Trip is in denial? CSS vs HTML
- Thread starter uoba
- Start date
Not only that, but it creating a page to be cross browser/platform is possible, with some small compromises. Just takes some time to learn the tricks.
Win98 and IE4 are antique systems. While I agree on the keeping accessibility there, sometimes choices have to be made. They may see the page, but it'll be the same format people who use a PDA or Lynx browser see, plain old standard HTML.
Of the 25 sites I'm involved with in some manner, I have only seen a version 4 of IE showup on 5, and that was less than 0.25% of the totals. Lynx was higher. NN4 showed on 1 at 3%, but that site is very basic so it doesn't matter.
Win98 and IE4 are antique systems. While I agree on the keeping accessibility there, sometimes choices have to be made. They may see the page, but it'll be the same format people who use a PDA or Lynx browser see, plain old standard HTML.
Of the 25 sites I'm involved with in some manner, I have only seen a version 4 of IE showup on 5, and that was less than 0.25% of the totals. Lynx was higher. NN4 showed on 1 at 3%, but that site is very basic so it doesn't matter.
RacerX
Old Rhapsody User
mdnky said:
Like I said, the people paying me make the choices. The HTML coding I do works with every browser from Netscape/IE 4.x up. Everyone sees pretty much the same content and layout on all systems.
You maybe right when you said: "Win98 and IE4 are antique systems." But I'm not stupid enough to tell my client's client that in a meeting to try to sell that person on something. My clients ask for as full a range of compatibility as I can deliver. Right now, HTML, PDF 1.2 (1.1 if I can get away with it) and QuickTime 3 cover all my bases. Flash 4 can be used if I make sure that it is not required for presentation of content. Some clients aren't as picky (they have newer systems so as long as they can see my work on their systems they are happy.
There is no way that I would ever tell one of my clients they are wrong in wanting what is easy enough for me to deliver. And I surely wouldn't damage their standing with one of their clients by critiquing the age and functionality of their client's system.
Luckily for me HTML is a standard, and like toast said "being standards, they should not get outdated or obsolete at any time."
Trip
Registered
Yes but I just created a website the other day, and usually all of my websites work under any browser for any OS. But there were some flaws in the HTML (<spacer> tags) and suprisingly the website would ONLY load under Safari in OS X. I've NEVER had that happen before.
With HTML you never know. Some sites may work and some may not. With CSS and XHTML it will work no matter what (though you may need some work arounds for some things).
-BTW since I'm new to this I'm not positive about this. So if somebody with more knowledge can speak up I'd be greatful.
With HTML you never know. Some sites may work and some may not. With CSS and XHTML it will work no matter what (though you may need some work arounds for some things).
-BTW since I'm new to this I'm not positive about this. So if somebody with more knowledge can speak up I'd be greatful.
RacerX
Old Rhapsody User
Yes, but I, with 20 plus computers in my home, can test my site on a number of different platforms and with different browsers. While developing a site I test and alter pages using the current version of OmniWeb (I have used OmniWeb for years, and I like it... haven't had any problems that I can think of with it). As a base line standard to make sure my sites works with pretty much all the browsers I need to cover, I use OmniWeb 3.0.
Toast posted some sites which are good examples of these new techniques. But lets look at the first three of these in OmniWeb 3.0 (remember, all my sites look exactly the same in OmniWeb 3.0 (other than fonts) as they do on just about any browser today):
Toast posted some sites which are good examples of these new techniques. But lets look at the first three of these in OmniWeb 3.0 (remember, all my sites look exactly the same in OmniWeb 3.0 (other than fonts) as they do on just about any browser today):
...toast said:
Attachments
uoba
Re: member
They work exactly as the authors intended methinks. Zeldman particularly states that earlier browsers, whilst he will cater for them, will only allow the presentation to be displayed correctly... perhaps not graphically great, but at least functionally correct with no errors (akin to a text browser).
This is all you could ask for. To design for v4 of browsers is now obselete... (like asking Apple to make sure FCP to work in Mac OS7 or something!)
And this is the point of standards, even if the browser, whether it be a handheld, TV, public access point etc. it ensures that the designer/developer can at the most basic, present the content correctly and logically.
This is all you could ask for. To design for v4 of browsers is now obselete... (like asking Apple to make sure FCP to work in Mac OS7 or something!)
And this is the point of standards, even if the browser, whether it be a handheld, TV, public access point etc. it ensures that the designer/developer can at the most basic, present the content correctly and logically.
RacerX
Old Rhapsody User
uoba said:
Funny, with no additional effort on my part I can support todays browsers and those of the past without any problems.
You see, in the world out side of elitist circles, everyone is a potential customer. In that environment you don't have the luxury of turning away anyone. Those who are still using obsolete technology are potential customers. There money spends the same if they are using an old PC with an old browser just the same is someone with the newest G5 running Safari.
