SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

View Poll Results: Do you agree with Zeldman?

Voters
16. You may not vote on this poll
  • Agree

    10 62.50%
  • Disagree

    6 37.50%
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 31 of 31
  1. #26
    SitePoint Enthusiast Caramel_Cortex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Vermont, U.S.A.
    Posts
    52
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Red face preaching to the choir in our own little world...

    Let me ask everyone participating in this thread how much it matters when web designers have web sites that only rock on 5.x/6.x browsers, when the people mostly visiting a web designer's site are... web designers using the latest browser versions!

    Now, there is one other kind of person visiting a web designer's site: potential clients. Um, let me rephrase that: potential clients probably using legacy browsers.

    Potential clients that would stipulate that any site made for them work in all browsers.

    Potential clients that don't know a <table> from a <div>, and, perception being reality, will think the reason why your site looks like garbage in their 4.x browser is because you suck!

    Zeldman speaks for all of us in voicing our desire for standards compliance. Because of the public's lack of knowledge on the issue (and really, they shouldn't have to know), the vendors will continue to have us by the shorties.
    That's a nice suit... does it come in your size?
    c a r a m e l c o r t e x
    CrazyBox Web Development--{beta}

  2. #27
    SitePoint Wizard bbolte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    The Central Plains
    Posts
    3,301
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    very good point!

    i had almost changed my site to standards and thought of that very thing... i was afraid of the perception i would get from potential clients, who, more than likely, wouldn't understand what was going on in the background. even though content is "king", i'm still not sure that legacy app users (unless very savvy) want what zeldman is serving up to them. and i'm talking about general users and general business websites trying to make a sale from their sites, it has to "appear" to work...
    Last edited by bbolte; Dec 10, 2001 at 14:11.

  3. #28
    SitePoint Zealot pony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    170
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    In principal I agree with Zeldman but Caramel_cortex is of course right about client perception.

    You can always try the 'ahem' class /Invisible Object (http://www.webstandards.org/upgrade/tips.html) method for encouraging users to upgrade their browsers but anything that encourages your users to leave your site as soon as they get there probably isn't too smart.

    And of course there are all those people browsing at work or college who can't upgrade their browser without incurring the wrath of their IT dept.

    If you really want to go down the Zeldman route one way to 'encourage' your clients is to charge extra for making sites that fully match their spec also compliant with vsn4 browsers - after all it is more time consuming/more of a pain.
    the bottoms of my shoes are clean from walking in the rain

  4. #29
    SitePoint Enthusiast Caramel_Cortex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Vermont, U.S.A.
    Posts
    52
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Cool on the wrath of IT and IT spending

    Originally posted by pony
    And of course there are all those people browsing at work or college who can't upgrade their browser without incurring the wrath of their IT dept.

    If you really want to go down the Zeldman route one way to 'encourage' your clients is to charge extra for making sites that fully match their spec also compliant with vsn4 browsers - after all it is more time consuming/more of a pain.
    Excellent point, Pony. And what a double-edged sword this is. I wonder what would happen if/when all the other industries and businesses on this planet could be made to see how much money was being lost through backwards-compatible & cross-browser web design costs! Or if an IT department could be shown that their refusal to upgrade browsers is costing their company dearly. Especially when most browsers don't cost anything!
    That's a nice suit... does it come in your size?
    c a r a m e l c o r t e x
    CrazyBox Web Development--{beta}

  5. #30
    will code HTML for food Michel V's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Corsica
    Posts
    552
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: user understanding: perception=reality

    Originally posted by Caramel_Cortex
    I don't think any of us have to try too hard to figure out what usually happens when a user comes upon a site their browser can't accomodate: they blame any problems on the site.
    As opposed to (alas, most) webdesigners who would blame all the problems on Netscape4 not being able to render newest standards set after the browser was released. Or blame all on Netscape 6 because neither document.all nor document.layer, both non-standard, work in this browser

  6. #31
    SitePoint Addict DevilBear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Hades
    Posts
    301
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    even though content is "king", i'm still not sure that legacy app users (unless very savvy) want what zeldman is serving up to them.
    Just to focus a bit more on the websites of designers/design companies, and to paraphrase Emigre, to your potential clients your design IS your content. So at the very least, even if YOUR site doesn't work great in their old browser, your portfolio sites better.


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
  •