Forum Moderators: open
I have some trouble with this attitude, and prefer my own angle, which is to at least attempt to write code that most browsers CAN read. This is what we are all supposed to be doing, isn't it??
It's a Mozilla evangelism site for goodness sake. Why on earth should they go out of their way to privide workarounds for their competitors' deficiencies?
Rhys said he prefers to try to write code that will work across browsers. My comment was intended to support him in that.
Seems a bit harsh to me to say that every other browser is 'deficient'. Is all the rest of the world wrong here?
Surely a basic tenet of evangelism is that you preach in a language that the unconverted can understand??
When I go to a major graphics software company's website, and realize a major section of it 'explodes' into an almost unusable mess when viewed in Opera, I laugh out loud. And then I get really annoyed, as I fire up IE just so I can use the site.
By putting up non-compatible, functionally exclusionary websites, not only do I think folks are losing out on the chance to preach whatever they're preaching to the unconverted, they're also giving CSS and/or web standards (or whatever else their excuse is) a bad name to any visitor who may not understand the intricacies of browser function and web site coding.
And they're making themselves look more than a bit like arrogant jerks to those of us who understand that "standards" and cross-browser design are not mutually exclusive.
</imho>
Personally, I have finally decided to make use of the @import rule to supply unstyled content to older browsers freeing me to use whatever CSS rules work across modern "Web Standards" browsers.
Iframes?.. introduced, what, five years ago? Just how long should one wait to use this very useful tag?
CSS? Yes, simple pages can be created to display properly even in NN4.x, but introduce a slightly more complex layout and liquid design, and you run up against some very severe NN4.x limitations.
On a windows machine, those who opt to use NN.4x still have a browser capable of displaying iframes and more advanced CSS, of course I am referring to the browser that ships with their Windows OS, Internet Explorer, so in reality, this segment of NN4.x users are not excluded from anything at all... It's their choice to use a "downloaded browser" that is incapable of rendering a simple iframe or anything but the simplest CSS designs.
This is where end-user arrogance can be demonstrated: "I don't like MS so I won't use my Internet Explorer that shipped with my Windows 2000 machine, instead, I will download and use NN4.x because I don't like AOL/Netscape either... and any designer who does not cater to my prejudice is a total arrogant jerk!"
Just a bit of hypocrisy perhaps?
I bet some form of the above argument is voiced by a very sizeable percentage of NN.4x/Windows users (excluding schools, where the reasoning need only be applied to the IT Department).
Unix/Linux users? I suspect many of these users are deeply entrenched in the Mozzila/Open Source project and are either using the latest build of Mozilla or K-meleon or one of the other "Gecko" based browsers, most of which offer very good CSS support and adherence to Web Standards.
The Internet is a dynamic beast, even so, there are spikes representing the adoption of new implemetations, valleys where certain trends fall out of favor, and even a few flat spots in between.
Right now, we are in a pretty sizeable upward spike as CSS, XML and Web Standards are exhibiting their influences throughout the Web.
Growing pains? They are unavoidable.
I'm with mivox on this one, I've been working with css for a couple of years, much more so these past 4-6 months. I keep NN4.x open and reload my page each time I make a change. I want to make sure that those hard core ole' time surfers get to see what they are there to see. Sure, it presents limitations, but, you just need to be a little more creative in your design layout and not use techniques that are not compatible.
If your targeted audience allows the use of all CSS1 and CSS2, then go for it. But, if you are producing an information site for educators or educatees (is that a word?) you better think twice about cross browser compatibility and backwards compatibility. Papabaers' decision to use the @import rule is probably one of the best alternatives to this entire issue!
Sure, and I admit to some prejudice as well, my choice of browser is plain anti-Bill sentiment, I know; but putting all issues of arrogance and prejudice aside, the real bottom line is this, there are still way too many N4x surfers out there to write pages that they can't use. Why go to the effort of posting pages that aren't useable by all?
The root of all the bad rendering on the page in question is the use of the 'float.right' expression in the layer style code. It is not really too hard to work-around that, and have the page 'compatible'.
<in another ten years or so, all the "current" issues will be moot!>
How about just by next year? A big part of the fascination of the 'Web' is the constant, and rapid rate of change. I really enjoy the challenge of trying to keep ahead of this game.....
