Had to reply to this one because I hear it repeated a lot and it's just not true.
> People would change browsers if they kept on getting jumbled,
> unreadable
> pages.
I have worked in both large corporate and government in the US for over a decade doing web design/development and browser support is a big issue.
For instance, just over 1 year ago we did a billing site for an "unnamed major corporation" who part way through development said "by the way - the majority of our administrators will be on OS2 Netscape 4.7 and the application must present it's best face in this browser". Of course the actual users (compared to the internal administrators) were the regular mix of browsers you see in any large public facing site.
The point here is that the internal people (the administrators) had no choice in their browser or operating system and just because they're stuck on a "dog of an OS" doesn't mean I can ignore them or tell them to get a new browser when they're blocked from upgrading.
The corporate and government users are stuck with whatever is the current internal "image" - and most of them are not allowed to change that. The few who can change it become outside help desk support if they do and the help desk can get "pissy" enough to start saying ...."well you changed your browser so we won't support you on anything" Believe me - it happens amazingly often.
For some reason many designers/developers seem to forget that free-will (as in changing browsers at will) doesn't exist in many work environments - and that many people in these work environments use the web for research, administering applications, etc.
Susan
-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Lauke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 4:06 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [WSG] Action to force browser developers to clean up their act
> It seems to me that the web developer/designer community spends a huge
> amount of time whinging about the browser developers and
> their product's
> non-compliance, when the answer to the problem lies in their
> own hands.
The onus is shared between content developers, browser developers, users
and clients, actually...
> Our apparent willingness to jump through testing/bug-fix
> hoops because of
> the newest browser offering from some spotty youths in a
> garage in St Kilda,
> beggars belief.
And what browser would that be then?
> We could clearly state that as a community we
> write/develop for a
> list of acceptable browsers which comply to standards (we're
> just going to
> have to live wiht IE - market forces).
Ah...so already here, you're making a compromise with the IE clause.
Cute. Strong words to start with, but then watered down...
> Hopefully
> non-compliant browsers
> would simply not be developed, because the pages would break
> in it.
Were it not for your IE clause, that may almost be true.
> As far as backward compatability is concerned we should support older
> browsers but for a set period. Browser software is, by and large free,
> upgrading is easy, there is little excuse for not upgrading
> to a compliant
> browser. However, there is also little need as we spend hours
> jiggling code
> so that old, non-compliant browsers, can read the pages. If
> you can read the
> pages why change your browser.
I think we need to make a clear distinction here: if by backwards
compatibility you're referring to the *visual* layout of pages etc,
then I agree...we should not carry on accommodating old, non-compliant
browsers. However, in terms of accessibility, we need to ensure that,
within reason, pages at least work (content readable, navigation working,
etc) in older browsers *within reason*.
> People would change browsers if they kept on getting jumbled,
> unreadable
> pages.
Oh...a hardliner. Unfortunately, where these tough ideas (still, softened
by your previous IE clause) meet the reality of clients and market driven
forces, there's bound to be problems...
> The developer community can take a stand here and have some
> real input to
> the future of browser technology.
Idealistic, but...unless you're going to get consensus from each and
every web developer out there, it's not going to work. Clients will just
go off and find developers with less hardline attitudes, the ones that
need the money to flow in, and bend to the will of the ones who
pay the bills at the end of the day.
>
> Hottest day of the year so far, and I'm pissed off trying to
> fix a lump of
> code that is apparently compliant but breaks in one browser
> because some
> halfwit can't be bothered to develop compliant software. For
> god's sake I
> could be sailing!!
Design (in all fields and disciplines) is about creatively working
around constraints...
> Having dangled my coat for someone to stand on I wait with
> baited breath. :)
There ya go ;)
Patrick
________________________________
Patrick H. Lauke
Webmaster / University of Salford
http://www.salford.ac.uk
*****************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
*****************************************************