As a Mac user, I am very much aware of discrimination against those who aren't using what the majority are using. The point of standards is to insure that everyone is included. The moment you need excuses like now obselete and antique systems to dismiss any portion of the internet population, all you've really done is start discriminating against those that aren't up to your elitist levels of browsing the internet. Real people don't always keep up with technology. And just because you want to make HTML a second class citizen I don't want to make those how are only able to view HTML second class citizens.
HTML is a standard. At this point in time it is the only all inclusive standard on the internet.
More importantly, HTML guarantees that I get paid. That I can pay my bills. That my wife and I can eat. That I don't lose clients.
If I put up a site that rendered the way those did when my clients were expecting to see what they paid for, I would lose those clients (after they asked for their money back).
The guarantee I can give at this point is that if someone has a computer bought within the last five years and has changed nothing about it from it's default configuration, my pages should render as expected on whatever the default browser for those systems is.
Five years from now, I maybe saying the same thing about CSS, XHTML or XML. Maybe I'll only work in Flash or QuickTime.
As of today, CSS is no where near inclusive enough for what I do. CSS is nice, but until it gets closer to being an all inclusive standard on the internet I'll stick with what I'm guaranteed works for my clients that ask for that level of compatibility.
RacerX
Old Rhapsody User
toast said:RacerX: you're cheating !
OmniWeb 3.0 was released in 1999. That is not cheating.
Originally I have a Mac set up with Navigator 4.0.4 and IE 4.0 and a Windows 98 VPC environment with Communicator 4.5 and IE 4.x for testing my sites. After a while I realized that OmniWeb 3.0 caught all the same problems that all that extra stuff did, so OmniWeb 3.0 became my base line for testing compatibility.It isn't like OmniWeb 3.1 was all that much better (ca 2000).
(and if you think my sites look bad in IE 3 or Navigator 2, you should see them in Mosaic
)
RacerX
Old Rhapsody User
uoba
Re: member
Where to cast off from RacerX... I am in no different a situation to you... my business has produced sites which both cater for all browsers within a client's spec... and exclusively for one browser within a client's spec.
The question is, who are you designing for? Your client? Or your client's clients? It's the latter which should take priority (unless it's an intranet sort of site!) And, statistics show, that most browsers are IE6, IE5+ and whatever else thereafter. Therefore, designing with XHTML and CSS fall sweetly under these majority browsers.
Guess what... XHTML works in IE3, 4, NN4 etc. as well. XHTML is HTML. CSS handling, on the other hand, is a different ball game. But when T Berners-Lee is calling for standardisation, and all those within W3C, you got to take notice.
You are pointing particular attention to the pioneers of standard's sites as to make a example of bad business. Again, Zeldman especially, makes no bones about excluding v4 browsers from the experience, as mentioned previously, all the info on the page is present and legible. They are kindly reminded that life moves on, and the option to upgrade is an easy one.
To expect to sit around on a v4 browser is bad business practice. There's a reason why the likes of Deloitte & Touche, KPMG, Lloyds of London all browse with IE6 Those who lock themselves in to such old version are short sighted. I've dealt with a client who refused to swap 100 workstations for logistic tracking from a v4 browser. This sort of thinking lost them big contracts, and was indicative of there business practice in general... they are begging for scraps now!
So much to say really. But the point of it all is a client, you me, needs to move with the times. If they don't, competitors will.
The question is, who are you designing for? Your client? Or your client's clients? It's the latter which should take priority (unless it's an intranet sort of site!) And, statistics show, that most browsers are IE6, IE5+ and whatever else thereafter. Therefore, designing with XHTML and CSS fall sweetly under these majority browsers.
Guess what... XHTML works in IE3, 4, NN4 etc. as well. XHTML is HTML. CSS handling, on the other hand, is a different ball game. But when T Berners-Lee is calling for standardisation, and all those within W3C, you got to take notice.
You are pointing particular attention to the pioneers of standard's sites as to make a example of bad business. Again, Zeldman especially, makes no bones about excluding v4 browsers from the experience, as mentioned previously, all the info on the page is present and legible. They are kindly reminded that life moves on, and the option to upgrade is an easy one.
To expect to sit around on a v4 browser is bad business practice. There's a reason why the likes of Deloitte & Touche, KPMG, Lloyds of London all browse with IE6
Those who lock themselves in to such old version are short sighted. I've dealt with a client who refused to swap 100 workstations for logistic tracking from a v4 browser. This sort of thinking lost them big contracts, and was indicative of there business practice in general... they are begging for scraps now!So much to say really. But the point of it all is a client, you me, needs to move with the times. If they don't, competitors will.
RacerX
Old Rhapsody User
uoba said:Put this in bandwidth terms and the client's will have your children.
Images are the major use of bandwidth with all my clients. My largest pages don't get bigger than 20 k for the HTML. Throw in a few images at 35-80 k and saving up to 10 k while excluding viewers (including some of my clients themselves) isn't going to make any positive headway for me.
One of my sites has 8 Quicktime movies of TV spots that one of my clients did. So far they haven't exceeded their 10 GB monthly limit, and I could provide a better solution by getting the full version of Sorenson then by moving to CSS.
Here is something to think about: The last data I checked had about 3% of internet users still using IE/Netscape 4.x, it also had Mac users at about 2%.
How is your exclusion of 3% of users any different from the sites out there that exclude Mac users? Aren't you doing the very same thing that we complain about? Isn't the justification on the part of sites that exclude Mac users the same as what you guys are saying about those who can't view CSS?
As I pointed out, CSS looks bad in Communicator 4.7. I was written a check for $700 last week from someone whom I know views the work I do for him in Communicator 4.7. If my sites looked like the examples I showed above when he viewed them, I would have had a hard time getting paid.
Sorry, money talks here guys! Besides, from what I can see you guys do more work then I and seem to and reach fewer people with your content. My wife won't even have my children given those terms (we couldn't afford children given those terms).
Until my clients (and their clients) move past their current systems CSS is still just some up and coming technology.
Cat
Registered
While I have not yet mastered the art at all, it seems quite simple to cater to the needs of all kinds of browsers with CSS: hiding CSS, switching CSS, alternate CSS etc. Resorting to JS is also a solution with which I am experimenting. While I have no need at all to serve clients wishes, I expect from my own site to be standards compliant: and I mean compliant with actual, current standards. My site is a mess right now (I know, I know ), but I am still working on it because I know there are solutions to browser incompatibilities. Otherwise I would break in tears, use tables and give up. What I want to say is that it is definitely possible to design an advanced site with XHTML and CSS while remaining compatible with older browsers. In newer, standards compliant browsers it will look great, in older and less ompliant browsers it will look merely good.
I am just an amateur and cannot remotely imagine the complexity of professional web design, but I am convinced that Racer X's requirements can be met with CSS design without disappointing his clients.
), but I am still working on it because I know there are solutions to browser incompatibilities. Otherwise I would break in tears, use tables and give up. What I want to say is that it is definitely possible to design an advanced site with XHTML and CSS while remaining compatible with older browsers. In newer, standards compliant browsers it will look great, in older and less ompliant browsers it will look merely good. I am just an amateur and cannot remotely imagine the complexity of professional web design, but I am convinced that Racer X's requirements can be met with CSS design without disappointing his clients.
uoba
Re: member
They can. NN4 and IE4 do support CSS and XHTML. They can be designed for and catered for.
RacerX, we don't need to exclude Mac users, Mac users have arguably the best standards browsers around. Hence, no problem.
As for exclusion... I've never once mentioned that we do purposely exclude. The general rule is to get in writing from the client, what the cut-off browser is for compatibility. It is in the client's hands to know their market.
I'm not personally asking of you (as if I could do anything about it anyway! ) to stop all development until you learn the standards. Just a suggestion that little by little you can increase your knowledge of how a site was meant to be developed in the first place. Also, your argument of client needs and money talks doesn't hold with me, one day a potential client is gonna ask... and can we have this 'standards compliant?' Or, can we view this on my PDA and blah blah blah... At the very least, it's a marketing weapon you can use when things really start to take a hold. US governmental web development contracts are now obliged by law to follow standards, for a reason. This will undoubtedly filter into commercial markets over the coming months and years, thereafter dropping down into SMEs.
RacerX, we don't need to exclude Mac users, Mac users have arguably the best standards browsers around. Hence, no problem.
As for exclusion... I've never once mentioned that we do purposely exclude. The general rule is to get in writing from the client, what the cut-off browser is for compatibility. It is in the client's hands to know their market.
I'm not personally asking of you (as if I could do anything about it anyway!
) to stop all development until you learn the standards. Just a suggestion that little by little you can increase your knowledge of how a site was meant to be developed in the first place. Also, your argument of client needs and money talks doesn't hold with me, one day a potential client is gonna ask... and can we have this 'standards compliant?' Or, can we view this on my PDA and blah blah blah... At the very least, it's a marketing weapon you can use when things really start to take a hold. US governmental web development contracts are now obliged by law to follow standards, for a reason. This will undoubtedly filter into commercial markets over the coming months and years, thereafter dropping down into SMEs.
uoba
Re: member
By the way, I am having great teething problems with my own site... as most on here know. At present it'll only work on the latest browsers... my fault for lack of knowledge until recently. It's been painful. But, the fruits of my labour have filtered into recent client work, which I've found actually a hell of a lot quicker to develop now.
My new site will hopefully be up in time for xmas, and yes, will work in NN4 (there's a very simple css trick to cater for all v4 browsers without any complex javascript detection whatsoever.)
My new site will hopefully be up in time for xmas, and yes, will work in NN4 (there's a very simple css trick to cater for all v4 browsers without any complex javascript detection whatsoever.)