Nov 5, 2001, 5:27 AM
Veteran / Moderator (4108 posts)
Nov 5, 2001, 5:27 AM
Post #27 of 54
Views: 20297
I never test my pages with the W3 Validators, Paul. And it doesn't suprise me that it gives you errors.
The nature of my main web page (www.fbagroup.co.uk) could never ever be W3 compatible, due to that stupid line going up the left hand side.
I blame it on these graphic designers that keep nagging in my ear ;-)
- wil
The nature of my main web page (www.fbagroup.co.uk) could never ever be W3 compatible, due to that stupid line going up the left hand side.
I blame it on these graphic designers that keep nagging in my ear ;-)
- wil
Nov 5, 2001, 5:32 AM
Veteran / Moderator (4108 posts)
Nov 5, 2001, 5:32 AM
Post #28 of 54
Views: 20446
Not really, Paul.
I see Mosiac kicking off a big storm with developers. I think it's the developers choice to be honest with you.
And if we are to believe the broadband hype, we can expect to see a lot more WebTV users.
Your problem is that that you don't remember the net in the early days of Mosaic (the browser that IE is based so poorly on) and Netscape.
I have to agree with , I don't understand your fixation with Microsoft products, and the fact that they have a monopoly must make them a good product. Have you ever driven a Ford?!!!!!
A very good quote comes from Linus Torvalds (the man behind Linux) :
That was a quote from Cisco systems interviewing him (saw this on Slashdot).
Wil
- wil
I see Mosiac kicking off a big storm with developers. I think it's the developers choice to be honest with you.
And if we are to believe the broadband hype, we can expect to see a lot more WebTV users.
Your problem is that that you don't remember the net in the early days of Mosaic (the browser that IE is based so poorly on) and Netscape.
I have to agree with , I don't understand your fixation with Microsoft products, and the fact that they have a monopoly must make them a good product. Have you ever driven a Ford?!!!!!
A very good quote comes from Linus Torvalds (the man behind Linux) :
Quote:
When asked about Microsoft he said - "Well, I don't know. I’m actually not a big Microsoft basher... They’re very good at marketing. They’re very good at trying to see What do we have to do to sell this? The bad part about it is that it does have a huge market share. And that means that it can be lazy, sort of. They don’t have much competition on the desktop, which means that they have very little incentive to really fix some of the problems it does have."Wil
- wil
Nov 5, 2001, 5:49 AM
Veteran (19537 posts)
Nov 5, 2001, 5:49 AM
Post #29 of 54
Views: 20629
Quote:
I never test my pages with the W3 Validators, Paul. And it doesn't suprise me that it gives you errors.....out roll the excuses..... The doctype is the first thing you should add...you don't need a validator to tell you you missed it.
Quote:
Your problem is that that you don't remember the net in the early days of Mosaic (the browser that IE is based so poorly on)Lets not forget Mozilla that Netscape is so poorly based on
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I don't have a problem if you like Netscape.
Nov 5, 2001, 6:10 AM
Veteran / Moderator (4108 posts)
Nov 5, 2001, 6:10 AM
Post #30 of 54
Views: 20392
I don't like Netscape. I like Mozilla. And I like gecko which it is based upon.
There are no excuses with me Paul. I know that my pages will not pass. Well, that paticular site, because it was built using Dreamweaver by our design team who are not familiar with the world wide web.
I then had to convert these into more browser friendly pages, which gave me a real headache. Ever tried working with a bunch of print designers who really don't have a clue what the web is all about? 'So what's wrong with a high-res, 79mb image ???'. << shudder >>.
When I have the time I'll redoe the site using layers, which should allow me to redo what the designers orignally had in mind (overlapping images and so forth). Until then, the site can be viewed on all browsers that visit the site, so I don't have much of a problem.
I have much more of a problem with the Flash files on my site actually, and the fact that a lot of information is within the flash graphics. This, in my opinion, is very very bad. Especially as this is a site for a PR company trying to get the message out to a maximum audience.
