Browsers, browsers! Quo vadis?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by El Kabong, May 11, 2007.

  1. El Kabong

    El Kabong Guest

    There is a lovely site offering arguments regarding use of scripts to detect
    which browser a visitor is using: http://www.quirksmode.org/js/support.html.

    While reading the author's essay, it occurred to me that there was actually
    a broader subject involved: Why should, or shouldn't, we design for the
    lowest browser capability? Now please keep in mind that I do _not_ have a
    solidly opinion formed regarding this yet but I would like to have one, a
    valid one, if possible.

    One point I've considered leads me away from the idea of designing for the
    older or more obscure browser versions, since newer popular browsers are
    free for the downloading. Therefore, the question becomes, "is the added
    time and effort (translate to "expense") to develop universally compatible
    pages justified?"

    This may seem a moot discussion and perhaps I'm merely looking for
    justification for a lazy man's way out, but I'm very interested in your
    opinions about this.

    Thanks,

    El

    "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is
    no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof."
    Galbraith's Law
    El Kabong, May 11, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. El Kabong

    Neredbojias Guest

    On Fri, 11 May 2007 14:57:23 GMT El Kabong scribed:

    > There is a lovely site offering arguments regarding use of scripts to
    > detect which browser a visitor is using:
    > http://www.quirksmode.org/js/support.html.
    >
    > While reading the author's essay, it occurred to me that there was
    > actually a broader subject involved: Why should, or shouldn't, we
    > design for the lowest browser capability? Now please keep in mind that
    > I do _not_ have a solidly opinion formed regarding this yet but I
    > would like to have one, a valid one, if possible.
    >
    > One point I've considered leads me away from the idea of designing for
    > the older or more obscure browser versions, since newer popular
    > browsers are free for the downloading. Therefore, the question
    > becomes, "is the added time and effort (translate to "expense") to
    > develop universally compatible pages justified?"
    >
    > This may seem a moot discussion and perhaps I'm merely looking for
    > justification for a lazy man's way out, but I'm very interested in
    > your opinions about this.


    This has been discussed ad infinitum so perhaps you could edify yourself
    more satisfactorily by Googling for past usenet fare on the subject.

    --
    Neredbojias
    He who laughs last sounds like an idiot.
    Neredbojias, May 11, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. El Kabong

    J.O. Aho Guest

    El Kabong wrote:

    > One point I've considered leads me away from the idea of designing for the
    > older or more obscure browser versions, since newer popular browsers are
    > free for the downloading. Therefore, the question becomes, "is the added
    > time and effort (translate to "expense") to develop universally compatible
    > pages justified?"


    Much depends on what you want to show to the rest of the internet, if you want
    to make a "how to fix your microsoft installation after hard drive crash",
    then the visitors would most likely be only MSIE users and you don't have to
    care much about other browsers.

    If you instead make a page, "how to take best care of your horse", you can't
    anymore be sure on that your visitors will be using MSIE, it could even be the
    minority browser. On a site like this you should be more aware of how it looks
    in different browsers and should at least see to that it's useful in the major
    browser families, khtml, gecko, opera and msie.

    Most browsers handles HTML4 quite well, so if you get your code validated at
    the w3c validator, you can assume it's usable by the major borwsers, it may
    not look the same in all of them.

    Things to avoid, if you want to make the site usable for as many people as
    possible, is flash and jscript (microsofts version of javascript), as those
    have a limited support when looking at CPU architecture and operating systems.
    CSS, specially CSS2 is poorly supported in older browsers, so it could be good
    to be sparse in the use of styles (but the number of people using older
    browsers are limited, I wouldn't care too much about them).

    I do have a number of different architectures on my own computers, and I use
    GNU/Linux both at home and at work, when I do for the web is usually made in
    mind to work as well on all my computers and working with wap is even more
    difficult as the browsers in the phones has even larger variety on feature
    support.


    > This may seem a moot discussion and perhaps I'm merely looking for
    > justification for a lazy man's way out, but I'm very interested in your
    > opinions about this.


    Of course it's all up to you what you want to support, but bad support can
    lead to that your page to get less visited.


    --

    //Aho
    J.O. Aho, May 11, 2007
    #3
  4. El Kabong

    El Kabong Guest

    "J.O. Aho" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > El Kabong wrote:
    >
    >> This may seem a moot discussion and perhaps I'm merely looking for
    >> justification for a lazy man's way out, but I'm very interested in your
    >> opinions about this.

    >
    > Of course it's all up to you what you want to support, but bad support can
    > lead to that your page to get less visited.
    >



    Thanks J.O.

    Well, maybe I thought someone would just give me a verbal slap on the head
    and tell me "Yes, it must fly in all environments." or "Don't worry about
    it... nobody else does."

    The page with which I am currently concerned is
    http://www.tomahawkfallride.com/CustomChopperShow2007.htm. It is supposed to
    match exactly a flyer being physically distributed. It works OK in IE7 but
    it falls down badly in FireFox. The pages validated nicely for HTML and CSS
    so I'm a little confused by the failure in Mozilla. If I fix it for FireFox,
    it's going to look like crap in IE7.

    Is this something I should ignore or is there a solution?

    Thanks again for your patience.

    El
    El Kabong, May 11, 2007
    #4
  5. El Kabong

    dorayme Guest

    In article <Ez51i.4659$cu1.2697@trnddc01>,
    "El Kabong" <> wrote:

    > The page with which I am currently concerned is
    > http://www.tomahawkfallride.com/CustomChopperShow2007.htm. It is supposed to
    > match exactly a flyer being physically distributed. It works OK in IE7 but
    > it falls down badly in FireFox.


    And in Safari ... and doubtless other reasonably standard
    compliant browsers. It is a typical example of using the wrong
    type of tool to try to mimic a printed page, namely absolute
    positioning instead of a PDF. The material is simple enough to
    quite do without all the need for any positioning at all. It is
    headings and paras and a couple of pics. Why would you not simply
    go down the page with these and style the elements lightly to
    suit the conveying of the information and text and background
    colours and leave it at that?

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, May 11, 2007
    #5
  6. El Kabong

    El Kabong Guest

    Thanks.

    I'm not sure the site owner really needs it to match the flyer precisely. I
    did upload it as a pdf,
    (http://www.tomahawkfallride.com/CustomChopperShow2007.pdf) but it's nearly
    a megabyte and we're pretty sure a lot of our target audience is not on
    broadband.

    So I'll give it a try tomorrow without the positioning.

    El

    "dorayme" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <Ez51i.4659$cu1.2697@trnddc01>,
    > "El Kabong" <> wrote:
    >
    >> The page with which I am currently concerned is
    >> http://www.tomahawkfallride.com/CustomChopperShow2007.htm. It is supposed
    >> to
    >> match exactly a flyer being physically distributed. It works OK in IE7
    >> but
    >> it falls down badly in FireFox.

    >
    > And in Safari ... and doubtless other reasonably standard
    > compliant browsers. It is a typical example of using the wrong
    > type of tool to try to mimic a printed page, namely absolute
    > positioning instead of a PDF. The material is simple enough to
    > quite do without all the need for any positioning at all. It is
    > headings and paras and a couple of pics. Why would you not simply
    > go down the page with these and style the elements lightly to
    > suit the conveying of the information and text and background
    > colours and leave it at that?
    >
    > --
    > dorayme
    El Kabong, May 12, 2007
    #6
  7. El Kabong

    BootNic Guest

    > El Kabong <> wrote:
    > news: K4a1i.77$145.71@trnddc02
    > I'm not sure the site owner really needs it to match the flyer
    > precisely. I did upload it as a pdf,
    > (http://www.tomahawkfallride.com/CustomChopperShow2007.pdf) but
    > it's nearly a megabyte and we're pretty sure a lot of our target
    > audience is not on broadband.


    That pdf could be under 200kb, would that make life better?

    --
    BootNic Friday, May 11, 2007 11:42 PM

    All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty
    recesses of their minds, wake in the day to find that it was vanity:
    but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act on
    their dreams with open eyes, to make them possible.
    *Thomas Edward Lawrence (of Arabia)*
    BootNic, May 12, 2007
    #7
  8. El Kabong

    J.O. Aho Guest

    El Kabong wrote:
    > "J.O. Aho" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> El Kabong wrote:
    >>
    >>> This may seem a moot discussion and perhaps I'm merely looking for
    >>> justification for a lazy man's way out, but I'm very interested in your
    >>> opinions about this.

    >> Of course it's all up to you what you want to support, but bad support can
    >> lead to that your page to get less visited.
    >>

    >
    >
    > Thanks J.O.
    >
    > Well, maybe I thought someone would just give me a verbal slap on the head
    > and tell me "Yes, it must fly in all environments." or "Don't worry about
    > it... nobody else does."
    >
    > The page with which I am currently concerned is
    > http://www.tomahawkfallride.com/CustomChopperShow2007.htm. It is supposed to
    > match exactly a flyer being physically distributed. It works OK in IE7 but
    > it falls down badly in FireFox. The pages validated nicely for HTML and CSS
    > so I'm a little confused by the failure in Mozilla. If I fix it for FireFox,
    > it's going to look like crap in IE7.


    Skip absolute positions, it never works well if you want to support more than
    one browser. If you want to get some ideas how to do things, take a look at
    http://css.maxdesign.com.au/index.htm

    Your page gets quite unusable if you has enlarged the fonts (120%), regardless
    of browser.

    --

    //Aho
    J.O. Aho, May 12, 2007
    #8
  9. El Kabong

    dorayme Guest

    In article <K4a1i.77$145.71@trnddc02>,
    "El Kabong" <> wrote:

    > Thanks.
    >
    > I'm not sure the site owner really needs it to match the flyer precisely. I
    > did upload it as a pdf,
    > (http://www.tomahawkfallride.com/CustomChopperShow2007.pdf) but it's nearly
    > a megabyte and we're pretty sure a lot of our target audience is not on
    > broadband.
    >
    > So I'll give it a try tomorrow without the positioning.
    >
    > El
    >
    > "dorayme" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > In article <Ez51i.4659$cu1.2697@trnddc01>,
    > > "El Kabong" <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> The page with which I am currently concerned is
    > >> http://www.tomahawkfallride.com/CustomChopperShow2007.htm. It is supposed
    > >> to
    > >> match exactly a flyer being physically distributed. It works OK in IE7
    > >> but
    > >> it falls down badly in FireFox.

    > >
    > > And in Safari ... and doubtless other reasonably standard
    > > compliant browsers. It is a typical example of using the wrong
    > > type of tool to try to mimic a printed page, namely absolute
    > > positioning instead of a PDF. The material is simple enough to
    > > quite do without all the need for any positioning at all. It is
    > > headings and paras and a couple of pics. Why would you not simply
    > > go down the page with these and style the elements lightly to
    > > suit the conveying of the information and text and background
    > > colours and leave it at that?


    Best not to top post. You could perhaps start with something as
    simple as:

    body {
    background-color : white;
    font-family: "Times New Roman", Helvetica, serif;
    color: black;
    margin: 0;
    padding: 0;
    }
    #main {
    padding: 10px;
    margin-top: 5px;
    margin-left: 5px;
    margin-bottom: 5px;
    max-width: 35em;
    margin: auto
    }

    #ray {float: right;}


    #heading {margin: 5px auto auto auto;}


    h1 {

    width: 100%;
    height: 50px;
    background: #000;

    margin: auto;
    text-align: center;
    }


    and then for HTML (just get rid of the white line in th heading
    in an image editor)


    <div id="main">

    <h1><img id="heading"src="Ray_Kittel/header.gif" alt="Chopper
    Challenge Custom Bike Show Presented by Bubba's Midwest Biker
    Productions" height="45" width="530"></h1>


    <p><img id="ray" src="Ray_Kittel/RayKittel.jpg" alt="Ray Kittel"
    height="238" width="214">In conjunction with the 26th Anniversary
    of the Tomahawk Fall Ride, Bubba¹s Midwest Biker Productions is
    pleased to announce the return of the most respected and trusted
    name in bike show judging in the upper Midwest for the "Chopper
    Challenge² Custom Bike Show. Ray Kittel of Ray¹s M/C Show World
    will, once again, serve as chief show judge &amp; bike show event
    coordinator for this special Tomahawk Fall Ride bike show
    competition and special feature at Bubba¹s Big Party! $500.00 in
    cash prizes, plus trophies, and bragging rights, will be at
    stake. First through eighth place winners will each receive a
    trophy plus the following, applicable, cash award:</p>


    <p><img src="Ray_Kittel/prizes.gif" alt="1st prize: $150, 2nd
    prize: $115, 3rd prize: $85, 4th prize: $60, 5th prize: $40, 6th
    prize: $25, 7th prize: $15, 8th prize: $10." border="0"
    height="51" width="513">


    <p>PLUS: FOUR additional entries will be selected (solely by the
    judges) to receive trophies as ¹Judges¹ Choice Honorable Mention²
    winners!</p>

    <p><img src="Ray_Kittel/entry_fee.gif" alt="" height="22"
    width="530"></p>

    <p>Chopper shops ­ enter three motorcycles in competition and
    receive the fourth entry ­ FREE (limit of four entries per
    exhibitor or shop). Register on-site, day of the show, Saturday,
    September 15. (Sorry, no pre-registration is available for this
    bike show competition.) The show is located at the beautiful
    Nokomis Community Park in the township of Nokomis on Business
    Highway 51N (County Highway ³L²) Tomahawk, Wisconsin. Winners
    will be determined by combining judges¹ scoring with ³spectators¹
    choice² voting results utilizing a point system. Bike show
    competition will be open to all years, makes, and models of
    motorcycles. There is no ³individual class² competition. All
    entries from stock to full custom ­ vintage antiques, period
    classics, touring bikes, special interest entries, sport street
    bikes, trikes, performance machines, mild street customs to
    radical choppers ­ will battle it out in head-to-head competition
    (shootout style) vying for judges¹ points and spectator votes.</p>

    <p>Entry and/or company display signs are encouraged and
    welcomed.</p>

    <p id="showdates"><img src="Ray_Kittel/show_dates.gif" alt=""
    border="0" height="97" width="530">


    and go on from here. You can simplify further, improve this too,
    but above is roughly if you insist on the pics to match the flyer.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, May 12, 2007
    #9
  10. El Kabong

    JD Guest

    BootNic wrote:
    >> El Kabong <> wrote:
    >> news: K4a1i.77$145.71@trnddc02
    >> I'm not sure the site owner really needs it to match the flyer
    >> precisely. I did upload it as a pdf,
    >> (http://www.tomahawkfallride.com/CustomChopperShow2007.pdf) but it's
    >> nearly a megabyte and we're pretty sure a lot of our target audience
    >> is not on broadband.

    >
    > That pdf could be under 200kb, would that make life better?


    Not for people who think PDF viewers are utterly tedious, such as me.

    The OP would be better off creating a nice, semantic HTML page for the
    content, and maybe offering the PDF leaflet as an optional download for
    printing purposes.
    JD, May 12, 2007
    #10
  11. El Kabong

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    JD <> wrote:

    > > That pdf could be under 200kb, would that make life better?

    >
    > Not for people who think PDF viewers are utterly tedious, such as me.


    The idea is that it would make life better for those whose
    connections are slow and limited. How do you look at pdfs that
    are presented on websites? It is tedious to open a reader, but
    not _so_ tedious to see the PDF in the browser window itself.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, May 12, 2007
    #11
  12. El Kabong

    J.O. Aho Guest

    dorayme wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > JD <> wrote:
    >
    >>> That pdf could be under 200kb, would that make life better?