'Seems a bit harsh to me to say that every other browser is deficient'. Well, all browsers are deficient in that they lack full CSS2 support. It just happens that Mozilla (and IE/Mac - probably) don't have any problems with this particular page.
Now for 99.9% of sites it pays to be a trifle conservative. It's not your job to push the envelope on web design but to give the best possible experience to the largest number. Some compromise between coping with the quirks of known browsers and writing a clean, standards-based site (for the rest) is called for. Your users aren't interested in the mechanics.
Now the Mozilla evangelism site is a wholly exceptional case. Its target audience (almost by definition) use Mozilla and are passionate about promoting web standards.
When I first naively set about a CSS design I read Lie & Bos from cover to cover (I recommend it in preference to Meyer BTW). I put together a page, and it looked completely different in every browser I tried. I despaired, then I learnt the workarounds (e.g. @import and Tantek's box model hack), and the things that I couldn't safely use. Then I thought **** them all; when I put together some personal pages (which I haven't got round to yet) I'll just code them straight and let the browser vendors catch up.
That's the kind of site Bob Clary has put up. It's lean and mean and uncompromising. The structure is clean (using only standard HTML4 and CSS2), so if you hit that neat 'user mode' button in Opera it is perfectly functional, if not pretty.
We need a few of these sites around to demonstrate that 70% or 80% or 90% CSS2 support isn't good enough. You often hear people complain that standards based sites must always be designed for the lowest common denominator. Well no. Often. Not always.
We need a few of these sites around to demonstrate that 70% or 80% or 90% CSS2 support isn't good enough. You often hear people complain that standards based sites must always be designed for the lowest common denominator. Well no. Often. Not always.
Absolutely! How else to communicate the possibilities.
It's all about understanding who, what and where i.e. who comes to your site, what you choose to show them and where you want to be on the Web Standards/CSS learning curve.
Without someone pointing out the deficiencies, how else to address them?
Reality dictates that 100% compatibilty is an unreachable goal; new capabilities will always be introduced just as there will always be a undetermined lag-time for new user-agents to catch-up.
The Web is all about expression and choice... and variety. Use what you want, go where you will. If you like it, stay a while, if not move on.
Know your target audience... and go for it. Deliver good content in a user-friendly environment created for your targeted audience and you are heading in the right direction.
Personally, I am glad for all the variety in the world... it'd pretty boring without it.
We need a few of these sites around to demonstrate that 70% or 80% or 90% CSS2 support isn't good enough. You often hear people complain that standards based sites must always be designed for the lowest common denominator. Well no. Often. Not always.
Absolutely! How else to communicate the possibilities.
It's all about understanding who, what and where i.e. who comes to your site, what you choose to show them and where you want to be on the Web Standards/CSS learning curve.
Without someone pointing out the deficiencies, how else to address them?
Reality dictates that 100% compatibilty is an unreachable goal; new capabilities will always be introduced just as there will always be a undetermined lag-time for new user-agents to catch-up.
The Web is all about expression and choice... and variety. Use what you want, go where you will. If you like it, stay a while, if not move on.
Know your target audience... and go for it. Deliver good content in a user-friendly environment created for your targeted audience and you are heading in the right direction.
Personally, I am glad for all the variety in the world... it'd pretty boring without it.
Your users aren't interested in the mechanics.
This is what it really comes down to. Does it work or doesn't it?
I am very clear that my web based software needs IE 5.5 or NN 4.79 at minimum to function properly. I don't get into the details, and I don't explain.
It's the same way when you buy a piece of software off the shelf. It's for Windows, 233 MhZ, DirectX 8, etc. etc.
If you don't have the requirements, don't moan about not being able to use it. Either upgrade, or don't use the software.
1. cross browser accessibility is easy...cross browser functionality is simple...cross browser aesthetic appeal is not hard...the thing that is extremely difficult is making a site cross browser identical...and what the hell does anyone actually gain from that?
2. it's the medium we work in...by and large painters don't complain that they can't make properly three dimensional paintings really easily...if that's what they want to do they become sculptors...it is no good complaining that the web is the web