- wil
There are no excuses with me Paul. I know that my pages will not pass. Well, that paticular site, because it was built using Dreamweaver by our design team who are not familiar with the world wide web.
I then had to convert these into more browser friendly pages, which gave me a real headache. Ever tried working with a bunch of print designers who really don't have a clue what the web is all about? 'So what's wrong with a high-res, 79mb image ???'. << shudder >>.
When I have the time I'll redoe the site using layers, which should allow me to redo what the designers orignally had in mind (overlapping images and so forth). Until then, the site can be viewed on all browsers that visit the site, so I don't have much of a problem.
I have much more of a problem with the Flash files on my site actually, and the fact that a lot of information is within the flash graphics. This, in my opinion, is very very bad. Especially as this is a site for a PR company trying to get the message out to a maximum audience.
- wil
Nov 5, 2001, 7:49 AM
Veteran (1141 posts)
Nov 5, 2001, 7:49 AM
Post #31 of 54
Views: 20147
I recently installed NT 4 and it came with IE 2 (or was it 3?). I thought "Oh, I'll zip over to Microsoft and download 6x." Guess what? You can't get to Microsoft's web site with a 2x browser. You'd think of all people in the world, M$ would make it's own sites compatible with it's own products.
Eliot will be pleased to know his site came up (although at 640 x 480 & 16 colors it wasn't pretty).
I view javascript as a 'personal option' like cookies, so if my javascript works and you choose to turn it off, then that is your personal choice so my page may not work properly, but that doesn't mean it's 'broken'.
However, at work we do have a target audience and we flat out tell them that they need IE 5x or higher, and it may or may not work with NS 6x. We view it as installing software, you have minimum specifications to make our software (website) work if you want to use our services. (legal docs).
Eliot will be pleased to know his site came up (although at 640 x 480 & 16 colors it wasn't pretty).
I view javascript as a 'personal option' like cookies, so if my javascript works and you choose to turn it off, then that is your personal choice so my page may not work properly, but that doesn't mean it's 'broken'.
However, at work we do have a target audience and we flat out tell them that they need IE 5x or higher, and it may or may not work with NS 6x. We view it as installing software, you have minimum specifications to make our software (website) work if you want to use our services. (legal docs).
Nov 5, 2001, 7:36 PM
Veteran (17240 posts)
Nov 5, 2001, 7:36 PM
Post #34 of 54
Views: 20044
Yes, I know...
Here are my design specs for AnthroTECH sites:
Web Browser: NS 4.X (with some level of degradation going back to NS 3.0)/IE 4.X (with some degradation going back to IE 3.02)
Operating System: Windows 95/98/NT/2000 and Macintosh 8.0 and 10.0
Screen Resolution: 800X600 (yet browsable with 640X480)
Colors: 256
Basically, these specs are the same at my "real" job (business school), but Macs will be taken out of our testing procedures by Feb. 2002, when my boss and co-workers move to PCs/Windows 2000. The percentage of Mac users will go down to .5% (which doesn't warrant extensive testing on that OS).
========================================
Buh Bye!
Cheers,
Me
Here are my design specs for AnthroTECH sites:
Web Browser: NS 4.X (with some level of degradation going back to NS 3.0)/IE 4.X (with some degradation going back to IE 3.02)
Operating System: Windows 95/98/NT/2000 and Macintosh 8.0 and 10.0
Screen Resolution: 800X600 (yet browsable with 640X480)
Colors: 256
Basically, these specs are the same at my "real" job (business school), but Macs will be taken out of our testing procedures by Feb. 2002, when my boss and co-workers move to PCs/Windows 2000. The percentage of Mac users will go down to .5% (which doesn't warrant extensive testing on that OS).
========================================
Buh Bye!
Cheers,
Me
Nov 6, 2001, 1:33 AM
Veteran / Moderator (4108 posts)
Nov 6, 2001, 1:33 AM
Post #35 of 54
Views: 20201
Nov 6, 2001, 6:39 AM
Veteran / Moderator (4108 posts)
Nov 6, 2001, 6:39 AM
Post #43 of 54
Views: 20155
Aha.
I see the main TABLE with the tag NAME="main" attached to it.
I remember now! That's still there from when I tried to have the left hand nav bar move in on open using DHTML. I scrapped the idea in the end, in favor of less gimicks and more user friendly pages.
What I didnt' scrap, was the redundant tags.
Thanks for the heads up.
Cheers
Wil
- wil
I see the main TABLE with the tag NAME="main" attached to it.
I remember now! That's still there from when I tried to have the left hand nav bar move in on open using DHTML. I scrapped the idea in the end, in favor of less gimicks and more user friendly pages.
What I didnt' scrap, was the redundant tags.
Thanks for the heads up.
Cheers
Wil
- wil
Mar 15, 2002, 11:14 AM
New User (3 posts)
Mar 15, 2002, 11:14 AM
Post #44 of 54
Views: 20104
I completely sympathize with the MS-hating here, but it seems to be warping some minds. MSIE is *much* easier to develop for, especially for more advanced client-side stuff like DHTML, but we can't drop Netscape YET....I make a mix of corporate identity and ecommerce sites for various fortune 500s, and netscape 4x users are down into the single digits now but still there.
What gives me hope, actually, is NS6.2.....I am blown away at the amount of code that I wrote for IE that works great in ns6.2; I would save a good 10% of my development time if all those NS4x users would make the switch.
As for the 'sloppy coding' question, I'm with you in spirit but the fact is that one browser, the one nearly everyone uses, does it's best to show you the page you're trying to look at even if it's not perfect, and MOST of the web isn't and never will be perfectly coded. THAT'S THE BROWSERS' JOB, to show you webpages, not to enforce some abstract coding standard that only we programmers will ever give a rats ass about.
When I am looking for information on the web, I want to see the page, not watch Nutscrape flicker and reload and flicker and reload and finally stall because some tag isn't closed
What gives me hope, actually, is NS6.2.....I am blown away at the amount of code that I wrote for IE that works great in ns6.2; I would save a good 10% of my development time if all those NS4x users would make the switch.
As for the 'sloppy coding' question, I'm with you in spirit but the fact is that one browser, the one nearly everyone uses, does it's best to show you the page you're trying to look at even if it's not perfect, and MOST of the web isn't and never will be perfectly coded. THAT'S THE BROWSERS' JOB, to show you webpages, not to enforce some abstract coding standard that only we programmers will ever give a rats ass about.
When I am looking for information on the web, I want to see the page, not watch Nutscrape flicker and reload and flicker and reload and finally stall because some tag isn't closed
Mar 15, 2002, 11:38 AM
Veteran (19537 posts)
Mar 15, 2002, 11:38 AM
Post #45 of 54
Views: 20049
6.2 is definitely a step in the right direction but even if Windows XP came with Netscape pre-installed I'd still delete it and install something else :)
As for the strictness with html, on the one hand it is good as it forces webmasters to use better html, but in reality, no-one has the time or patience to make the html 100% perfect and so it ends up being a hinderence rather than a benefit.
I reckon many more people would use Netscape if it wasn't so strict with html, because at the end of the day, surfers want to see a really nice looking site and don't really care what the code looks like but with Netscape you end up with a blank page or something really awful looking and even though that isn't the fault of Netscape it puts people off using the browser :)
As for the strictness with html, on the one hand it is good as it forces webmasters to use better html, but in reality, no-one has the time or patience to make the html 100% perfect and so it ends up being a hinderence rather than a benefit.
I reckon many more people would use Netscape if it wasn't so strict with html, because at the end of the day, surfers want to see a really nice looking site and don't really care what the code looks like but with Netscape you end up with a blank page or something really awful looking and even though that isn't the fault of Netscape it puts people off using the browser :)
Mar 15, 2002, 11:47 AM
Veteran / Moderator (4108 posts)
Mar 15, 2002, 11:47 AM
Post #48 of 54
Views: 20162