obvsiously the web design firm they hired dropped in a javascript for to 
check fields and was so incompetent they didn't customize it for this 
customer. The customer on the other hand didn't bother to check if their 
form submitted or go through it before paying them.


Then there is the website I went to where you had to pay to read the 
authors short stories.  Or you could enter user id test password test 
and enter the password protected site and read all the stories for 
free.  Great web design firm he hired.


QA has always been the area most software companies fail on.  The QA guy 
is the mean person who tells  you you screwed up.  The last time I 
worked for someone they had a policy not to release a new version of 
their software when it had outstanding show stopper issues.  So the CIO 
solved the problem by ordering QA to downgrade Show Stopper issues to a 
lower category of problem so he could send out the next release and sell 
more software to customers.  Solving the actual problem was beyond them 
of course but if you downgraded it he "solved" the issue.  I was not 
popular for suggesting this was not a good QA practice.  But heck I was 
just the implementation specialist who had to deal with the customer 
when the software didn't work as promised. 

Shoddy work is nothing new.  It will end when it impacts customers to 
the point it costs people business. 


Michael Horowitz
Your Computer Consultant
http://yourcomputerconsultant.com
561-394-9079



Viable Design wrote:

There is blame to go around, for sure.

I had an accessibility issue just this morning, while trying to find 
out about filing an insurance claim on my husband's car (which someone 
ran into in the middle of the night ... and took off). In Firefox, my 
browser of choice, the text on the page I needed was overlapping, and 
many of the links were not "clickable." I switched to IE, and the page 
was totally fine; everything was in perfect working order.


I couldn't help but check the source code, and of course, it was 
designed using tables. There were 187 errors, according to the W3C 
validation service. I e-mailed the company and received a quick reply 
that they had recently discovered an error that was preventing "a 
small number of customers" from accessing their claim information. 
Pretty generic, as expected.


The company is customer-service based, according to its policies and 
my experience, so why would the powers that be within it not choose to 
make its Web site accessible to all? It's not like they don't have the 
money to make it happen. I propose that most people would choose not 
to inform them of the difficulties they have in the first place.


It reminds me of the days (long ago!) when I was a waitress. Most of 
the customers who had a bad experience due to the food or the service 
(from other waitresses, of course!) wouldn't complain or explain; 
they'd merely pay their bills and leave, never to return, intent on 
informing everyone they knew about that awful restaurant.


And then I think about how many times I personally have chosen to just 
let bad experiences go in fast-food restaurants, convenience stores, 
gas stations. The girl who jerked my money out of my hand with a scowl 
on her face and no thank-you. The guy who took five minutes to wait on 
me because he was too busy on his cell phone. I have gone to the 
manager sometimes, but most of the time, I just consider it too much 
hassle and let it go.


The same is surely true of Internet experiences, I propose, at an 
exponentially greater rate of occurrence. The next page is just a 
click away. If it's a page that must be accessed, however, as in my 
insurance experience this morning, it's a different story, of course. 
But most of the time, I personally simply leave the site and make a 
note of what not to do.


I'm self-taught. I sorted through HTML as a sort of grief therapy when 
I'd lost my baby (and almost gone with him) in 1999 and was out of 
work for months. I began learning about CSS more than three years ago 
and only learned about accessibility/Web standards within the last 
couple of years. But I'm diligently learning as much as I can (with 
three kids and a full-time teaching job that invariably comes home 
with me most days...).


I'm going to make it my personal goal to begin contacting the people 
w

Re: [WSG] standards-compliant designers

[Viable Design]

There is blame to go around, for sure.

I had an accessibility issue just this morning, while trying to find out
about filing an insurance claim on my husband's car (which someone ran into
in the middle of the night ... and took off). In Firefox, my browser of
choice, the text on the page I needed was overlapping, and many of the links
were not "clickable." I switched to IE, and the page was totally fine;
everything was in perfect working order.

I couldn't help but check the source code, and of course, it was designed
using tables. There were 187 errors, according to the W3C validation
service. I e-mailed the company and received a quick reply that they had
recently discovered an error that was preventing "a small number of
customers" from accessing their claim information. Pretty generic, as
expected.

The company is customer-service based, according to its policies and my
experience, so why would the powers that be within it not choose to make its
Web site accessible to all? It's not like they don't have the money to make
it happen. I propose that most people would choose not to inform them of the
difficulties they have in the first place.

It reminds me of the days (long ago!) when I was a waitress. Most of the
customers who had a bad experience due to the food or the service (from
other waitresses, of course!) wouldn't complain or explain; they'd merely
pay their bills and leave, never to return, intent on informing everyone
they knew about that awful restaurant.

And then I think about how many times I personally have chosen to just let
bad experiences go in fast-food restaurants, convenience stores, gas
stations. The girl who jerked my money out of my hand with a scowl on her
face and no thank-you. The guy who took five minutes to wait on me because
he was too busy on his cell phone. I have gone to the manager sometimes, but
most of the time, I just consider it too much hassle and let it go.

The same is surely true of Internet experiences, I propose, at an
exponentially greater rate of occurrence. The next page is just a click
away. If it's a page that must be accessed, however, as in my insurance
experience this morning, it's a different story, of course. But most of the
time, I personally simply leave the site and make a note of what not to do.

I'm self-taught. I sorted through HTML as a sort of grief therapy when I'd
lost my baby (and almost gone with him) in 1999 and was out of work for
months. I began learning about CSS more than three years ago and only
learned about accessibility/Web standards within the last couple of years.
But I'm diligently learning as much as I can (with three kids and a
full-time teaching job that invariably comes home with me most days...).

I'm going to make it my personal goal to begin contacting the people who
make sites that aren't accessible to let them know in what way I had
difficulty using their site. Not in a lofty, condescending way, but in a "I
thought you may want to know" way. Maybe they won't care. Maybe they'll be
offended. Maybe they won't get it at all. Maybe it won't do any good.

But maybe it will.


Jo Hawke
http://www.viabledesign.com



On Jan 9, 2008 8:59 PM, Matthew Barben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I tend to agree with Mark. IT guys in my experience tend not to be
> 'joiners' you work in a corporate IT department and you will quickly
> realise that people use terms like 'Crypt' and 'Beige'
>
> I have worked from both sides of the fence as both an indepentant but also
> as the main web guy within a large organisation. Yes there are situations
> where we have had to use external vendors to design websites purely
> because they have to resources to deliver quickly...and I can see how
> these agencies can produce very poor code and have the business owner say
> 'yes'. But there are also organisations where they will impose a set of
> design guidelines upon these firms and really put the pressure on them to
> deliver (especially is industries where you are an essential service and
> need to deliver to a wide audience of both abled and disabled people).
>
> Does it make the firm a bunch of non-compliant designers...perhaps. But I
> say for every poorly design website, there is someone who says  'Yes that
> is what I want' or  'that'll do'.
>
> > Steve Green wrote:
> >> Of course I made up that 1% figure but I don't suppose it's far out.
> >> Just
> >> look at the phenomenal number of crap websites out there. There are
> >> something like 100,000 people offering web design services in the UK
> >> (10,000
> >> in London alone) yet GAWDS membership (which is global) is only around
> >> 500
> >> and I believe WSG membership is similar.
> >
> > Don't confuse volume with quantity. Lots of people do. There are a lot
> > of crap sites out there but that doesn't mean there's 1 crap designer
> > for every crap site. A lot of the time, the crapness has to do with the
> > business manager who over-rules any technical considerations because he
> > wants anim