    >> Not for people who think PDF viewers are utterly tedious, such as me.

    >
    > The idea is that it would make life better for those whose
    > connections are slow and limited. How do you look at pdfs that
    > are presented on websites? It is tedious to open a reader, but
    > not _so_ tedious to see the PDF in the browser window itself.


    PDF gets larger than the HTML+Images -> longer load times
    PDF reader has to be started by the browser -> longer time before displayed
    PDF reader has it's own toolbars -> Smaller display area

    PDF is great if you want to print something, but IMHO poor substitute to a
    HTML page.


    --

    //Aho
    J.O. Aho, May 12, 2007
    #12
  13. El Kabong

    El Kabong Guest

    "dorayme" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    >
    > and go on from here. You can simplify further, improve this too,
    > but above is roughly if you insist on the pics to match the flyer.
    >
    > --
    > dorayme


    I really appreciate the work you put into your reply, but I also did not
    want to merely copy your work and remain in the dark as to the "why's" and
    "how's" of the styling. I will go back and review your suggestion to learn
    some new stuff, for sure!

    So I went back to my roots and placed objects _as_if_ they were in a table.

    It works well in IE7 and FireFox but I have no idea about all the "brand x"
    browsers. Guess I have to get busy downloading them but I only have a PC.
    How does it look in Safari? Of course it loses its resemblance to the flyer
    when the text size is changed in FireFox. (It doesn't change in IE7.)

    Here's the link again:
    http://www.tomahawkfallride.com/CustomChopperShow2007.htm

    And Thanks again.
    El Kabong, May 12, 2007
    #13
  14. dorayme wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > JD <> wrote:
    >
    >>> That pdf could be under 200kb, would that make life better?

    >> Not for people who think PDF viewers are utterly tedious, such as me.

    >
    > The idea is that it would make life better for those whose
    > connections are slow and limited. How do you look at pdfs that
    > are presented on websites? It is tedious to open a reader, but
    > not _so_ tedious to see the PDF in the browser window itself.
    >


    I have to right-click and download. And I get quite irritated when folks
    use PDF in place of HTML and I click on a link with not PDF warning,
    and I don't notice the url in the status bar until after puzzle over why
    I been watching a blank page and a throbber spinning for the last 5
    minutes!

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
    Jonathan N. Little, May 12, 2007
    #14
  15. El Kabong wrote:

    > Here's the link again:
    > http://www.tomahawkfallride.com/CustomChopperShow2007.htm


    Well you could finish the job by:


    1) Replace the:

    <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">

    with

    <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">

    2) Remove *ALL* the attributes CENTER, BORDER, HSPACE, VSPACE, ALIGN in
    documents


    3) Then give Ray's picture "RayKittel.jpg" the ID "ray" and add

    #ray { float: right; margin: 0 0 .5em .5em; }

    to your stylesheet

    4) And for the RK Logo "RK_logo.jpg" add the ID "rk" and add

    #rk { float: left; margin: 0 .5em .5em; 0 }


    5) Remove the W3C logos because bikers don't give a rat's *** about the
    W3C! ;-)

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
    Jonathan N. Little, May 12, 2007
    #15
  16. Jonathan N. Little wrote:

    > 5) Remove the W3C logos because bikers don't give a rat's *** about
    > the W3C! ;-)


    Ahem!

    (but yes, remove the logos.)

    --
    -bts
    -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, May 12, 2007
    #16
  17. El Kabong

    El Kabong Guest

    "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote in message
    news:Eik1i.11100$...
    > Jonathan N. Little wrote:
    >
    >> 5) Remove the W3C logos because bikers don't give a rat's *** about
    >> the W3C! ;-)

    >
    > Ahem!
    >
    > (but yes, remove the logos.)
    >
    > --
    > -bts
    > -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck


    Guess I was just too proud of myself. They're going.

