RE: Feed Back on compatibility

Thanks to everyone for the feedback, I now have my site working for
Netscape3x 4x and IE4, I have not been able to test it with IE3 yet, but I
will do so on Monday from work were I have a machine running IE3. IE3 and
NS3 are as low as I or any of the large sites I have worked on go.  When you
get into NS2.x or Lynx you just lose too much and since most of what I do is
replace C/S systems with Web based ones, I need the features in 3.x and up
browsers.

Peter, I like the redirect trick you shared in your tidbit.  I have done
similar, but instead of setting the location= I called a JavaScript function
which checked the version of the browser (again IE3,4 & NS3,4) and then
redirected the user to the appropriate page.

Howard S. Spector
mailto:howard(at)howardsp.com
http://www.howardsp.com
Alliance Consulting Group
�

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Peter Cutler [mailto:pcs(at)pobox.com]
>Sent: Saturday, February 13, 1999 9:06 AM
>To: cyberenet; hwg-critique(at)hwg.org
>Subject: RE: Feed Back on compatibility
>
>
>Using Lynx (on win95)
>
>Site is cannot be navigated. A quick look at the code revealed the lack of
>ALT tags. Therefore Lynx shows [LINK] rather than some text to describe the
>link's destination.
>
>NS3 showed this on screen (http://www.howardsp.com/common.js)
>
>var NS4 = (document.layers) ? 1:0;
>var IE4 = (document.all) ? 1:0;
>var is4x = (NS4 || IE4);
>var PRE4x = (NS4 || IE4) ? 0:1;
>var isNetscape = (navigator.appName == "Netscape");
>
>NS2 crashed on 3 separate attempts to load page.
>
>
>***************  tidbit found on my puter
>Don't forget Navigator 2.x
>If your site has to support both JavaScript-capable and
>non-JavaScript-capable browsers, you may have tried to use the <SCRIPT> and
><NOSCRIPT> tags to create separate content for the non-JavaScript browsers.
>And you may have noticed that Navigator 2.x does not support the <NOSCRIPT>
>tag--even though it is JavaScript-capable, it displays the <NOSCRIPT>
>content anyway.
>
>In order to mask the text-only <NOSCRIPT> content from Navigator 2.x, you
>must place the text-only content and the JavaScript-enhanced content in
>separate files and selectively direct browsers from your main page to the
>appropriate text-only or JavaScript page via a pair of separately targeted
>links:
>
><A href="nonJSPage.html" onclick="location='JSPage.html';return
>false">Go to
>Info Page</A>
>
>JavaScript browsers evaluate the onClick event handler first, and thus get
>sent to the JavaScript version of the page. Since the return is false,
>JavaScript-capable browsers won't go on to the page listed in the anchor.
>Non-JavaScript browsers ignore the JavaScript event handler entirely and
>follow the normal HTML link to the non-JavaScript page.
>*********************** end of tidbit
>
>If you wish to design for version 4+ browsers(or highly javascript
>compatible) browsers, then be aware that many will not be able to
>view site.
>
>My personal site is just that, personal, so I wrote and have updated it to
>work with the browser I currently use. However for sites I wish to make
>public, I try to ensure univeral access, which means either creating
>multiple site copies(using redirects), or giving up some bells and whistles
>if you wish to maintain only one set of pages.
>
>Comments welcome, flames expected but ignored.
>
>Peter
>
>
>> >Please check out http://www.howardsp.com/index.html I am looking for
>> >comments on the look/feel and compatibility across browsers.
>Also take a
>> >look at http://www.howardsp.com/download.html which is what my
>link pages
>> >will look like.  I have not settled on a layout for my
>articles, but I am
>> >open to suggestions.
>> >
>> >Thanks.
>> >-Howard.
>
>

HTML: hwg-critique mailing list archives, maintained by Webmaster @ IWA