Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
Arne wrote:
JeffM wrote:
Arne wrote:
Bing Map[...]
There is worse examples of sites that do browser sniffing.
There is *no* need to sniff for *standards-compliant* browsers;
JUST CREATE STANDARDS-COMPLIANT PAGES.
Agree, was my post in any way defending any browser sniffing?
All I said, was that there is those sites who sniff but at least they
give the user an option to enter any way, other simply throw you out!
Is it just me, or isn't it incredibly stupid to design three or four or
five different versions of your site for three or four or five different
browsers because that takes two or three times as much labor? Why would
a web design firm allow their people to charge them two or three times
as much when they can simply require one compliant design?
While it is indeed "incredibly stupid" that design has to be doubled, or
tripled, web pages are designed for end users. Designers have to
accommodate end users and cannot control what browser a person uses.
And the web design firm simply passes on the cost to the page owner.
So, this sad fact has an impact on the site owner, not the web design firm.
Notwithstanding a "best viewed with . . . " notice, you really have no
choice but to accommodate all browsers IF you want everybody to be able
to view your site.
In a perfect world, everybody would use FF/SM and multiple design would
not be necessary. However, that's not reality.
BJ
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
