Compatibility

[nobody]

Hey,

What are some common browsers and versions at the minimum that should be
tested for compatibility etc? And is there a good site that provides all
these browsers?

Cheers

 

[William Tasso]

Hey,

What are some common browsers and versions at the minimum that should
be tested for compatibility etc?

Not sure if there is an emphatic answer to that one. I use recent versions
of:

o Mozilla
o Opera
o Internet Explorer
o Lynx

Some sites should propably also check out ok in:

o Netscape 4.nn
o earlier versions of IE

And is there a good site that
provides all these browsers?

Once again, not sure about *all*, but this will give you a good start:

http://browsers.evolt.org

 

[Whitecrest]

What are some common browsers and versions at the minimum that should be
tested for compatibility etc? And is there a good site that provides all
these browsers?

You will get about a million different answers here. (and EVERY singe
one of them is probably right)

Some feel you should not code to a browser(s) but should stick w3c
sanctioned code. Well this is fine and dandy for most simple (generic
plain Jane unexciting_ stuff), and you can show off your w3c sticker,
but you run thew risk of it not working right because NONE of the
browsers comply to w3s standards. So your code may be perfect, but it
is broken in several browsers.

Do a little investigation and see what your potential customers get
turned on by. Look at your competition and see what they do, figure out
why they do it.

For commercial projects you are usually pretty safe if it works in IE
and some flavor of Mozilla. These are what 95%+ of your customers will
show up with. If what you are offering caters to the blind, or to the
cell phone crowd then you will have to take linx, the readers, and a few
other things into consideration. We tend to believe that this is a bit
overkill for most (not all) sites. (yes Iso, we are cold blooded
discriminators)

We don't believe that the web should be "One size fits all". Others
disagree. I guess your answer depends on if you believe your site needs
to be "one size fits all or not".

 

[Safalra]

What are some common browsers and versions at the minimum that should be
tested for compatibility etc?

If you've access to Windows, then obviously check IE, which hasn't
changed much in a long time so the latest version will do. If you've
access to a Mac try IE5, which has some issues with CSS that didn't
affect the Windows version.

Mozilla (on which many other browsers are based including recent
versions of Netscape).

Netscape 4 (if you're using CSS - you can check if you need to hide it
from Netscape 4 with the media="all" trick).

Some kind of text-only browser (e.g. Lynx) so you can check for
accessibility issues.

And is there a good site that provides all these browsers?

http://browsers.evolt.org/

--- Stephen Morley ---
http://www.safalra.com

 

[Barry Pearson]

Hey,

What are some common browsers and versions at the minimum that should
be tested for compatibility etc? And is there a good site that
provides all these browsers?

Here are the rules used by the BBC for browser support & testing:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/webdev/AppE.Browser_Support_Standards.htm

I can't judge how good they are.

 

[Matthias Gutfeldt]

Some feel you should not code to a browser(s) but should stick w3c
sanctioned code. Well this is fine and dandy for most simple (generic
plain Jane unexciting_ stuff),

You're obviously out of touch. That cliché might have been valid three
years ago.


Matthias

 

[Whitecrest]

Here are the rules used by the BBC for browser support & testing:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/webdev/AppE.Browser_Support_Standards.htm
I can't judge how good they are.

interesting, their site does not follow their rules (or guidelines). Of
course it was a draft, and they did use the work "supposed to" rather
than "will".

 

[Whitecrest]

You're obviously out of touch. That cliché might have been valid three
years ago.

Well that out of touch reality is keeping thousands or developers happy.
So I think it is YOU that are out of touch trying to hold the Web back
because you don't understand the more complex things.

Don't be afraid of the new stuff.

 

[m]

Hey,

What are some common browsers and versions at the minimum that should be
tested for compatibility etc? And is there a good site that provides all
these browsers?

delorie.com has a number of viewers that are avery convenient,
including a Lynx viewer and abackward compatibility viewer, among
other tools.

I found this site because I had downloaded the Checky extension
to Mozilla (also runs for Firebird and (IIRC) Opera). This extension
has quick links to many tools that will help check your markup.

 

[Barry Pearson]

interesting, their site does not follow their rules (or guidelines).
Of course it was a draft, and they did use the work "supposed to"
rather than "will".

Chuckle! That has already been pointed out on uk.net.web.authoring ! They
haven't even got a DOCTYPE, so they can't validate it.

 

[Matthias Gutfeldt]

Well that out of touch reality is keeping thousands or developers happy.

Sure, dishing out tag soup is a career, too!

So I think it is YOU that are out of touch trying to hold the Web back
because you don't understand the more complex things.

LOL! I didn't know that Web Services, RSS etc. work best in a
non-standard way.

And perhaps you should also inform Wired, ESPN, Macromedia, ALA, CNET
News etc. that their move to CSS laoyuts and structured HTML is holding
the Web back - hell, in the case of ESPN and their half-assed attempts
I'd even agree with you.


Matthias

 

[Steve Pugh]

Chuckle! That has already been pointed out on uk.net.web.authoring ! They
haven't even got a DOCTYPE, so they can't validate it.

Oh, the stories I could tell...
.... but I can't thanks to an NDA.

Steve

 

[Whitecrest]

Chuckle! That has already been pointed out on uk.net.web.authoring ! They
haven't even got a DOCTYPE, so they can't validate it.

They point out on their site they don't follow their own rules?
Interesting marketing concept....

 

[Whitecrest]

Sure, dishing out tag soup is a career, too!

I say, you say, bla bla bla, we have different ideas over how the web
can be used. You think mine are wrong, I think yours are boring.

The bottom line is I don't care what you think. (and lets be fair, you
don't care what I think either) So we shall move ahead rather than
rehashing old worn out chatter....

 

[Leif K-Brooks]

I say, you say, bla bla bla, we have different ideas over how the web
can be used. You think mine are wrong, I think yours are boring.

We (I think, can't speak for anyone else) know how the web *can* be
used, but we also know that many of the possible uses are a bad idea.
Why not let everyone use your site when it's just as easy, and people
without disabilities won't be hurt?

 

[Kevin Scholl]

Well that out of touch reality is keeping thousands or developers happy.
So I think it is YOU that are out of touch trying to hold the Web back
because you don't understand the more complex things.

I could be wrong, but I think what he was saying is that W3C compliant
code does not, as you seem to suggest, have to be plain-jane and unexciting.

Don't be afraid of the new stuff.

--

*** Remove the DELETE from my address to reply ***

======================================================
Kevin Scholl http://www.ksscholl.com/
(e-mail address removed)

 

[Whitecrest]

We (I think, can't speak for anyone else) know how the web *can* be
used, but we also know that many of the possible uses are a bad idea.
Why not let everyone use your site when it's just as easy, and people
without disabilities won't be hurt?

See the underlining thing is what you think is bad, I don't.

What if I have something I want to present to people on the web. And
there is no way I can present it in the manner that can be accessible to
all. You seem to be saying that I should not be able to have such a
site. I believe it is perfectly ok, and in some (the entire
entertainment industry) cases desirable to have such a site.

 

[Whitecrest]

I could be wrong, but I think what he was saying is that W3C compliant
code does not, as you seem to suggest, have to be plain-jane and unexciting.

Show me one that isn't.

Sadly, since what makes an exciting site is personal choice, you will
not be able to show me such a site, because we obviously have different
thoughts on what makes an exciting fun site. But please feel free to
try, I would be interested in seeing what you or anyone else thinks is a
good site.

 

[Eric Bohlman]

What if I have something I want to present to people on the web. And
there is no way I can present it in the manner that can be accessible to
all. You seem to be saying that I should not be able to have such a
site. I believe it is perfectly ok, and in some (the entire
entertainment industry) cases desirable to have such a site.

You're making a straw-man argument. I have yet to hear anybody assert that
content that by its inherent nature cannot be made accessible should not be
on the Web. It's an unfortunate fact of life that certain kinds of content
aren't accessible to everybody and never will be. But that is something
quite different from taking content that *could* be accessible and making
it inaccessible just to save a small amount of effort on your part.

 

[Whitecrest]

You're making a straw-man argument....

The straw man argument is in itself a straw man argument.

I have yet to hear anybody assert that
content that by its inherent nature cannot be made accessible should not be
on the Web.

Read the forum, you missed the threads.

It's an unfortunate fact of life that certain kinds of content
aren't accessible to everybody and never will be.

Exactly what I am saying. But, not only certain kinds of content, but
certain ways of presenting content will never be accessible. And it
does not have to be accessible to everyone to be a good site.

quite different from taking content that *could* be accessible and making
it inaccessible just to save a small amount of effort on your part.

I believe the level of accessibility is directly related to the content
and presentation, because I believe presentation matters. Different
things turn different people on. And a site can be very discriminating
on it's viewers and still be successful. (See almost any entertainment
web site)

If you don't believe presentation matters, then there is no point in
arguing anything beyond that point because everything else is moot, if
we can not agree on a base line to start from.