SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 85
  1. #26
    SitePoint Addict will_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Asheville, NC
    Posts
    206
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by paladin
    So what? No one is using that anymore. I would imagine the percentage of your website visitors that would be using OS 8.5 might be about .001%.
    Seems like that would depend on the nature of the site. Perhaps it's a site for Mac users.

    Quote Originally Posted by paladin
    No one is using that horrible ancient system anymore. Over half the Mac installed base has already upgraded to OS X.
    That statement contradicts itself. If you had said 95% of the Mac installed base has gone to OS X, perhaps it might be more valid. Even if 75% had gone to OS X, that's still a heck of a lot of Mac users left.

    From my experience dealing with ad and graphic agencies in the corporate world, there is quite a large base of OS 9 users still out there. It's sad, but it's true. If you plan on offering a site that looks good for Mac users, you still need to take into account IE5.x for Mac. Considering that browser performs better with web standards than IE5+ for PC, it shouldn't be that big a deal anyway.

  2. #27
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    68
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by paladin
    So what? No one is using that anymore. I would imagine the percentage of your website visitors that would be using OS 8.5 might be about .001%. I know this because I have used Macs all my life and am very active in the online Mac community. No one is using that horrible ancient system anymore. Over half the Mac installed base has already upgraded to OS X. If you want your site to look good for Mac users focus on Safari and IE 5 under OS X. That's all you should be worrying about.
    Sorry, I don't buy this attitude--You say no one is using that anymore--well, I am, and I do count, and STILL would be using it if a generous friend hadn't bought me this Imac G4-
    It already looks fine on Mac(5.2), and PC(5.5) versions of IE, and Netscape(7.1, both); Safari 1.0, and Firefox 0.9.1 on Windows XP, and it almost seems like you are neglecting the PC side--I had to set up Virtual PC BECAUSE it looked GREAT here (EVRYTHING DOES!!), but was DIFFERENT on the PC!!
    So I can't just make it look good for Mac users, as I found out--

    But the point is, it seems like most of you are programmers, and I'm not--I'm the average guy who does it really bad, and the hard way, but sooner or later gets it to work, through perserverance, and forums like this--

    An attitude basically of "if they don't want to upgrade their browser, then it's tough", really stinks--

    If you can get to look the way you want in the newer browsers, and at least NOT be all out of whack like mine is, in the older versions, I say THAT's the way to go--

    There are more people out there who are NOT programmers, and are not really computer savvy, that enjoy their computers, and they also should be able to enjoy our work--

    Just my thoughts..Bob

  3. #28
    SitePoint Addict will_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Asheville, NC
    Posts
    206
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob M
    An attitude basically of "if they don't want to upgrade their browser, then it's tough", really stinks--
    Hi Bob,
    What you speak of is referred to as graceful degradation, and can easily be achieved using web standards-based design. Basicly, you create your site, typically using the '@import' method of linking to your CSS. This allows browsers that correctly interpret CSS to show the full-fledge site. Older browsers, text browsers, screen readers, and browsers that don't understand your CSS will not attempt to interpret it, leaving you with a nicely formatted page of text. It may not look as good as you wish, but it's completely useable and leaves no one behind.

  4. #29
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    366
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob M
    An attitude basically of "if they don't want to upgrade their browser, then it's tough", really stinks--
    With CSS sites, that's realistically what it has to be. You are going to have a hell of a time doing CSS that displays perfectly correct in Netscape 4.x and all the other browsers you mentioned.

    Netscape 4.x is over 7 years old and that is an eternity in the technological world.

  5. #30
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    366
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by will_
    Seems like that would depend on the nature of the site. Perhaps it's a site for Mac users.
    I should have qualified that with "and who are using Netscape 4.x on that system."


    Quote Originally Posted by will_
    From my experience dealing with ad and graphic agencies in the corporate world, there is quite a large base of OS 9 users still out there.
    Yes but all development for 9 is basically dead. Apple is no longer supporting it and very few third party developers that have moved their apps to X are either.

    Quote Originally Posted by will_
    It's sad, but it's true. If you plan on offering a site that looks good for Mac users, you still need to take into account IE5.x for Mac. Considering that browser performs better with web standards than IE5+ for PC, it shouldn't be that big a deal anyway.
    Yes but IE5 for 9.x is not very different at all from IE5 on OS X. If it works on X, there is little chance it won't on 9.x unless the site uses some fancy web technology that is not on 9. So you are not going to have to expend a lot of resources to be compatible with IE on 9 which is what the majority of 9 users will be using. Netscape 4.x is another story and is dead as a doornail IMO. That's why I was suggesting he not worry about it, especially concerning CSS.

