>In other words, you'll lie to your client because you think they're too
>stupid to understand that dealing with the problems in IE is one of the
>costs of doing business and no less real than paying taxes and the
>electric company.
Im sorry but i can safely say that i have no need to lie to m
>
> If you try to complain about IE to a client, they'll most likely say
> that that's our problem.
Why would you want to complain to a client about anything? Clients don't
pay you to hear your complaints.
>The truth is, since they are paying
> the bill,
> it's their problem.
I can't h
Mark Harwood wrote:
Im sorry but you never ever suggest to a client that the site will not work in
IE, 9 time out of 10 a client will only know about IE. If your suggesting
standards you should know what and what not to do to make a standard site work
accross all browsers.
I said the site shoul
Manuel González Noriega wrote:
FYI, that concept is called MOSE and described here
http://www.mezzoblue.com/archives/2003/06/25/mose/
Thanks. So someone with more clout than me said it about a year ago.
What I'm adding is that we should let the client know we're doing it,
but not charging them
Title: RE: [WSG] Make em' pay for IE
Hi Mark,
I do yeh! We're based in harrogate though as: http://www.skysports.com
Shame about what happened, I'm 21 at the moment so need to press on some more to work up the pay chart hehe.
Take care,
Jamie Mason: Design
-O
Mason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent:
>
>
>
>
>
>RE: [WSG] Make em' pay for IE
>
>
>
>I agree word for word with Mark on this
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Jamie Mason: Design
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-Original Message-
>
>Fro
Title: RE: [WSG] Make em' pay for IE
I agree word for word with Mark on this
Jamie Mason: Design
-Original Message-
From: Mark Harwood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 04 June 2004 12:23
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [WSG] Make em' pay for IE
Im sorry but
Im sorry but you never ever suggest to a client that the site will not work in
IE, 9 time out of 10 a client will only know about IE. If your suggesting
standards you should know what and what not to do to make a standard site work
accross all browsers.
I would never ever suggest a site will take
El vie, 04-06-2004 a las 12:59, Mordechai Peller escribió:
> As far as non-IE extras, they should be exactly that--extra. A site need
> to have a 100% lever of functionality and a 100% look in IE, but in a
> compliant browser, maybe the look could be 110%? Users would only know
> they were missing
Peter Firminger wrote:
I totally disagree. IE (with it's problems) is the dominant browser and it's
absolutely your problem (the web developer) to make sure the site you build
for a client works on the most likely user-agent.
Didn't nay not to make the site work in IE. What I'm suggesting is
let
Hi Mordechai,
I totally disagree. IE (with it's problems) is the dominant browser and it's
absolutely your problem (the web developer) to make sure the site you build
for a client works on the most likely user-agent.
If it's your own site then you can do whatever you want. Compliant code that
wor
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; webdesign-l
Subject: [WSG] Make em' pay for IE
If you try to complain about IE to a client, they'll most likely say
that that's our problem. The truth is, since they are paying the bill,
it's their problem. It seems that the only way to get truth through to
t
If you try to complain about IE to a client, they'll most likely say
that that's our problem. The truth is, since they are paying the bill,
it's their problem. It seems that the only way to get truth through to
them is to include in the invoice: "Corrections To Make IE Compatible."
If they say
13 matches
Mail list logo
