It's time to enforce standards!

But when are the users going to take the hint?

[DrDoc]

So, we all know that there are still some slowpoke users who refuse to upgrade, and who still surf the web using their IE 3.02 or NN 3 .. When are they going to learn?

But where should we draw the line?

I know I am struggling with that right now .. I don't want to kick anyone out just because their browser is too old (well, unless it is WAY old). After all, they bring in some business too.

When I design my pages, I make sure the page will at least look "ok" even in a browser like NN 4 .. But I don't want it to look too ok, because then the visitor won't get the hint.

To take it one step further, I will now implement a visual "nudge". Whenever the visitor is using a browser that can be found on my list of "outdated" browsers, a text will be displayed, explaining why it should be upgraded.

Now, this is where I need your help .. What is your opinion? Which browsers do not support HTML 4+ and CSS1/2 well?

Let me know what you think, and please distinguish between differen't OS's. (Win, Mac, *nix, Other)

Example:
Netscape 4 (all platforms)

[papabaer]

NN4 does not support the <iframe> which was introduced with HTML 4.0
[w3.org...]

[DrDoc]

.. and it doesn't support CSS background-color either! LOL

[tedster]

It's interesting to talk about "enforcing" standards. But look at our relatively sophisticated community here. How often does someone ask about a problem, only to have their code not validate. This is true even for simple things like open tags, nesting errors, etc.

So I'm pragmatic, not purist, about standards. So-called standards will become truly standard in a very large process, and on a timetable we cannot easily predict or affect. There are W3C "standards" and ECMA standards that have lousy to no browser support currently.

So when I go into the land of tightly controlled layouts and nifty special FX, I condsider it my job to meet the audience rather than thinking it's their job to meet me. My job is to stayed tuned in to reality, rather than bemoan what could be, but isn't yet.

[DrDoc]

tedster,
I think you misunderstood the meaning behind "enforcing" standards .. I'm not saying that we should (or can) force anyone to upgrade ..

But we can work toward the, in more recent browsers, currently supported standards. Those who still want to use NN4 or IE3 or whatever it may be, they will still be able to see an ok page, and that's all they ask for.

[DrDoc]

Point:
We shouldn't get any more entangled in backward compatibility than we already are.

Mnemonic:
Remember the IE3 vs. IE4 period?

[tedster]

> We shouldn't get any more entangled in backward compatibility than we already are.

I can definitely get with that.

I've been trying to shake NN4 for almost a year, but it isn't happening yet. Even my one client who originally wanted to be "cutting edge" has now reverted to requiring NN4 support, because of customer complaints.

Remember the day when the release of a new browser version was big excitement, and everyone rushed for the latest download?

I certainly did it back then, and I certainly don't now. I do get around to it, but in my own time (usually when I visit our NYC office and have a cable connection).

[AlbinoRhyno]

I find it simple enough to implement full CSS2, and just make sure to leave the content div as the first element. That way, if the browser doesn't support css2, they will still see the content they want, but the rest of the page will look disjointed, not to mention the blandness of the text.

[DrDoc]

*taps fingers*

So, back to the original question? ;)
Feedback?

Browsers: Opera, IE, NN (, AOL)
OS's: Win, Mac, *nix

Which ones offer satisfactional CSS support? Which ones do not?

[papabaer]

DrDoc, this thread brings up another issue... are developers sacrificing "forward compatibilty" while trying to achieve "backwards compatibility?"

At the beginning of the second paragraph on this page
/* [webstandards.org...] */ is a link to a beautifully designed site that asks Opera users to "upgrade" to IE4 or NN4. Try visiting the "link" using Opera, NN6 or Mozilla... Opera folks should then attempt to "move up" to the base url for another surprise.

[DrDoc]

Hmm .. Interesting ..

Unfortunately I think you're right. Lots of developers worry about backwards compatibility, and thereby they are more or less forced to sacrifice forward compatibility.

I have come to the point where I, on some sites, have no other choice but decide whether I should keep supporting older browsers, or move on to new ones. I can't do both. Or well, unless I build two identical websites .. But no one is paying me to do that! *L*

[DrOliver]

This is my point of view:

Good HTML/CSS a.o. support:
Mozilla 0.9x
Opera 6

Now whenever possible I code pages in a way everyone can use them (even with JavaScript disabled). Only latest browser users though get to see the whole excitement. So I rely on structural markup, with CSS for design, with server-side-scripting for some interaction. JavaScript only used for some non-vital extras.

For example: if a user wants to buy a book from your site, all he cares for is: "can I find the book?" and "how much does it cost?" If the site's design is not so fancy as it is in most recent browsers; who cares?

This might not be true in all cases, but for my projects it works.

But it's true we need to remember not to put vital information into an iframe, for example. Or then to at least offer a link to an alternative page where user can find the information that is originally put in an iframe, for those user having iframes disabled or with browser that don't support iframes.

There are other example like this. I use @import to hide styles from older browser, but is there a list with often used HTML-elements that can cause a problem in older browsers?

[Crazy_Fool]

i tend to ignore the older browsers these days - the global stats from thecounter.com show some 90%+ of users are using a half decent browser and only about 4% are using netscrap4 - the remainder use other old browsers or web tv etc. log files for myself and my clients appear to agree with thecounter.com

the way i see it is i have limited development time - i can spend this time working for the small minority or for the big majority, not both. i'll get more benefit from working for the big majority than for the small minority, so the minority lose out.

prior to netscape 6 (which displays sites more or less as they were intended to be seen) i sometimes used a javascript browser detect to redirect netscape users to an IE download page which stated that netscape was a poor quality browser and upgrading to IE would give them a better browsing experience. oh boy, did i enjoy annoying netscape users !!

[backus]

Most important browser, whether you like it or not: IE 5.5/6. After that the Netscapes. So far in the last year, we've only had three people using Opera visit our sites.

[ScottM]

My latest report shows 52% of my users are using NN 4.*

[backus]

For me it's 94% IE, 5.8% NN/Mozilla, 0.2% the rest.

[papabaer]

Hi ScottM,

My latest report shows 52% of my users are using NN 4.*

Doing a search for North Dakota Fishing, your profile site ranks well on Google. Reporting 52% of your site visitors as using NN4 is almost a statiscal impossibility. Your site topic is not obscure nor overly specialized. If I was planning a vacation in ND, I would more than likely use North Dakota Fishing as a search term. I would expect you receive a good amount of traffic from throughout the Midwest.

If your site was a very limited, "niche" orientated, site, one that had a very limited user base, I could understand possible higher NN4 stats.

Globally, NN4 useage is down to 4% and continues to lose marketshare: [thecounter.com...]

If you were drawing a very large percentage of your traffic from elementary schools or high schools, while receiving limited traffic from the general cross-section of the web, 52%NN4 would seem at least plausible. What sort of demographics are you reporting?

[txbakers]

I had a customer sign up last week, and she called and said she couldn't change her password. More technically - the browser wouldn't accept her updates.

So we investigated. It turned out she was using IE 3.0! I flat out told her that she would need to upgrade to at least 5.5 or I would have to refund her money. No gray areas there.

She upgraded.

[moonbiter]

Which ones offer satisfactional CSS support? Which ones do not?

In my recent experience:

• Mozilla RC 1 (Win/Mac) superb for both CSS 1 and 2.
  
• IE 5x/6 (Win) good for CSS 1, poor CSS 2 support (positioning, display, overflow and a couple of other properties. But no position: fixed ... grr).
  
• IE 5.1 (Mac) great CSS 1, mediocre CSS 2.
  
• Opera 5/6 (Win) good CSS 1, fair CSS 2.
  
• Netscape 4.7x poor CSS 1 (fonts properties are just about the only thing reliable) terrible CSS 2 (only positioning, and buggy positioning at that).

I haven't done much testing on Linux, because I just got a Linux box a little bit ago and I still haven't figured out how to use it yet except for the simplest of tasks. Alas, Samba is not a simple task, so I haven't gotten it hooked up to my network where I do all of my testing.

[ergophobe]

First, I second papabaer's reference to the Web Standards Proj. See also the article on A List Apart by Zeldman (he runs both WSP and ALA) on Why Don't You Code for Netscape? [alistapart.com ]

Also, something that has helped me a lot since I don't have a permanent connection, is to install alocal copy of SP XHTML 1.0 validator. This is the same validator as at W3C. For some reason my local version doesn't seem to be as strict with character encoding, but basically it works. There is a good page on how to set this up at

[ktmatu.com ]

I find this works better for XHTML 1.0 than HTMLTidy (which, as near as I can tell, only validates XHTML if you ask it to "convert" your page to XHTML).

Currently the CSS validator does not seem to have a local version.

[Crazy_Fool]

>>My latest report shows 52% of my users are using NN 4.*

you might find that your statistics package is incorrectly reporting spiders as being NN4. have you downloaded your log files to check them manually?

[Thors Hammer]

"There is a good page on how to set this up at

http://ktmatu.com/info/do-it-yourself-offline-html-validator/
"

I tried the above url, it didnt work. Did they move?

"i tend to ignore the older browsers these days - the global stats from thecounter.com show some 90%+ of users are using a half decent browser and only about 4% are using netscrap4 -"

Dont you mean - nutscrap? can I say that in here? ;)

"Hmm .. Interesting ..
Unfortunately I think you're right. Lots of developers worry about backwards compatibility, and thereby they are more or less forced to sacrifice forward compatibility.

I have come to the point where I, on some sites, have no other choice but decide whether I should keep supporting older browsers, or move on to new ones."

I dont profess to be a guru of web design by any means ;) but when I first started designing websites I too worried alot about 'backwards' compatibility, and things like low resolution etc...

I have to agree that there still seems to be that type of mind set out there. I can forsee in the near future that more and more designers will opt not to worry about those issues. The technology that is in place, the bandwidth solutions that are present, etc... all these things are adding up to richer sites with more interaction. And more and more people are expecting that I think, the same ole same ole 'text predominent' sites, are going the way of the dinosaur. imho ;)

Just my 2 cents worth, for what it counts..............

Thor

[DrDoc]

Thanks for your input, moonbiter :)
Now I just need some more info about *nix and other Mac browsers ..

[ergophobe]

ThorsHammer,

I clicked on the link in my post,and in your reply, both bring the page up properly without any problem. You probably just tried at a bad moment. If you keep having trouble, I can post additional instructions, but the page should be there.

Tom

[sparrow]

For what it's worth, IE5, OPERA 6 and Mozilla 4, seem to be the best when it comes to valid HTML CSS Standards.

(I think is Moz 4, I downloaded about 2 months ago).

I love opera for its direct ability to validate HTML online. Wouldn't give it up for a moment.

[ergophobe]

I love opera for its direct ability to validate HTML online.

Could you elaborate? I normally surf and test with Opera, but I don't know where to find this feature.

Thanks,

Tom

[sparrow]

Simply "right" mouse click on the page, make sure your not on an image, select Frame, select Validate Source or if you want to be lazy "Ctrl" + "Alt" + "V".

Simple as that I love it!!!!

[papabaer]

Sparrow, I agree! CTRL+ALT+V is an awesome tool to have at your disposal... It's so simple to use... anywhere! ;):):o

[sparrow]

Hey, I'm just glad to be able to add something, everyone has been helping me out!

[ergophobe]

Great! I am in the process of validating a bunch of pages right now and I've been cutting and pasting the URLs into the W3c validator. This will be a saver!

Tom