  6. #31
    SitePoint Guru bronze trophy blufive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Posts
    853
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    <dons asbestos overcoat, this is already getting a little heated>

    But the point is, it seems like most of you are programmers, and I'm not--I'm the average guy who does it really bad, and the hard way, but sooner or later gets it to work, through perserverance, and forums like this--

    An attitude basically of "if they don't want to upgrade their browser, then it's tough", really stinks--

    If you can get to look the way you want in the newer browsers, and at least NOT be all out of whack like mine is, in the older versions, I say THAT's the way to go--
    At risk of sounding like a broken record, it is not possible to make a site like exactly the same in all browsers. Period.

    Not even The Bestest HTML-Wrangler in The World can make a site look identical in lynx running on a greenscreen dumb terminal, Firefox for Windows and super-duper cellphone browser 3.1 running on a Nokia thingamajig. Can't be done.

    Yes, that is a deliberately extreme example of the browsers out there. But it's what we've got to deal with.

    Given the list you've quoted above, you're already doing a pretty good job with keeping things going cross-browser. Seriously, that's a broader list of supported browsers than many professional sites manage, and I applaud your willingness to expand it further, but you're well into the realm of diminishing returns.

    Here's how I look at it:
    • Survey your users somehow to work out what browsers they're using. If you don't have access to detailed stats for your site, or you don't have enough visitors to get a statistically valid sample, look at mass-market stats instead, and hope that they're applicable to your audience (go have a look at the "browser stats" thread over in the "browser issues" forum for a few sources)
    • Now, based on those figures (or on a whim if you're feeling autocratic) break all the browsers in the world into three groups:
    1. the ones you want your site to look good in
    2. the ones you want your site to be readable in
    3. the ones you don't care about (everything else)
    • write your site
    • test it in the group 1/2 browsers, fix problems, rinse, repeat until...
    • you decide you can't be bothered any more.
    The problem is, the more browsers you put in group 1, and the more complex your design, the more time you spend in the fix/test/rinse/repeat cycle. It's a trade off.

    One of the reasons people get so het up about standards and CSS is that, while it can trash browsers like Netscape 4.7, it can make things much better in the really low-tech browsers like lynx, and it's probably less painful on really small screens, too.

    [Hopefully, more practical suggestions to follow shortly]

  7. #32
    SitePoint Enthusiast mutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    72
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Hal9k
    I really understand what Redux is saying, and I appreciate how mutus feels about the client seeing pages as 'broken', even if they are not.

    The way I feel is that CSS, XHTML and standards in general is the future for the web. Sure for every user who has an ancient browser you gain, you will alienate a user who requires the standards because of any disabilities they suffer from. Even on a 56k connection, it doesn't take 20 minutes to download a standards orientated browser such as Firefox or Opera. A person who uses an old browser has a choice to be appreciate a page properly, whereas someone with any disabilities doesn't. Of course a person might not understand about browsers and version numbers, but don't you think it is worth the time to try an inform them? I have to view designing for the lowest common denominator is designing with a defeatest attitude.

    With IE back in development you also have to realise that if the dev. team takes notice of the W3C, you might be left with a site which is left at a considerable disadvantage. In short, we all hope CSS and XHTML will be near future-proof.

    You could argue about inappropriate analogies, carpenters and things, but you will sometimes never change what a person thinks until they realise by personal experience.

    I view the idea of dynamic code with scepticism, wouldn't that incure massive overheads?
    Nice points Hal9k.

    The thing is, everyone is in such a stampede to make sites that are "accessible" with the new standards. This is a great direction for web development. Of course blind people should have full and easy navigation through their browsing devices just as handicapped people should be provided a ramp to access a public building. I get excited about the way web standards are developing. I think we're really on the right track.

    However when it becomes pointed out that these new standards will indeed leave a small percent of people (potential paying customers) in the dust, they just get shrugged off as "Lazy"... 'they should upgrade or screw em'. There are plenty of valid reasons people either can't, won't or don't want to upgrade their browser at this time. It doesn't always mean they're lazy. You can try to educate them but you can't force them.

    So they get "broken" version of the site (yes I know it's still "accessible") but it can make the person(s) paying you extrememly unhappy, at least in certain cases. Yeah the site is "accessible" to all, but not in the way that you boss or client wants it to be.

    About coding to the lowest common denominator, I agree with you that's NOT the best way to go. I only told that to Bob M because his specific request was to make the site look the same in NS4x... and based on his existing page, and admittedly small experience, I thought that might be the easiest way for him to make it happen.

    I've "branch coded" some ASP sites based on User Agent string, and rendered the content differently depending on UA. It wasn't really that bad. I've even offered an alternative plain text (no-styled, non-tabled) version of a PHP site that I thought was pretty nifty. But I'm starting to slide more towards messages and links to page like the ESPN one that I showed above. Go with the future and do your best to educate visitors even though you will lose a few. As long as the people who hired you agree.

    I still think it doens't hurt to offer a "legacy" version (be it plain text or whatever) of the content that will look better and more organized than a mangled CSS layout. Yeah it's more work, but I feel responsible when someone hires me to cover all the bases for them. On the other hand when I own the site personally... I am not nearly as concerned about it (although I'll still have the legacy links or messages).

  8. #33
    SitePoint Enthusiast mutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    72
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by blufive
    [*]
    • write your site
    • test it in the group 1/2 browsers, fix problems, rinse, repeat until...
    • you decide you can't be bothered any more.
    The problem is, the more browsers you put in group 1, and the more complex your design, the more time you spend in the fix/test/rinse/repeat cycle. It's a trade off.
    beuatiful words of wisdom At some point you need to make a decision about your labor hours vs. browser support. (of course in harmony with your client's own wishes).

  9. #34
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    68
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by will_
    Hi Bob,
    What you speak of is referred to as graceful degradation, and can easily be achieved using web standards-based design. Basicly, you create your site, typically using the '@import' method of linking to your CSS. This allows browsers that correctly interpret CSS to show the full-fledge site. Older browsers, text browsers, screen readers, and browsers that don't understand your CSS will not attempt to interpret it, leaving you with a nicely formatted page of text. It may not look as good as you wish, but it's completely useable and leaves no one behind.
    Hi, Will--could you please give me more detailed instructions on how to d this? It may really solve the problem--Thanks, Bob.

  10. #35
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    68
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by blufive
    <dons asbestos overcoat, this is already getting a little heated>

    At risk of sounding like a broken record, it is not possible to make a site like exactly the same in all browsers. Period.

    ...

    Given the list you've quoted above, you're already doing a pretty good job with keeping things going cross-browser. Seriously, that's a broader list of supported browsers than many professional sites manage, and I applaud your willingness to expand it further, but you're well into the realm of diminishing returns.

    Here's how I look at it:
    • Survey your users somehow to work out what browsers they're using. If you don't have access to detailed stats for your site, or you don't have enough visitors to get a statistically valid sample, look at mass-market stats instead, and hope that they're applicable to your audience (go have a look at the "browser stats" thread over in the "browser issues" forum for a few sources)
    • Now, based on those figures (or on a whim if you're feeling autocratic) break all the browsers in the world into three groups:
    1. the ones you want your site to look good in
    2. the ones you want your site to be readable in
    3. the ones you don't care about (everything else)
    • write your site
    • test it in the group 1/2 browsers, fix problems, rinse, repeat until...
    • you decide you can't be bothered any more.
    The problem is, the more browsers you put in group 1, and the more complex your design, the more time you spend in the fix/test/rinse/repeat cycle. It's a trade off.

    One of the reasons people get so het up about standards and CSS is that, while it can trash browsers like Netscape 4.7, it can make things much better in the really low-tech browsers like lynx, and it's probably less painful on really small screens, too.

    [Hopefully, more practical suggestions to follow shortly]
    Hi, blufive--Thanks for the kind words--I appreciate them--
    I think in the beginning of this I should have made clearer the fact, that all I wanted was for my site to look "presentable"--resembling very much in the old browsers, what I see in the newer ones..but what I got is really messed up..

    Thanks again for all your info--the problem is, I really need to spend the time on the information in the website, and have spent an waful lot of time with the presentaion, or rendering of the page--I really need just quick, specific examples of code to replace in my code, to make it look better..I have tried the technical suggestions in this forum, without any specific code, and do not have the technical know how to implement them..
    http://home.earthlink.net/~nomorabito/index.html

    Thanks again for all the replies--
    Bob

  11. #36
    SitePoint Guru bronze trophy blufive's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Posts
    853
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'll probably get kicked out of the "standards-weenies-r-us" club for this, but this sort of brutal hackery is what it takes to get Netscape 4 to play ball (web designers hate it for a reason - namely, it's a cranky old SOB).

    Tested in Firefox 0.9.1/Win, IE6/Win, Opera 7/Win and <wince>Netscape 4.8/Win</wince>. Looks good in the first three, and only slightly crumpled in NN4.8. Hopefully it still looks pretty much like you intended.

    Sorry, I don't have access to any mac browsers here, so I'll just cross my fingers and hope. Mostly I just cleaned up and simplified the actual HTML, and applied a little careful CSS that makes modern browsers look good, but shouldn't choke the old ones.

    For the layout, I used a few height/width/border attributes, as that's a lot more reliable than style="width: [whatever]" when old browsers are involved. I turned all the colors to hex values, because (you guessed it) older browsers are flaky with RGBs. Even in the old browsers, though, <font> tags are too much grief. A quick bit of CSS takes care of anything newer than ancient history (even NN4) everyone else will have to put up with their browser default. This *should* degrade relatively well, but it's probably going to suffer a bit on mobile phones or text-only browsers.

    I'll try to answer any questions, but tomorrow, 'cos it's past midnight here...

    (sample code excludes meta tags and statcounter code, just to make it shorter - you'll need to fix up the image src, too...)

    HTML Code:
    <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
     <html><head><title>Transcriptions by Bob Morabito</title>
       <!-- snip most meta and link tags for brevity, feel free to put them back in -->
       <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
       <style type="text/css">
     body {
     	background-color: #eeffff;
     	font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
     	font-size: 16px;
     	color: black;
     }
     
     td {
     	font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
     	font-size: 16px;
     }
     
     a:link { color: black; }
     a:visited { color: #ccffff; }
     a:active { color: #fafada; }
     
     td.imagecell {
     	background-color: #339999;
     	height: 163px;
     	text-align: center;
     	width: 220px;
     	vertical-align: middle;
     }
     
     .header { background-color: #008080 }
     
     h1 {
     	color: #ffffda;
     	font-family: Parade, sans-serif;
     	font-size: 28px;
     	font-weight: bold;
     	text-align: center;
     }
     
     div.downloadlinks { 
     	background-color: #ccffff; 
     	font-size: 16px;
     	margin: 0px;
     	padding: 0px;
     	font-weight: bold;
     	text-align: center;
     }
     
     td.linkslist { 
     	background-color: #008080; 
     	padding: 0px;
     }
     
     .linkslist h3 {
     	font-size: 16px;
     	font-weight: bold;
     	text-align: center;
     }
     
     .linkslist li {
     	font-size: 12px;
     }
     
     td.content {
     	background-color: #55cccc;
     }
     
     .content p {
     	  margin-left: 15px;
     	  margin-right: 15px;
     	  margin-top: 10px;
     	  margin-bottom: 10px;
     }
     
     .articleslinks th {
     	background-color: #ccffff;
     }
     
     .articleslinks td.left {
     	
     }
       </style>
     </head>
     <body>
     <center>
     <table width="763" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
       <tr>
     	<td class="imagecell"><img src="morabito_files/new-logobwaterbkgasmall.jpg" border="3" height="151" width="129"></td>
     	<td class="header"><h1>Transcriptions by Bob Morabito</h1></td>
       </tr>
       <tr>
     	<td colspan="2" height="17" bgcolor="#330033">&nbsp;</td>
       </tr>
       <tr>
     	<td colspan="2" height="45" bgcolor="#fafada">&nbsp;</td>
       </tr>
     
       <tr>
     	<td width="244" class="linkslist" valign="top">
     	<div class="downloadlinks">Tab Download Links</div>
     		<h3>ERIC CLAPTON</h3>
     		<ul>
     		  <li><a href="http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enomorabito/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/tears_morabito.tef">Tears in Heaven</a></li>
     		</ul>
     		<h3>JAMES TAYLOR</h3>
     		<ul>
     		  <li><a href="http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enomorabito/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/closeyoureyes_morabito.tef">You Can Close Your Eyes</a></li>
     		  <li><a href="http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enomorabito/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/fourthjuly_morabito.tef">On the Fourth of July</a></li>
     		</ul>
     		<h3>THE BEATLES</h3>
     		<ul>
    		  <li><a href="http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enomorabito/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/blackbird_morabito.tef">Blackbird</a></li>
     		  <li><a href="http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enomorabito/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/yesterday_morabito.tef">Yesterday</a></li>
     		  <li><a href="http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enomorabito/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/hide_morabito.tef">You've Got to Hide Your Love Away</a></li>
     		</ul>
     		<h3>BILLY JOEL</h3>
     		<ul>
     		  <li><a href="http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enomorabito/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/alwaysawoman_morabito.tef">She's Always a Woman to Me</a></li>
     		</ul>
     		<h3>ANTONIO CARLOS JOBIM</h3>
     		<ul>
     		  <li><a href="http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enomorabito/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/ipanema_morabito.tef">The Girl from Ipanema</a></li>
     		</ul>
     		<h3>PAUL SIMON</h3>
     		<ul>
     		  <li><a href="http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enomorabito/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/homewardbound_morabito.tef">Homeward Bound</a></li>
     		</ul>
     		<h3>CROSBY, STILLS, NASH &amp;<br> YOUNG</h3>
     		<ul>
     		  <li><a href="http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enomorabito/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/4+20_morabito.tef">4+20</a></li>
     		</ul>
     	  </td>
     	  <td class="content" bgcolor="#55cccc" valign="top">
     
     <p>This website is devoted to transcribing music, and creating guitar tablature.</p>
     
     <p>There is an article about the techniques, and links to the programs that I use 
     to transcribe, (see below), and also short essays on the stylistic traits of various
     artists.</p>
     
     <p>This site is dedicated to my two sons, Rob, and Mark, who introduced me to 
     tabbing, although I have been figuring out songs by ear for many, many years.</p>
     
     <p>The tab files are in the TablEdit file format, and they can be viewed, heard, 
     and printed by downloading the free program, <b>TEFview</b>, at 
     <a href="http://www.tabledit.com/tefview/index.shtml" target="_blank">TEFview</a>.
     </p>
     
     <p>Any problems downloading the tab files (esp. for us Mac users!!), just 
     control-click on the link, or right-click, and with Netscape choose &quot;Save 
     Link Target As&quot;, and with IE choose &quot;Download
     Link to Disk&quot;.</p>
     
     <p>Any questions, or comments, please feel free to email me at
     <a href="mailto:bobmorabito@earthlink.net?subject=Transcriptions%20by%20Bob%20Morabito">bobmorabito@earthlink.net</a>
     </p>
     <p>Thank you, and welcome!</p>
     
     <table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="articleslinks" style="border-bottom: 1px solid #ccffff;">
       <tr>
     	<th>Articles</th>
     	<th>Links</th>
       </tr>
       <tr>
     	<td width="50%" style="border-right: 1px solid #ccffff;">
     	  <p>
      <a href="http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enomorabito/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/transtechniques.doc">
     Transcription Techniques and Materials</a></p>
     	  <p> James Taylor Stylistic Traits (in preparation)</p>
     	  <p> Antonio Carlos Jobim Stylistic Traits (in preparation)</p>
     	</td>
     	<td>
     	   <p><a href="http://audacity.sourceforge.net/" target="_blank">Audacity</a></p>
     	  <p><a href="http://www.tabledit.com/" target="_blank">TablEdit</a></p>
     	  <p><a href="http://www.braxtech.com/metrognome/" target="_blank">MetroGnome</a></p>
     	</td>
       </tr>
     </table>
     
     </td>
     </tr>
     </table>
     </center>
     <!-- StatCounter Code deleted for brevity-->
     <center>
     <p>Site design, all content, and logo &copy; Bob Morabito 2004</p>
     <p><u><small>Under
     Construction</small></u></p>
     </center>
     </body></html>

  12. #37
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    australia
    Posts
    35
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Forget netscape 4 , concentrate on NS7.1 & ie5.0 - 6 . With CSS you can do everything faster, better, and have more control.

  13. #38
    100% Windoze-free earther's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    2,788
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    It is possible

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob M
    What would be the best, fastiest, and most sure way to change parts of my code, so that I can see if it helps in the old browser, WITHOUT losing what I already have?
    After I have a page working fairly well in IE5x, 6, Firefox and Opera, I tackle NN4.79 and this is how I do it. I rebuild the page element by element checking all browsers along the way. There are some things that choke NN and often the margins, padding and font sizes need to be changed and reset for other browsers (using either @import or the /*/*/ /* */ hack). In the end, I get all my sites to look not exactly like IE etc. but fairly well in NN 4.79.

    This process actually does't take all that long. Probably less time than trying to tweak one or two things here and there.

  14. #39
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    68
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by earther
    After I have a page working fairly well in IE5x, 6, Firefox and Opera, I tackle NN4.79 and this is how I do it. I rebuild the page element by element checking all browsers along the way. There are some things that choke NN and often the margins, padding and font sizes need to be changed and reset for other browsers (using either @import or the /*/*/ /* */ hack). In the end, I get all my sites to look not exactly like IE etc. but fairly well in NN 4.79.

    This process actually does't take all that long. Probably less time than trying to tweak one or two things here and there.
    Thanks, earther, for all your help, and info!
    Bob

  15. #40
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    68
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by blufive
    I'll probably get kicked out of the "standards-weenies-r-us" club for this, but this sort of brutal hackery is what it takes to get Netscape 4 to play ball (web designers hate it for a reason - namely, it's a cranky old SOB).

    Tested in Firefox 0.9.1/Win, IE6/Win, Opera 7/Win and <wince>Netscape 4.8/Win</wince>. Looks good in the first three, and only slightly crumpled in NN4.8. Hopefully it still looks pretty much like you intended.

    Sorry, I don't have access to any mac browsers here, so I'll just cross my fingers and hope. Mostly I just cleaned up and simplified the actual HTML, and applied a little careful CSS that makes modern browsers look good, but shouldn't choke the old ones.

    For the layout, I used a few height/width/border attributes, as that's a lot more reliable than style="width: [whatever]" when old browsers are involved. I turned all the colors to hex values, because (you guessed it) older browsers are flaky with RGBs. Even in the old browsers, though, <font> tags are too much grief. A quick bit of CSS takes care of anything newer than ancient history (even NN4) everyone else will have to put up with their browser default. This *should* degrade relatively well, but it's probably going to suffer a bit on mobile phones or text-only browsers.

    I'll try to answer any questions, but tomorrow, 'cos it's past midnight here...

    (sample code excludes meta tags and statcounter code, just to make it shorter - you'll need to fix up the image src, too...)

    HTML Code:
    <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
     <html><head><title>Transcriptions by Bob Morabito</title>
       <!-- snip most meta and link tags for brevity, feel free to put them back in -->
       <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
       <style type="text/css">
     body {
     	background-color: #eeffff;
     	font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
     	font-size: 16px;
     	color: black;
     }
     
     td {
     	font-family: "Trebuchet MS", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
     	font-size: 16px;
     }
     
     a:link { color: black; }
     a:visited { color: #ccffff; }
     a:active { color: #fafada; }
     
     td.imagecell {
     	background-color: #339999;
     	height: 163px;
     	text-align: center;
     	width: 220px;
     	vertical-align: middle;
     }
     
     .header { background-color: #008080 }
     
     h1 {
     	color: #ffffda;
     	font-family: Parade, sans-serif;
     	font-size: 28px;
     	font-weight: bold;
     	text-align: center;
     }
     
     div.downloadlinks { 
     	background-color: #ccffff; 
     	font-size: 16px;
     	margin: 0px;
     	padding: 0px;
     	font-weight: bold;
     	text-align: center;
     }
     
     td.linkslist { 
     	background-color: #008080; 
     	padding: 0px;
     }
     
     .linkslist h3 {
     	font-size: 16px;
     	font-weight: bold;
     	text-align: center;
     }
     
     .linkslist li {
     	font-size: 12px;
     }
     
     td.content {
     	background-color: #55cccc;
     }
     
     .content p {
     	  margin-left: 15px;
     	  margin-right: 15px;
     	  margin-top: 10px;
     	  margin-bottom: 10px;
     }
     
     .articleslinks th {
     	background-color: #ccffff;
     }
     
     .articleslinks td.left {
     	
     }
       </style>
     </head>
     <body>
     <center>
     <table width="763" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
       <tr>
     	<td class="imagecell"><img src="morabito_files/new-logobwaterbkgasmall.jpg" border="3" height="151" width="129"></td>
     	<td class="header"><h1>Transcriptions by Bob Morabito</h1></td>
       </tr>
       <tr>
     	<td colspan="2" height="17" bgcolor="#330033">&nbsp;</td>
       </tr>
       <tr>
     	<td colspan="2" height="45" bgcolor="#fafada">&nbsp;</td>
       </tr>
     
       <tr>
     	<td width="244" class="linkslist" valign="top">
     	<div class="downloadlinks">Tab Download Links</div>
     		<h3>ERIC CLAPTON</h3>
     		<ul>
     		  <li><a href="http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enomorabito/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/tears_morabito.tef">Tears in Heaven</a></li>
     		</ul>
     		<h3>JAMES TAYLOR</h3>
     		<ul>
     		  <li><a href="http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enomorabito/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/closeyoureyes_morabito.tef">You Can Close Your Eyes</a></li>
     		  <li><a href="http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enomorabito/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/fourthjuly_morabito.tef">On the Fourth of July</a></li>
     		</ul>
     		<h3>THE BEATLES</h3>
     		<ul>
    		  <li><a href="http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enomorabito/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/blackbird_morabito.tef">Blackbird</a></li>
     		  <li><a href="http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enomorabito/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/yesterday_morabito.tef">Yesterday</a></li>
     		  <li><a href="http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enomorabito/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/hide_morabito.tef">You've Got to Hide Your Love Away</a></li>
     		</ul>
     		<h3>BILLY JOEL</h3>
     		<ul>
     		  <li><a href="http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enomorabito/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/alwaysawoman_morabito.tef">She's Always a Woman to Me</a></li>
     		</ul>
     		<h3>ANTONIO CARLOS JOBIM</h3>
     		<ul>
     		  <li><a href="http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enomorabito/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/ipanema_morabito.tef">The Girl from Ipanema</a></li>
     		</ul>
     		<h3>PAUL SIMON</h3>
     		<ul>
     		  <li><a href="http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enomorabito/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/homewardbound_morabito.tef">Homeward Bound</a></li>
     		</ul>
     		<h3>CROSBY, STILLS, NASH &amp;<br> YOUNG</h3>
     		<ul>
     		  <li><a href="http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enomorabito/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/4+20_morabito.tef">4+20</a></li>
     		</ul>
     	  </td>
     	  <td class="content" bgcolor="#55cccc" valign="top">
     
     <p>This website is devoted to transcribing music, and creating guitar tablature.</p>
     
     <p>There is an article about the techniques, and links to the programs that I use 
     to transcribe, (see below), and also short essays on the stylistic traits of various
     artists.</p>
     
     <p>This site is dedicated to my two sons, Rob, and Mark, who introduced me to 
     tabbing, although I have been figuring out songs by ear for many, many years.</p>
     
