Netscape 4.8 users must hate the web by now!

[jake]

Why not simply hide your main CSS from old Netscapes, but also provide a
stylesheet that old Netscapes *can* use to provide a basic -- but
acceptable -- page?

Providing the page is marked-up properly it should still be usable.

regards.

Why? Because I am not going to bend over backwards to cater to 5% of users.
When it's simpler for that 5% to simply upgrade to a more modern browser.
If you can upgrade your operating system, why can't you upgrade your
browser?
[/QUOTE]
Isn't it simpler to just hide your CSS from old browsers like Netscape
4.x ?

Like I say, if the page is marked-up properly it should still be usable
by old Netscape users.

regards.

 

[Bernhard Sturm]

Why? Because I am not going to bend over backwards to cater to 5% of users.
When it's simpler for that 5% to simply upgrade to a more modern browser.

sigh... it's not about upgrading. it's about accessibility... repeat
after me: accessibility! the mantra.. yes.
don't think of your audiance as potential NN4.x users that will need to
upgrade... maybe you should reflect on the fact that your audience might
use high-tech mobile UAs or text-to-speech browser... they will
certainly not upgrade, but they will ask you for the proper
implementation of your CSS sheet, which is via @import()...

cheers

bernhard

 

[Hywel Jenkins]

Your manipulation of numbers would put the most bias pollster to shame.

I haven't manipulated anything - I simply chose an arbitrary number.
RtS posed the figure of 5% NN users, so 5% of 500M is 25M NN users.

 

[C A Upsdell]

Come to think of it, aren't 5, 5.5 and 6 the same but with different
icons?

No. 5.5 has significantly better CSS support than 5.0; and of course
6.0 has better standards support than 5.5.

 

[C A Upsdell]

http://www.geocities.com/r_bullis/netscape48.jpg

I installed NS4.8 just to see how it would hande my site.
The photo says it all.

You might try NN4.08: stats suggest that more people today use 4.08
than 4.5-4.80.

 

[Spartanicus]

Richard schrieb:

Could you configure your attribution line to include the email address,
this makes filtering of follow ups possible.

 

[Richard]

How did you figure that out, RtS? How "easy" is it for an organisation
with 3,000 desktops running NN4.7 to upgrade?

How do you know that the user has upgraded their operating system. You
haven't, have you?

Supposing there are 500,000,000 Internet users, that gives 25,000,000 NN
users. If each of them requires an average of 15 minutes to upgrade it
will take 12-man years for them to do it. How is that easier than you
spending a few minutes ... Actually, I see your point. It will be
easier, and quicker, for them to upgrade rather than wait for you to get
your code right.

Bullshit. It would take 15 minutes per user to install. Not 12 man years as
you propose.
There is nothing wrong with "my" code, as I did not write it.
If Duende, or steve pugh, had put up the same shit, you'd be applauding them
for a job well done.

 

[Bernhard Sturm]

Could you configure your attribution line to include the email address,
this makes filtering of follow ups possible.

yes sure... how can I do it? I use Netscape 7.0 newsreader, but couldn't
find where to set this. Can you guide me?


bernhard

 

[Richard]

Bernhard Sturm wrote:

sigh... it's not about upgrading. it's about accessibility... repeat
after me: accessibility! the mantra.. yes.
don't think of your audiance as potential NN4.x users that will need to
upgrade... maybe you should reflect on the fact that your audience might
use high-tech mobile UAs or text-to-speech browser... they will
certainly not upgrade, but they will ask you for the proper
implementation of your CSS sheet, which is via @import()...

cheers

So then if sites were all designed with flash 7, then nn4x users would be
shit out of luck and would have to either upgrade, or not surf at all.
Show me one site which is totally accessible by a text-to speech browser.
Then how would that browser interpret an image?
How does it know that I mean content of a web page, and that I am content
about it's properties?
The Premo talking web browser was a royal flop.
It pronounced "read" as "ree-add".
Then how does it know the difference between knowing what to read and how it
was read?

As it used to be, tables were the ONLY way to present web sites.
Then along comes CSS and tables are frowned upon.
A user of NN4.x will see CSS properly?
Since it was written before CSS, I don't see how.

