Re: A Perfect Web Site!

In article <008c01c095d5$56c99cc0$d91f9eac(at)gte.net>, Paul Wilson
<webgooru(at)gte.net> wrote:

This is the bit that you inadvertently over snipped:
Ted Turner said:
> We could all have a set "standard" right now if we really wanted that.
> After all, it really does not matter a whit WHAT standard it is. All we
> have to do is stop bickering and start placing a notice on all our
> sites that the site is designed for IE-5+ and offer a link to download.

Which makes my reply have just a little more sense.

> > Are you completely mad?  I would never load IE5 onto my system. 
> > Firstly, because it is an obscene size, and secondly because it is
> > not available for my platform.  What right have you to decide that I
> > am not allowed to visit your site?

> I.E. is the largest single browser out there and you're saying you
> won't load it up?

Yes. That is what I said.  See below for more.

> How do you know for sure your pages work in I.E.?

I check them in IE.  See below.

> This seems a little short sighted to me.  It's one thing to dislike a
> company, it's another to not test your work.

I don't dislike the company, just some things that hey appear to have done
in the past.

> Are you just trusting that it looks good because you're an awesome
> programmer? You may have the "perfect code" we have been talking about
> here, but that does NOT mean it renders the same as it does in NN.

I would love to be the perfect programmer, unfortunately I am no where
near that.  I check my sites using many different browsers.

> They have different rendering engines.  You have no idea what it even
> looks liken in I.E. to the majority of the world.

Incorrect.  See below.

> Since I.E. is available to the Mac, your platform must be Linux.

If you had bothered to read the headers to the mail I sent, on the 4th
line from the bottom (approx) it actually has the OS name and mail program
name (incedently, the mail program is GNKSA approved, is the one that
you're using?)

> Nothing wrong with it as an O.S. but lets face it, it doesn't quite
> have the number of web applications yet like the Mac or Windows does. 
> You might consider going dual boot so you can work with I.E. or at
> least running it in the penalty box.

I have 2 boxes, 3 OSes.  I use RISC OS to do ALL the design and
programming (hence calling it 'my system' above.  I spend 99% of my time
on it), checking the sites in Windows :IE 4 &5, NS 4.7 & 6(well soon,
anyway), Linux NS4.7 & 6, Lynx and on RISC OS, 4 Browsers you will not
have heard of.  I do not use IE5 (or any other version) for browsing, just
for checking.  There are browsers which are leaner and meaner (ie smaller
and quicker) on alternative platforms, but they are largely ignored by web
authors.  This leads to the not widely known practice of faking, which is
implemented by these browsers.  This gives them the opportunity of
accessing sites which some kind person has decided are only suitable for
IE5 or NS4.7, leading to statistics which favour the big 2.  I have no
idea how affected the stats are, whether it is 10% or 0.0010%, all I know
is that the stats can never be, and will never be accurate until the need
for faking is removed.

Nik

-- 
<hr>

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