Which browser to write for??

[Bill]

I'm working on learning html/css/java etc so I can maintain a church website
and am currently rewriting said site to use css instead of tables for
formating. After getting a good chunk of the way through the rewrite I
decided to try viewing the site in other browsers, Netscape, mozilla and
Opera, to see how well the would handle a site designed for IE 6. Of course
there are differences so I was looking into detecting different browsers so
I could add in css sheets to fix individual browser problems. Here's the
kicker, should I be designing the default page for IE 6 or something else?
What I mean is do I make a page that looks good in IE 6 and fix it for the
other browsers or do I use something else and fix the page for IE 6 quirks
and bugs?? Which browser is more Standards Complient? I figure that I'd be
better off getting as close to Complient as possible and adding fixes for IE
6 but I'm not sure WHICH browser is the closest. Any suggestions??

Bill

 

[mbstevens]

I'm working on learning html/css/java etc so I can maintain a church website
and am currently rewriting said site to use css instead of tables for
formating. After getting a good chunk of the way through the rewrite I
decided to try viewing the site in other browsers, Netscape, mozilla and
Opera, to see how well the would handle a site designed for IE 6. Of course
there are differences so I was looking into detecting different browsers so
I could add in css sheets to fix individual browser problems. Here's the
kicker, should I be designing the default page for IE 6 or something else?
What I mean is do I make a page that looks good in IE 6 and fix it for the
other browsers or do I use something else and fix the page for IE 6 quirks
and bugs?? Which browser is more Standards Complient? I figure that I'd be
better off getting as close to Complient as possible and adding fixes for IE
6 but I'm not sure WHICH browser is the closest. Any suggestions??

Bill

If you're doing standards markup and CSS that is so critical that it
doesn't look good in _most_ browsers, then you are probably trying to
put too much on the page, or are trying to do visual things that
standard markup does not do well. The first thing to try is
spreading the information out to more pages while making each page
simpler in ways that it does not have to look exactly the same across
browsers.

If you find yourself trying to detect browsers, you're doing something
wrong. It does make sense, if you insist, to detect _capabilities_
on occasion. But you can easily write pages that don't require this,
and this is what you should shoot for at first.

 

[David Dorward]

course there are differences so I was looking into detecting different
browsers so I could add in css sheets to fix individual browser problems.

Trying to detect different browsers and serving up different stylesheets is
almost certainly more effort then it is worth.

Usually you don't need to do more then write one stylesheet for everything
and override certain parts of it in a second stylesheet loading inside
conditional comments that restrict it to Internet Explorer.

Here's the kicker, should I be designing the default page for IE 6 or
something else?

The general concensus (and my experience) seems to be that it is easier to
write for Firefox (or possibly Opera, Safari or Konqueror) then make
adjustments to deal with other browsers.

be better off getting as close to Complient as possible and adding fixes
for IE 6 but I'm not sure WHICH browser is the closest.

The leading non-IE browsers have little to choose between them when it comes
to standards conformance.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

I'm working on learning html/css/java etc so I can maintain a church website
and am currently rewriting said site to use css instead of tables for
formating. After getting a good chunk of the way through the rewrite I
decided to try viewing the site in other browsers, Netscape, mozilla and
Opera, to see how well the would handle a site designed for IE 6. Of course
there are differences so I was looking into detecting different browsers so
I could add in css sheets to fix individual browser problems. Here's the
kicker, should I be designing the default page for IE 6 or something else?
What I mean is do I make a page that looks good in IE 6 and fix it for the
other browsers or do I use something else and fix the page for IE 6 quirks
and bugs??

Design for other browsers first, then possibly add some fixes for the IE
bugs. Make sure you are using a DOCTYPE that triggers standard and not
quirks mode.

My philosophy is to design with no browser in mind at all.

Which browser is more Standards Complient?

Among popular modern browsers? Almost any but IE. Perhaps Opera.

I figure that I'd be better off getting as close to Complient as
possible and adding fixes for IE 6 but I'm not sure WHICH browser is
the closest. Any suggestions??

Seeing your efforts to date would be a good start on any
recommendations. URL?

 

[Bill]

Whupps, I guess I didn't make it clear what my goals are or what I'm seeing
now so I'll try it again. The original page was developed in IE 6 and had
all of it's margins and padding sized and positioned correctly. When
viewing in Opera/Nestcape/Mozilla a few of the margins and paddings were
off, not much but enough to make me want to 'fix' the problem for those
browsers. What I was considering doing was to use some kine of browser
detector to add in a second css sheet AFTER the original css link on the
page to cascade the 'fixes' for the other browsers into the page. When I
started looking into it it seemed that it might be easier and more correct
to write the code for a more complient browser and then add in the 'fixes'
for IE 6. As it sets now it's looking like I should focus on Opera or
Mozilla as the default browser and get it to look correct in them and then
add any fixes for IE 6.

Thanks for the info.

Bill

 

[Bill]

No URL yet, the original site is www.faithecchurch.org . I started out with
a badly botched up site and completely rewrote it using FrontPage 2003. My
initial try is what I'm calling the interim site, works but not fancy or all
that up to date code wise. I have done some research and discovered css and
decided to rework the site to get most of the formatting out of the content
page. My main goal is to get a technically correct site that will allow
most browsers to view it in an acceptable way, including voice browsers for
the blind(it is a church site after all shouldn't it be accessible to
everyone who wants to 'view' it) and one that is not completely ugly I'm
not looking for extreme or fancy just down to earth, I'm not good enough to
do a 'Heavenly' site


Bill

 

[Andy Dingley]

Here's the kicker, should I be designing the default page for IE 6 or something else?

Just don't do that at all. Design for the standard, not for this week's
fashionable browser bugs. There's one standard, it's objective.
Browser bugs always outnumber you, you'll never get on top of them.

That said, you have to be aware of IE simply because it's so
commonplace (so are rats). Being "aware of it" though is a lot
different to "designing for it". Study the well-known faults in IE and
the well-described ways to work around them. Make your standards-based
site behave itself in a way that's also IE-friendly. You don't even
need to look at the page in IE yet - all this stuff is described for
you, you don't need to explore and find it out for yourself.

Then test under IE. Discover the bugs you didn't even expect. Apply
fixes to them where you can (so long as they don't break the
standards-based design) or re-design the site and cut features if you
can't find any work-around.

Browser sniffing is just about the worst thing you could attempt. It's
separately both a bad idea inherently, and unworkable to achieve.

IE conditional comments are useful. They're a bogus idea, but they do
degrade quite well on real web tools. Just always code them as "If
broken M$ product" rather than "If standards-based mode". That way the
correct tools skip them.

 

[David Dorward]

Bill wrote:

Please do not top post: http://allmyfaqs.net/faq.pl?How_to_post

Whupps, I guess I didn't make it clear what my goals are or what I'm
seeing now so I'll try it again. The original page was developed in IE 6
and had all of it's margins and padding sized and positioned correctly.
When viewing in Opera/Nestcape/Mozilla a few of the margins and paddings
were off, not much but enough to make me want to 'fix' the problem for
those browsers.

Odds are that you are using a Doctype that triggers Quirks mode in IE6
causing it to intentionally replicate bugs in earlier versions - including
getting "width" wrong.

Switching to a Doctype that triggers Standards mode and then repairing the
stylesheet is likely the best solution to the problem.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

No URL yet, the original site is www.faithecchurch.org .

Ok, your first goal should be to fix the errors, which will put you well
on your way to being a cross-browser compatible site.

<http://validator.w3.org/check?verbose=1&uri=http://www.faithecchurch.org/>

and some CSS errors and warning as well:

I started out with a badly botched up site and completely rewrote it
using FrontPage 2003.

FrontPage. Your next step would be to stop using that. Probably why you
are fixated on writing for IE...

 

[Bill]

Below is my doctype line:

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">

I thought that using strict stopped a browser from doing the fallback thing?

Bill

 

[Bill]

What part of "No URL yet" did you miss? The site I posted is the one I
initially threw together using FrontPage and is not one I'm currently
working with, I just wanted to show what the finished page should resemble
to the group.

I guess I missed posting that I'm now using Dreamweaver 8 and not FrontPage
for the new version of the site, my bad. Dreamweaver handles css in a much
better fashion than FrontPage so I jumped to it. I do have a question why
do you think I'm fixated with IE?? It happens to be the browser I use on my
system so I naturally started with that in mind. The fact that I'm looking
into writing for a proper browser should tell you I'm not 'fixated' with IE.
Besides which doesn't IE dominate the web at the moment? If I view my stats
for the old page I see a much larger slice of the pie going to IE than to
other browsers. With that in mind why wouldn't I initially design around IE
instead of another browser. It's only after I've gotten into this a bit
that I questioned the method I was using to support IE and was looking for
alternatives.

Bill

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

What part of "No URL yet" did you miss?

Yes, sorry I did miss that.

The site I posted is the one I initially threw together using
FrontPage and is not one I'm currently working with, I just wanted to
show what the finished page should resemble to the group.

I guess I missed posting that I'm now using Dreamweaver 8 and not
FrontPage for the new version of the site, my bad. Dreamweaver
handles css in a much better fashion than FrontPage so I jumped to
it.

Have you considered using a good text editor instead?

I do have a question why do you think I'm fixated with IE??

Well, because you kept stating that you were designing for IE, and
wondering how to make it work in other browsers, I suppose.

It happens to be the browser I use on my system so I naturally started
with that in mind.

Do you have the other browsers installed as well?

The fact that I'm looking into writing for a proper browser should
tell you I'm not 'fixated' with IE. Besides which doesn't IE dominate
the web at the moment? If I view my stats for the old page I see a
much larger slice of the pie going to IE than to other browsers.

Doesn't really matter, though.

With that in mind why wouldn't I initially design around IE instead
of another browser. It's only after I've gotten into this a bit that
I questioned the method I was using to support IE and was looking for
alternatives.

Most people will tell you that there is generally no need to *support*
IE. Write good error-free conforming code, and your pages will probably
work quite well in *all* browsers.

You also may have missed David's recommendation:

Please do not top post: http://allmyfaqs.net/faq.pl?How_to_post

Feel free to press the PageDown key before replying. Good inline posting
with trimming as necessary is the preferred method in Usenet.

 

[Bill]

Oh, I see... IE has the current market share so I'll just stick my fingers
in my ears and say NANANANANANAN.....
If I were selling something and I knew 80 percent of the population prefered
the item in blue I'd be rather foolish to make it in green wouldn't I.


Wonderful, another net cop.....

Bill

Doesn't really matter, though.

You also may have missed David's recommendation:

<snip>

 

[David Dorward]

Wonderful, another net cop.....

Wonderful, another person who ignores the norms and standards of the
community he is asking for help from.

 

[JDS]

My main goal is to get a technically correct site that will allow
most browsers to view it in an acceptable way, including voice browsers for
the blind(it is a church site after all shouldn't it be accessible to
everyone who wants to 'view' it) and one that is not completely ugly I'm
not looking for extreme or fancy just down to earth, I'm not good enough to
do a 'Heavenly' site

HTML at its core is VERY easy to learn. There really is no reason why
one needs to use any sort of WYSIWYG HTML editor like FrontPage or
Dreamweaver, as long as one learns a couple of basic things:

1) Learn hoe to find answers to your questions when you get stuck.
Posting here is good, but there are better ways. w3schools.com, w3c.org,
and other websites have a lot of helpful information. Google is your
friend. Use it.

2) Understand that HTML is *NOT* about presentation. HTML does not
inherently suggest how a site should "look" -- and it NEVER HAS. HTML was
designed to identify what parts of a document are -- e.g. "this is a
header" or "this is a list". HTML was never intended to be used to
force an actual look and layout.

3) Target the "standard" as defined by the W3C. Do NOT target one
particular browser.

4) Use CSS to create your look.

Now, using CSS is probably harder to learn than using HTML. HTML is
really very simple. If something is a paragraph, you just mark it as
such. There are additional details, but HTML is really very easy to start
learning.

Once you have a page that is correctly marked up with HTML, *then* you can
worry about determining a look for the page (or site). Post back again
when you have questions about CSS. Having semantically correct HTML will
automatically do things like improve accessibility, improve SEO, and allow
for cross-browser (and cross-platform) viewing.

Oh, and when designing a look/layout, try using a piece of paper first.
You'll find that most professional designers do not even use a computer at
all for their initial drafts.

later...

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Oh, I see... IE has the current market share so I'll just stick my fingers
in my ears and say NANANANANANAN.....
If I were selling something and I knew 80 percent of the population prefered
the item in blue I'd be rather foolish to make it in green wouldn't I.

It is 58% and falling on my commercial website. I do not want to turn
away dollars of folks with some intellect. Foolish notion to believe
that the marketshare will always remain constant. Code to the spec and
then add allowances to accommodate the uncooperative if significant, not
the other way around.

 

[Alan J. Flavell]

HTML at its core is VERY easy to learn.

That hasn't been my experience of trying to help people with it!

Many (even "most") of them come to the web with the pre-conceived
notion that it's DTP, and that the purpose of everything therefore
must be to specify visual results on a computer screen.

To make things worse, this misconception is repeatedly pandered-to by
the purveyors of so-called WYSIWYG authoring software.

They simply cannot grasp the idea of HTML as abstract markup,
available to any kind of presentation and for other (searching,
indexing etc.) purposes.

Accessibility to other kinds of browsing (e.g speaking browser, text
mode browser etc.), once it's been hammered into their consciousness,
they immediately rate as an advanced technique - for which they
consider that their page has no need, and anyway they opine that they
would need to make separate versions of their page for each of these
purposes. For which, of course, they conclude they have no time and
cannot spare the resources, for what they perceive to be a tiny
minority[1]

They simply have no idea, and repeatedly fail to grasp, that this
accessibility is already built into the design, and that what they
need to do is to use it as it was intended.

I am genuinely not exaggerating: I have seen and heard these responses
over and over again. It's only after a long and painful UN-learning
of their preconceptions (which many of them refuse point-blank to even
start on) that they can begin to grasp the ideas of composing one
abstract markup (HTML/XHTML) accompanied by some optional presentation
proposal(s) = stylesheet(s).

that's how it's seemed to me, anyway. best regards.


[1] yes indeed, good search robots really are a tiny minority of web
site visitors, but IMHO rather important visitors for all that.

 

[Bill]

Ok, fine, you win. I hope you enjoy it you've earned it.

Bill

 

[Neredbojias]

Oh, I see... IE has the current market share so I'll just stick my
fingers in my ears and say NANANANANANAN.....
If I were selling something and I knew 80 percent of the population
prefered the item in blue I'd be rather foolish to make it in green
wouldn't I.


Wonderful, another net cop.....

Bill

What are you talking about, you hypocritical ass? You not only quote
incorrectly, you do so on several levels and patently ignore advice to
improve. Your attitude provides more than sufficient evidence that you
cannot be helped in any case so you may as well just bug off and go play
God somewhere else.

 

[Andy Dingley]

That hasn't been my experience of trying to help people with it!

It would be, except that almost none of them will be happy to "learn
HTML" - they all want to dive straight in with presentation rubbish too
"because they've already done that at home with FP" or "Their kids had
dancing penguins, so they want them too and they want them now".


I'd also disagree that HTML has no presentational aspects. It ought not
to, it's a laudable aim to try and eliminate them. But CSS can only
style what it's given and you _do_ find a need to introduce extra
wrapper <div>s or the odd <br>, just so that there's enough granularity
to be able to apply sophisticated CSS to.