Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 22.214.171.124
Forum Moderators: incrediBILL
Why do people design for IE first? I don't get it!
I view the page in IE, but I sure don't use it as the corner stone of any development.
There are two types of customers:
1. Those who care about Feng Shui
2. Those who don't give a darn if it's Feng Shui or not.
If you don't develop using Feng Shui, you lose out on the people who care about Feng Shui.
If you do develop using Feng Shui, you lose out on nothing.
Might as well cover all bases no? It's not that tough to write valid code.
Can anyone give us an example of any W3C validated code that does not work on all IE and NN and Opera browsers?
The reasons it doesn't work in IE is
1) there's an xml-declaration at the start of the document, which triggers IE6 quirks mode
2) the server sends the documents as application/xhtml+xml which is the recommended way, but IE6 only understands text/html.
Except from the use of -moz-border-radius, the css *is* valid. I dared use it because w3c has a border-radius on the drawing-board for css3
On Mac OS X
- IE5.2 wants to download the page, and won't display it at all
- Opera 6.2 doesn't apply the style-sheet
I do it all the time. Just because it validates, doesn't mean it won't need tweaking. I validate most everything, but it's pretty easy to make a layout that validates and breaks. (Usually pretty simple to fix though.) If only I were experienced enough to code around all the pitfalls:(
Validation alone is insufficient to ensure that a page works. This page [in-solutions.net] for example, wouldn't work even if it validated, because the author failed to understand how whitespace in elements affects their width.
This second problem affects me constantly with IE. I cannot, for example, design a site that uses a fixed CSS menu without a hack or some browser sniffing, because IE does not understand that property. Nor can I use many CSS2 selectors. The CSS might be perfectly valid, but that doesn't help me. I cannot rely on the <abbr> tag, for example, because IE doesn't support it, even though it is valid XHTML. Neither Firebird, IE nor Opera seem to suppport the longdesc attribute for images.
So now, as it always was, graceful degradation is key. I design my sites to work with the newest of everything from screen readers to the latest Firebird build, beginning with the best technology, and working down to the least capable. IE6 comes well down the list.
I do NOT test and fix for old browser versions in any significant way, however. I believe that one of the reasons M$ have gotten away with a broken browser for the last 5 years is that users cannot see the breakage. Users of my sites will see a perfect site in a fully standards-compliant browser, and a slightly less attractive (but perfectly functional) site in IE6. Screen-readers and text browsers will have no problems at all, not being able to see the CSS, which causes most of the problems. I provide a slightly customized help page for IE users that explains why the site looks slightly odd, and where they can download a copy of Firebird ;-)
So, to sum up, I can get away with slight breakage in IE and old browsers because my sites don't need to make money. Were I worried about that, I'd do everything the same, but add a patch CSS file at rendering time based on user agent.
Ha, I guess it's good to see a professional networking company do a web page the old way, too!