Re: how to deal with inconsistencies of css in netscape

At 09:03 PM 6/20/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>Al Sessions hunted and pecked out this message on 6/20/2002 11:26 PM
>
> >Interesting. I take the exact opposite approach and design for browsers
> >that are compliant and render my markup the way the W3 says they are
> >supposed to. Then, and only then, will I create an additional stylesheet
> >(or add browser detection to redirect to another set of pages, depending on
> >the budget) to compensate for obsolete rendering engines.
>
>Well to me this is snobbery and I've had better success with my approach.
>I guess you do what works for you.

Your probably not surprised to find that I disagree with your disagreement :)

Designing to standards is the exact opposite of snobbery. Uh, that's why 
they're called 'standards'.

> >The 'too forgiving' thing may have been true up until recently, but believe
> >me, there is little forgiving about IE6 in strict mode.
>
>Sometimes it goofs when ALL other browsers work. You may not just have
>come across a situation but they exist.....

Given there are some funky CSS-P bugs in IE6, however, these are pretty 
esoteric and few and far between. I would love to see an example of a valid 
page that works in *all* other browsers and breaks in IE6... your entirely 
right, this is something I haven't come across.

[snip]



> >Anyway, a Dreamweaver generated page is far more
> >likely to work in NN<6 than my lovingly handcrafted (in a plain text
> >editor) stylesheets are. The tools have *nothing* to do with the finished
> >product.
>
>NN 6 yes, I am talking about NN 4.7.9 which is not that old, just been
>updated.
>It's not the same as NN 6 in any way.

You misread my statement, I was referring to Netscape browsers 'less than' 
NN6. BTW, if you look over the archives, I recently posted a fairly 
comprehensive history of Netscape browsers. 4.79 is the same engine that 
they have been using for better than five years. A version number and a few 
usability tweaks does not make for a new browser.

> >>In fact, many of my  jobs are
> >>"redesigns" of sites that were like this. I came along and submitted  a
> >>whole new page, and was instantly asked to do the job.
> >>If you were going to have a house built, would you hire a builder who
> >>went out and bought a "kit" and threw the thing up without knowing
> >>anything about building, or one who knew how buildings were put together
> >>from scratch? (Even if you *wanted* the house made from the kit?) Maybe
> >>that's a poor analogy....but it's the best way I can express it.
>
> >To take your, admittedly poor, analogy a step further.
>
> >I happen to bang nails seasonally and have for most of my adult life.
> >Though kit built homes are rarely comparable to a custom one-off structure,
> >one thing you can be sure of is that the wiring and plumbing will be up to
> >current code.
>
>Current, yes.....but  current only.

Similar to software, electrical and plumbing codes constantly evolve, they 
change to accommodate new materials and incorporate new information. I wish 
I could say the same about Netscape.

> >Netscape <6 doesn't work because it is old,
>
>NN6 is brand new....you must mean NN 4.7.9 which is 99% of my audience.

Once again, you misread my words.

I will say that if 99% of your viewers use Netscape 4.x, by all means 
design for that browser. However, unless the site is www.netscaperules.com 
your site is something of an anomaly and it would be a serious error to 
generalize based on those numbers.

[snip]

> >>There
> >>may be many people on this list who turn up their noses at Netscape, but
> >>my ability to make things work everywhere has been good to me. And more
> >>and more people are turning back to Netscape (the original one) because
> >>the new one and IE just don't cut it.
>
> >Who's doing this? Do you have any quantifiable data to back this up? My
> >logs and the logs of sites that I have access to (some quite large) show a
> >constantly diminishing NN4.x user base. With AOL's move towards the gecko
> >engine, this is trend that isn't likely to change anytime soon.
>
>Don't know what AOL has to do with it, except that is a third browser I
>check for, not always current, but  a lot of people use it, so I feel I
>must.

You seem to have overlooked my question about data. WHO says users are 
returning to NN4.x?

