Browsers for testing your web site in?

A

Andy Dingley

Ed said:
The original question was what *browsers* should be used to test a Web
site.

That's why it would be unethically misleading for a competent web
developer to answer that exact question, without also mentioning the
existence and use of validators.

Ben's sneering dismissal of it is either clueless, or the sort of
deliberate posturing we expect from Hatter. We don't need either.
 
W

William Tasso

Fleeing from the madness of the http://groups.google.com jungle
Andy Dingley <[email protected]> stumbled into
news:alt.html,alt.www.webmaster,uk.net.web.authoring
and said:
That's why it would be unethically misleading for a competent web
developer to answer that exact question, without also mentioning the
existence and use of validators.

Ben's sneering dismissal of it is either clueless, or the sort of
deliberate posturing we expect from Hatter. We don't need either.

hrmm - some history here? I didn't notice anything snide about the Q.
 
E

Ed Mullen

William said:
Fleeing from the madness of the http://groups.google.com jungle
Andy Dingley <[email protected]> stumbled into
news:alt.html,alt.www.webmaster,uk.net.web.authoring
and said:


hrmm - some history here? I didn't notice anything snide about the Q.

I thought it to be innocent as well. Ah well, "... in the eye of the
beholder" I suppose. :)

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
Is it my imagination, or do buffalo wings taste like chicken?
 
N

ned

Andy Dingley said:
Well that explains the piss-poor quality of:


Sorry, I viewed it in IE6 and couldn't judge the quality.
'Just had a blank white screen.
....... I thought that was quite tasteful.
 
W

William Tasso

Fleeing from the madness of the Comindico Australia - reports relating to
abuse should be sent to (e-mail address removed) jungle
Joe <[email protected]> stumbled into
news:alt.html,alt.www.webmaster,uk.net.web.authoring
and said:
This people checks in IE5,IE6,IE7, Opera9, FF1.5, SeaMonkey1.0.
I sometimes use http://browsershots.org/ too.
I have no idea if I'm typical.

Interesting - any reason IE5 is still on that list?

I'd guess an IE5 user is accustomed to 'seeing' a pretty f*cked web these
days. Maybe use one of the reasonably well documented hacks to avoid
sending them (and IE4/NN4/etc.) any deliciously intricate CSS but I don't
see any real value in pandering to the bizarre quirks of ancient browsers.

Time moves on - yes, I know the arguments about slow-to-upgrade corporates
and the poverty stricken, technically challenged, unwashed masses. See
above - tough life ain't it? That's why there are naked web tools, of
which lynx is my own favourite.

All this assumes that the web site/document in question actually makes
sense without styling.
 
J

Joe (GKF)

Fleeing from the madness of the Comindico Australia - reports relating to
abuse should be sent to (e-mail address removed) jungle
Joe <[email protected]> stumbled into
news:alt.html,alt.www.webmaster,uk.net.web.authoring
and said:


Interesting - any reason IE5 is still on that list?
Mainly, because I can. I develop in Opera, and according to
http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat.htm more people use IE5 than
use Opera. I don't try for the SAME look in IE5 as I get elsewhere, but
I do try to make things look 'acceptable'.
 
B

blueflyadult

what for that SeaMonkey - its better to use NS3 or Op7!
Seriously, I don't see any need to test in SeaMonkey. Who can explain
their idea?
 
A

Arne

A

Andy Dingley

Travis said:
IE, FF. If it works in those, then you are pretty safe.

The trouble with that as a statement is that too many will read it as
"IE" and that's no test at all. It's not even much better if you use IE
_and_ FF -- what about validation?
 
T

Travis Newbury

Andy said:
The trouble with that as a statement is that too many will read it as
"IE" and that's no test at all. It's not even much better if you use IE
_and_ FF -- what about validation?

You are right, working in IE is not a test of good code, but is the OP
interested in valid code or code that works in as many places as it
can? I still stand by, if your page (reguardless of validation) works
in both IE and FF, then you are pretty safe.

Since browsers do what ever they like, validation is a tool, not a goal.
 
B

Bergamot

Arne said:
Anyway, if you have Firefox there is no need to test in SeaMonkey

And for those of us who actually use SeaMonkey... there is no need to
test in Firefox. ;)

I do occasionally check in NS 7.2, though. That's the oldest version of
gecko that might be out there in any numbers, but it rarely shows much
difference from a recent nightly build.
 
G

Geoff Berrow

The trouble with that as a statement is that too many will read it as
"IE" and that's no test at all. It's not even much better if you use IE
_and_ FF -- what about validation?

There are many tests for validation. Checking the display on a
particular browser/platform is one, checking against a DTD is another.
The trouble with W3C is that any error is as bad as any other. Missing
an alt attribute is, in the eyes of the validator, as bad as missing a
</div>.

I have a site that won't validate at strict simply because the client
insisted on having target='_blank' on links.
 
E

Ed Seedhouse

You are right, working in IE is not a test of good code, but is the OP
interested in valid code or code that works in as many places as it
can?

But of course the best way to achieve that goal is to start with valid
code.
 
A

Andy Dingley

Travis said:
You are right, working in IE is not a test of good code, but is the OP
interested in valid code or code that works in as many places as it
can?

They're broadly the same thing. Simply looking similar in two
situations isn't a test of good code (the markup might be ugly, but
coincidentally the same) yet when you go to a different platform, or
even just change the font size, then it falls to pieces.

The objective starting point is validation, not appearance. You can
make a valid site look good by gradual refactoring and improvement, you
can't make a good-looking invalid site into a valid one without also
first going backwards and disturbing the appearance.
 
M

Mark Goodge

There are many tests for validation. Checking the display on a
particular browser/platform is one, checking against a DTD is another.
The trouble with W3C is that any error is as bad as any other. Missing
an alt attribute is, in the eyes of the validator, as bad as missing a
</div>.

I have a site that won't validate at strict simply because the client
insisted on having target='_blank' on links.

At the risk of asking a possibly dim question, why use strict if
you're going to be using stuff that isn't in strict? Better to write
valid transitional than invalid strict, surely?

Mark
 
B

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

Geoff Berrow put finger to keyboard and typed:


At the risk of asking a possibly dim question, why use strict if
you're going to be using stuff that isn't in strict? Better to write
valid transitional than invalid strict, surely?

(For new pages) I'd rather write valid Strict, then maybe toss in a
target "_blank" if the client absolutely insisted (and I could not make
hir understand) than to write Transitional. It is for updating existing
legacy pages where you don't have the time to remove all the old
presentational stuff.

I'll letcha get away with one error for a "_blank" <g>
 
S

Stevie D

Beauregard said:
(For new pages) I'd rather write valid Strict, then maybe toss in a
target "_blank" if the client absolutely insisted (and I could not make
hir understand) than to write Transitional. It is for updating existing
legacy pages where you don't have the time to remove all the old
presentational stuff.

The alternative would be to leave off target="_blank" but use
Javascript to set the link to open in a new window. That way, the vast
majority of users will get the new window, and you won't have any
nasty validation errors!
 

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,484
Members
44,903
Latest member
orderPeak8CBDGummies

Latest Threads

Top