    I'll work on the other stuff later, but can you tell me why changing the
    DOCTYPE is a good idea? (I'm new to this "validation" stuff so I'm not being
    facetious.)

    El
    El Kabong, May 12, 2007
    #17
  18. El Kabong

    John Hosking Guest

    El Kabong wrote:
    >
    > I'll work on the other stuff later, but can you tell me why changing the
    > DOCTYPE is a good idea? (I'm new to this "validation" stuff so I'm not being
    > facetious.)


    See, e.g., http://hsivonen.iki.fi/doctype/ . The connection between
    doctype and validation is different from (and secondary to) the
    usefulness of avoiding quirks mode (by selecting a doctype).

    --
    John
    John Hosking, May 12, 2007
    #18
  19. El Kabong

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    "J.O. Aho" <> wrote:

    > dorayme wrote:
    > > In article <>,
    > > JD <> wrote:
    > >
    > >>> That pdf could be under 200kb, would that make life better?
    > >> Not for people who think PDF viewers are utterly tedious, such as me.

    > >
    > > The idea is that it would make life better for those whose
    > > connections are slow and limited. How do you look at pdfs that
    > > are presented on websites? It is tedious to open a reader, but
    > > not _so_ tedious to see the PDF in the browser window itself.

    >
    > PDF gets larger than the HTML+Images -> longer load times
    > PDF reader has to be started by the browser -> longer time before displayed
    > PDF reader has it's own toolbars -> Smaller display area
    >
    > PDF is great if you want to print something, but IMHO poor substitute to a
    > HTML page.


    All good points that are really besides the particular point that
    a 200k pdf is better for a dial up user than a 1000k pdf.

    Might as well here mention a qualification to your "poor
    substitute" point. From the perspective of the person who has no
    html/css skills and careful with dough, it is an excellent
    substitute for many things (like newsletters). And I don't know
    if you use something like Adobe Reader to kick in via a plugin
    into the browser or what but on a Mac there is a rather
    lightening fast alternative without the bloat.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, May 13, 2007
    #19
  20. El Kabong

    dorayme Guest

    In article <42bfe$4645c339$40cba7a3$>,
    "Jonathan N. Little" <> wrote:

    > dorayme wrote:
    > > In article <>,
    > > JD <> wrote:
    > >
    > >>> That pdf could be under 200kb, would that make life better?
    > >> Not for people who think PDF viewers are utterly tedious, such as me.

    > >
    > > The idea is that it would make life better for those whose
    > > connections are slow and limited. How do you look at pdfs that
    > > are presented on websites? It is tedious to open a reader, but
    > > not _so_ tedious to see the PDF in the browser window itself.
    > >

    >
    > I have to right-click and download. And I get quite irritated when folks
    > use PDF in place of HTML and I click on a link with not PDF warning,
    > and I don't notice the url in the status bar until after puzzle over why
    > I been watching a blank page and a throbber spinning for the last 5
    > minutes!
    >


    Jonathan, I share most of your irritations on this one. But they
    are less than you might believe on a Mac with a certain tiny
    plugin reader. Single click, quick show.

    I have to say words that modify all criticisms of pdf's "on"
    websites to justify my allowing some of my clients, (even
    introducing them to the notion!), to do this. The alternative
    would be work that they could not justify to pay for and, really,
    simply would not. I would rather a client happy than frustrated,
    me being the Christ in all of this. You see, I fancy the role. I
    know, it is a sign of madness. I still like it.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, May 13, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Harry Whitehouse
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    430
    Harry Whitehouse
    Jul 22, 2003
  2. Jerry

    Web Browsers

    Jerry, Aug 2, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    438
  3. Alex
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    395
    Teemu Keiski
    Aug 16, 2003
  4. Alex
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    445
    Steven Campbell
    Aug 20, 2003
  5. Onur Bozkurt

    Test with old browsers...

    Onur Bozkurt, Aug 18, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    476
    James Zhuo
    Aug 18, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page