SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 40 of 40
  1. #26
    Drupaler bronze trophy greg.harvey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    3,258
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I agree... it is a Windows world.

    Besides, IMO stay within the W3C and write good markup and your website should work in all browsers. If it doesn't, then the browser's at fault, not your website.

    Sorry. Jaded from the number of times I've had to hack up good mark-up for IE5/Mac! It's just awful, and unfortunately there's a lot of Mac users out there still on OS9 and using it.

    On the plus side, Mac users are a tiny % of my market and OS9 is less than half of them, so these days, good validated mark-up does pretty much cover you.


  2. #27
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Utrecht/Moscow
    Posts
    5
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    You are a developer and it is thus your responsibility to be savvy.
    Otherwise just go and hack away on VBScript, and welcome to the web for the Wintel (or the worst implementation thereof).

    Just hack together a stylesheet that fixes Mac IE display and use the following @import to hide it from other browsers.

    @import(ie_mac_hacks.css);

    (notice no URL keyword, no spaces or quotes).

    As for "hacking codes"... well the amount of hacking I do would have been substantially less if I could dump IE from my list of supported browsers - but, as I can't, "hacking codes" is a part of my web-developer job. Live with it or change the profession.

  3. #28
    Drupaler bronze trophy greg.harvey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    3,258
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I was talking about IE!! (For Mac.) Anyway. I'm not getting into the semantics of coding for different browsers. I've had that discussion so many times it bores me now.

    I'm going to stick with simple business facts. These days I'm a project manager for an ad agency. (I used to be a developer but now I push paper around and call people. Anyway... ) I can tell you now fully cross-browser tested websites are *very* expensive. It is time consuming to create fixes for browsers that only take up a small % of the market. I charge out development time for the ad agency at £1000 a day per developer working on the project! Therefore, when we say to a client you can either stick to our guaranteed compatible browsers list and it costs £xxxxx or you can specify that you want Mac/IE5/NN4 full testing and it costs double £xxxxx, guess which one they go for!

    Very few clients are prepared to pay for it. And I don't blame them. And we're certainly not giving it away. So, we say we support a set list of browsers and that all our sites are W3C validated. Any other special requirements, they have to inform us and they have to pay for them! Simple.

    Doing it any other way simply isn't good business.

  4. #29
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    www.zenfour.com
    Posts
    136
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Greg you are right on the ball, many of these kid developers here just dont how how valuable their time really is.

    I like your views, KEEP on

  5. #30
    With More ! for your $ maxor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Posts
    909
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    To bring a different aspect into this discussion...

    I'm a mac user using Safari. In the past I have written CSS code that conforms to all documented standards, and I have had to come back and hack it around to make it work with the problems presented by IE.

    I understand it's a Windows world, I'm not denying that, but I do feel that it's the responsibility of a designer to be as compliant with standards as possible.

    If you'll notice all of the problems people are having are with IE on mac or IE on windows... I'll let you're imagination run wild with that one.

  6. #31
    Drupaler bronze trophy greg.harvey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    3,258
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by maxor
    I understand it's a Windows world, I'm not denying that, but I do feel that it's the responsibility of a designer to be as compliant with standards as possible.
    Absolutely. I completely agree. And I hope that in the next couple of years the last browsers outside the standards will evaporate. Windows/IE6 in standards mode has never caused me any problems...

  7. #32
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Whitehorse, Yukon
    Posts
    226
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by webmorpheus
    lol...maybe i said that a little too out of hand. More or less it depends on the client, if it is a construction company, and they are not web savvy, you think they have even heard of a prog like firefox? Why would I need to waste time hacking codes to work with firefox for their application?
    Broadening your focus to include alternative browsers and operating systems is not about the client who is paying you for the project. It's about the people who as potential customers for their services are viewing the website. And that is something you can't control, and it's not a Windows world. There are plenty of IT depts. who have employees running newer versions of Netscape plus OS X, not to mention Linux. I've worked with several larger clients (100+ employees) who allow some of their staff - including CEOs! - to run Powerbooks or Red Hat if they're so inclined.

    A good, up-to-date web developer/programmer can program a W3C compliant XHTML/CSS site in as little time than an old school HTML 4+ layout. You just need to keep up with the technologies (and unfortunately the hacks!) to know what works and what doesn't. Going back to a spacer gif, tables-based layout that only works in IE Win; now that sends a shiver down my spine! How very ancient...

    You are limiting the size of your client's customer base by developing with such a narrow mindset. As soon as you embrace web development and testing for standards-based browsers, then you extend the reach of the sales they may be able to capture. Surely you can see the benefit in that.

    geof

  8. #33
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    www.zenfour.com
    Posts
    136
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Geof Harries
    Going back to a spacer gif, tables-based layout that only works in IE Win; now that sends a shiver down my spine! How very ancient...

    You are limiting the size of your client's customer base by developing with such a narrow mindset. As soon as you embrace web development and testing for standards-based browsers, then you extend the reach of the sales they may be able to capture. Surely you can see the benefit in that.

    geof

    last i saw...sites like NIKE.COM and WELLSFARGO.COM use tables in it's layout...HRRMMMM...::who needs to broaden their view?::

  9. #34
    Drupaler bronze trophy greg.harvey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    3,258
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yup. An awful lot of large companies and corporations have awful websites when you look at the mark-up.

    Geof, no one was saying you shouldn't try to support all standards-based browsers. Surely the idea of standards is you do support them all by default if it's working correctly. I think you're missing our point and your point.

    Broadening your focus to include alternative browsers and operating systems is not about the client who is paying you for the project. It's about the people who as potential customers for their services are viewing the website.
    I disagree. Of course it's about the client. Who's paying you?? As long as the client is well informed of the decisions you're asking them to make (and that is your responsibility) then it's down to them. As long as it's made clear to them, it's their call what browsers they want to encompass.

    As soon as you embrace web development and testing for standards-based browsers, then you extend the reach of the sales they may be able to capture. Surely you can see the benefit in that.
    Of course! And we said we do embrace web development and testing for standards-based browsers! That's the whole point. Just not the ones that fall outside the standards. I can't speak for webmorpheus, but I tell you that we use standards-based CSS driven XHTML 1.0 Transitional. We test in standards-based browsers. We won't spend time and money hacking around IE5 for Mac and NN4.7 because they're outside the standards. It sounds like you're agreeing with us, but you've written your post as though you disagree...

    G

  10. #35
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Whitehorse, Yukon
    Posts
    226
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by greg.harvey
    I disagree. Of course it's about the client. Who's paying you?? As long as the client is well informed of the decisions you're asking them to make (and that is your responsibility) then it's down to them. As long as it's made clear to them, it's their call what browsers they want to encompass.
    Client first. Client's customer second. I agree. The difference is that these two need to be spoken of in the same breath. It is the developer's job as the hired "expert" to make it known how important this second audience is. Just because a website works in a client's IE 6 Win XP environment doesn't mean it works for one of their potential or existing customer's Netscape 7 Win 2000. We're on the same page here; I just wanted to clarify that the second is just as important as the first.

    Quote Originally Posted by greg.harvey
    We test in standards-based browsers. We won't spend time and money hacking around IE5 for Mac and NN4.7 because they're outside the standards. It sounds like you're agreeing with us, but you've written your post as though you disagree.
    I do not agree with your comments regarding not testing and error-checking for bugs with IE 5 Mac OS 9/X. The design doesn't have to render perfectly, but it does need to be very functional and look reasonbly good. There are still plenty of people using this browser, and they need to be looked after in an appropriate manner, not just ignored.

    I ran into a situation earlier this year where a salesperson told me (via a phonecall on behalf of the client) that they didn't bother designing their products - top level keyword web advertising - for IE 5 Mac because it didn't matter as the numbers were so small and "nobody used it anyway" (their words). I promptly told them that of the 300,000+ unique visitors in the past two months who visited the site, over 15% were using IE 5 Mac, and most of those were on OS 9. That's a lot of people to tick off with a design that blows up in a similar browser; good thing the site worked fine. And the ignorant sales woman? Never got a sale....

    geof

  11. #36
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    www.zenfour.com
    Posts
    136
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    As soon as you embrace web development and testing for standards-based browsers, then you extend the reach of the sales they may be able to capture. Surely you can see the benefit in that.
    you are surely mistaken if you think that has anythign to do with amount / volume of business. It is about makreting and branding.

    and NOBODY can arghue with that, how does the word Microsoft come up? or even on a slightly highler level, President Bush. Both are ini power yet they seem to perform at best adequate.


    Like Greg has mentioned, can you clients AFFORD to reach all markets? Thats wonderful if you do it for them at no charge, but I never saw Bill Gates getting rich giving away Windows or giving programming projects to his workers without paying them.

    Greg and I (pretty sure he too) are saying its all about the money. Were not contesting standards.

  12. #37
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Whitehorse, Yukon
    Posts
    226
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by webmorpheus
    you are surely mistaken if you think that has anythign to do with amount / volume of business. It is about makreting and branding.
    Marketing, branding and website accessibility go hand in hand. You can market the heck out of your service or product, but if you're sending those potential clients/sales to a related website that they can't read, let alone use, then you've wasted time, effort and money in trying to get them there.

    geof

  13. #38
    Non-Member Egor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    7,305
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Just stick with simple css and it should display in mac ie5 just fine. I've got sites that display better on mac ie then on windows ie5.5.

  14. #39
    Drupaler bronze trophy greg.harvey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    3,258
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Geof Harries
    The difference is that these two need to be spoken of in the same breath. It is the developer's job as the hired "expert" to make it known how important this second audience is.
    Quote Originally Posted by greg.harvey
    As long as it's made clear to them


    Quote Originally Posted by Geof Harries
    I do not agree with your comments regarding not testing and error-checking for bugs with IE 5 Mac OS 9/X. The design doesn't have to render perfectly, but it does need to be very functional and look reasonbly good. There are still plenty of people using this browser, and they need to be looked after in an appropriate manner, not just ignored.
    Can't even find a copy to test with any more!! To be fair, you'd have to do something pretty nuts to cause the website to completely fail to render. It's pretty rare to see a standards-based website fail that catastrophically. I've certainly never managed it.

    And for our web server over the last two weeks, 144 Mac OS9 hits, not sessions -- probably one user in tens of thousands of sessions!

    G

  15. #40
    SitePoint Addict jodmcc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    227
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •