Forum Moderators: open
My question is, how do I know how something is going to look in older browers without checking it in every old version? Is this something that I should be concerned about, or is it acceptable to just design something so it looks OK in current browers? It's nerve-wracking to think that the person I designed the site didn't see it the way it was supposed to look, but I don't know if he is the exception or the rule.
I do not design for NN 4, and wouldn't be interested in doing so. (But that's me.) You should establish up front what browsers a given site should render well with. This will prevent the current problem from coming around again. I design in Firefox - test in IE 6 to fix any of IE's problems - test in current versions of Opera, NN, AOL - test in NN 6 - and if necessary, test in IE 5.5. (IE 5.5 is unimportant for most of my sites, and I have the luxury of just being generally aware of what things look like. Others will tell you differently. It all depends upon the owner and the audience.)
how do I know how something is going to look in older browers without checking it in every old version?
I don't have the capacity to test in Macs, and often fret about it, but never get complaints and their stats for most of my sites are next to nothing anyway.
Most visitors to this site will probably be "private" people, as opposed to people in schools or government. Also, since the organization is of interest mainly to people in the area, the number of visitors is kind of automatically limited.
One other thing: the part I didn't design is pretty old, so it works with older browsers. As I'm kind of new at this, I don't want my section to stand out as not working. But I don't know if the rest of the site is something that I should let determine how I do this part.
Start by making sure your code is 100% correct -- run it through an online validator.
Eliminate most of the CSS -- there are a few tricks you can use that will do this for NN only.
Don't start hacking in table layouts. For a browser that old, and a non public facing website, content is far more important than style, and table layouts are asking for grief later on.
Use the very simplest of CSS1 to make it look minimally nice, but don't get in a twist if it doesn't look as nice as the version designed for N7.0.
It's not true that you can't do much with CSS to please NN4, but you have to avoid letting it see such things as "float". Essentially, you have to have two designs: a minimal one for NN4 and one for those with more modern browsers.
There are a number of ways of hiding rules from older browsers. You can find a list of them here [centricle.com].
The favourite is to use "@import", but a quick method is to hide things like "float" from NN4 by wrapping the rules in @media all{}, as in
<p class="x">This text floats, but not in NN4</p>
.x { color:black; }
@media all{
.x { float:left; }
}
This method can get messy if you've got a lot to hide. In that case, use a separate CSS file to contain rules you don't want NN4 to see and hide it using @import.
You can get yourself a copy of NN4 from here [browsers.evolt.org].
In my experience at leat, a CSS layout for NN4 doesn't happen without a lot of tweaking and work-around time.
Also, if you have users with very old machines, then download time is a serious consideration. For that reason, avoid tables-for-layout like the plague (unless you know your users are heavily into knitting).
Strongly suggest that they upgrade.
Last I knew, browser upgrades were free. There is no excuse for even a non-profit operating in a broom closet to be using 4.7 anymore.
You're right, txbakers, but hardware upgrades are not free - and NN4 works just fine with 32Mb or RAM and a 90Mhz processor, whereas Netscape 7.1 requires at the very least a 233Mhz processor and 64Mb RAM (if you don't run anything else at the same time - and even then it's terribly slow). Many non-profits are running on ancient hardware such as this, and they aren't going to spash out $600 on a new computer just to view the fancy design. Most NN4 users love it for its excellent email client rather than the browser, anyway.
Tedster and TheDoctor indicate the way to go - a hybrid layout with basic non-nested tables to set the layout, and using @import to hide the unsupported styles from NN4.
Good luck!
but hardware upgrades are not free
So use FireFox instead!
So use FireFox instead!
1) Firefox just won't run on the same hardware as NN4. It needs less than the Mozilla suite/Netscape 7, but it is still too much for pre-year-2000 machines.
2) It has not reached version 1.0 yet. I use Firefox personally, but it has some bugs and I can't recommend beta-quality software to a client.
3) Firefox is not a drop-in replacement for NN4 - there's no email client for one thing. What should I recommend to replace that? Lookout Express? (there are enough problems with viruses as it is). Thunderbird? (which is even more beta-quality than Firefox.)
People running ancient hardware tend to run ancient browsers, and it's not worth the hassle to upgrade the software to something that runs more slowly and (to the client) does less, even if Firefox has better standards-compliance. To paraphrase a political commentator whose name escapes me, a webmaster complaining about browsers is like a ship's captain complaining about the sea. If the users need NN4 compatibility, then we need to provide it.
If the users need NN4 compatibility, then we need to provide it.
We pave the roads these days, and don't allow horses and wagons on them.It's been 120 years since the advent of the automobile, and three since the advent of the generation 6 web browser. There were plenty of horses and wagons on U.S. roads outside the major cities until the Second World War (60 years after the advent of the automobile). This client is not New York City, this client is Podunk, and at this point the road builder must still be equipped to deal with the occasional buggy or carriage. If you don't like it, don't leave New York.
1) Firefox just won't run on the same hardware as NN4. It needs less than the Mozilla suite/Netscape 7, but it is still too much for pre-year-2000 machines.
Beg to differ.... my "test-bed" machine is actually a 1998 AMD K-6 233. Has 2 40 gig hdds and 96 megs of RAM, and runs Firefox just fine thanks. As well as clear up to NS7 etc. About the only thing that WON'T run on it is WinXPPro - oh it installs and runs, but talk about molasses running uphill in January at the North Pole!
Evidently, some government agencies and schools still use the thing in some numbers.
While setting up a new account, I was surprised to see my bank representative fire up Nestcape4.
I don't think the archaic browser has much home usage left, but unfortunately it's still used commercially.
To keep things easy, I think I will just take some of the tables out and hope that takes care of it. Unfortunately, my design is pretty dependant on tables-in-tables, and some of the alternatives that have been mentioned are a little advanced for what I know how to do.
Incidentally, this client does have a current (or relatively current, anyway) version of IE that he uses as his primary browser. It was me that opened this can of worms by attempting to show him the site in old NN! And I know that his particular machine is capable of running a newer version. Lesson learned. Next time, I will say, "I think you need to upgrade before we can go any further..."
And besides, if somebody doesn't know how to upgrade (or they are in the majority of people who have a slow connection and can't download 10MB), then they'll just leave your site and go to the competitor who has provided a compatible website.
D_Blackwell- if you want to test on a Mac but don't have a machine, try danvine.com/icapture! It's pretty neat for the layout of static pages.
then they'll just leave your site and go to the competitor who has provided a compatible website
Not to drag this topic any further through the mud, but I think that argument is invalid as well.
I think most programmers and designers are forward looking rather than backward looking, and high-tech eCommerce sites will want to bring their customers forward as well.
It's easy to say that someone will find a competitor site, but if there aren't any compatible sites then the person will just have to deal with it.
