Thanks for the responses.
I agree with the points being made so far I am relucant to maintain two
sites
(actually I am using PHP to rebuild the junk from the XHTML semantic
site and will be adding a full flash version too :) but this is not a
php list )
Bert Doorn wrote:
Why? What benefit does anyone (developer, site owner, 1 visitor in a
million) gain from that junk HTML?
Its down to what users are expecting really. The site owner and visitor
are not expecting a plain unformated site
Bert Doorn wrote:
Just hide the CSS they don't understand and give them a plain-vanilla
site. They'll get used to it as more and more sites go down that path.
I hope we get there soon....
Bob McClelland wrote:
You can easily chack if someone's browser has DOM support...
and this will redirect the user to an alternative html file of your
choice: some folk suggest that the user upgrades and provides link(s)
accordingly, some redirect to a basic page.
However, in the long run, it isn't worth it, as the others have said.
Just let the page degrade gracefully in old browsers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
new resolution
Basic Splash Page that degrades (though in my case it can't degrade too
much) directing the user to a site more suited to them (with some PHP
trickery and a list of Bad Browsers)
I don't want to emabrk upon a a tangent taking us off the focus of this
list, lets say I had a list of known bad browsers and they get put to
Junk/Old Skool site and all others go to the full xhtml experience
(others later can view the full flash experience)
Since this is a music media site the main user base are expecting glitz
n glamour, bells n whisltes a plenty. Not giving them this is against
the wishes of the site owner.
The other alternative is to rule out webstandards for thhis project.
which woul mean ruling out the benefits also - site owner would enjoy
these, as would visitor, as would I!!!!
atb egar to see what you think > S
Bert Doorn wrote:
G'day
What I would like to be able to do is detect to see if the user has
the proper support
for web standards and if not redirect them to a version of the site
using old skool junk HTML
Why? What benefit does anyone (developer, site owner, 1 visitor in a
million) gain from that junk HTML?
Owen Briggs used a style class named .ahem set to display: hidden
which links user to alternative content
If a site is properly constructed with (x)html, it will be accessible
in IE/NN4 (and perhaps older versions). Give them working, accessible
content without frills, rather than bending over backwards to give
them something that looks the same but is an awful mess in the engine
compartment.
of course i am seeking to make this whole thing graceful and silent,
ie users don't have to be aware or made
aware of thier inefior browser just get redirected.
So I am wondering:
what the WSG members think of the idea?
I am but one member and can't speak for the others, but I think it a
waste of time. Why maintain two separate versions (or 3 if you throw
in a "text only" version) when one will do?
Just hide the CSS they don't understand and give them a plain-vanilla
site. They'll get used to it as more and more sites go down that path.
Regards
******************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
******************************************************
