What is the most important trick for page consistence?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Dung Ping, Sep 27, 2005.

  1. Dung Ping

    Dung Ping Guest

    Opening with dfferent browers, my web pages look different. They
    sometimes look different even with same brower but on different
    computers.

    Professionally-made pages always look same on all browers and all
    computers. What are the most important things for page consistency?
    Thanks.
    Dung Ping, Sep 27, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Dung Ping

    Els Guest

    Dung Ping wrote:

    > Opening with dfferent browers, my web pages look different. They
    > sometimes look different even with same brower but on different
    > computers.


    URL?

    > Professionally-made pages always look same on all browers and all
    > computers.


    Not true.

    > What are the most important things for page consistency?


    It's just a matter of using a nice complete doctype, and constant
    checking in a couple of browsers whilst building, and then check in
    all the other browsers and adjust till happy.

    --
    Els http://locusmeus.com/
    Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
    - Renato Russo -
    Els, Sep 27, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Dung Ping

    Dung Ping Guest

    Els wrote:
    > Dung Ping wrote:
    >
    > > Opening with dfferent browers, my web pages look different. They
    > > sometimes look different even with same brower but on different
    > > computers.

    >
    > URL?


    My web site is for a very specific group of people, so I didn't bother
    others with it. Its address is:

    www.pinyinology.com
    >
    > > Professionally-made pages always look same on all browers and all
    > > computers.

    >
    > Not true.
    >
    > > What are the most important things for page consistency?

    >
    > It's just a matter of using a nice complete doctype, and constant
    > checking in a couple of browsers whilst building, and then check in
    > all the other browsers and adjust till happy.


    Probably I've taken the IE for granted too long.
    >
    > --
    > Els http://locusmeus.com/
    > Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
    > - Renato Russo -
    Dung Ping, Sep 28, 2005
    #3
  4. On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Dung Ping wrote:

    > Professionally-made pages always look same on all browers


    Thank Heavens for amateurs, then.
    Alan J. Flavell, Sep 28, 2005
    #4
  5. Dung Ping

    Greg N. Guest

    Dung Ping wrote:

    > Probably I've taken the IE for granted too long.


    Yes. Use a different way to play the sound files. Sound should only be
    triggered by the user clicking on a soundfile link, not automatically
    when loading a page. Also, the <bgsound...> approach works with IE, but
    not with many other browsers.

    --
    Gregor's Motorradreisen:
    http://hothaus.de/greg-tour/
    Greg N., Sep 28, 2005
    #5
  6. Els <> said:
    >> Professionally-made pages always look same on all browers and all
    >> computers.

    > Not true.


    Well it depends on your view of professional. IMOHO I tink that
    "professional" sites do tend to look the same across browsers



    --
    -=tn=-
    Travis Newbury, Sep 28, 2005
    #6
  7. Dung Ping

    Neredbojias Guest

    With neither quill nor qualm, Dung Ping quothed:

    > Opening with dfferent browers, my web pages look different. They
    > sometimes look different even with same brower but on different
    > computers.


    He he, welcome to the *real* www.

    > Professionally-made pages always look same on all browers and all
    > computers. What are the most important things for page consistency?
    > Thanks.


    No they don't, and they're not supposed to, either.

    As for consistency factors (-yes, good professional web pages might be
    called consistent,) I'd say some of the most important are valid markup,
    strict markup, and markup guided by accessibility principles. Even
    within the standards arena, trying to get too "fancy" is usually not a
    good idea. Html for structure, css for decoration and *minor*
    structural amendments, and javascript use only as an option for refining
    usability are the components for success on the web.

    --
    Neredbojias
    Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
    Neredbojias, Sep 28, 2005
    #7
  8. Dung Ping

    Els Guest

    Travis Newbury wrote:

    > Els <> said:
    >>> Professionally-made pages always look same on all browers and all
    >>> computers.

    >>
    >> Not true.

    >
    > Well it depends on your view of professional. IMOHO I tink that
    > "professional" sites do tend to look the same across browsers


    My own sites do, yes. But the line I replied to said "always" and "all
    browsers" and "all computers". Simply not feasible. No matter how hard
    I try, my sites looks different in Firefox from the way they look in
    Lynx.

