Browsers for testing your web site in?

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

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!

Good point. I for one would not get the new window. <g>

 

[Geoff Berrow]

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?

But would (according to http://hsivonen.iki.fi/doctype/) have put
Konqueror into quirks mode. I think I'd prefer to stick to strict and
put up with the odd error.

 

[Chaddy2222]

What browsers do people use to test their web site in?

Thanks,

John Paul.

Hi.
I use IE v6 and FireFox v 1.5 I also use Jaws for Windows Screen reader
v 5.0 to make sure the content is accessible to oral browsers.

 

[Travis Newbury]

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.

Ah, this is where we disagree. To me, the objective starting point is
the look and feel of a site. Not validation.

I understand that there are millions of people out there that will
never see things I do, and they will probably never return to a site I
have touched because they either don't use flash, they don't have the
connection speed needed, or they just don't like that kind of thing.
This is a fact of life on the web.

Validation, is a good starting point, but you have to find the balance
that makes your site successful in it's little niche. There is another
side to the web, an inaccessible, javascript loving, Flash hugging, non
validating side. And there are 10s of millions of people out there
that seek that kind of site. They come to see the presentation.

Well I kind of got off the subject a little... Anyway, I think
validation is a good thing. But only if it does not break my
presentation.

 

[Matt Probert]

Well I kind of got off the subject a little... Anyway, I think
validation is a good thing.

Up to a point. Too many people (in the webmaster groups) get too anal
about it.

I appreciate that a web authoring perspective differs somewhat from a
web publishing perspective.

Matt

 

[Chaddy2222]

Up to a point. Too many people (in the webmaster groups) get too anal
about it.

I appreciate that a web authoring perspective differs somewhat from a
web publishing perspective.

That all depends on how good your web publishing / Authoring policy is
and how well trained people are.
If you give people who publish content to your site some baysic
training then all should be valid and the design should still remain
consistent.

 

[Travis Newbury]

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

If that is your final goal. Many of the things I do are not valid from
the getgo. I can honestly say I have never written a valid page in my
life, yet they all work fine on both IE and FF which in our opinion are
the mainstream.

 

[Jon Ribbens]

Validation, is a good starting point, but you have to find the balance
that makes your site successful in it's little niche. There is another
side to the web, an inaccessible, javascript loving, Flash hugging, non
validating side. And there are 10s of millions of people out there
that seek that kind of site. They come to see the presentation.

Well I kind of got off the subject a little... Anyway, I think
validation is a good thing. But only if it does not break my
presentation.

You do realise you are merely making yourself sound incompetent?
It is generally possible to have an excellent and flexible look and
feel without compromising on having poor code or an inaccessible site.

Contrary to what you're saying, nobody deliberately "seeks"
inaccesible sites - why would they? They may seek well presented
sites, but that doesn't contradict the goals of accessibility and
standards compliance.

Also contrary to your "presentation is king" argument, people may well
have an initial good reaction to a flashy pretty site, but if it
doesn't actually work well and in a user-friendly manner, they will
quickly become disillusioned and leave.

 

[Andy Dingley]

Validation, is a good starting point, but you have to find the balance
that makes your site successful in it's little niche.

So how much devalidation do you recommend?

How much should I un-validate by, to make the site look good?

 

[Travis Newbury]

So how much devalidation do you recommend?
How much should I un-validate by, to make the site look good?

Completely depends on you and the site.

 

[Geoff Berrow]

Completely depends on you and the site.

I've managed to get a room full of Macaholic, Dreamweaving,
Photoshopping dezyners to produce valid code. The advantages to me as a
php coder are that their output is much easier to work with and the
results are more consistent. Being an enlightened bunch they appreciate
that caring about the output is a mark of quality.

Still working on accessibility and fluid design but hey, it's a start.

 

[Info_Junkie]

John Paul mumbled the following on 13/10/2006 19:40:

IE6, IE7, FF1.5, Opera8, Opera9, Amaya, Lynx and NS4 just for a laugh )

Gazza,

I thought that with WIndows XP one could NOT have both IE6 and IE7 both
installed. I would like to try out IE7. It is LIKELY to be buggy, so
I don't want it as the DEFAULT browser. Have any links as to how to do
that (if possible).

By the way I use the following browsers to test Web Pages (most are
Gecko engines): Acoo, BrowzarSilver, mizilla, FF 1.5, Netscapte
(surprised it still existed), Opera 9, and SeaMonkey (just downloaded -
checking it out).

Info_Junkie

 

[Stevie D]

Ah, this is where we disagree. To me, the objective starting point is
the look and feel of a site. Not validation.

That doesn't make sense.

The look and feel of a site is *subjective*. You might like it, you
might not, but there is no objective measure of "look and feel".

