SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    Follow: @AlexDawsonUK silver trophybronze trophy AlexDawson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    8,111
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    BBC Browser Support Grid

    While listening to the boagworld podcast, I heard Paul talk about an interesting implementation by the BBC to improve accessibility statements. Essentially the grid system works by firstly declaring a three tiered system (such as in the WCAG guidelines) of what each section should cover to qualify as a pass. Then they produce a grid system with web browsers listed and their level of support, this provides an excellent measurement of how well the end users browser will cope with the site you throw at them.

    This will not really interest the end user themselves (just like most end users really don’t care for the "Designed for IE" or the "Compatible with Firefox" buttons that have appeared everywhere). However when providing your clients (web developers listen up) with a brand new design concept of what you can offer them, you can in your brief promote the importance of supporting multiple browsers (using the current market share data). You can actually give them something solid to look at, nothing hidden... a simple statement of "this website is accessible, and below shows which browsers we know your design will function in, and to what level".

    Personally I am really excited about this fairly under used idea and will plan to use it when discussing work with future clients... So in an effort to improve accessibility and awareness for us all... Here is the BBC's example which they provided to promote browser support and it seems even the UK government are possibly going to adopt this system in future guidelines

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/futu..._support.shtml

  2. #2
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,287
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    2. KHTML is effectively the same as Webcore, and tends to include the same feature updates, although slightly later
    Did they mean Webkit? And no, Konqueror renders pretty differently from Safari, even though Webkit is based on KHTML-- they have split in ways which show up on web pages!!

    Funny, I noticed right away the nasty grey text on white, possibly because of the black MUSTs... the grey is readable but not easily.

    But man, they support older Safari and IE/Mac. Have "should test" for IE5.5 (I'm sure a site like BBC does actually get measurable IE/Mac and IE5 users though).

  3. #3
    Follow: @AlexDawsonUK silver trophybronze trophy AlexDawson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    8,111
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    Did they mean Webkit? And no, Konqueror renders pretty differently from Safari, even though Webkit is based on KHTML-- they have split in ways which show up on web pages!!

    Funny, I noticed right away the nasty grey text on white, possibly because of the black MUSTs... the grey is readable but not easily.

    But man, they support older Safari and IE/Mac. Have "should test" for IE5.5 (I'm sure a site like BBC does actually get measurable IE/Mac and IE5 users though).
    Don't take this the wrong way but did you actually read the document? Firstly it explicitly had sections for Google Chrome (WebKit), Safari (WebCore) and Konquerer (KHTML) for independently listing support for each browser and mentioning the rendering engine they used. Also if you read the document it explicitly mentions the level of support for each version of IE (including IE/Mac) and generally speaking, it’s pointless to maintain support for browsers which are considered to be of such low usage they no longer hold a significant position or market share (EG: less than 1&#37.

    The BBC have an entire department dedicated to developing for the web and as an organisation have become well known worldwide for being early adopters for new technology (they were among the first major sites I was aware of to implement microformats for example), so I can assume that the level of IE5 users was not high enough to warrant any special attention). Furthermore, if we work out the general data available for us about market share, only IE6 and higher hold enough of a chunk in the average user base to warrant continued support. (Only a zealot would consider catering for 0.01% of the market)

  4. #4
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,287
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Yeah I saw they had "tiers" of browser levels but I saw "should test" for IE5 (I'm assuming that's a check that all text is readable, which usually is in IE5 even if everything looks badly) and I saw a level for IE/Mac. I misread the table because under the Level 3 row there was the Must Test section. A re-read cleared that up.

    And I figured a site that gets millions of visitors, even 1% of some user group would then actually be a large number of people.

    Then I saw this line about KHTML was the same as "Webcore" and while before Safari-for-Windows came out I did rely on Konqueror, afterwards it was clear the one definitely can't help with how the other will react.

    As far as I know Webcore is merely a library that Webkit uses. Webcore is not the rendering engine and I've never heard that KHTML has it.

    And no, I do applaud the BBC for actually giving a c*** about web standards and accessibility. This can only be a good thing and in general I agree with their guidelines (when content MUST be accessible/available/usable and when it isn't worth the extra code). They showed this when they first added their microformats, and then when they removed them, and when they changed their layout to fit 1024px...

  5. #5
    Follow: @AlexDawsonUK silver trophybronze trophy AlexDawson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    8,111
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    And I figured a site that gets millions of visitors, even 1% of some user group would then actually be a large number of people.

    Then I saw this line about KHTML was the same as "Webcore" and while before Safari-for-Windows came out I did rely on Konqueror, afterwards it was clear the one definitely can't help with how the other will react.

    As far as I know Webcore is merely a library that Webkit uses. Webcore is not the rendering engine and I've never heard that KHTML has it.

    And no, I do applaud the BBC for actually giving a c*** about web standards and accessibility. This can only be a good thing and in general I agree with their guidelines (when content MUST be accessible/available/usable and when it isn't worth the extra code). They showed this when they first added their microformats, and then when they removed them, and when they changed their layout to fit 1024px...
    According to Wikipedia's well verified details about the browser market share IE5 accounts for only 0.15% (approx) of traffic (not specific to BBC website). If the general information applies to the BBC (as we have no formal statistics to work with)... it would be probably hundreds rather than thousands. And as mentioned before, less than 1% traffic is usually the point most designers "cut-off" support for a browser (if the browser itself has been superseded by newer versions). So under the circumstances, I see the BBC simply overlooking those users who choose to use a browser infinitely out of date as a reasonable action.

    Correct WebCore is just the library, in this case the BBC site is incorrect, however they did mention KHTML separately to "WebCore" and Webkit explicitly for Konquerer's own compatibility listing.

  6. #6
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,287
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    According to Wikipedia's well verified details about the browser market share IE5 accounts for only 0.15% (approx) of traffic (not specific to BBC website). If the general information applies to the BBC (as we have no formal statistics to work with)... it would be probably hundreds rather than thousands. And as mentioned before, less than 1% traffic is usually the point most designers "cut-off" support for a browser (if the browser itself has been superseded by newer versions). So under the circumstances, I see the BBC simply overlooking those users who choose to use a browser infinitely out of date as a reasonable action.
    Sure, I'll go with that. They could probably get away with a higher cutoff even.


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
  •