That topic raised some valid points of view, it really demonstrates to me the challenges and frustrations we face as web developers / designers.
The paramount problem is not actually the technique that you use, or which way is wrong / better, rather the problem is that varying degrees of the standards are implemented in the swag of devices that are now able to load our content. Add to this the anomalies that arise from slightly different interpretations of the standards by the browser developers and you end up with a pretty tricky job. There are so many variables associated with these new devices. The small screen alone is the major concern, not to mention the memory limitations. The point about the future is true, though the rate at which these devices are moving, we'll have bigger screens and more memory before too long. What happens then, do you still need to support those people carrying around that old Nokia 6600.. That's the trick.. right? Consider this. If you manage to build a site that is standards compliant and works in almost every device as expected, then you deserve a bloody good pat on the back and make sure you post a link to WSG so we can learn how you managed to do it ;) Regards Chris Blown http://hinterlands.com.au On Thu, 2004-05-13 at 10:14, James Ellis wrote: > Sorry about this everyone, flames to my address if you want. Trying again from > scratch. > > Cheers > James > > > ------------ > > James > > Do you know what percentage of people browsing the net use handhelds? I > have been unable to find any statistics on it, but suspect its a very > small number. > > My mode of operation is to always keep in mind the law of diminishing > returns when designing for a client as commercial realities must be > paramount when trying to earn a living > > So ... > > 1. Depending on the client ill aim for HTML 4 transitional or XHTML 1.0 > transitional validation and complying to the spirit of web standards (no > presentational tables etc and code that validates), or to the letter > (code that validates). In both cases I will do my best to make it > accessible. > > 2. Whatever design is decided upon i'll get it to work well on the > newest mozilla, IE 4, 5, 5.5, 6, newest opera, see if it looks tolerable > on Safari using Dan vine's icapture and in Netscape 4.08 > > 3. Anything else is a bonus, eg: my personal site is table free, and > scales from very small resoltions to very large with no problems (AFAIK) > because I had the time to make it so. > > However some clients are not willing for you to go the Nth degree of > cross browser compatibility, ill do my best to convince them but in the > end its their choice > > -- Neerav Bhatt http://www.bhatt.id.au Web Development & IT consultancy > James Ellis wrote: > > > 1. I have a multi-column layout... when I psuh the site to a layout for > > handheld I'll turn off the floats that handle the columns. The content > > will then cascade down the page. This will involve adding a new > > stylesheet and linking to it via a media attr, a user agent sniff or a > > hyperlink for the user. > > > > 2. I have a multi-column layout... when I push the site to a layout for > > handheld I'll have to change the markup so that the table rows have only > > one cell in them each. This will also affect the screen and print > > versions of the site (so I'll have to do mutiple markup for the same > > content). > > > > Which one is easier and better in the long run? > > > > faffing around with rowspans and colspans can be frustrating as well. > > The difference being that one method has a future, the other doesn't. > > > > Cheers > > James > > > > > > Neerav wrote: > > > > >> hear hear .. multi-columnnar sites are much easier to do with a single > >> wrap around table and work cross-browser than using a CSS "for the > >> sake of it approach" creating multi column layouts and "faffing about" > >> s=as Mike says > >> > >> standards are all well and good, and where possible I have no problem > >> with adhering to the letter and spirit of webs standards, but > >> sometimes things like wrap around tables are indispensible. > > ***************************************************** > 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 *****************************************************