    Also, in Opera they look slightly different than in Firefox and IE,
    because of the way the font-size scales. In Konqueror on my SuSE box,
    they look different because of an entirely different font.
    Sometimes I allow for Konqueror to have a minor difference in
    horizontal navigation, like the borders on the list items may be 1px
    narrower than on Firefox or something.

    My Siemens MC60 mobile also displays my sites differently from any
    other computer, and Netscape 4.79 would need an entirely separate
    mark-up (tables and frames) to accomplish the same look as today's
    IE6. I don't see it as my professional task to cater for NN4 though.
    I just make the content *accessible* in that browser and in *all
    browsers*. That's my idea of professional.

    Long story short: I'm just saying there is a difference between
    "looking the same across browsers" and "always look the same on all
    browsers and all computers".

    --
    Els http://locusmeus.com/
    Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
    - Renato Russo -
    Els, Sep 28, 2005
    #8
  9. Dung Ping

    rossz Guest

    Dung Ping wrote:
    > Professionally-made pages always look same on all browers and all
    > computers. What are the most important things for page consistency?
    > Thanks.


    Large quantities of vodka.

    Ok, I'll be serious. It's a major bitch to get pages to look identical
    across browsers, damn near impossible. To get them close to being the
    same is just a matter of taking the time to tweak things here and there
    for consistency. I'm now in the habit of using IE comment conditionals
    to deal with Microsoft's inconsistent/indifferent adherence to the
    standards.

    --
    Rossz
    God kills a kitten each time someone uses Internet Explorer
    rossz, Sep 28, 2005
    #9
  10. Els <> said:

    > Travis Newbury wrote:
    > My own sites do, yes. But the line I replied to said "always"
    > and "all browsers" and "all computers". Simply not feasible.


    Oh I completely agree, in reality, it is impossible to do that.

    > No
    > matter how hard I try, my sites looks different in Firefox from
    > the way they look in Lynx.


    "look in lynx" has no meaning as lynx is not a graphical browser.
    As long as the _same_ content gets through in both a graphical
    browser and lynx, then they indeed do "look" the same.


    > I just make the content *accessible* in that
    > browser and in *all browsers*. That's my idea of professional.


    To me, that is only one part of being professional. Add to that
    knowledge of design, layout, knowing who your audience is, and
    understanding why those things are important.


    --
    -=tn=-
    Travis Newbury, Sep 28, 2005
    #10
  11. Neredbojias <> said:
    > As for consistency factors (-yes, good professional web pages
    > might be called consistent,) I'd say some of the most important
    > are valid markup, strict markup, and markup guided by
    > accessibility principles. Even within the standards arena,
    > trying to get too "fancy" is usually not a good idea. Html for
    > structure, css for decoration and *minor* structural amendments,
    > and javascript use only as an option for refining usability are
    > the components for success on the web.


    Sorry, I just translate that as the boring half of the web...

    Functional yes, correct, yes, and probably a good idea if you are
    runnng a website not catered to a specific group of people (like
    barbie.com).

    But, right as it may be, I still think it makes for boring web pages.


    --
    -=tn=-
    Travis Newbury, Sep 28, 2005
    #11
  12. Dung Ping

    Els Guest

    Travis Newbury wrote:
    > Els <> said:
    >
    >> I just make the content *accessible* in that
    >> browser and in *all browsers*. That's my idea of professional.

    >
    > To me, that is only one part of being professional. Add to that
    > knowledge of design, layout, knowing who your audience is, and
    > understanding why those things are important.


    Well yes, obviously. And that list isn't complete either - I was only
    referring to the 'looks the same in all browsers' part of the
    profession.

    --
    Els http://locusmeus.com/
    Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
    - Renato Russo -
    Els, Sep 28, 2005
    #12
  13. Dung Ping

    Neredbojias Guest

    With neither quill nor qualm, Travis Newbury quothed:

    > Neredbojias <> said:
    > > As for consistency factors (-yes, good professional web pages
    > > might be called consistent,) I'd say some of the most important
    > > are valid markup, strict markup, and markup guided by
    > > accessibility principles. Even within the standards arena,
    > > trying to get too "fancy" is usually not a good idea. Html for
    > > structure, css for decoration and *minor* structural amendments,
    > > and javascript use only as an option for refining usability are
    > > the components for success on the web.

    >
    > Sorry, I just translate that as the boring half of the web...
    >
    > Functional yes, correct, yes, and probably a good idea if you are
    > runnng a website not catered to a specific group of people (like
    > barbie.com).
    >
    > But, right as it may be, I still think it makes for boring web pages.


    How interesting is the page of a book? If the main idea is to present
    content to the user, the packaging doesn't have to be extravagantly
    spectacular. Now, if your website has a purpose other than this and you
    wish to spice things up a bit, html is not going to do it because it
    simply wasn't designed to provide the special effects that indeed may
    please many a wandering surfer.

    Once a page is basically sound in its html and css, however, something
    like javascript can provide lots of bells and whistles for those into
    bangledeshery.

    --
    Neredbojias
    Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
    Neredbojias, Sep 28, 2005
    #13
  14. Neredbojias wrote:
    > > But, right as it may be, I still think it makes for boring web pages.

    > How interesting is the page of a book? If the main idea is to present
    > content to the user, the packaging doesn't have to be extravagantly
    > spectacular.


    I completely agree that the main goal of a website is to get the
    content to the visitor. What we disagree on is what we consider
    content.

    You (seem to) consider content as "data or information" (not trying to
    put words into your mouth), and I have a wider vision of what "content"
    can be.

    I am guessing with the exception of the rarest case, you would never
    consider Flash to be content. I on the other hand consider almost any
    non navigational Flash to be content.

    We simply see it differently.


    --
    -=tn=-
    Travis Newbury, Sep 28, 2005
    #14
  15. Els wrote:
    > >> I just make the content *accessible* in that
    > >> browser and in *all browsers*. That's my idea of professional.

    > > To me, that is only one part of being professional. Add to that
    > > knowledge of design, layout, knowing who your audience is, and
    > > understanding why those things are important.

    > Well yes, obviously. And that list isn't complete either - I was only
    > referring to the 'looks the same in all browsers' part of the
    > profession.


    I think the use of the term "aways" is what causes a lot of
    controversy. To me "always" (as used by many in this group) really
    means "usually" or "mostly" or at the very least it means the vast
    majority or typical viewers. For example, www.foxnews.com "always
    looks the same in everyone's browser". And for the overwhelimg
    majority of people visiting the site (80%-90%?), it does in fact look
    the same.

    Using the term "always" meaning 100% of the time, it is obviously
    impossible.

    There is the verbatem meaning of always, and the implied meaning.

    --
    -=tn=-
    Travis Newbury, Sep 28, 2005
    #15
  16. Dung Ping

    Els Guest

    Travis Newbury wrote:

    > Els wrote:
    >>>> I just make the content *accessible* in that
    >>>> browser and in *all browsers*. That's my idea of professional.
    >>> To me, that is only one part of being professional. Add to that
    >>> knowledge of design, layout, knowing who your audience is, and
    >>> understanding why those things are important.

    >> Well yes, obviously. And that list isn't complete either - I was only
    >> referring to the 'looks the same in all browsers' part of the
    >> profession.

    >
    > I think the use of the term "aways" is what causes a lot of
    > controversy. To me "always" (as used by many in this group) really
    > means "usually" or "mostly" or at the very least it means the vast
    > majority or typical viewers. For example, www.foxnews.com "always
    > looks the same in everyone's browser". And for the overwhelimg
    > majority of people visiting the site (80%-90%?), it does in fact look
    > the same.


    I still wouldn't say 'always' if I meant 98% of the time.
    I'd say something weird like 'almost always', or 'virtually always'.

    > Using the term "always" meaning 100% of the time, it is obviously
    > impossible.


    Blame it on my being Dutch, but if 'always' doesn't mean 'always', how
    do you say 'always' when you really mean 'always' ? :)

    > There is the verbatem meaning of always, and the implied meaning.


