My whole point is... why bother? Why spend the massive amount of time (and therefore 'the peoples' money) making it work across all these technologies when practically everyone who is using it has access to IE.
</ quote>
Actualy webstandards ARE quite cost efective ... :D. Truly you must see how one single, simple version separating content from presentation, and both from structure, TEHNOLOGY indifferent ( and independent ) can cut your cost down ! It takes longer to develop ? Longer than two or five versions "optimized" for one platform or combination at a time ?
That, my dear, IS one of the first problems solved by the "Standards" :) Man ... how did i manage to update many versions of the same site every day over and over and over again ? Good question ... now we have the answers we seeked!
I'm not trying to sway you to the dark side here ( :D ) just trying to point some less obvious aspects of the whole "web standards thing". The tehnologyes "behind" the web standards ( wich in fact are simple choices - you can use any one of them and still have a "web standard" website or web app) were here long before people ever heard about the "standards". The "standards" are more about tehnique, atitude, awareness and less about tehnology, or not at all, becouse web standards will still BE on the web, about the web, THE WEB long after php, asp, xml & co will will be forgoten.
Oh, and yes, we bother becouse we care ;)
<quote>
It is JUST a browser, heck, you don't even need to pay for it
</ quote>
So it's Opera, Firefox ... damn i think there are a lot of them ! :)
Real question is why do YOU choose (or limit my choices) for me ? How do you know what my options are?
<quote>
...practically everyone who is using it has access to IE...
</ quote>
?
your kidding , right ?
What if i were blind ... or can't use my hands ... or ... How would i have ACCESS to IE ? Or Firefox ?
And why do you think we Human Beeings chose based solely on "availability" or "close proximity" (force down the throat it's more likely for IE) to something?
Well if you're 1 foot 80 go buy a BMW cose' you live across the dealer ...
<quote>
I respect everyones right to be different, but there comes a point when kowtowing to the vocal minority is just not fiscally responsible.
</ quote>
True only if you develop one verion for each, and only from a certain point of view. But you are not doing this anymore, or so you said, so ... you are "kowtowing to the vocal minorityes" even if you don't know it. And as a fortune consequence the "vocal minorityes" are ... gone ( for a while ;) ). Here comes the biger picture :)
I appologies for my english and for posting offtopic. I will fade now ... (buying a BMW or something)
On 7/15/05, David Pietersen <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sorry, trying to be aware of the request to stay on topic, but...> You shold be more forward-thinking if you're responsilbe for .gov web site. (No offence, please.)I never said my site was not compliant. Every page of anything I serve (apart from the legacy apps) works perfectly in FireFox and Opera, and has at least a 1 A rating. The content even works on my pda, which is Pocket PC of course ;-)My whole point is... why bother? Why spend the massive amount of time (and therefore 'the peoples' money) making it work across all these technologies when practically everyone who is using it has access to IE. It is JUST a browser, heck, you don't even need to pay for it. Years ago, in a different organisation I worked for we made a piece of 'Windows Only' software available for free. The 'Apple People' screamed their heads off for three months until we also made their version available (at GREAT expense to the organisation). I left about nine months later, and at that point 0 (zero) people had actually downloaded it. Not one. Zilch.I respect everyones right to be different, but there comes a point when kowtowing to the vocal minority is just not fiscally responsible.Anyway, I did not mean to hijack your list. This is my last post on the subject. Have a good day :-)
On 7/15/05, Mugur Padurean < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:... for the government? Me to. At least that's where i go every morning :) Exept i work FOR THE PEOPLE.
Let me point that this is MY opinion :
THE ONLY entity, whom may have a form or another of web presence, that does NOT have the "option" to choose who to SERVE ... IS the government.
Before we go into war ... do your visitors choose IE willingly or do they simply have NO OTHER CHOICE ( the site is IE "optimized" ) ?
The war ... is not between me and you ( or any other member or visitor of this list ), but between us WEB STANDARDS web makers and the ... "old ways" ( to put it mildly ).
I am in the same situation: primary web site is so ... ahhh... uhhh....ouch .... "optimized", so full of sh... tables and yes, the web server logs are so full of IE. Still the war between me and the others (compliments to my boss here) has only began and i haven't lost a battle yet.
I'm gonna kill that beast (the site) if it's the last thing i'll do.
Funny thing: for only three days we posted a page (survey) coded like it should be * hint* ( i even sneaked in a xhtml and css logo - out of curiosity) and at the end of it's life on the web the web server log reported 17 % of the visitors did not use IE. Compared to an almost overwhelming 99.99 IE precentage on the other pages ! Server log reported that every single one of those 17 % visitors had RELOADED THE PAGE AT LEAST TWICE with different browsers ...
On 7/15/05, David Pietersen < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:HA HA HA Not exactly, I work for the Government.I don't think the statistic is that hard to believe really. My website gets 30,000 unique visitors a day, and the number of those using a non-windows OS is not even worth counting.I love Firefox, but playing Devil's advocate, how can we justify to our employers spending any time developing for alternate browsers when all an end user has to do is click on one icon over another to access your content?It is fine for HTML content, and even new stuff I guess, but when you have over 20 legacy apps facing the outside world that a few (very vocal) people are screaming to be made compliant, is it really worth even considering?Just my 2 cents worth.
On 7/15/05, Paul Bennett < [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:hmmm....I smell Troll...
You don't work for Microsoft do you David?
:)
________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of David Pietersen
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 1:41 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Longhorn & Avalon - seismic shift for web standards?
> But, if you're in the business of building web apps that target a specific platform...... :)
We all do, really. I am at home, and don't have the research here, but current statistics show that 97.4% of all devices accessing web content are running on Windows. Every one of these machines has IE on it. Really, are we mad to develop for anything else? Discuss.
On 7/15/05, Philippe Wittenbergh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 15 Jul 2005, at 9:54 am, Paul Ross wrote:
> "The most important difference between Avalon and the current Windows
> display architecture is that Avalon is vector based. The vector
> structure allows scalable graphics (windows, fonts & icons), meaning
> designers can specify shapes and objects onscreen instead of mapping
> elements using pixels and x/y coordinates.
Apple (OS X, Core graphics), recent KDE (using SVG) and recent Gnome
already have this build.
> What does all this mean for the web standards community? Am I reading
> too much into this by thinking this is a seismic shift in the way we
> could be building websites in the future? In particular - what are the
> implications in the XHTML/CSS path versus something like Flash?
That will depend on what the browser supports. A webpage is not an
application.
SVG (and the canvas tag) is the obvious answer here.
Firefox nightly builds (and DeerPark dev. preview) already have full
SVG support build in.
Opera 8: idem (only SVG tiny, atm).
Safari and Webkit supports the canvas tag, SVG support (the patches
made by the KDE team) has landed recently in the CVS tree, meaning you
can already build Webkit with SVG support yourself.
Konqueror recent builds should support SVG as well.
Internet exploder: no support, except via the Adobe plugin. Maybe in
the elusive Longhorn.
As far as webstandards goes: no shift. You can use svg as a
background-image, or for a series of buttons, or...
Philippe
---
Philippe Wittenbergh
< http://emps.l-c-n.com/>
******************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm < 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
******************************************************