I understand that there are millions of people out there that will
never see things I do, and they will probably never return to a site I
have touched because they either don't use flash, they don't have the
connection speed needed, or they just don't like that kind of thing.

Why should it be a fact of life? If someone doesn't return to your
site, that means that your site is not useful to them. It may be that
they have no need of the information on your site, and what they are
after just isn't there - that's fine, we don't expect every website to
answer every question. But the other option - that the information
_is_ on your site, but the user can't access it - is not acceptable.
That means that you have failed in your design. There's no other word
for it - you have failed.

Validation, is a good starting point, but you have to find the balance
that makes your site successful in it's little niche. There is another
side to the web, an inaccessible, javascript loving, Flash hugging, non
validating side. And there are 10s of millions of people out there
that seek that kind of site. They come to see the presentation.

No, those people don't *seek* an inaccessible or non-validating site.
What they seek is an interesting, funky website - and what happens is
that the deezyners they go to either don't know how to write an
accessible and valid site that is interesting and funky, or they are
too lazy/arrogant to believe accessibility and validity are important.

If you asked people "Do you want a snazzy website that everyone can
use, or do you want a snazzy website that not everyone can use?", I'm
pretty sure they would go for the first option!

Well I kind of got off the subject a little... Anyway, I think
validation is a good thing. But only if it does not break my
presentation.

It strikes me that you're putting the cart before the horse. Start
with an accessible and valid framework, and build the presentation up
from there. You will find your pages much easier to work with, much
leaner and much more efficient and effective.

 

[Gazza]

Info_Junkie mumbled the following on 18/10/2006 17:45:

I thought that with WIndows XP one could NOT have both IE6 and IE7 both
installed. I would like to try out IE7. It is LIKELY to be buggy, so
I don't want it as the DEFAULT browser. Have any links as to how to do
that (if possible).

You're right, in that with IE7 installed, the IE6 skin uses the IE7
rendering engine (as I found to my cost - 2 weeks searching for a (IE6)
bug that I couldn't see!) - however
<http://www.tech-recipes.com/internet_explorer_ie7_tips1188.html> may
help, as will a search for a similar "IE6 and IE7" phrase.

In my particular case though I have two boxes and a KVM to switch
between them. One has IE6, one has IE7b2/3 (or whatever we're on now)

 

[dorayme]

You do realise you are merely making yourself sound incompetent?
It is generally possible to have an excellent and flexible look and
feel without compromising on having poor code or an inaccessible site.

This may be too strong. It may need a very high level of
competency to go your route in a given limited time and effort.

Contrary to what you're saying, nobody deliberately "seeks"
inaccesible sites - why would they?

You misunderstand Travis. He is not meaning every little thing
literally. He has blood running in his veins and rightly likes to
take a bit of license and exaggerate a few things when having a
rave. He is not some wimpy left wing cool measured prof. He is
saying that people seek somethings and do not care or are
unconscious of the validation side.

Also contrary to your "presentation is king" argument, people may well
have an initial good reaction to a flashy pretty site, but if it
doesn't actually work well and in a user-friendly manner, they will
quickly become disillusioned and leave.

Again, a slight misunderstanding in that Travis' point is that if
it is inaccessible to a small percentage, this may well be a
price worth paying for the other benefits. In other words, if it
works so that a big percentage of people notice nothing untoward,
that is worth it sometimes.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

If that is your final goal. Many of the things I do are not valid from
the getgo. I can honestly say I have never written a valid page in my
life,

Personally as a designer I would not brag about such...

yet they all work fine on both IE and FF which in our opinion are
the mainstream.

So you say, but maybe it is more because you lacked something to be
successful with valid markup.

 

[Nick Wagg]

If that is your final goal. Many of the things I do are not valid from
the getgo. I can honestly say I have never written a valid page in my
life, yet they all work fine on both IE and FF which in our opinion are
the mainstream.

How Heath Robinsonish.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Personally as a designer I would not brag about such...

We have no problems finding work. (We create Flash based WEB
applications for the entertainment industry)

So you say, but maybe it is more because you lacked something to be
successful with valid markup.

I know the exact reason for the validation errors. It is Flash and the
object tag. And because of interaction between flash objects, we can
not use that validating workaround as IE is forced to load the entire
object before it runs and we need the interaction to start running
from the moment the Flash start to load.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

We have no problems finding work. (We create Flash based WEB
applications for the entertainment industry)

Nor do the "Travelers" that top-coat driveways with old motor oil!

 

[Travis Newbury]

Nor do the "Travelers" that top-coat driveways with old motor oil!

Hardly a useful comparison. The entertainment industry and Flash are a
marrage made in Heaven.