Re: [WSG] Browser Checks

2005-02-08 Thread Andrew Krespanis
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 07:06:21 +0100, Andy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  If your code is compliant then just about every browser out there will be 
 able to generate 
 it with a 90% accuracy regarding design and 100% accuracy regarding content.

What kind of make believe web do you design for? Every day I deal with
horribly incorrect (according to spec) rendering across all but the
latest of browsers -- and before you respond, I can assure you the
code in question is clean as driven snow (well, valid at least :p).

Unless your '90% of browsers' refers to the browsers used by 90% of
your traffic and not 90% of the browsers available (of which there are
over 30 semi-common ones, to my knowledge) then I think you may just
be opening a can of worms purely for the sake of it.

Andrew.
**
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] Browser Checks

2005-02-08 Thread Andy
On Tue February 8 2005 09:22, Andrew Krespanis wrote:
 What kind of make believe web do you design for? Every day I deal with
 horribly incorrect (according to spec) rendering across all but the
 latest of browsers -- and before you respond, I can assure you the
 code in question is clean as driven snow (well, valid at least :p).
Well I suggest you name names and show examples of compliant html 4.01 that 
doesn't show 100% of the intented content and doesn't at least resemble like 
what you intented.

Remember that the most important part of your webpages are to provide content.  
If your content is worth it, people will return regardless of little design 
issues.

 Unless your '90% of browsers' refers to the browsers used by 90% of
 your traffic and not 90% of the browsers available (of which there are
 over 30 semi-common ones, to my knowledge) 
Possibly but those 30 semi common ones are almost always based on a common 
engine (like Geko, Mozilla, etc) and their quircks mode will horribly deform 
your pages thats why it's so important to set doctype and use coding that 
forces them to stick to standards compliant mode and not their quircks mode.

Your reference to worms is misplaced.  Obiviously your opinion differs from 
mine but that is no reason for insults or insinuations.

Andy


---
Registered Linux user number 379093
---
**
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] Browser Checks

2005-02-08 Thread Andrew Krespanis
OOPS! I just swore on list

SORRY :)

http://leftjustified.net/
**
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] Browser Checks

2005-02-08 Thread Andrew Krespanis
 Well I suggest you name names and show examples of compliant html 4.01 that
 doesn't show 100% of the intented content and doesn't at least resemble like
 what you intented.
Compliant html pages styled completely with CSS displaying bugs? Easy,
I would make some examples for you now if I wasn't already doing an
all-nighter.
Table based design with bugs? A little harder to find.
 
 Remember that the most important part of your webpages are to provide content.
 If your content is worth it, people will return regardless of little design
 issues.
I couldn't agree more, though display bugs can and will turn visitors
away. A simple example is a multi-column layout whereby the columns
are rendered with a miniscule width -- a common problem with IE mac
and complex float layouts (even with all floats having declared
widths, as per spec)

 Possibly but those 30 semi common ones are almost always based on a common
 engine (like Geko, Mozilla, etc) and their quircks mode will horribly deform
 your pages thats why it's so important to set doctype and use coding that
 forces them to stick to standards compliant mode and not their quircks mode.
Don't bring quircks mode into this, I'm talking solely about
'standards mode' -- there are still bugs in ALL browsers. If you
haven't found them, push a little harder, you will :)

 Your reference to worms is misplaced.  Obiviously your opinion differs from
 mine but that is no reason for insults or insinuations.

My reference to a 'can of worms' is entirely related to your initial post --
 echo opened $what;
I had no intention of insulting you, merely disagreeing in a loud fashion.

Andrew.

Registered shit-stirrer No. 30077. ;)

http://leftjustified.net/
**
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] Browser Checks

2005-02-08 Thread Mike Pepper
Andrew Krespanis wrote:

OOPS! I just swore on listSORRY :)

---

LOL.

First time a long while I've actually gotten a laugh from this list.

Cheers,

Mike Pepper
Accessible Web Developer
Internet SEO and Marketing Analyst
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.visidigm.com

Administrator
Guild of Accessible Web Designers
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gawds.org

**
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] Browser Checks

2005-02-07 Thread Paul
This is more of a general standards question, but if you are designing a
page for the public in general (in my case a university) at what point (
% wise _or_ # of browsers) do you say 'Okay this is the site, no more
trying to accommodate obscure browsers/older versions of browsers. ? I
know there is no stand pat answer but I would like to know what
particular people use and if there is a common thinking.

Just curious,

Cheers
Paul

**
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] Browser Checks

2005-02-07 Thread Bert Doorn
G'day
Paul wrote:
This is more of a general standards question, but if you are designing a
page for the public in general (in my case a university) at what point (
% wise _or_ # of browsers) do you say 'Okay this is the site, no more
trying to accommodate obscure browsers/older versions of browsers. ? I
know there is no stand pat answer but I would like to know what
particular people use and if there is a common thinking.
Really depends on the audience, the client, etc but I usually 
draw the line at 5th generation browsers (MSIE5+, Opera 5+, 
Netscape 6/7, Firefox, Mozilla, Safari, etc)

Having said that...  if you use structured, valid (x)HTML and 
CSS, people who for some reason still use an antique  browser 
should still be able to use the site.  HTML is not print.  Pixel 
perfection is not achievable in an uncontrolled environment.

That's my general approach anyway and I'm not too fussed about 
IE5.0 unless logs show a lot of visitors use it (as long as it's 
still usable).  Matters little to me if the site does not *look* 
quite the same, as long as it's usable.

Make it valid and accessible.  Don't add ##kB of CSS hacks, 
nested tables, spacer images and deprecated elements/attributes 
to make the site pixel perfect for 1 visitor a month who uses 
an antique browser.

Percentage?  Again, depends on the intended audience.  If you're 
in the business of selling computers, would you ignore a small 
percentage of visitors with old browsers (on old computers)? 
What if you were selling software that can only be operated by 
expert users with the latest equipment?  Different audience.

Regards
--
Bert Doorn, Better Web Design
http://www.betterwebdesign.com.au/
Fast-loading, user-friendly websites
**
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] Browser Checks

2005-02-07 Thread Gunlaug Sørtun
Paul wrote:
This is more of a general standards question, but if you are 
designing a page for the public in general (in my case a university)
 at what point ( % wise _or_ # of browsers) do you say 'Okay this is
 the site, no more trying to accommodate obscure browsers/older 
versions of browsers. ?
I you want to sell something, then you may want to include any browser
that helps you do just that.
- You may start by including all standard-compliant browsers by
default-- no matter the purpose of a site, and give older browsers what
they can manage-- limited by the time you want to spend on the job.
- Dead browsers are dead, thus should be excluded by default - no matter
how many who still use them. Users of dead browsers are probably aware
of what to expect, and we can't make their software rise from the dead
anyway.
- I personally couldn't care less about which browser people choose for
surfing. It's their choice to make, and I never read stats.
I think that's a pretty general answer to a general question.
I know there is no stand pat answer but I would like to know what 
particular people use and if there is a common thinking.
I like to include any browser - even though I haven't got the slightest
interest in 'selling' anything. I think any site on the web should be
'open to the public', and it doesn't hurt trying to make them so.
I often use a text-only browser, like Lynx, myself, but my preference is
the latest versions (at any time) of Opera.
Just curious,
Me too,
Georg
**
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] Browser Checks

2005-02-07 Thread Kornel Lesinski
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 23:57:06 +0800, Bert Doorn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Really depends on the audience, the client, etc but I usually draw the  
line at 5th generation browsers (MSIE5+, Opera 5+, Netscape 6/7,  
Firefox, Mozilla, Safari, etc)
You can totally ignore Opera 5 and 6.
92% of Opera users have version 7 or 8.
Same with Netscape 6 - only 4% of Netscape users.
(stats from ranking.pl)
--
regards, Kornel Lesiski
**
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] Browser Checks

2005-02-07 Thread Lea de Groot
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 10:03:30 -0330, Paul wrote:
 This is more of a general standards question, but if you are designing a
 page for the public in general (in my case a university) at what point (
 % wise _or_ # of browsers) do you say 'Okay this is the site, no more
 trying to accommodate obscure browsers/older versions of browsers. ?

I pick the set I think will work for the proposed audience, and test 
across that.
Its pretty broad, but doesnt include V4-- browsers without string data.
Once the site is live, I look at the stats, but I take the percentage 
from visits, not page views, ie I want to catch those people who leave 
at the first page because it looks awful.
Then I may re-evaluate.

A browser has to get above about 2.5% before I will consider doing 
extra work to support it, and often a lot higher than that if there is 
a small audience.

I suppose that is the reverse of your question - I decide how far I 
will go, rather than where I will stop :)

HIH
Lea
-- 
Lea de Groot
Elysian Systems - I Understand the Internet http://elysiansystems.com/
Search Engine Optimisation, Usability, Information Architecture, Web 
Design
Brisbane, 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] Browser Checks

2005-02-07 Thread heretic
 This is more of a general standards question, but if you are designing a
 page for the public in general (in my case a university) at what point (
 % wise _or_ # of browsers) do you say 'Okay this is the site, no more
 trying to accommodate obscure browsers/older versions of browsers. ? I
 know there is no stand pat answer but I would like to know what
 particular people use and if there is a common thinking.

Given that you have a university client...

1) Find out what is in their standard desktop install right now, AND
also what will be in their next release. That way you'll get an idea
of how the standard install is skewing the stats. eg. you might find a
disproportionate amount of IE5.5 or Netscape 6 users, since that's
what everyone on campus is using. The good news is that standard
installs can be updated - that's why you do them.

2) Universities have to support everyone to some extent, although
there are still limits. The key term I'd use (for any client) is
supported via graceful degradation - don't say a browser is
unsupported, since that sounds negative. Instead use @import and
other tricks to make sure old browsers get an absolutely vanilla - but
functional - version of the site. Voila. supported.

3) If you're looking at % of market, rank each browser in terms of
incoming or outgoing. A new browser with a 5% share is very
different from an ancient browser with its last 4% trailing away. That
will help.

4) Watch out for obscured browsers - Opera for instance is set to
identify as IE6, which makes it a major pain to get real stats if your
browser sniffer doesn't see past that. Similarly, some versions of
Safari will identify as Mozilla in many stats setups (it has a long
and strange ID string). You might also want to collate/collapse the
many variations of Firefox and Mozilla - both tend to fragment really
badly so to get a real idea you have to add all the bits up.


Hope that helps.

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
**



Re: [WSG] Browser Checks

2005-02-07 Thread Andy
Hi

Altough others may use other standards, I for one don't care all that much 
about browser percentage. HTML 4 exists more then 10 years now and users with 
browsers that don't understand HTML 4 can't be all that interested in your 
site anyway.

So with this in mind, I set my doctype to 4.01 transitional and use the w3c 
validator to check that my code and css is 100% compliant

Making sure your code is compliant is more important then hunting down a few 
pixel displacements between browsers.  If your code is compliant then just 
about every browser out there will be able to generate it with a 90% accuracy 
regarding design and 100% accuracy regarding content.echo opened $what;

With love


Andy
---
Registered Linux user number 379093
---
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list  getting help
**