Compatibility

[Whitecrest]

I'm not so sure that it's a matter of blinders, Whitecrest. I think the
key is recognizing the purpose and audience of a particular site. For
example, Flash, extensive DHTML, and the other technologies that you
ahrbor on are fine for entertainment sites, personal sites, and the
like. However, their file size, usability, and accessibility issues make
them less acceptable for mainstream, portal-type sites.

This is what I have been saying for several years now.

It is completely a case by case call about what technologies should be
used to achieve the desired goal of a site. Many times it is wise to
try to give access to as many people as you can no matter how they come
to your site. This is extremely important when the site is used to
directly create income for the owner.

At other times, it can be wise to use technologies even though they
eliminate many people from seeing your site. I worked in those
industries. And there is a HUGE market out there for just such sites.

 

[Kevin Scholl]

Others have chimed in with good advice, so I'll just add these
observations.



But why not leave the choice to the visitor? Have you looked at your
site with a 640x480 browser window? Eeek! Hence, the advice to design
for any size. Or no size.

Again, choice. Could I have created this site with a liquid layout?
Sure. But since it's not a mainstream site, and because I (admittedly)
am still learning the underlying technology (specifically in this case,
CSS-P), I chose fixed-width.

You can

can't [ with IE ] at least not easily, as you describe: obscure. How
many average surfers do you know that could find these obscurities?

increase the text size. Granted, IE/Win requires that you go into some
obscure Options settings, but that's a failure of the browser, not the
site code. Good browsers, adhering to the W3C specification, allow any
defined text to be resized.



Arguments abound for what measurements to use (except pt, which is a
print measurement). For some time, the concensus was to avoid px, but
now px seems to be accepted. As I mentioned, a good browser allows
resizing of even px, and I'm not in the business of catering to a
single browser that doesn't.

But why cater to other browsers? Why not go fluid and cater to NO browsers?

I don't cater to ANY browser or browsers. I cater to the W3C standard,
then incorporate what alterations I feel are necessary for a particular
project. I might very well do things differently if the situation calls
for it.

Oh, ok. You're not expecting anyone else to visit? <g> Then it's fine.

Actually, I don't really expect mainstream traffic. My site is primarily
for friends and family. That being said, I really don't think, based on
my experience and research, that I'm alienating but a small percentage
by choosing to use px. Realistically, not many people adjust their font
size settings. And given what my site is set to (12px), it's a far cry
better than a lot of much more mainstream sites are using.

...



Nope. Garden-variety 17-inch CRT with default settings.
Interesting.



Perhaps it's your smallish text that is the problem. IAC, the links do
not stand out.



Well, sure, in greyscale they probably jump at you.

Viewing a design in grayscale is a common exercise to test contrast. If
the design provides suitable contrast in grayscale, it typically works
in color as well.

Thanks.

Done. I invite you to view the site again. I darkened the blue, and
general body copy has underlined links.

So if the js is just for a few rollovers, why send visitors to this page?

Primarily for the standards-compliance issue. This is a template page
that I use on many of my sites, some of which contain more important
Javascript capabilities. (more...)

"HOW DID I GET HERE?

You have been directed to this page because your browser does not
support accepted Web standards used to build the Phoenix Rising site.
Or, your browser does not have Javascript enabled, which is recommended
to fully appreciate all that the site has to offer."

I have a very modern web standard browser, albeit with js usually

Exactly why do you disable Javascript? This is not a knock, I'm
genuinely curious, as I am with anyone who states they turn it off. In
today's Web, you miss out on an awful lot of interesting and (to use
Whitecrest's terminology) exciting sites by running without Javascript,
and the dangers are really insignificant, particularly if you have virus
software and a firewall running.

disabled. I'd guess your normal visitor (not a web author like those of
us in this group) would simply leave, and never find the "Should you
like to view the site anyway, you may do so by clicking here. " link way
at the bottom of the page. IMO, this page is shooting yourself in the
foot. Not even necessary, as I said, for some rollovers you could do
with CSS quite easily.

Those particular navigation buttons are NOT easily done with simple CSS.
The visual effect of the button itself would require considerable code.
Granted, I COULD have done the red strip under the buttons with CSS, and
might revisit that at some point. For now, I was a bit impatient, and
chose to approach it with the image rollover way.

