Forum Moderators: open
Many institutions just don't see a need to upgrade the internet browser on every computer as it takes extra time and hardware resources.
Also, many people aren't confident enough in their computer skills to upgrade and so they make do with what they have instead of taking their chances with messing something up during the installation that they might not know how to fix.
Granted, some websites might not see enough traffic in their log files from users with older browsers to justify spending the time on compability, but building webpages that are compatible with older browsers is also a good programming habit. It makes you look much more professional than throwing something together which only works in the latest Internet Explorer and saying "good enough".
So to make life easier for those who follow my point of view and have had trouble locating these older browsers like I have, you can locate just about any browser here:
[url=http://browsers.evolt.org/]http://browsers.evolt.org/[/url]
There are still a significant number of people out there using IE 5, but beyond that there seems little point.
I prefer to write W3C compliant, validated code that works properly on the current crop of browsers (IE5 & 6, NN7, Opera7). I consider this "good programming habit".
Being compatible with older browsers can often mean writing invalid code, using non-standard tags, and producing sites that are not accessibility-friendly, which to me is a far greater sin and much less "professional".
As far as I know, being W3C compliant doesn't mean you have to write invalid code for older browsers. And making an accessible site doesn't necessarily mean you have to sacrifice compatibility. Besides, making a website that is compatible for older browsers is part of being accessible -making the site accessible to those users.
But yeah there are always exceptions and if I had to choose one or the other, I would probably choose W3C compliancy over compatibility for old browsers and depending on the audience and the situation, I might choose accessibility over compatibility. But in my opinion, it's still worth the effort to make pages that are N4 compliant when possible.
If you notice, the biggest sites (e.g. MSN, Yahoo, Amazon...) all work seamlessly in N4.
Here is my little rule:
Make sure it looks good in IE 5.0+ and Netscape 7.0 (gecko)
Make sure it looks reasonably good in Opera 7.0, Konqueror 3.0+, Safari and Netscape 6.x
Make sure it's functional in Netscape 4.x and IE 4.x - if it looks good it's a bonus.
I think they have changed quite a bit in the last 5 years.
"you can't install an older version of IE when you've already installed a later version"
Just install it to a different folder or volume.
Not true. You cannot run two versions of IE using the same copy of Windows.
You would need to copy the OS and IE to a different partition. It is best to use different machines.
Personally, I "go back" to Netscape 4. It's still out there
Yup about 1.2% at the moment (according to BrowserNews [upsdell.com]) though that figure is shrinking pretty fast. About the same as MSN-TV - do you test on that too?
As far as I know, being W3C compliant doesn't mean you have to write invalid code for older browsers.
True - you could produce it all in HTML3.2 or something - but then you lose out on the benefits of HTML4 or XHTML.
depending on the audience and the situation, I might choose accessibility over compatibility.
I always choose accessibility.. if someone has an old browsers then they can just upgrade, if someone is blind then there is not really a lot they can do about it.
I'd rather support the blind than the lazy.
I always validate each page at [validator.w3.org...] site. Problems in any particular browser must then be a bug with that browser rather than a coding issue with my page.
Boy I was right about that :)
But I thank everyone for their insight. It will definately affect my work in a good way and I think I'll make good use of http://validator.w3.org/detailed.html [validator.w3.org] in the future.
As for WebTV... I couldn't care less. Don't slam me for this, but anyone stupid enough to use WebTV is too stupid to realise that every page they visit looks really bad.
If I wanted the current exchange rate for some currency or a share price, I really don't care what fancy graphics are on your site, what colour your logo is or anything else. I just want to read and know some numbers and then be getting on with something else. "Design" is often an over-rated thing ya'know.
Some people don't give a stuff what it looks like, they just want the information that the page contains.
Thank you! Thats the opening I was looking for.
Serve NN4 'unstyled' pages via '@import' or 'media all.' Concentrate on accessibility and valid code.
NN4 users will get all the content they want.. and if any of them eventually begin to suspect that the Web is beginning to look mighty plain, maybe, just MAYBE, they might consider a browser upgrade.
Being compatible with older browsers can often mean writing invalid code, using non-standard tags, and producing sites that are not accessibility-friendly, which to me is a far greater sin and much less "professional".
Grahamstewart nailed it with that quote...
and finished it with this:
I always choose accessibility.. if someone has an old browsers then they can just upgrade, if someone is blind then there is not really a lot they can do about it.I'd rather support the blind than the lazy.
- papabaer
If you notice, the biggest sites (e.g. MSN, Yahoo, Amazon...) all work seamlessly in N4.
