Neerav
I understand the issue surrounding browser usage but this is only part of the picture - an important one, but still only a part. I don't know the number of people using handheld - no one does - I do know it's a growing trend.
The point I'm trying to press is the extensibility of your application. If you have an app that can be tweaked easily to be displayed across a maximum number of devices (CRT, LCD, handheld, fridge, etc etc) then you are one step ahead. Building to a standard base allows those who provide the devices to be assured that theirs will render content as you intended (and vice versa). Building to a set audience limits you to that audience.
It's a bit like if you are a kitchen cabinet builder who leaves a 600mm cavity for the dishwasher to go in - the standard width for a dishwasher is 595mm or thereabouts. What happens if someone comes along who builds a 605mm dishwasher. A conventional table based dishwasher would have to be cut down to size thereby possibly losing the super suds option. If you were to move the presentation controls back to the kitchen cabinet maker they could specify how to handle the dishwasher content by providing a different style for it to fit in - and everybody would have clean glasses.
Does that make sense :?
Until you've done something that needs to be elasticated over a number of domains (same markup, different presentation of that markup) it's difficult to see the benefits-- and there are more benefits in separating content from presenattion than a rigid table could ever give. It's grid based development vs object based development.
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
*****************************************************
