nate wrote:
>Gary Turner said:
>
>
>> page of nested tables, simply because that seems the best way to present
>> your ideas. Then take a look at the page with Lynx.
>
>i don't think that's fair. lynx is not what I would call a feature
>complete browser. links may be better to compare with. But for me
I test in Lynx precisely because it is not featureful. It is my purely
personal prejudice that any page *I* write should still be
understandable even in a browser such as Lynx.
[...]
>
>> The graphic artists, or anyone coming from print seem to think they can
>> control the final look. That may be the reason so many sites are
>> effectively IE only :( The fact is that browsers render differently, and
>> are further affected by user preferences. Since the final look is *not*
>> under the author's control, the author must test and rewrite until the
>> page at least looks ok regardless of browser.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
OK, this is hyperbole ;) More later.
>
>to a certain point of course. Even different versions of IE render
>pages differently in many cases(I've read posts by people who said
>their intranet apps were designed for IE 5.5 and the ONLY work in
>IE 5.5 not in 6 not in 5.0, not in anything non IE). To really make
Not just on intranets. There are sites in the wild that exhibit similar
limitations. As far as I'm concerned, these so-called web designers are
acting stupidly.
>it work regardless of browser you'd probably have to use HTML 3
>or below[...]
Not necessarily, just be aware of how the browser will handle the tag.
Lynx doesn't support tables, so you take care that your tables render
reasonably. IE isn't fully compliant with CSS1 or CSS2. You just have
to be alert to possible problems and adjust accordingly.
>
>But a web developer can't test every possible combonation, e.g what
>about the web browser on QNX? or[...]
>
>Some amount of testing is important, but saying regardless of
>browser goes too far I think.[...]
See my revisions and extensions above. Yeah, what you do is test for
your market. In my case, IE, NS, Moz, and Opera for the most part on
Win, Mac and Linux OSs. There are others, of course, but these pretty
well cover my customer base.
>
>If someone really wants to make their stuff work on most any browser
>they have to drop all the modern stuff like[...]Or at least make
>a version of the site that does not use such technologies.
True.
>
>I don't encounter many pages that I can't view in phoenix/moz/opera
>but when I do(e.g. mostly flash only sites) I leave and never go
>back.
Friends don't let friends use flash. I have yet to see a site that
Flash adds any value to. They must be out there, I just haven't
seen'em.
> last night for some reason I was trying to download a BIOS
>upgrade for my sister's dell from dell's support site(I HATE DELL),
>and the damn site wouldn't let in in using phoenix, no matter what
>link I clicked it took me to the same page(choose what kind of
>customer you are). Mozilla worked though so i managed to get the
>update..only to have to fire up vmware in order to make the floppy
>to update it!
Dell has one of the worst sites I've ever seen from a useability
standpoint. I've found the answer is to get customer service on the
phone and let them lead me by the hand through the site. (What the hey,
it works :))
>
>oh, and of course I absolutely refuse to load VMWARE to load IE
>(or wine or any other method) to view a site. If the site wants
>to lock me out then that's their choice. And it's mine to choose
>not to go there or reccomend it in the future to anyone.
When I run into that, and if I have a moment, I email the webmaster to
suggest they hire a designer with a clue.
[...]
Nate's comments were heavily edited. If not fresh in your mind, please
reread it. It is very clueful.
--
gt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Everything here could be wrong--Messiah's Handbook
as quoted by Bach in "Illusions"
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