If nobody made improvements, advanced the technology, we'd all still be
walking.
If you're not willing to upgrade a simple thing as a browser, then you
should be satisified with using windows 1.0.
Or even pure DOS for that matter.

 

[Steve Pugh]

Bullshit. It would take 15 minutes per user to install. Not 12 man years as
you propose.

15 minutes per user * 25,000,000 users is 12 man years you plonker.

Many users are not in a position where they can upgrade. They work in
locations where the desktops have a locked installation where nothing
can be changed.

There is nothing wrong with "my" code, as I did not write it.

You could easily have hidden your CSS from NN4. Just change
<style type="text/css"> to <style type="text/css" media="screen,
pojection">. Now NN4 will get an unstyled version of the page but at
least users will be able to access all the links. When you've learnt a
bit more (so 2025 then) you can add a basic stylesheet just for NN4.

As you've already taken the decision to not support NN4 as far as the
dynamic menus go (when you deleted the <ilayer>s and <layer>s) you
need to remove some of the JavaScript that was only being used by NN4.
Delete the following:

function regenerate(){
window.location.reload()
}
function regenerate2(){
if (document.layers){
appear()
setTimeout("window.onresize=regenerate",450)
}
}

and

else if (document.layers){
document.d1.document.d2.document.write('<font
face="Verdana"><small>'+whichcontent+'<\/small><\/font>')
document.d1.document.d2.document.close()
}

and

function appear(){
document.d1.visibility='show'
}

window.onload=regenerate2


None of the above is used by modern browsers, just by NN4.

Once you've done all of that you'll have a page that displays a plain
list of links in NN4, and which doesn't generate javascript errors.
All you need to do then is make sure that the links go somewhere.

If Duende, or steve pugh, had put up the same shit, you'd be applauding them
for a job well done.

I hope not. If I produced something that crap I'd expect to be called
on it.

Steve

 

[Travis Newbury]

I haven't manipulated anything - I simply chose an arbitrary number.
RtS posed the figure of 5% NN users, so 5% of 500M is 25M NN users.

Yes, but you knew the topic in was about 4.8, which there are not 5%
using it. Anyway, that was a complement. I hope it came across as such.

 

[Steve Pugh]

So then if sites were all designed with flash 7, then nn4x users would be
shit out of luck and would have to either upgrade, or not surf at all.

Flash 7 is usable with NN4. The basic Flash plugin will work, some of
the hooks for JavaScript to control interactions into and out of the
Flash movie won't work but it's not as if all Flassh sites would be
affected.

Show me one site which is totally accessible by a text-to speech browser.

I would say that most of mine are accessible to speech browsers.
"Totally" is a bit subjective and would depend on the user and the
exact browser being used.

Then how would that browser interpret an image?

What do you think alt attributes are for?

How does it know that I mean content of a web page, and that I am content
about it's properties?

From context. Speech is a very difficult thing to get right but
progress is being made.

The Premo talking web browser was a royal flop.

Have a look at IBM's Home Page Reader. Or the JAWS screen reader.

As it used to be, tables were the ONLY way to present web sites.

No they weren't. They were the only way to create complex layouts.
Many web pages never used tables for presentation.

Then along comes CSS and tables are frowned upon.

Tables for layout were frowned upon before CSS was widespread.

A user of NN4.x will see CSS properly?

No. NN4 screws up a lot of CSS. That's why you hide CSS from NN4.

Since it was written before CSS, I don't see how.

It was written at about the same time as CSS. But Netscape were
pushing an alternative stylesheet technology - JSSS - and had to
quickly convert the JSSS engine in NN4 to CSS when it became clear
that CSS was going to become the standard. That's part of the reason
why NN4's support for CSS is so bad.

If nobody made improvements, advanced the technology, we'd all still be
walking.
If you're not willing to upgrade a simple thing as a browser, then you
should be satisified with using windows 1.0.
Or even pure DOS for that matter.

Ah, a classic straw man.

Steve

 

[Hywel Jenkins]

Bullshit. It would take 15 minutes per user to install. Not 12 man years as
you propose.

25,000,000 users at 15 minutes each is 12 man years you tit.

There is nothing wrong with "my" code, as I did not write it.
If Duende, or steve pugh, had put up the same shit, you'd be applauding them
for a job well done.

That would never happen. Those guys write their own stuff.

 

[Neal]

25,000,000 users at 15 minutes each is 12 man years you tit.

I think he's trying to argue that all 25 million could do it at the
same time. Still, it's a faulted argument, as that's a lot of
productivity to remove from the world. A half hour spent moving any
styles which would screw with NN over to an imported stylesheet is
less time than three of these users upgrading their browser.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

[RtS:]

25,000,000 users at 15 minutes each is 12 man years you tit.

I think he's trying to argue that all 25 million could do it at the
same time.

He doesn't understand the definition of "man-years"...

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=man-year&db=*

 

[saz]

Why? Because I am not going to bend over backwards to cater to 5% of users.
When it's simpler for that 5% to simply upgrade to a more modern browser.
If you can upgrade your operating system, why can't you upgrade your
browser?

There's still alot of Win 95 machines out there. Some people refuse to
upgrade anything.

As for NN4.x, it's unlikely that it's even 5% anymore. Across my sites
it's now under .5%, so I've officially written it off for testing
purposes.

 

[Bernhard Sturm]

Bernhard Sturm wrote:

So then if sites were all designed with flash 7, then nn4x users would be
shit out of luck and would have to either upgrade, or not surf at all.
Show me one site which is totally accessible by a text-to speech browser.
www.frauen-an-die-maeuse.ch
www.meaning.ch
...

Then how would that browser interpret an image?

an image is not interpreted at all, but you will see the text of the
alt-attribute.. download lynx once, and start surfin. I suggest you
start learning something new, go here for a start:

http://lynx.isc.org/release/

How does it know that I mean content of a web page, and that I am content
about it's properties?

because it takes the structure of a site. if you are designing according
to the W3C specs of XHTML/CSS you have separated structure from design.
A text-only UA will then only show you the document structure, which
contains, of course, the documents content.

The Premo talking web browser was a royal flop.

give IBMs Homep Page Reader 3.0 a try:
http://www-306.ibm.com/able/solution_offerings/hpr.html

It pronounced "read" as "ree-add".

see above. It's specially designed for visually impaired people.

Then how does it know the difference between knowing what to read and how it
was read?

Hmm I suggest you do a bit research about accessibilty. The structure of

As it used to be, tables were the ONLY way to present web sites.
Then along comes CSS and tables are frowned upon.
A user of NN4.x will see CSS properly?

no. because NN4.x has not properly implemented CSS rendering
capabilities. So forget about NN4.x and CSS. just don't feed NN4.x with
CSS. use the @import() to import your style sheets, as old browsers will
not read this.

Since it was written before CSS, I don't see how.

right. people still using NN4.x have their reason why they are still
using it:
- they might not be interested in fancy designs: so structure is okay
for them
- they might sit on a very low bandwidth line: so structure is better
for them (as it doesn't consume a lot of bandwidth)
- they might love to stick to old things: so fancy design will anyway
turn them away

If you're not willing to upgrade a simple thing as a browser, then you
should be satisified with using windows 1.0.
Or even pure DOS for that matter.

it's simply not about upgrading.. when will people realise, that
webdesing has fundamentally changed in the last couple of years?
Webdesign is not just building a nicely layed-out page with cool colors.
It's about accessing the content of a document.
And if you follow the specs and standards you will be able to create a
site in 2005 which can be accessed by a UA that was developped in 1996
AND a UA which will be developped in 2005...
I do agree, that for some of us this is a tough thing, as everyone is
focused on pixel accuracy and table layout. But it's not what users are
asking for... they want the content (you will never get the content, if
you are still using tables for your layout).


bernhard

 

[Spartanicus]

yes sure... how can I do it? I use Netscape 7.0 newsreader, but couldn't
find where to set this. Can you guide me?

I'm not familiar with it, try it's help functions.

 

[Bernhard Sturm]

I'm not familiar with it, try it's help functions.

I have found nothing in the help functions to customise the attribution
line... sorry.. can't you filter on the name of the poster?


bernhard

 

[Spartanicus]

I have found nothing in the help functions to customise the attribution
line... sorry.. can't you filter on the name of the poster?

"richard" is not unique enough to id this particular twit.