Re: A fuzzy OPINION<he's baaaack>

On 2/19/01 at 07:37 PM, Captain F.M. O'Lary <ctfuzzy(at)canopy.net> wrote:

> As I recall, we had two "options" or scenarios if you will.
> 
> One where the document was written to the ratified standards for the
> HTML, recognized world wide, including by the browser manufacturers.
> This option held that because the document was written to these
> standards when (and **IF**) a potential client of theirs contacted
> them voicing displeasure with the site's operation they ("your"
> client) would be able to point out the link to the validator on their
> page to the complaining viewer so that *they* could see for themselves
> it was a problem caused by their browser and that in fact this company
> they had though "shoddy" had in fact taken the time trouble and care
> to INSURE the widest possible viewer success with their site. Correct
> me if I'm mistaken here someone, but I think we just built a little
> CONSUMER CONFIDENCE in the business the viewer had just written to
> complain about - woops.

My clients have no interest in whether or not I write valid code. Nor do
they care about browser quirks. They want a Web site that looks good and
that works. The rest is technical stuff that does not concern them or
interest them. I do not have one client who would say: "I no longer mind
that my site doesn't work now that I know you write compliant code."

They did not hire me to involve them in the inner workings of html code
and doctypes and proprietary browsers. None of that means anything to
them. For me to smugly point to a validator link and shift the blame
elsewhere does not fix their site and it certainly does not give the
client a favorable impression of my design capabilities or my skills at
client relations.

> Anyway, option two was for the developer to load multiple browsers and
> multiple versions for the purpose of testing FUNCTIONALITY, and then
> realizing they have used stuff that WILL NOT be supported by viewers
> browsers, they post it to the web and bitch about a new browser
> version and how it ruined their site.

The purpose of testing on multiple browsers is not to see what doesn't
work so you can complain it. The purpose it to fix your page so it looks
good in all browsers. Unfortunately, writing strictly to code is not
good enough because -- as we have discussed ad infinitum -- all browsers
play fast and loose with their interprepation of the code.

In addition IE 5 and Netscape 4.5 and 6, I just installed AOL 5 and a
dial-up modem connection -- just to be able to see my pages somewhat as
my clients do.

> I'm obviously confused.

That's OK. We still love you, Fuzzy.

> What am I missing?

Don't get me started! :-)

Ken


http://www.thirdlives.com
ThirdLives Web Design

http://simplelives.com
Simplelives Web Design

http://amillionlives.com
Lives, the Biography Resource

HTML: hwg-basics mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA