Page 1 of 1
quality HTML practices
Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:19 am
by phpdevuk
check out the description in google for disney store uk
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q= ... arch&meta=
DisneyStore.co.uk... Login, Spacer Image, Feedback, Spacer Image, Store Locator, Spacer Image, Basket, Spacer Image, What's New ... Disney.Disney Pixar. All Rights Reserved. ...
disneystore-shopping.disney.co.uk/ - 36k - Cached - Similar pages
Disney UK - Clothing - Homeware - Just Arrived
More results from disneystore-shopping.disney.co.uk ยป
Spacer Image!
nice to that they have quality coding standards, lol
Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 9:07 am
by Chris Corbyn
Heh.... that is pretty poor.
Argos... a huge catalogue/store in the UK, until very recently used to say something like this and not load any content *at all*:
Sorry, your browser is not currently supported by our website, please upgrade to Internet Explorer 6!
And that was just because I was viewing it a standards compliant Firefox browser
This lists a few...
http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com
Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 10:08 am
by phpdevuk
oh yeah philips didn't support firefox either the other programmer here emailed them about it and got a slack kind of we don't think supporting firefox is worth it response.
Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 11:05 am
by redmonkey
Probably due to the fact that I'm not a web designer but I really don't agree with the extent of the whole backwards compatability and cross-browser support 'hoop jumping' that web designers are expected to go through.
It always makes me chuckle when I think about it as I don't think I've ever comes across this in any other area of any other industry to the extent that it exists on the web.
How old is Netscape 4.5? yet reading most articles web designers are expected to consider and cater for this when developing their front ends, yet I don't see anyone complaining that Adobe CS2 won't run on their Windows NT 3.5 box
Similarly, when you install a software application on your PC their are normally published system requirements that have to be meet otherwise you may get unexpected results. Why is not acceptable to extend this philosophy to the web?
I know of one software company who only support two version of one OS and even then there are strict requirements on the hardware also installed. And quite simply, if your system doesn't meet their (very strict) requirements then they will not offer you any support for there product. They make this very clear prior to purchase and installation and I whole heartly agree with their approach. Life for a web designer would seem so much easier if this approach was also extended to the web.
It just seems to me that in many cases, it would be quicker for the viewer to go and download and install (one of) the required browser(s) than it would be for the deigner to start hacking their CSS or other layout techniques to support the (complete guess and probably exaggeration) 400+ browser flavours out there.
Having said that, I think it's probably good practice to support the newer major browsers across the major OSs and also text browsers, but I think for anything that falls in between that, the designer should be able to say.. "Sorry, but your on your own with that one".
Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 11:14 am
by Charles256
you've nailed my approach... my site normally ends up compatible with a lot of browsers but it's normally on accident:-D I'm coding for I.E. 6 and the latest brand of mozilla.. otherwise, screw you. If you're not using I.E. I don't care. Almost every computer bought from a store comes with windows and guess what windows has installed? I.E. That's right children, turn on I.E. (though there are times when I wish I could say to hell with I.E. too. damn buggy rendering.) either way... :: prepares to get flamed::
Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 11:37 am
by phpdevuk
I agree with most of what you guys say, but using spacer gifs went out the window years ago, and what made that site worse was that it was pretty slick before so I've been told. The google result just made me chuckle with the "spacer gif" between every keyword, really showed it up.
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 am
by Maugrim_The_Reaper
Things are evolving. Personally I can't wait until IE7 gets out (I think anyway - surely they'll fix the CSS issues). I still have a nagging suspicion IE7 will require a few workarounds. I guess I lost my patience with IE long long ago. I had an interesting time even locating it on my PC a few days back...
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:42 am
by n00b Saibot
Maugrim_The_Reaper wrote:I had an interesting time even locating it on my PC a few days back...
what did you do to our good old IE, hum

Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:47 am
by Chris Corbyn
redmonkey wrote:How old is Netscape 4.5? yet reading most articles web designers are expected to consider and cater for this when developing their front ends, yet I don't see anyone complaining that Adobe CS2 won't run on their Windows NT 3.5 box

You're absolutely right.... it's just too much hassle to work in *every* browser. If it isn't going to take long to make it work in those old browsers then great! But the reality is, we have to create a mass of "tag soup" in order to acheive this.
I personally, am reaonably satisfied if my websites render correctly in Firefox, IE 5 and 6, Latest Konqueror and Latest Opera.... I never test in anything else sadly -- I wish I had access to a mac though
Of course.... my first aim is to be compilant with what the W3C say is right..... if I have that right, I can blame the rest on the browsers

Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:54 am
by n00b Saibot
d11wtq wrote:it's just too much hassle to work in *every* browser. If it isn't going to take long to make it work in those old browsers then great! But the reality is, we have to create a mass of "tag soup" in order to acheive this.
I personally, am reaonably satisfied if my websites render correctly in Firefox, IE 5 and 6, Latest Konqueror and Latest Opera.... I never test in anything else sadly -- I wish I had access to a mac though
Of course.... my first aim is to be compilant with what the W3C say is right..... if I have that right, I can blame the rest on the browsers

That sure summed it up... i gonna quote that in our agreements

There is one would be client who is constantly nagging us that he wants his website to work in every browser, whether its IE3 or Konqueror he doesn't care

I think I gonna give him a piece of my mind

Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:56 am
by Grim...
There's a site online somewhere that let's you surf via a mac via remote control, or something.
Let me see if I bookmarked it.
Aha!
http://www.danvine.com/icapture/detail/58725.html
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 7:07 am
by Chris Corbyn
Was "too busy" when I just tried it... I'll have play later

Cool idea... very useful if it works.
Might have to just by a mac

I heard the newest ones would actually run on i686 CPU's (Am I now being a dumbass??). If they do run i686, I could try it on VMWare.
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:01 pm
by redmonkey
d11wtq wrote:I personally, am reaonably satisfied if my websites render correctly in Firefox, IE 5 and 6, Latest Konqueror and Latest Opera.... I never test in anything else sadly -- I wish I had access to a mac though

In the very little front end development I do, I test on IE5+, relatively late Mozilla (Win & *nix), later Firefox, Opera and Safari for Mac.
d11wtq wrote:Might have to just by a mac Wink I heard the newest ones would actually run on i686 CPU's (Am I now being a dumbass??). If they do run i686, I could try it on VMWare.
If you search around you can probably find it, however, that's next years spanner in the works. This year (just a few weeks ago) Apple were content with just changing all the hardware surrounding the processor, no major issue, other than we've just to go out and buy a shed load more of new Macs.