Does anyone pay attention to standards?

[Brian]

Css is used for presentation. All CSS is not rendered the same way
on different browsers.

True. In some situations, it is not rendered at all.

So if you want to have your site look the same on different browsers

Why on earth would you want that?

then you have to limit the CSS that you can use.

Only if you start with an absurd goal.

So sticking to 100% compliant code, AND making it work on all
browsers

Oops! non-sequitur. Just because it looks different to different uas
does not mean it does not work.

 

[Whitecrest]

Where did I suggest that you disregard what browsers do?

Not you specifically.

 

[Whitecrest]

yes and no...you see nobody sane would want the site to look the same on
different browsers...

Since we can not agree on something as basic as this, then we will have
to enter into the world of the endless torment every time this topic
comes up. I simply believe that you should let the users dictate what
is right on the web, you on the other hand want some commission to do
it.

Oh well, carry on.

 

[Whitecrest]

I don't see how that would prove a case...it seems to be on a par with the
rest of your "logic"

Hey, the world you talk about is all fantasy. Fortune 500 companies are
reality. If standards were so important then they would be doing it. Or
are you so pompous that you think that all the web developers in a
fortune 500 company are too stupid to know about standards, and only the
honored few in this newsgroup know the way....

Also, I don't believe I ever said that you should never code to
standards, or that you should not attempt to be in compliance. All I
say is that it is not THAT important in the long run. And until all
browsers work right, or Microsoft looses it's overwhelming market share
of browsers users, standards not real high on the importance list.

 

[Whitecrest]

Oops! non-sequitur. Just because it looks different to different uas
does not mean it does not work.

Never said it would not work. I said it would not look right. And
sorry, presentation sometimes matters. Thats all we disagree on.

 

[Jan Roland Eriksson]

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 15:48:57 -0400, Whitecrest

[...]

It does. Css is used for presentation. All CSS is not rendered the
same way on different browsers. So if you want to have your site look
the same on different browsers, then you have to limit the CSS that you
can use.

Sigh...

Why is this "look the same" skeleton still rattling in the closet?

"Look the same" is an expression with zero, zilch, nada, nothing of
value to it, unless you are suggesting that a vast majority of web
surfers are always using a minimum of two browsers to look at every web
site they find interesting.

The real criteria to look at is...

1) Is my site presented acceptably good in browser A?
Is it fully usable in browser A?

2) Is my site presented acceptably good in browser B?
Is it fully usable in browser B?

If you can answer yes to the questions in 1) and 2) (and the same
questions for browsers C, D, E etc.) you can go tell your shrink that
you have finally been able to pass over your "look the same paranoia"
and that you are ready to move on to the next level of web design where
you will use every damned fancy feature you can find that is designed to
provide for a decent fall back in browsers where it can't be fully
understood.

Learn to follow good recommendations for how things on Internet are
supposed to work together, design your pages accordingly and be done
with it.

"Look the same" is NOT a primary criteria in that process.

 

[Jan Roland Eriksson]

Well the basic premise we disagree on is if all web pages have to be
coded so every swinging dick in the world can see and use the site.

Anything else involves a level of discrimination.

The www was not designed to discriminate, quite the contrary in fact.

 

[Brian]

(e-mail address removed) says...


Never said it would not work.

You did. But curiously, you snipped that part of the message.

That's the part that came just before I wrote "Oops!..."

I said it would not look right.

Just to be clear, here's a fuller quote, reinserted from an earlier
message in this thread to which I was replying:

So sticking to 100% compliant code, AND making it work on all
browsers limits your presentation, because you can not use all the
features available.

But the point is not that it won't work on all browsers. It can easily
work on all browsers, that is, if your definition of work is
straitforward: the content is available in some form in all reasonably
conforming user-agents.

And sorry, presentation sometimes matters.

Since I never suggested otherwise, there's no need to apologize.

Thats all we disagree on.

We disagree on what it means for a web page to work. You are under the
impression that "work" means it must look the same in all browsers. I
don't know why that is important to you. I doubt it is important to many
visitors, since very few of them will take the time to compare your site
in 2 or more browsers.

 

[Whitecrest]

(ok, I am talking about the presentation not working, you suddenly bring
up the page not working. Two totally different things.)

In your context of the term "work", I never said it would not "work"

You did. But curiously, you snipped that part of the message.

No, you changed the meaning to fit your argument thats all. you were
confused.

We disagree on what it means for a web page to work....

Only sometimes. You seem to believe that a page must work (be
accessible, standard compliant, Presentation is meaningless, etc...) on
every browser that shows up, all the time. I think each site and it's
goals and target audience must be evaluated before you can decide what
is best for the site.

 

[Brian]

I never said it would not "work"

<quote>
So sticking to 100% compliant code, AND making it work on all browsers
limits your presentation, because you can not use all the features
available.
</quote>

You keep cutting that part, which I've reinserted again.

Only sometimes. You seem to believe that a page must work (be
accessible, standard compliant, Presentation is meaningless, etc...)

You also, for some reason, keep repeating the lie that I claim that
presentation is meaningless. You cannot present any message where I said
any such thing for the obviouls reason that no such message exists.

Anyone who is more honest need only look at other messages in the thread
and see for themselves. Further comment is unwarranted.

 

[Whitecrest]

Sigh...
Why is this "look the same" skeleton still rattling in the closet?

Nope not at all, I more often than not use 100% standard compliant code
that validates, and have great presentations. But not all sites can or
want to do that.

Do you think standards mean diddley to:
http://www.thedayaftertomorrow.com/
(caution you need flash and javascript to enjoy it)

They did not care, the site does exactly what it was designed to do
exactly the way it was designed to do it, and it "works" on most
browsers IF you want it to.

They don't care about anything else, nor should the because the site
does exactly what it is supposed to.

"Look the same" is an expression with zero, zilch, nada, nothing of
value to it, unless you are suggesting that a vast majority of web
surfers are always using a minimum of two browsers to look at every web
site they find interesting.

Explain that to the above site.

The real criteria to look at is...
1) Is my site presented acceptably good in browser A?
Is it fully usable in browser A?
2) Is my site presented acceptably good in browser B?
Is it fully usable in browser B?

For most sites that is true. But completely wrong for the above
example. The site is designed to look exactly the same on as many
browsers it can. Standards are irrelevant.

"Look the same" is NOT a primary criteria in that process.

We disagree sometimes.

 

[Whitecrest]

Anything else involves a level of discrimination.
The www was not designed to discriminate, quite the contrary in fact.

The www has evolved from those days where part of it is now a virtually
free public form, and place to advertise for companies. This is in
addition to a place get get information, and a place to do ecommerce,
and a place to search and a place for brucie's porn, bla bla bla...

It is all of those things. And not all types of sites need to be
accessible by every visitor. That is not discrimination.

 

[Whitecrest]

<quote>
So sticking to 100% compliant code, AND making it work on all browsers
limits your presentation, because you can not use all the features
available.
</quote>

Your context for the word work is "functionality", to that, I never said
it would not work. You know that too, or you are unable to follow the
context of the topic.

 

[Zak McGregor]

Good presentation doesn't necessarily exclude good content


WHAT???

[snip]

Whitecrest never fails to bemuse. Same old lame old... ;-)

Ciao

Zak

 

[Stan McCann]

Nope not at all, I more often than not use 100% standard compliant code
that validates, and have great presentations. But not all sites can or
want to do that.

You've got that wrong. All sites can. Not all want to.

Do you think standards mean diddley to:
http://www.thedayaftertomorrow.com/
(caution you need flash and javascript to enjoy it)

Thanks for the warning so that I didn't waste my time. I don't use
flash or javascript and the quickest way to get me to leave a sie is to
tell me what I *need*. BS. If you can't create a site without the
*need* for that garbage, you can' create a site. It's the web, dammit,
not a TV screen complete with commercials.

They did not care, the site does exactly what it was designed to do
exactly the way it was designed to do it, and it "works" on most
browsers IF you want it to.

All well and good for those playing on the web. When I'm looking for
information or products, I do not want to see your leadin, listen to
your choice of music or change my settings.

They don't care about anything else, nor should the because the site
does exactly what it is supposed to.

I didn't look. What's it supposed to do? Drive people away?

Explain that to the above site.

Obviously, those that created the above site care as much about me as I
about them.

For most sites that is true. But completely wrong for the above
example. The site is designed to look exactly the same on as many
browsers it can. Standards are irrelevant.

The site is irrelavent. Again, I haven't been there, just going on what
you said the site contains. I leave immediately when a site makes
demands that I must conform to their expectations making the site
irrelavent to me.

We disagree sometimes.

You and I do a lot.

 

[Whitecrest]

Thanks for the warning so that I didn't waste my time. I don't use
flash or javascript and the quickest way to get me to leave a sie is to
tell me what I *need*. BS....
...*need* for that garbage, you can' create a site. It's the web, dammit,
not a TV screen complete with commercials.

See this is where we disagree. I think it is an important part of the
web.

All well and good for those playing on the web.

Ahh you admit that you can do something other than searching for product
information. You are making progress.

When I'm looking for
information or products, I do not want to see your leadin, listen to
your choice of music or change my settings.

Nor do I. But when I want to play, I do.

I didn't look. What's it supposed to do? Drive people away?

Well, drive people like you away, the other 80 or 90% of the world gets
excited about the movie. But here is a clue, they already know that,
and guess what, they don't care.

Obviously, those that created the above site care as much about me as I
about them.

Well we can agree there.

The site is irrelavent. Again, I haven't been there, just going on what
you said the site contains. I leave immediately when a site makes
demands that I must conform to their expectations making the site
irrelavent to me.

That is your opinion and you are welcome to it. But others enjoy stuff
like this, and here's another clue, they can use the web to if they
want. You don't own it.

You and I do a lot.

News flash there....

 

[Mark Parnell]

Well, drive people like you away, the other 80 or 90% of the world gets
excited about the movie. But here is a clue, they already know that,
and guess what, they don't care.

I looked, with Flash and Javascript (and enabling popups, I might add),
and it certainly didn't excite me about the movie.

 

[Stan McCann]

See this is where we disagree. I think it is an important part of the
web.

You wan't to turn it into TV?!? Why not just watch the boob tube then?

Ahh you admit that you can do something other than searching for product
information. You are making progress.

I'm a big gamer. I don't use a browser interface for it though. If I
did, I'd want it to work in any browser with the settings that I choose.
And not all of the privacy invading technologies that I have to
download and install to "make it work." If you want to make a game, do
so. If you want to write something to be displayed in a browser, use
the standards so it is useable in any browser with any personal settings
requiring no changes.

Well, drive people like you away, the other 80 or 90% of the world gets
excited about the movie. But here is a clue, they already know that,
and guess what, they don't care.

That's part of my point. Too many businesses these days have a "there's
10 more fools/suckers like you just around the corner" attitude towards
customers/potential customers. I just mailed (US Postal) a long
complaint to a major company with attitudes like that. The web site and
their phone "services" were totally useless in doing what I wanted to
do. I let them know that if there were an acceptable choice, I'd no
longer do business with them at all. It's attitudes like yours that
perpetuate that kind of business. Like the rest of the sheep, you are
allowing business to do as they wish.

That is your opinion and you are welcome to it. But others enjoy stuff
like this, and here's another clue, they can use the web to if they
want. You don't own it.

I most certainly don't; with the exception of my little LAN portion of
it. But neither do the idiots that want to turn it into just another
idiot box like TV. I have the right to and will voice my opinion that
the garbage doesn't need to take over. We already have television for
the sheep masses. Must we allow this medium to be taken over by big
business too to serve yet more idiocy to the sheep masses? I think not.

I'm not saying that you can't have games, music, or flash, all the stuff
you seem to want a browser to do. Just don't *expect* it in a
technology that isn't designed for it. Write the application for that
stuff and I'm sure there is a market. The "web" isn't necessarily HTML,
it is just the machinery and wiring that connects us all together. Let
the HTML applications (browsers) view HTML. Come up with something else
for all the flash commercials or put them on TV.

 

[Stanimir Stamenkov]

/Whitecrest/:

See http://www.alistapart.com/articles/flashsatay/ as to why that
doesn't work.

Yes, I've read it and I've knew the solution even before.

Now they offer a solution, but if you are a user of flash not a builder,
then the solution doesn't work. Also you have to have a container flash
object and all this other horse shit.

If I'm a "user" I probably won't make sites with such wide Web impact.

And after all the above construct works in IE, it is that IE is
stupid enough not to stream the content - it is all its fault, go
complain Microsoft. Moreover the streaming probably doesn't matter
because almost all the Flash applets I've seen wait to load
completely, showing some kind of load progress indicator, before
starting.

Another moral of the story - use technologies appropriately. Flash
is useful mostly for animated banner ads and could be very useful
for specialized applets which implement real-time communication with
a server-app, for example. But what we currently see on the web is
mostly Flash-sh*t - Flash applets used for navigational links where
no alternative "simple" links provided, etc.

The embed tag is easy, and it works all the time with less code. It
just doesn't follow the standards. But all the browsers handle it
correctly.

Gee hard decision here. less work, works on everyone's machine, and no
container flash. So I am not standards compliant, it works everywhere.

That's the erroneous thinking you got here - what does mean
"everywhere", "all the browsers"? It is not standard and you've not
tried it with all the applications out there (you can't possibly
know all of them). So even if you've tested with possible enough
amount of different applications, currently - nothing guarantees it
would work with the next versions of those same applications.

And yea, I will have to go back and re-code someday. But since some of
you still code for nn4, I am not really worried about that.

Another erroneous thinking - I don't code for NN4. I code with
standards but if I really need some functionality working in NN4 I
use only this part which works in NN4 and I don't use NN4
proprietary stuff to make it work with it.

Not to
mention if my site hasn't been re-coded in that amount of time anyway,
I have bigger problems that just standards.

What problems do you imply?

 

[Whitecrest]

I looked, with Flash and Javascript (and enabling popups, I might add),
and it certainly didn't excite me about the movie.

I was waiting to see who was going to say that.