What is the most important trick for page consistence?

[Dung Ping]

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.

 

[Els]

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.

 

[Dung Ping]

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

Not true.


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.

 

[Alan J. Flavell]

Professionally-made pages always look same on all browers

Thank Heavens for amateurs, then.

 

[Greg N.]

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.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Not true.

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

 

[Neredbojias]

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.

 

[Els]

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".

 

[rossz]

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.

 

[Travis Newbury]

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.

 

[Travis Newbury]

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.

 

[Els]

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.

 

[Neredbojias]

With neither quill nor qualm, Travis Newbury quothed:

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.

 

[Travis Newbury]

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.

 

[Travis Newbury]

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.

 

[Els]

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'? </> ;-)

 

[Travis Newbury]

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...

 

[Els]

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?

Only for the Dutch...

Except it's not Dutch...

 

[Neredbojias]

With neither quill nor qualm, Travis Newbury quothed:

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.

 

[Travis Newbury]

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.