Re: [WSG] rationalising my refusal to support IE/NS4
Thanks for your ideas everyone, I'll definitely add some of those things. I have also pointed out that their existing site doesn't work too well in Netscape 4 (or with Flash disabled, for that matter). On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 15:46:30 +0800, Nick Cowie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If it is a WA gov site they are quoting four year old state government guidelines which have not been updated and are unlikely in the near future. It's a WA school, so I'm betting that's where they got it from. Is that document online or can someone email me a copy off list? Sorry if it's getting a bit off-topic, I was really searching for words that would say your requirements are bad for web standards and accessibility and therefore bad for your site which I think is mostly on-topic. Cheers! -- Kay Smoljak http://kay.smoljak.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] rationalising my refusal to support IE/NS4
Kay Smoljak wrote: I'm feeling like this whole week is one big Friday afternoon, and that somehow sounds rather lame. Can anyone recommend any other reasons or throw in some kick-arse buzzwords to make me look good? Quote the pointy hairded boss: Lets improve our existing services by re-engineering our core competancies to align ourselves within the quality vector, this new way of working is a whole new paradgym One can easily re-interpret that for your cause (or for those that lack abstract thinking:) Lets recreate our website services, by re-coding our pages to align them with today's development practices, its a whole new look at the world of web-desgin) -- -DavidR ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] rationalising my refusal to support IE/NS4
Nick Cowie wrote: Get hold of their web logs or from a similar site, you should find the combined IE4/NS4 and earlier browsers account for less than 0.5% of all vistors (it is with our sites) and seeing a sizeable chunk ( a least a third) of those are using NS3, IE3 or NS4.04 (bad javascript) or earlier. Regarding the and earlier browsers, I often wonder whenever I see them listed how many of hem are real? How many are spoofed user agents? How many are people planing games and normally browse with Firefox, et al? And how many really are the best the person has available, for whatever the ration may be? I suppose if you can examine which OS they're using, you may get a big clue. For example, am I suppose to accept as ligitamate Netscape 2 running on an XP machine? ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] rationalising my refusal to support IE/NS4
Hi Nick, We successfully moved NN4 off our primary support list a couple of years ago, despite the lingering in-house installs due to NN4 once upon a time being the standard browser. My thoughts on your situation I have a requirements document here that I'm quoting for, that mentions that the web site should be optimised for IE4 and Netscape 4. Does it actually say optimised? I'm guessing yes. We convinced people that you should optimise for browsers which are current market leaders. Note that doesn't say most common, just market leaders :) I would like to educate them on why supporting these dinosaurs is not a good idea. To be honest, don't get too hung up on actually getting them to Believe In Better Browsers, since the people who make decisions and hold the purse strings generally don't really care. They might like to feel good, but they'll skip that if they have to. Wording is your friend here. We used phrases like legacy browsers will be supported through graceful degradation. Meaning you are still supporting NN4 - just in a particular way. This is like car companies who stock parts for old models for decades, since there are still a few people out there driving the vehicles. Semantics are your friend - you're not saying anything about NN4 being good or bad, just that it's a legacy browser. Most managers understand that means it might even have been shit-hot once, but now it's behind the times and we're just letting it run out its life. Meanwhile you've used two very positive words - supported and graceful. Avoid using negative words since managers might latch on to them. If questioned you can talk about different browsers offering more efficient protype and development paths but be very careful going down that path - you might get caught supporting the *most popular* browser. A potentially winning argument is quoting two prices: one to build a site which works normally in NN4/IE4; and one which supports those browsers via graceful degradation. Since the graceful degradation price is likely to be quite significantly lower, they might vote with their budget. If the site has any form of secure content you can also talk about the encryption support, or lack of it, in old browsers. This argument alone can send IE4/5.0 flying off the support list faster than you can say privacy breach and litigation. None of this is foolproof though and you can get caught out playing this game - there is always the risk that they'll misinterpret what you're saying and tell you to just support the most common browser and you're in IE6 hell. So... I hope this helps; and I feel your pain :) cheers, h -- --- http://cheshrkat.blogspot.com/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] rationalising my refusal to support IE/NS4
Hi guys, I have a requirements document here that I'm quoting for, that mentions that the web site should be optimised for IE4 and Netscape 4. Now, I'm not really blaming the client here - they obviously have no idea what it is they're asking and have probably based it off quote they got to do their site in 1999. However, I would like to educate them on why supporting these dinosaurs is not a good idea. I have added my standard blurb about cross-browser and cross-platform support, including that older browsers will receive a plain 'unstyled text' version of the site, which will still allow all content to be fully accessed. What I then want to say is that Fully supporting version 4 browsers (which are now nearly 8 years old) is possible, however extra construction and testing time will be required. We would not recommend supporting fully these browsers, as the visual design possibilities will be limited, the accessibility of the site lessened, and download time increased. I'm feeling like this whole week is one big Friday afternoon, and that somehow sounds rather lame. Can anyone recommend any other reasons or throw in some kick-arse buzzwords to make me look good? -- Kay Smoljak http://kay.smoljak.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] rationalising my refusal to support IE/NS4
That all sounds good to me. You dont want to say too much - only focus on the big things - because otherwise they will get suspicious and ask you to explain in more detail (which, of course, they will understand even less). And I know what you mean about a Week of Friday Afternoons. I - for one - will be glad when Christmas is over and things get back to normal again. Regards, Gary On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 14:43:22 +0800, Kay Smoljak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi guys, I have a requirements document here that I'm quoting for, that mentions that the web site should be optimised for IE4 and Netscape 4. Now, I'm not really blaming the client here - they obviously have no idea what it is they're asking and have probably based it off quote they got to do their site in 1999. However, I would like to educate them on why supporting these dinosaurs is not a good idea. I have added my standard blurb about cross-browser and cross-platform support, including that older browsers will receive a plain 'unstyled text' version of the site, which will still allow all content to be fully accessed. What I then want to say is that Fully supporting version 4 browsers (which are now nearly 8 years old) is possible, however extra construction and testing time will be required. We would not recommend supporting fully these browsers, as the visual design possibilities will be limited, the accessibility of the site lessened, and download time increased. I'm feeling like this whole week is one big Friday afternoon, and that somehow sounds rather lame. Can anyone recommend any other reasons or throw in some kick-arse buzzwords to make me look good? -- Kay Smoljak http://kay.smoljak.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] rationalising my refusal to support IE/NS4
Kay wrote: I have a requirements document here that I'm quoting for, that mentions that the web site should be optimised for IE4 and Netscape 4. If it is a WA gov site they are quoting four year old state government guidelines which have not been updated and are unlikely in the near future. Get hold of their web logs or from a similar site, you should find the combined IE4/NS4 and earlier browsers account for less than 0.5% of all vistors (it is with our sites) and seeing a sizeable chunk ( a least a third) of those are using NS3, IE3 or NS4.04 (bad javascript) or earlier. It makes it highly illogical to build a site optimised for the 1 in 300 or 400 visitors that are using those particular ancient browsers, but not in devices like PDAs, mobiles etc. When you can build a site that will function in those old browsers and will be future proof, work with handhelds, mobile phones, screen readers etc. Nick ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
