Re: A fuzzy OPINION<he's baaaack>

Hi all,

sorry for disappearing on this thread. I ran off to spend the weekend in
the woods. A fun time was had by all - even the squirrels.

Anyway . . . I know you have missed me terribly, so I'll waste no more time
and get right to the juicy stuff.


At 03:51 PM 2/16/01 +0100, Gregor Pirnaver wrote:

>On Friday 16 February 2001 13:32 Fuzzy wrote:
>> They take the time to look at the work on two or three 
>> browsers ON THEIR OWN MACHINE  and BS themselves into 
>> thinking that is the way the rest of the world will see 
>> it.
>
>Why should everyone care about the rest of the world?

Well, I guess you do have a good point. Some folks surely do not need to. I
was speaking only in terms of people who publish documents to the Internet
with the intent of people world wide viewing them and interacting with them
successfully (read - acquiring their products or services).


>
>Who can blame them if they want to make the best site they 
>can. What is wrong with that?

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.

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.

I'm obviously confused. I thought option one would produce the "best site
they can".

What am I missing?

Fuzzy.
______________________________________________________________
Captain F.M. O'Lary
webmaster(at)canopy.net
It's a biiiig mistake to allow any mechanical object to realize that you
are in a hurry.
------------------------------------------------------------------

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