All sounds good.  Spec does mention IE/FF but client not the best English
speaker and not too attentive to details :-)   Now I have some facts I can
back up my points when we meet to discuss.  Thanks for all your help.  I
hope I can repay the favour one day.


-----Original Message-----
On Behalf Of Jon Tan
Sent: 25 November 2005 14:30
Subject: Re: [WSG] Dragon Way (Site Check)

Web Man Walking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Thanks Jon.  I thought I was going nuts.  I have had a shot of the site on
> clients Mac and it is IE he is using.  It does take over a minute to 
> render
> the code on each page!

yw Ed. Thought so.

> Code
> validates and seems OK to me?  Am I just missing something obvious?

To put it as gently as I can, yes: [1] Personally I put the user agents I 
design to in the job spec/quote so there re no misunderstandings later along

the lines of, 'it doesn't look the sme in NN4 and FF'. [2] Consultation as 
to why supporting a certain agent is being depracated / depreciated if 
needed. E.g. Cost for extra work, audience use percentage etc. [3] Valid 
code doesn not mean the pages will look as you require in the browser. I'd 
suggest development in a standards compliant browser and cross-checking 
cross browser and platform _before_ showing the client in all other browsers

as you go, rather than getting surprises at the end.

OK that doesn't help you right now but as others have suggested, pointing 
out that the IE5.2- audience will make up (I'm guessing based on stats I 
monitor) <1% of the audience might help. The alterntive is (I assume not 
realistic) gettting a Mac, testing and re-writing your code. 

The discussion list for

 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help

The discussion list for

 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help

Reply via email to