    <nitpick> Isn't it verbatim with an 'i'? </> ;-)

    --
    Els http://locusmeus.com/
    Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
    - Renato Russo -
    Els, Sep 28, 2005
    #16
  17. Els wrote:
    > I still wouldn't say 'always' if I meant 98% of the time.
    > I'd say something weird like 'almost always', or 'virtually always'.


    Yea, I would too, but you have to agree that sometimes the true meaning
    of a word, and the context it is used are many times different.
    Another example "HTML programming" Yes we all know HTML is not a
    programming language, but when someone says "I programmed a webpag", we
    all really know what he/she is saying.

    > <nitpick> Isn't it verbatim with an 'i'? </> ;-)


    Only for the Dutch...

    --
    -=tn=-
    Travis Newbury, Sep 28, 2005
    #17
  18. Dung Ping

    Els Guest

    Travis Newbury wrote:

    > Els wrote:
    >> I still wouldn't say 'always' if I meant 98% of the time.
    >> I'd say something weird like 'almost always', or 'virtually always'.

    >
    > Yea, I would too, but you have to agree


    I *have to* ? ;-)

    > that sometimes the true meaning
    > of a word, and the context it is used are many times different.


    Sure. Not disagreeing with that.

    > Another example "HTML programming" Yes we all know HTML is not a
    > programming language,


    There's always (no, not always) someone to comment on that though.

    > but when someone says "I programmed a webpag", we
    > all really know what he/she is saying.


    We *all* know? Or rather most of us? :p

    >> <nitpick> Isn't it verbatim with an 'i'? </> ;-)

    >
    > Only for the Dutch...


    Except it's not Dutch...

    --
    Els http://locusmeus.com/
    Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
    - Renato Russo -
    Els, Sep 28, 2005
    #18
  19. Dung Ping

    Neredbojias Guest

    With neither quill nor qualm, Travis Newbury quothed:

    > Neredbojias wrote:
    > > > But, right as it may be, I still think it makes for boring web pages.

    > > How interesting is the page of a book? If the main idea is to present
    > > content to the user, the packaging doesn't have to be extravagantly
    > > spectacular.

    >
    > I completely agree that the main goal of a website is to get the
    > content to the visitor. What we disagree on is what we consider
    > content.
    >
    > You (seem to) consider content as "data or information" (not trying to
    > put words into your mouth), and I have a wider vision of what "content"
    > can be.
    >
    > I am guessing with the exception of the rarest case, you would never
    > consider Flash to be content. I on the other hand consider almost any
    > non navigational Flash to be content.
    >
    > We simply see it differently.


    No, I understand that content can be the "fancy" stuff itself if one
    wishes it so. What I say is that one can't render this type of
    material, content or otherwise, reliably with fundamental html and css
    alone, and attempts to do so are ill-advised. I think page authors
    often try to do too many things with the basics that are really more
    amenable to something like Flash or Java. Having 27 different absolute-
    positioned containers and scrolling divs and hover-mouseovers and
    iframes, etc., etc., etc., in a page is not conducive to providing a
    reliably-functioning vehicle to the visitor.

    --
    Neredbojias
    Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
    Neredbojias, Sep 28, 2005
    #19
  20. Neredbojias <> said:
    >> We simply see it differently.


    > No, I understand that...


    And I completely agree with every single one of your points.

    But, what is right or wrong is different for every website. Google
    would fail if it looked like gamespy.com, and visa versa.

    --
    -=tn=-
    Travis Newbury, Sep 29, 2005
    #20
    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. Roedy Green

    most important features of 1.6

    Roedy Green, Mar 4, 2006, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    27,297
    IchBin
    Mar 14, 2006
  2. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    3,802
    Thomas Matthews
    Mar 28, 2005
  3. M
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    390
  4. TSB
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    464
    Flash Gordon
    Oct 31, 2007
  5. Bob Johnson

    Most Important New Features Coming in 3.5

    Bob Johnson, Nov 5, 2007, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    309
    Alexey Smirnov
    Nov 5, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page