     <p>The tab files are in the TablEdit file format, and they can be viewed, heard, 
     and printed by downloading the free program, <b>TEFview</b>, at 
     <a href="http://www.tabledit.com/tefview/index.shtml" target="_blank">TEFview</a>.
     </p>
     
     <p>Any problems downloading the tab files (esp. for us Mac users!!), just 
     control-click on the link, or right-click, and with Netscape choose &quot;Save 
     Link Target As&quot;, and with IE choose &quot;Download
     Link to Disk&quot;.</p>
     
     <p>Any questions, or comments, please feel free to email me at
     <a href="mailto:bobmorabito@earthlink.net?subject=Transcriptions%20by%20Bob%20Morabito">bobmorabito@earthlink.net</a>
     </p>
     <p>Thank you, and welcome!</p>
     
     <table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="articleslinks" style="border-bottom: 1px solid #ccffff;">
       <tr>
     	<th>Articles</th>
     	<th>Links</th>
       </tr>
       <tr>
     	<td width="50%" style="border-right: 1px solid #ccffff;">
     	  <p>
      <a href="http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enomorabito/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/transtechniques.doc">
     Transcription Techniques and Materials</a></p>
     	  <p> James Taylor Stylistic Traits (in preparation)</p>
     	  <p> Antonio Carlos Jobim Stylistic Traits (in preparation)</p>
     	</td>
     	<td>
     	   <p><a href="http://audacity.sourceforge.net/" target="_blank">Audacity</a></p>
     	  <p><a href="http://www.tabledit.com/" target="_blank">TablEdit</a></p>
     	  <p><a href="http://www.braxtech.com/metrognome/" target="_blank">MetroGnome</a></p>
     	</td>
       </tr>
     </table>
     
     </td>
     </tr>
     </table>
     </center>
     <!-- StatCounter Code deleted for brevity-->
     <center>
     <p>Site design, all content, and logo &copy; Bob Morabito 2004</p>
     <p><u><small>Under
     Construction</small></u></p>
     </center>
     </body></html>
    Hi, gav--
    I saw your post before, and was COMPLETELY OVERWHELMED, at what a job you did, and sent you a PM about it--
    THIS IS WHAT I NEED, and I thank you so very much!!!!!!
    I was waiting until after I heard back from you to post this, as I had a question, but I also had asked for help in the Browser issues forum, telling them I had also posted it here, and to make a long story short, I answered the posts there,
    and felt it better to write now,and then again, after you receieve my PM--

    Not only did you answer my question, totally, and completely, but you did it in a very kind fashion, which is most appreciated.
    I really am not familiar at all with CSS, hence the PM, and not very much with HTML..

    It's really nice to get the help we need, in forums like these, and I thank you, gav, very , very much--
    Bob

  16. #41
    SitePoint Wizard johntabita's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    In a big, big house, with lotsa lotsa room
    Posts
    1,062
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mutus
    True - BUT - what about real life? What do you tell your clients or bosses when they review their site with a browser you decided not to support because it's old? The site renders horribly and they are not about to pay you for that mess (even thought it validates perfectly at w3c). I don't hear a lot of mention about that. I'm not talking directly to you vgarcia, just a general observation.
    I used to worry about the same thing. But a few years ago, I finally decided to abandon my multi-stylesheet hack to get my sites to render properly in a 5+ year old brower that less than 3% of the people use. In all that time, not a single client has ever come to us with the "why is my site broken" scenario.

    Now bosses are another story, of course. A few years back, I had designed a newsletter site for my then-employer. The larger majority of people in the company still were using Netscape 4.7 on Windows 95, so I got the mandate to "make it work" in that browser. It took me half a day, but I was getting paid by the hour.

  17. #42
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    366
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by johntabita
    I used to worry about the same thing. But a few years ago, I finally decided to abandon my multi-stylesheet hack to get my sites to render properly in a 5+ year old brower that less than 3% of the people use. In all that time, not a single client has ever come to us with the "why is my site broken" scenario.
    This is the same thing I have heard from many other people and have experienced myself. IMHO, you are really better off spending your time developing new features/new sites/improving other things than worrying about 100% compatibility when 99% will suffice just as well.

  18. #43
    SitePoint Addict will_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Asheville, NC
    Posts
    206
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob M
    Hi, Will--could you please give me more detailed instructions on how to d this? It may really solve the problem--Thanks, Bob.
    Hey BOb,
    It's not something that I would venture to explain here due to my tendancy to get long winded, but here are some links to using the @import method of linking to your CSS and graceful degredation:

    @import:
    http://w3development.de/css/hide_css...owsers/import/
    http://www.htmldog.com/guides/cssadvanced/atrules/


    Graceful Degredation:
    http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/abdesign.html
    http://webtips.dan.info/graceful.html

    Hope that helps!

  19. #44
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    68
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by will_
    Hey BOb,
    It's not something that I would venture to explain here due to my tendancy to get long winded, but here are some links to using the @import method of linking to your CSS and graceful degredation:

    @import:
    http://w3development.de/css/hide_css...owsers/import/
    http://www.htmldog.com/guides/cssadvanced/atrules/


    Graceful Degredation:
    http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/abdesign.html
    http://webtips.dan.info/graceful.html

    Hope that helps!
    Thanks again, Will--it really does!!
    Bob

  20. #45
    SitePoint Enthusiast Scottie2Hottie7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    England
    Posts
    25
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Did Anyone Take Notice Of My Message

    USE DYNAMIC PAGES! (Prefrebbly PHP)

  21. #46
    ☆★☆★ silver trophy vgarcia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    in transition
    Posts
    21,235
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Scottie2Hottie7
    Did Anyone Take Notice Of My Message

    USE DYNAMIC PAGES! (Prefrebbly PHP)
    Why bring the server into it? Seems like lots of extra overhead for something as trivial as a display issue in an older browser (unless it's absolutely required by your boss or something).

  22. #47
    SitePoint Addict myrdhrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    211
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Bob M,

    There is one question you should ask yourself before trying to please everyone with all their different browsers...

    "Who are you trying to reach with your site"?

    It's impossible to please everyone as it is impossible to design a seat that will be comfortable to anybody who'd like to sit on it.

    The people you're trying to reach will have a lot in common, most probably, they'll be using the same level of technology (either advanced browsers, older browsers, fully compliant, designed for disabilities, to run on very old machine, only text based). Find out who you'd like to reach, that will give you a lot of detail on the framework and standard you should be using.

    I worked on a project not too long ago where we had to make sure that the website appeared great on Netscape 4ish... why? because it was to be used by priests in Africa and the average machine they had access could run anything more powerfull than that.

    As you will taylor the content of your site to some specific people, you can also taylor the standard you'll be using to better reach those same people.
    Last edited by myrdhrin; Jul 7, 2004 at 07:27.

  23. #48
    SitePoint Addict matt_12511's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    256
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The number one/most important consideration. Will I/my customer make more money?

    If it takes you X more hours to add 100% compliance at $X an hour, AND if you will lose X% of your customers and each customer is worth $X, which is more? Which solution will give you more "Bang for your Buck"?

    If you have a realestate website with 12% of your customers using an old browser. Well the time/money you spend making the 100% compatable website will easily be paid for the first time one of that 12% buys a house.

    If you sell Graphics cards and video games and 2% of your customers use old browsers. The time/money you spend making it 100% compatable may not be worth the measily couple of hundred bucks this 2% will bring to you.

    Each decision should be made from a marketing standpoint. How about telling a client before the sale that a 100% compatability website IS an option, IF they are willing to pay for the extra labor. Let them decide if the extra $$ is worth the 100%.

    Matt

    ps. The ESPN website solution seems like the best solution to me.

  24. #49
    SitePoint Addict will_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Asheville, NC
    Posts
    206
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by matt_12511
    Each decision should be made from a marketing standpoint. How about telling a client before the sale that a 100% compatability website IS an option, IF they are willing to pay for the extra labor. Let them decide if the extra $$ is worth the 100%.
    I can't buy that (pun intended).

    First, many people may be creating sites for fun or other non-commercial purposes, so marketing wouldn't relate to them.

    Second, as others have said here, 100% compatibility is impossible on the web, so what you are essentially trying to sell your client is the half-assed job or the better-than-half-assed-but-not-perfect job. Right?

    With web standards, you will be providing the best chances of the most amounts of people seeing a site. There should be no other option. If there is, you are shortchanging your clients.

    Once one is well versed in web standards, production time is usually far less than that of a non-standards-based site.

    Using web standards you can make sites that are accessible to the most amount of people possible, you are providing your clients with the best product you can, and you can sleep better at night knowing you did the right thing.

    Sorry if this doesn't make sense...it's the end of the day and I am rambling...

  25. #50
    SitePoint Addict matt_12511's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    256
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thats exactly right!

    The most important thing is what is going to make the most money. (except to the people who do this for a hobby...obviously) So if following web standards is going to save/make the most money for a business...tell them exactly that. If you can push their website from only 99.99% compatability to 99.999% compatability for only $1200 more tell them that. Let them decide if .009% is worth the extra $$.
    Instead of arguing what is possible or what "should" be done, find out what will return the most "bang for your buck" That is what you will find is the most important thing.
    (almost) Everything comes down to money... break it down for your clients and show them their options. managers love to make decisions so give them a decision to make. If you are strongly in favor of standards you can show all the ways standards will save/make them money. If you want 100% compatability show them how it will make them more money. Then let them decide.

    ** note: if your an honest and good person...give them all the facts without trying to sway their decision.

    Matt


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
  •