AOL has a great deal to do with it. With the bundling of a branded NN6 in 
the newest CompuServ beta they have shown a willingness to at least 
consider switching the default AOL browser to a gecko based engine. Twenty 
million users are not easily ignored and I applaud AOL for evaluating a 
standards compliant browser.


> >I'm also curious as to why you feel NN6 and IE "don't cut it"?
>
>When you have correct code that designates a border as "gold" and IE 6 is
>the only one out of 6 browsers that shows it black, something is wrong.

Last I heard 'gold' wasn't a standard color. If you mean the hexadecimal 
equivalent (I believe you said this in a subsequent post) the problem is 
surely not with the browser but in the markup. I've used some pretty funky 
colors and they seem to work quite well.

Once again, I'd love to see an example.

>
> >>I even went to one site, a very
> >>large one I was dealing with that serves the public with dynamic content
> >>information (banking or such) that specifically said DOES NOT WORK IN
> >>NETSCAPE 6, please use Netscape 4.7, or IE.
>
> >This is not a reflection on a particular browser but rather a display of
> >the designers inability to properly craft a site.
>
>Apparently they can't make it work in NN 6...It was a major
>banking/financial institution, can't remember which but I came across it
>while doing some nasty tax research I had to do.

I stand by my statement, though will modify it to say that they probably 
don't care enough to make it work in a browser with such low user numbers. 
That is not a reflection on the browser but rather a decision likely made 
in a marketing department.

> >For some reason many people seem to feel that this is an either/or
> >situation and that a page that validates to a current DTD can't work
> >properly cross browser. In fact, a page that separates content from
> >structure in a semantic manner will prove much more portable and degrade
> >gracefully. There is NO reason not to write markup that takes full
> >advantage of the current standards; your work will be more accessible, will
> >function better in other web capable devices and still provide a decent
> >experience in obsolete browsers.
>
>I've never had a problem. Sometimes the document type declaration can
>cause problems too.

Not as long as the markup contained matches the DTD.

[snip]

>Handicapped people are a small minority, yet there are laws that say you
>must provide them with parking spaces and easy access to buildings and
>their and facilities too.
>Leaving out those modifications may not make a difference to you in how
>much business you might lose, but yet it's still considered important
>enough that it's against the law.

All the more reason to use current standards. You will find that a valid 
XHTML document that separates structure from content is far more likely to 
parse in a linear manner for users with screen readers. One of the biggest 
advantages to writing valid documents is improved accessibility.

I am well aware of Sec.508, accessibility issues are something I continue 
to work on. It is also *not* against the law unless said site is publicly 
funded. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) may take this a step 
further requiring that companies of a certain size make their sites 
accessible, but this is as yet undetermined and the consensus is that it 
will apply more to Intranets than the web as a whole.

>I feel that by not voluntarily allowing people with older computers
>access to my sites, I am not forcing them to "upgrade" since they most
>likely can't afford it anyway.

This is irrelevant. I'm talking about upgrading software and you'll find 
that the system requirements to run NN6, Opera or Mozilla are less or equal 
to the requirements to run NN4.x. The file sizes for download are also 
smaller allowing a savings for those with metered access. In terms of 
system resources used, NN.4.x is a big fat pig and users of older machines 
would be doing themselves a service by running Mozilla or Opera.

Oh yeah, with the exception of Opera (the adware version is quite usable) 
they are all free.

In closing, I'll be leaving this alone now. For some reason you seem 
unwilling to give up your allegiance to a broken down old relic. For a web 
designer to persist in primarily working in a broken environment strikes me 
as folly. I consistently ask you to document or provide substantiation for 
your claims and you persist in glossing over what I feel are legitimate issues.

When someone states that , "more and more people are turning back to 
Netscape (the original one) because
the new one and IE just don't cut it," and fails to provide any further 
information, credibility suffers. Your statement that a validly written 
color doesn't render in IE6 is another one. These strike me as little more 
than anecdotal claims based in opinion rather than fact.

Al Sessions
al(at)oldforgefd.org
http://www.fultonchaindesign.com/mt (weblog)

HWG hwg-techniques mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA