META - CSS2 vs. real world

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Chris Beall, Jun 25, 2003.

  1. Chris Beall

    Chris Beall Guest

    I'd like to use CSS2 for some new and reworked sites, BUT I'm concerned
    that a significant percentage of real-world clients won't understand it
    and will therefore not display/print what I had in mind.

    I'm looking for some thoughts (or references to prior thoughts) on how
    to deal with this quandary.

    My own, sketchy, thinking:
    - Doing things twice (or more) is Bad. I do understand that it is
    possible to have two (or more) versions of a site, each tailored to a
    specific browser capability set. The idea makes my skin crawl.
    - Coding for the least common denominator seriously restricts what you
    can do. It's hard to explain this to a client (person) who has seen
    lots of spiffy sites which will only work with browser X.
    - Coding to the latest standards provides a high degree of
    satisfaction for the developer, but the site will probably only work on
    a small fraction of real-world browsers.

    What's a person to do?

    Chris Beall
     
    Chris Beall, Jun 25, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Chris Beall

    spaghetti Guest

    "Chris Beall" <> wrote in message
    news:k5mKa.900$...
    > - Doing things twice (or more) is Bad. I do understand that it is
    > possible to have two (or more) versions of a site, each tailored to a
    > specific browser capability set. The idea makes my skin crawl.


    You shouldn't have to. Just build your site to the browsers most people are
    using now, which all support web standards decently. If you want to go the
    extra mile, whip up a stylesheet to server to Netscape 4 and IE 4, that
    gives a bit of the "feel" that the full style has. Any browsers older than
    that are used by people who are either used to sites looking like crap and
    don't care, or realize they are wayyyy behind and they just want to read
    content... to hell with glitz and do-dads.

    > - Coding for the least common denominator seriously restricts what you
    > can do. It's hard to explain this to a client (person) who has seen
    > lots of spiffy sites which will only work with browser X.


    Many major websites have designed with standards (or fairly close). Try
    http://fastcompany.com/, http://espn.com/, and http://wired.com/. Also
    explain to your clients that developing with CSS for modern browsers allows
    you to develop better sites in less time, which amounts to savings for the
    client (you work the same amount of hours but produce more stuff).

    > - Coding to the latest standards provides a high degree of
    > satisfaction for the developer, but the site will probably only work on
    > a small fraction of real-world browsers.


    Actually it will work on many of the most popular browsers. You'll have
    issues with < Netscape 4 or < IE 4, but most of the popular browsers like
    Mozilla, Netscape 6/7, and IE 5+ can understand all the basics of web
    standards. IE might hold you back alot, but with some clever work arounds
    you'll have no major troubles. You just won't be able to fully realize all
    the potential of CSS for a few more years. But, there is still alot of CSS
    to enjoy now as it is.
     
    spaghetti, Jun 25, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Chris Beall wrote:

    > I'd like to use CSS2 for some new and reworked sites, BUT I'm concerned
    > that a significant percentage of real-world clients won't understand it
    > and will therefore not display/print what I had in mind.


    > What's a person to do?


    Be aware of common browser bugs.
    Expect graceful degradation (taking in to account the above)
    Protect Netscape 4.x from the CSS.

    --
    David Dorward http://david.us-lot.org/
    Redesign in progress: http://stone.thecoreworlds.net/
    Microsoft announces IE is dead (so upgrade):
    http://minutillo.com/steve/weblog/2003/5/30/microsoft-announces-ie-is-dead
     
    David Dorward, Jun 25, 2003
    #3
  4. Chris Beall

    Chris Beall Guest

    "spaghetti" <> wrote in message
    news:bdcrhp$rlja4$...

    (snip)

    > If you want to go the
    > extra mile, whip up a stylesheet to server to Netscape 4 and IE 4,

    that
    > gives a bit of the "feel" that the full style has.


    Is there a way other than JavaScript to SELECT such an alternate
    stylesheet based on browser type? My concern is the 15-20% of clients
    that have JavaScript disabled... Of course I could make the 'stripped'
    stylesheet the default, in which case ALL clients without JavaScript
    would see that version.

    Thanks,
    Chris Beall
     
    Chris Beall, Jun 26, 2003
    #4
  5. Chris Beall

    Mark Parnell Guest

    spaghetti wrote:
    >
    > Also explain to your clients that developing with CSS for modern
    > browsers allows you to develop better sites in less time, which
    > amounts to savings for the client (you work the same amount of hours
    > but produce more stuff).


    And that these sites are far more likely to be forward-compatible - they
    will work in any future browser without any tweaking required. So long term
    it will save time and money, too.

    --

    Mark Parnell
    http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
     
    Mark Parnell, Jun 26, 2003
    #5
  6. Chris Beall

    David Graham Guest

    "Chris Beall" <> wrote in message
    news:xotKa.961$...
    >
    > "spaghetti" <> wrote in message
    > news:bdcrhp$rlja4$...
    >
    > (snip)
    >
    > > If you want to go the
    > > extra mile, whip up a stylesheet to server to Netscape 4 and IE 4,

    > that
    > > gives a bit of the "feel" that the full style has.

    >
    > Is there a way other than JavaScript to SELECT such an alternate
    > stylesheet based on browser type? My concern is the 15-20% of clients
    > that have JavaScript disabled... Of course I could make the 'stripped'
    > stylesheet the default, in which case ALL clients without JavaScript
    > would see that version.
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Chris Beall
    >

    Conditional comments in the head section will allow only certain types of
    browser to see the contained html eg your link bit. They use no js.
    HTH
    David
     
    David Graham, Jun 26, 2003
    #6
  7. Chris Beall

    Isofarro Guest

    Isofarro, Jun 26, 2003
    #7
  8. Chris Beall

    Neo Geshel Guest

    In article <bdcrhp$rlja4$>,
    says...
    >
    > "Chris Beall" <> wrote in message
    > news:k5mKa.900$...
    > > - Doing things twice (or more) is Bad. I do understand that it is
    > > possible to have two (or more) versions of a site, each tailored to a
    > > specific browser capability set. The idea makes my skin crawl.

    >
    > You shouldn't have to. Just build your site to the browsers most people are
    > using now, which all support web standards decently. If you want to go the
    > extra mile, whip up a stylesheet to server to Netscape 4 and IE 4, that
    > gives a bit of the "feel" that the full style has. Any browsers older than
    > that are used by people who are either used to sites looking like crap and
    > don't care, or realize they are wayyyy behind and they just want to read
    > content... to hell with glitz and do-dads.
    >


    I once came up with some CSS that spontaneously crashed NN4 (all sub-
    versions) and often took out the entire operating system with it.
    Windows 95, 98 & Me were particularly susceptible. It came in
    particularly handy on the Intranet I was working on... when field staff
    started complaining that their laptops couldn't access the Intranet
    anymore, I reminded them of the monthly checkups that their laptops
    should have been getting. Some staff hadn't brought in their laptops in
    *years*, and were still running a very early version of NN4.

    Since I was also handling the OS/software end of things, being able to
    say "I told you so" (they had been warned in advance) to the complaining
    technophobes and Luddites was quite satisfying.

    Then I upgraded them to NT5.1, with Opera and Express Plus, which threw
    a real monkey wrench in their complacency. :-> Had I been a real sado-
    masochist, I would have gone with OpenBSD, but I don't like seeing grown
    ppl cry.

    ....Geshel
    --
    ************************************************************************
    Reply-to e-mail forwards all received e-mails to SpamCop for UBE/UCE
    (Unsolicited Bulk/Commercial E-mail) reporting. DO NOT USE THAT ADDRESS!
    Please send e-mail to my first name at my last name dot org.
    ************************************************************************
     
    Neo Geshel, Jun 28, 2003
    #8
  9. Neo Geshel pounced upon this pigeonhole and pronounced:
    >
    > I once came up with some CSS that spontaneously crashed NN4 (all sub-
    > versions) and often took out the entire operating system with it.
    > Windows 95, 98 & Me were particularly susceptible. ...


    Can you explain how CSS could take out an operating system?

    What was the CSS?

    --
    -bts
    -This space intentionally left blank.
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Jun 28, 2003
    #9
  10. Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    > Neo Geshel pounced upon this pigeonhole and pronounced:
    >>
    >> I once came up with some CSS that spontaneously crashed NN4 (all sub-
    >> versions) and often took out the entire operating system with it.

    >
    > Can you explain how CSS could take out an operating system?


    You need the ouzi plug-in

    --
    William Tasso - http://www.WilliamTasso.com
     
    William Tasso, Jun 29, 2003
    #10
  11. In article <1CoLa.3760$>,
    lid says...
    > Neo Geshel pounced upon this pigeonhole and pronounced:
    > >
    > > I once came up with some CSS that spontaneously crashed NN4 (all sub-
    > > versions) and often took out the entire operating system with it.
    > > Windows 95, 98 & Me were particularly susceptible. ...

    >
    > Can you explain how CSS could take out an operating system?
    >

    You just redefine 'operating system' to include 'windows 95' and find
    the css that causes writes to a null pointer in some ancient buggy
    browser. Sounds entirely plausible to me.
     
    Jacqui or (maybe) Pete, Jun 29, 2003
    #11
    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. Mark

    XHTML + CSS2 Layout Problem

    Mark, Oct 6, 2005, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    494
    gerry
    Oct 8, 2005
  2. oulan bator

    CSS or CSS2 and XML in Java

    oulan bator, Dec 15, 2005, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    1,089
    Oliver Wong
    Dec 20, 2005
  3. Chris Beall

    CSS2 - Centering block boxes

    Chris Beall, Jul 18, 2003, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    521
    Joel Shepherd
    Jul 20, 2003
  4. Jean-Fran?ois Lacrampe

    XHTML/CSS2 image borders.

    Jean-Fran?ois Lacrampe, Jun 24, 2004, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,321
    Jean-Fran?ois Lacrampe
    Jun 24, 2004
  5. Davmagic .Com

    CSS2 Way Too Complicated

    Davmagic .Com, Jul 14, 2004, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    27
    Views:
    940
    Joel Shepherd
    Jul 16, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page