Reasonable Browser versions to support

Discussion in 'Javascript' started by David Logan, May 31, 2004.

  1. David Logan

    David Logan Guest

    Hello,

    I don't know if this is the best place to ask this question but if its
    not I'm sure someboy will tell where is.

    I am taking a website that has been developed for IE browsers running
    on Windows systems to a multi platform multi browser site. What
    versions of what browsers is reasonable to have to work with.

    This site is going to require users have Adobe Acrobat reader
    installed and windows IE users are going to have access to an ActiveX
    control for additional functionality.

    So is there a list somewhere of browsers and also is there any kind of
    virtual system for testing these. I don't have any unix or mac
    systems available to test from so how will I know that everything is
    working on them?

    Thanks

    David Logan
     
    David Logan, May 31, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. David Logan

    Jim Ley Guest

    On 31 May 2004 10:58:43 -0700, (David Logan)
    wrote:
    >This site is going to require users have Adobe Acrobat reader
    >installed


    Why? why not anything that can read PDF's?

    >So is there a list somewhere of browsers and also is there any kind of
    >virtual system for testing these.


    Nope, just author defensively.

    Jim.
    --
    comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/
     
    Jim Ley, May 31, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. (David Logan) writes:

    > I am taking a website that has been developed for IE browsers running
    > on Windows systems to a multi platform multi browser site. What
    > versions of what browsers is reasonable to have to work with.


    All current and future browsers.

    The trick to that is to use standards. Use validating HTML and CSS and
    use the W3C DOM where possible. It is reasonable to expect all (near)
    future browsers to understand this correctly. However, you should
    still make the pages degrade cleanly when Javascript, or particular
    features, are not available.

    Then you must decide which current browsers you want to support as
    well. Some of these have bad standards support (IE in particular),
    and you make the page degrade cleanly for these browsers as well.

    > This site is going to require users have Adobe Acrobat reader
    > installed


    That is a problem. There are other ways to show PDF-files, and even
    Acrobat isn't always integrated into the browser (i.e., you can't tell
    the difference between opening the PDF file and just saving it).

    > and windows IE users are going to have access to an ActiveX
    > control for additional functionality.


    Extra functionality is not important if you can use the page without
    it. It's just a bonus.

    > So is there a list somewhere of browsers


    If there is, it's pretty certain that it isn't complete, and it will
    not prepare you for the future.

    > and also is there any kind of virtual system for testing these.


    That would be <URL:http://www.browsercam.com/>
    It'll only show how it looks, the Javascript is harder to test.

    > I don't have any unix or mac systems available to test from so how
    > will I know that everything is working on them?


    You can, fairly easily, get a Linux or BSD system running on any
    standard PC. The Mac browsers (mostly Safari, not many people use
    IE 5.2 for Mac any more) are harder to test.

    Good luck.
    /L
    --
    Lasse Reichstein Nielsen -
    DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleDOM.html>
    'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'
     
    Lasse Reichstein Nielsen, May 31, 2004
    #3
  4. "Lasse Reichstein Nielsen" wrote:
    > David Logan wrote:

    <snip>
    >> and windows IE users are going to have access to an ActiveX
    >> control for additional functionality.

    >
    > Extra functionality is not important if you can use the
    > page without it. It's just a bonus.


    There is a running assumption that if the browser is Windows IE then it
    will run ActiveX. It is a mistake that even Microsoft are guilty of,
    leaving me with no choice but use a Gecko browser when visiting MSDN.

    <snip>
    >> I don't have any unix or mac systems available to test from so how
    >> will I know that everything is working on them?

    >
    > You can, fairly easily, get a Linux or BSD system running on any
    > standard PC. The Mac browsers (mostly Safari, not many people use
    > IE 5.2 for Mac any more) are harder to test.


    Because they share their underlying code, getting something to work on
    Konqueror means that it will probably work on Safari (or not take much
    altering).

    One option for testing Konqueror on i386 systems is the Knoppix
    self-booting (Debian-based) Linux CD ROM, which has booted to a
    functional Linux/KDE system on about 3 out of 4 of the desktop 386 PCs I
    have tried it with to date.

    The main drawback is the 680Mb download of the ISO image file for the
    disk, which takes 4 hours on broadband (and probably two days on
    dial-up) (though it can be ordered through the post).

    <URL: http://knoppix.org/ >

    Richard.
     
    Richard Cornford, May 31, 2004
    #4
  5. In article <>,
    Lasse Reichstein Nielsen <> wrote:

    > (David Logan) writes:
    >
    > > I am taking a website that has been developed for IE browsers running
    > > on Windows systems to a multi platform multi browser site. What
    > > versions of what browsers is reasonable to have to work with.

    >
    > All current and future browsers.


    No need to go insane with it, however. If your project goes over budget
    by 20% because you're struggling to support version 3 browsers, well,
    that's just plain ridiculous.

    4 is a good cutoff point. The science museum here in Boston supports
    nothing older than Netscape 4.7, and they are sticklers for compliance.

    A lot of schools still use 4.x versions, but anything prior to that
    really should be off your radar.
     
    Steven Daedelus, Jun 1, 2004
    #5
  6. Richard Cornford wrote:

    > One option for testing Konqueror on i386 systems is the Knoppix
    > self-booting (Debian-based) Linux CD ROM, which has booted to a
    > functional Linux/KDE system on about 3 out of 4 of the desktop 386 PCs I
    > have tried it with to date.
    >
    > The main drawback is the 680Mb download of the ISO image file for the
    > disk, which takes 4 hours on broadband (and probably two days on
    > dial-up) (though it can be ordered through the post).


    Knoppix CD-ROMs sometimes come with PC magazines and on exhibitions (I got
    my four copies [for friends, family and me :)] of Knoppix 3.4 at the CeBIT
    this year) as well. And yes, it is great, especially for *x beginners and
    as a backup system.


    PointedEars
     
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Jun 6, 2004
    #6
    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. Timo Nentwig

    Reasonable usage of assert

    Timo Nentwig, Apr 16, 2004, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    466
    Chris Smith
    Apr 17, 2004
  2. Cathy Puta
    Replies:
    86
    Views:
    4,379
    photobug
    Feb 26, 2012
  3. Steven T. Hatton
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,150
    Steven T. Hatton
    Aug 22, 2004
  4. fBechmann
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    418
    fBechmann
    Jun 10, 2004
  5. Petr Jakes
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    337
    Rene Pijlman
    Jun 1, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page