My pleasure.

Also appreciate the cordial discussion. I think we both agree that we
have somewhat varying viewpoints on some matters, which inturn vary from
others' in these groups. But it's nice to correspond without the
harshness and bickering that all-too-often occurs. Cheers!

--

*** Remove the DELETE from my address to reply ***

======================================================
Kevin Scholl http://www.ksscholl.com/
(e-mail address removed)

 

[Toby A Inkster]

By commercial, are you saying a site where the main goal of that site is
to physically make money (by orders, or information provided, etc...)

I meant a site that one was getting *paid* to make.

Often these fall into the category above.

 

[Barry Pearson]

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote: [snip]

Oh, ok. You're not expecting anyone else to visit? <g> Then it's
fine.

Actually, I don't really expect mainstream traffic. My site is
primarily for friends and family. That being said, I really don't
think, based on my experience and research, that I'm alienating but a
small percentage by choosing to use px. Realistically, not many
people adjust their font size settings. And given what my site is set
to (12px), it's a far cry better than a lot of much more mainstream
sites are using.

[snip]

I used to use px throughout. Then people (not all in my target audience!)
pointed out the problems with this.

So I "simply" replaced each px in the CSS with a % that looked about the same
as that px when viewed with a range of browsers at their default settings. The
browsers were IE 6, Opera 7.2, Mozilla Firebird 0.7, and Netscape 7.1. They
appear to be consistent enough for this to work.

Now people who use these browsers at their default settings get what I expect,
those who change their settings have accepted responsibility for what they
get, and users of other browers may see Klingon for all I know!

I've now gone a stage further - I don't set font parameters in the body rule.
(I sometimes set color where the background is dark). So the font-family and
font-size used for main text is left to the browser default settings. This may
not work well for people who don't like their defaults, but don't know how to
change them. I've decided that is not my problem.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Quoth the raven named Kevin Scholl:

I don't cater to ANY browser or browsers. I cater to the W3C
standard,

As do I. It's a Good Idea™.

then incorporate what alterations I feel are necessary
for a particular project. I might very well do things differently
if the situation calls for it.

Actually, I don't really expect mainstream traffic. My site is
primarily for friends and family. That being said, I really don't
think, based on my experience and research, that I'm alienating but
a small percentage by choosing to use px.

Most of the people you would alienate are those using the world's most
common browser, the good ole Operating System Component.

Realistically, not many people adjust their font size settings.

So then it is up to we designers to help them out.

And given what my site is
set to (12px), it's a far cry better than a lot of much more
mainstream sites are using.

IME, most mainstream sites that use px, are 10 to 12 for content.

Done. I invite you to view the site again. I darkened the blue, and
general body copy has underlined links.

I see the underline; now it's easy to pick out the links. Good job.

Primarily for the standards-compliance issue. This is a template
page that I use on many of my sites, some of which contain more
important Javascript capabilities. (more...)

Instead of chasing visitors to a separate page, where entry to the
site is difficult to find, why not use some small area of text using

Exactly why do you disable Javascript? This is not a knock, I'm
genuinely curious, as I am with anyone who states they turn it off.

I usually disable it because a lot of js is frivolous stuff. See:
http://kimihia.org.nz/articles/javascript/

And be *sure* to see this page, with IE and JavaScript:
http://freespace.virgin.net/dyno.power/why.htm

In today's Web, you miss out on an awful lot of interesting and (to
use Whitecrest's terminology) exciting sites by running without
Javascript, and the dangers are really insignificant, particularly
if you have virus software and a firewall running.

My computer is quite secure. Generally, I'd rather not endure the
tricks some authors do, such as the dyno.power page above. I also get
quite annoyed when I encounter a site where the deezyner feels s/he
must maximize my browser window to full-screen size. That really ticks
me off. It is not terribly uncommon, either.

Those particular navigation buttons are NOT easily done with simple
CSS. The visual effect of the button itself would require
considerable code. Granted, I COULD have done the red strip under
the buttons with CSS, and might revisit that at some point. For
now, I was a bit impatient, and chose to approach it with the image
rollover way.

Also appreciate the cordial discussion. I think we both agree that
we have somewhat varying viewpoints on some matters, which inturn

My choice of discussion, too.

vary from others' in these groups. But it's nice to correspond
without the harshness and bickering that all-too-often occurs.
Cheers!

I'm not into harsh. My mommy raised me that way...

 

[Whitecrest]

As do I. It's a Good Idea™.

Ok, kind of a good idea, but not always. For example, there are things
in the w3c standards that are broken in various browsers. Do you cater
100% to w3c so you would be willing to include these known unsupported
features? Knowingly breaking the page in 80% or 90% of your visitors?
If so why would you do that? (Iso, this is related to the 80%-90% would
be broken part if they did that part)

And if you do take this into consideration when you code, then aren't
you in fact catering to the browsers?

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Quoth the raven named Whitecrest:

Ok, kind of a good idea, but not always. For example, there are
things in the w3c standards that are broken in various browsers. Do
you cater 100% to w3c so you would be willing to include these
known unsupported features?

Personally, I don't use any "known unsupported features."

Knowingly breaking the page in 80% or
90% of your visitors? If so why would you do that? (Iso, this is
related to the 80%-90% would be broken part if they did that part)

What W3C "feature" would break for 80%-90%?

And if you do take this into consideration when you code, then
aren't you in fact catering to the browsers?

I believe the context here of not catering to browsers meant that
there is no IE-specific, or Netscape-specific, no navigation that
requires JavaScript, or browser-sniffing stuff. IOW, come to the site
with any browser, any at all, and be able to view all of the content.
[Images, of course are limited to some sort of graphic display.]

 

[Whitecrest]

Personally, I don't use any "known unsupported features."
What W3C "feature" would break for 80%-90%?

What ones don't work right in IE? That is the 80%-90% that would break
for you.

 

[Mark Parnell]

Sometime around Thu, 20 Nov 2003 15:36:30 GMT, Beauregard T. Shagnasty is
reported to have stated:
[Disabling Javascript]

My computer is quite secure. Generally, I'd rather not endure the
tricks some authors do, such as the dyno.power page above. I also get
quite annoyed when I encounter a site where the deezyner feels s/he
must maximize my browser window to full-screen size. That really ticks
me off. It is not terribly uncommon, either.

One of the things I really like about Mozilla is the ability to stop
certain functions in Javascript - like resizing my browser window - without
having to disable it completely. So I still get to see the "eye candy",
without having my browser abused.

Unfortunately, in IE it's basically all or nothing. (You can get it to ask
you before executing a script, but that's almost as annoying IMHO). So a
lot of people choose to disable it altogether.

IMHO they'd be better off using a decent browser, but to each his own...

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Quoth the raven named Whitecrest:

What ones don't work right in IE? That is the 80%-90% that would
break for you.

I don't know all the ones that don't work in IE, because I don't use
them. So, they will not break for me.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Quoth the raven named Mark Parnell:

Sometime around Thu, 20 Nov 2003 15:36:30 GMT, Beauregard T. Shagnasty is
reported to have stated:
[Disabling Javascript]

My computer is quite secure. Generally, I'd rather not endure the
tricks some authors do, such as the dyno.power page above. I also get
quite annoyed when I encounter a site where the deezyner feels s/he
must maximize my browser window to full-screen size. That really ticks
me off. It is not terribly uncommon, either.

One of the things I really like about Mozilla is the ability to stop
certain functions in Javascript - like resizing my browser window - without
having to disable it completely. So I still get to see the "eye candy",
without having my browser abused.

That's why I use it, or generally, Firebird. I have those options set
as well, and with the JavaScript checkbox on the toolbar.

Unfortunately, in IE it's basically all or nothing. (You can get it to ask
you before executing a script, but that's almost as annoying IMHO). So a
lot of people choose to disable it altogether.

I know a number of people who don't want to learn a new browser
[non-geek people, to be sure] but aren't afraid to turn off js and
ActiveX.

 

[Adrienne]

And be *sure* to see this page, with IE and JavaScript:
http://freespace.virgin.net/dyno.power/why.htm

That is the most God awful thing I have even seen! I couldn't even close
the browser down, had to end process instead.

 

[Mark Parnell]

Sometime around Fri, 21 Nov 2003 01:32:10 GMT, Adrienne is reported to have
stated:

That is the most God awful thing I have even seen! I couldn't even close
the browser down, had to end process instead.

Alt+F4 would have done it. ;-)

 

[Adrienne]

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Mark Parnell

Sometime around Fri, 21 Nov 2003 01:32:10 GMT, Adrienne is reported to
have stated:

Alt+F4 would have done it. ;-)

Completely forgot about that. Thanks!

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Quoth the raven named Adrienne:

That is the most God awful thing I have even seen! I couldn't even
close the browser down, had to end process instead.

<lol> I wouldn't have posted the link if it was anything malicious,
but in the context of the thread, I thought it was appropriate.

I found it with a simple google search for, I believe, "bad javascript."

 

[Kevin Scholl]

As do I. It's a Good Idea™.
Indeed.



Most of the people you would alienate are those using the world's most
common browser, the good ole Operating System Component.

What I meant, though, was that even these folks rarely resize their
text. Sure there are some, but doubtful those visiting my site are a
concern. A case of knowing one's audience.

So then it is up to we designers to help them out.

Heh heh, I do. I recommend using better browsers than IE.

IME, most mainstream sites that use px, are 10 to 12 for content.



I see the underline; now it's easy to pick out the links. Good job.
Thanks.



Instead of chasing visitors to a separate page, where entry to the site
is difficult to find, why not use some small area of text using
<noscript> or something on the main page?

Hmmm...not a bad approach. Maybe something to consider once the primary
development is done and I can address tweaks.

I usually disable it because a lot of js is frivolous stuff. See:
http://kimihia.org.nz/articles/javascript/

I don't tend to visit many sites with frivolous stuff. And my choice of
browser offers me detailed control (more...)

And be *sure* to see this page, with IE and JavaScript:
http://freespace.virgin.net/dyno.power/why.htm

Heh heh. Definitely make a point to avoid that garbage. A quick CTRL-W
did the trick.

My computer is quite secure. Generally, I'd rather not endure the tricks
some authors do, such as the dyno.power page above. I also get quite
annoyed when I encounter a site where the deezyner feels s/he must
maximize my browser window to full-screen size. That really ticks me
off. It is not terribly uncommon, either.

Indeed, one of my particular pet peeves as well. One reason I'm glad I
use a great browser like Firebird, which allows me to customize what
types of scripting actions to allow. I can disable automatic window
resizing, as well as several other annoyances.

My choice of discussion, too.



I'm not into harsh. My mommy raised me that way...

Indeed. Shame so many otehrs werent' raised thusly.

--

*** Remove the DELETE from my address to reply ***

======================================================
Kevin Scholl http://www.ksscholl.com/
(e-mail address removed)

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Quoth the raven named Kevin Scholl:

What I meant, though, was that even these folks rarely resize their
text. Sure there are some, but doubtful those visiting my site are
a concern. A case of knowing one's audience.

If you know you have an audience of people with good vision, then
there's not much harm. Don't do it for sites for the masses, though.

Heh heh, I do. I recommend using better browsers than IE.

Oh, I do all the time as well. The average person can't be bothered,
though.

Indeed, one of my particular pet peeves as well. One reason I'm
glad I use a great browser like Firebird, which allows me to
customize what types of scripting actions to allow. I can disable
automatic window resizing, as well as several other annoyances.

Firebird is my choice as well, and sometimes Opera. My settings are
like yours. I was just making a point about the resize, though I have
friends who get upset when it happens to them. Usually what they do is
close down the browser window (bye-bye sales), open a new one, then
try to remember how to get it back to their preferred size.

We must not alienate the customers! <g>

 

[John C]

Sometime around Fri, 21 Nov 2003 01:32:10 GMT, Adrienne is reported to have
stated:

Alt+F4 would have done it. ;-)

Point and click once anywhere in the window and it stops. Hopefully, in a
position where you can drag the window and put it back where it belongs.

 

[Mark Parnell]

Sometime around Fri, 21 Nov 2003 00:04:30 -0600, John C is reported to have
stated:

Point and click once anywhere in the window and it stops. Hopefully, in a
position where you can drag the window and put it back where it belongs.

Not here it doesn't. Keeps going till I close it.

 

[John C]

Sometime around Fri, 21 Nov 2003 00:04:30 -0600, John C is reported to have
stated:

Not here it doesn't. Keeps going till I close it.

C'est la guerre.