Re: [WSG] 'It Works in Gecko Browsers ...'
I know IE is a *huge* market leader, and I *do* make sure my sites work in IE... I agree fully with the design for compliant browsers first, then go back and fix IE* way of doing things. From my own personal experience I can tell you it is in fact easier that way. I think it's ill advised though to let that get confused with IE is an afterthought My experience is that clients have the make it look good on my AOL when I make internets from home mentality. Most don't understand standards and we can't expect them to. They bark back things like don't worry about that, we redesign every other year when you mention future proofing and just make sure it looks good is the mantra. Because of IE's *huge* market share, when the client says just make sure it looks good whether they know it or not, they are also adding in IE. After all, when they show it to three friends who show it to three friends the odds tell us they are all going to be using IE. My issue is with the simple, often tossed in there has to work in IE bit, that in my opinion falls way short of expressing the real world business importance of a site looking top notch in IE. If it's work for a client, It doesn't just have to simply work in IE, it's has to *shine*. At the very least a client site should never look any worse in IE then it does in a compliant browser. Does an element look off?, even a little bit?, fix it for IE even if that means it looks a little off in Moz when your done. Neato CSS trick fails in IE? Dump it, at that point it's nothing but bloat for the majority who won't see it (including your client). Someday MS will get on the ball (we hope), until then, if we want to make sites for the majority, we have to stop looking down our noses at IE as a bastard afterthought and start insisting from ourselves that our sites look and function brilliantly in IE, every time. Brian * 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] 'It Works in Gecko Browsers ...'
On 19/05/2004, at 8:24 PM, Mordechai Peller wrote: Some of signs that is might slip are increasing computer literacy in the general public, increased awareness of Mozilla and Opera (media reports, Opera on mobile phones, etc.), and increased acceptance of Linux. We can aid this further by educating our friends, family, and clients. Opera will never do it. The UI is butt ugly, the usability is woeful, and the whole thing feels a whole lot cheaper.\ The only way I can see a browser beating IE is if it looks, feels and behaves like IE in every way possible. They don't need to reinvent the wheel in terms of UI design and interaction -- they need to mirror it, which in turn lowers the learning curve required to switch. This is the big flaw in Mozilla and Opera right now -- they look and feel different, and people are afraid of change. sidenote My biggest gripe with Mozilla et al is that they don't use the Win/Mac standard GUI form elements and widgets, which not only cheapens the look (IMHO), but instantly causes the browser (and all the user's favourite web pages) to feel unfamiliar or foreign). /sidenote What they DO need to do is beat IE in regards to security, performance, preferences (cookies, scripting, security, etc), and yes, standards compliance, and sell the browser on these points. I've got some nice ideas on how Opera or Mozilla could be marketed to the masses, but I see reason to give those away for free :) --- Justin French http://indent.com.au * 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] 'It Works in Gecko Browsers ...'
Title: RE: [WSG] 'It Works in Gecko Browsers ...' I feel that Mozilla is by a country mile the best browser available, but the guy you're replying to there is right in my opinion. The average web user doesn't comfortably adapt to new environments all that well. Jamie Mason: Design -Original Message- From: Rimantas Liubertas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 19 May 2004 15:00 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] 'It Works in Gecko Browsers ...' Opera will never do it. The UI is butt ugly, the usability is woeful, and the whole thing feels a whole lot cheaper.\ Have you seen opera 7.50? And opera on mobile phones is reality, not something will never do it. The only way I can see a browser beating IE is if it looks, feels and behaves like IE in every way possible. They don't need to reinvent the wheel in terms of UI design and interaction -- they need to mirror it, Oh, please. I've swithced to FireFox (Firebird then) a year ago just because it looks, feels and behaves way better than IE. And even before the switch I've been using NetCaptor (commercial software), which added some features to IE. I got those for free with Mozilla. Which was the last version of Mozilla/Opera you have tried to use? Regards, Rimantas * 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] 'It Works in Gecko Browsers ...'
The only way I can see a browser beating IE is if it looks, feels and behaves like IE in every way possible. An average user will not go to the trouble of downloading and installing another browser to replace the one they got with the OS - even if it has 25% better features. M$ will dominate the browser market for a while to come - fact. Robert Reed SiteStart www.sitestart.co.uk * 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] 'It Works in Gecko Browsers ...'
On 19/05/2004, at 11:59 PM, Rimantas Liubertas wrote: Opera will never do it. The UI is butt ugly, the usability is woeful, and the whole thing feels a whole lot cheaper.\ Have you seen opera 7.50? And opera on mobile phones is reality, not something will never do it. The only way I can see a browser beating IE is if it looks, feels and behaves like IE in every way possible. They don't need to reinvent the wheel in terms of UI design and interaction -- they need to mirror it, Oh, please. I've swithced to FireFox (Firebird then) a year ago just because it looks, feels and behaves way better than IE. And even before the switch I've been using NetCaptor (commercial software), which added some features to IE. I got those for free with Mozilla. Which was the last version of Mozilla/Opera you have tried to use? You're missing the point. If Opera and or Mozilla want to TAKE MARKET SHARE FROM HAPPY IE USERS, then they won't be able to do it by alienating the potential user with a brand new interface to learn. Essentially, this would of course be a backward step for Opera and Mozilla in some ways (giving up on some of their innovations and UI concepts) but the reality here is that for Opera and Mozilla to take a share of the IE market, they need to make the transition easy. Just like Explorer, but safer. Just like Explorer, but faster. Just like Explorer, but better. Just like Explorer, but secure. ... would all be a perfect concepts for a browser trying to steal people out of the IE market. Much more effective than: Opera. A whole new way to surf the web. Of course it'd still have to remain free, and they'll never be able to overcome the fact that IE will be bundled / integrated into Windows forever :) --- Justin French http://indent.com.au * 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] 'It Works in Gecko Browsers ...'
Robert Reed wrote: The only way I can see a browser beating IE is if it looks, feels and behaves like IE in every way possible. An average user will not go to the trouble of downloading and installing another browser to replace the one they got with the OS - even if it has 25% better features. M$ will dominate the browser market for a while to come - fact. Maybe so, but if that's your short term goal, then it's time to give up on Web Standards. Wars are rarely won in a single battle. I think it would be a major victory for WS if IE drops to 80% over the next two years. There is no need to topple IE, just to put enough pressure to make MS accountable and to become compliant. Combine XP's lack of success in the corporate world and MS unwillingness to give MSIE users an upgrade path without an OS upgrade, and you'll begin to see a change. One more thing will be required: Web pages need to be better on compliant browsers. For people to switch there must be a tangible advantage to switching. For what ever reason, security has been a no-go. The learning curve to use a new browser, no matter how slight, is an obstacle. Since most people tend to be visually oriented to some degree, if it looks better, even just a little, there is a chance they'll relate to it.
Re: [WSG] 'It Works in Gecko Browsers ...'
One more thing will be required: Web pages need to be better on compliant browsers. So in an effort to coax standards compliance out of MS we should all make sites look *beter* in non IE browsers? I've yet to run across a client who loves standards and MS arm twisting so much that they would allow anything other then IE to be the browser there site looks *better* in. It look us long enough to get clients to pay attention to the fact that the customer/user is king, and the king, like it or not, uses IE. We can't have it both ways. Either we are for the user or we are not. Keep that in mind the next time your pulling hair out tweaking a clients site for IE. Chances are better then good, that IE is the browser that is going to hit that site most today, tomorrow and the day after. Brian * 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] 'It Works in Gecko Browsers ...'
This has been discussed ad-nauseum - it is fairly well documented that one of the easiest and most efficient ways to build a website is to _start_ in a standards compliant browsers, then once you're almost done, test in IE. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Pepper Sent: Wednesday, 19 May 2004 9:39 AM To: WSG Subject: [WSG] 'It Works in Gecko Browsers ...' So what, If it doesn't work in IE and its many flavours you are doing zilch for your client and your usability, let alone accessibility. Explorer is used by 94% of the Internet browsing world. I run my own stats; in fact I write my own log analysis software because I need to monitor trends and swings ... and basically deliver to as wide an audience as possible for my clientele. Thunder[Fire]bird is an extemporary browser whose execution of W3C compliance is second only to Opera's ... but we have a duty to our client, not to our ego-preened selves. Get it right in business and we will then apply a gentle lobby to standards compliance and accessibility. I'm a pragmatist. I have to be, else my clients will go elsewhere. Far too many developers wage a war of blog attrition against the standards-illiterate development world. I design for accessibility; I design to W3C standards. But first and foremost I design for the businesses who are realists in a market-driven economy. Would that I might write for a Gecko world ... but I can't. This is not an argument, it is a consideration that we must spread standards without disregard for the real world. Mike Pepper Accessible Web Developer Internet SEO and Marketing Analyst http://www.seowebsitepromotion.com This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or body to whom they are addressed. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by Norton AntiVirus for the presence of computer viruses. If this message is received in error, please accept our apologies. * 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] 'It Works in Gecko Browsers ...'
This has been discussed ad-nauseum - it is fairly well documented that one of the easiest and most efficient ways to build a website is to _start_ in a standards compliant browsers, then once you're almost done, test in IE. I may suggest you tip that on it's head. Dead serious. I build in IE then ensure I adjust accordingly. I know ahat will happen in the Geckos. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Craig Stump Sent: 19 May 2004 01:08 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [WSG] 'It Works in Gecko Browsers ...' This has been discussed ad-nauseum - it is fairly well documented that one of the easiest and most efficient ways to build a website is to _start_ in a standards compliant browsers, then once you're almost done, test in IE. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Pepper Sent: Wednesday, 19 May 2004 9:39 AM To: WSG Subject: [WSG] 'It Works in Gecko Browsers ...' So what, If it doesn't work in IE and its many flavours you are doing zilch for your client and your usability, let alone accessibility. Explorer is used by 94% of the Internet browsing world. I run my own stats; in fact I write my own log analysis software because I need to monitor trends and swings ... and basically deliver to as wide an audience as possible for my clientele. Thunder[Fire]bird is an extemporary browser whose execution of W3C compliance is second only to Opera's ... but we have a duty to our client, not to our ego-preened selves. Get it right in business and we will then apply a gentle lobby to standards compliance and accessibility. I'm a pragmatist. I have to be, else my clients will go elsewhere. Far too many developers wage a war of blog attrition against the standards-illiterate development world. I design for accessibility; I design to W3C standards. But first and foremost I design for the businesses who are realists in a market-driven economy. Would that I might write for a Gecko world ... but I can't. This is not an argument, it is a consideration that we must spread standards without disregard for the real world. Mike Pepper Accessible Web Developer Internet SEO and Marketing Analyst http://www.seowebsitepromotion.com This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or body to whom they are addressed. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by Norton AntiVirus for the presence of computer viruses. If this message is received in error, please accept our apologies. * 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 * * 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] 'It Works in Gecko Browsers ...'
Mike, I may suggest you tip that on it's head. Dead serious. I build in IE then ensure I adjust accordingly. I know ahat will happen in the Geckos. Here is why that might not be an ideal solution. Unless you are exceedingly careful, you may well have something that works in IE because of bugs in IE you have consciously or unconsciously utilised. It can be a serious nightmare putting that back on track. Keep in mind too, that almost all the differences between and more standards compliant browsers are bugs in IE. Bugs get fixed. So you are guaranteeing that your code will break in the future. HTH John John Allsopp :: westciv :: http://www.westciv.com/ software, courses, resources for a standards based web :: style master blog :: http://westciv.typepad.com/dog_or_higher/ :: webessentials Sept 30 - October 1 2004 Sydney Australia * 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] 'It Works in Gecko Browsers ...'
On 19/05/2004, at 10:49 AM, Mike Pepper wrote: I may suggest you tip that on it's head. Dead serious. I build in IE then ensure I adjust accordingly. I know ahat will happen in the Geckos. If you start with IE then patch to Mozilla et al, then your thinking is too near-sighted. The standards are there, let's use them, then apply patches to make non-compliant browsers behave nicely. What happens in X years time when IE6 is irrelevant, and you've got to re-visit a whole bunch of stylesheets and bastardised mark-up getting rid of all the IE-centric bloat to ensure it works on the popular browsers of period. I know IE is a *huge* market leader, and I *do* make sure my sites work in IE, but I most definitely tackle 99%-compliant browsers as a whole (Mozilla family, Safari, Opera, Omni, etc) first, because it's a FORWARDS compatible business practice. I use zero hacks, and try and keep the style sheets as simple as possible. THEN I create a separate style sheet for IE 6 (linked after the main sheet, so cascading applies to it), which is hidden inside an IE-only conditional comment. THEN (if needed) I create an IE 5/5.5 style sheet (which cascades over the top of the other two) which deals with older versions of IE. Again, this is done with a conditional comment, so that only older IE browsers download it and read it. What I'm achieving is a definite separation of long term, forwards compatible, future-ready style sheets from those which patch up older or less compliant browsers and will have a shorter life cycle. In X years time when IE5/5.5/6 has disappeared off the radar, I can quite easily drop the stylesheet(s) all together, or make amendments without hacks and complex rules. If you start with IE browsers, you're investing your time (and your clients money) in non-standard (or at least bloated) stylesheets which may create a burden in the future. How will your hacks and IE-centric rules be interpreted by future compliant browsers and useragents (the ones which haven't even been invested yet)? That's the whole point of standards -- you don't have to worry about that. IMO, develop to the standard, then apply simple patches for difficult browsers for a pleasant future -- less bloat, simpler stylesheets, zero hacks, less dependance on *today*'s market leader. --- Justin French http://indent.com.au * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
