[thelist] WebReview responds to WaSP browser death march
Andrew Forsberg
andrew at thepander.co.nz
Sun Feb 25 22:28:20 CST 2001
>all of my e-commerce jobs are expected to work in *all* browsers...
>not just IE5.5 with full JS capability... *and* i code to standards....
>so this WaSP thing doesn't affect me... the ALA approach is
>unrealistic to me... the only affect is has is that i'll have a better
>edge by coding to standards *and* cross-browser as people flock
>to the new model...
While I pretty much totally agree with everything that has been said
about this (the webreview, Aardvark's comments, and the general
feeling on the list towards this topic) -- I really want to play
devil's advocate and ask a really basic question.
'Gracefully degrading' sites / sites that 'work in *all* browsers.'
OK, so out with the details -- where is this holy grail of web
development?
Sure divs just get rendered in the order they are written with no
stylistic info on pre v4 browsers. So you can get the same content to
everyone, but it looks like consecutive hunks of meat on v3 and
earlier browsers. Is this really designing with pre v4 browsers in
mind? or just letting them see something rather than nothing? This is
largely an aesthetic issue however, since the content is separate,
and the site is still accessible. With a modicum of care the whole
thing will make sense on Netscape v2. I do think, though, that it
reeks a little of 'you get the photocopy of the photocopy of the fax
of an inkjet printer's output; and you, madam / sir, get the real
McCoy.' And of course there's Navigator 4's 'implementation' of CSS
and DOM.
On the other hand using tables for layout rather than purely
tabulated information is not a cool thing to do. Most sites do
though, don't they? These sites validate just fine with w3.org. The
major problem, as I see it, with tables as a solution to reasonably
compatible presentation problems is that they have a tendency to
screw over users with disabilities' screen readers. (Or so I hear --
I have yet to play with one. Shame on me.) Oh, and tables are
downright ugly from a code point of view (which seems to be the
primary argument by Zeldman).
It's either that or fork your code so that some get tables, others
get divs. I'm not complaining about the extra work of forking a site
-- but it is a right nuisance to maintain on anything larger than a
very small site.
This is a web design 101 type problem, so I'm quite reluctant to
raise it here, but there is an important issue here that I think WaSP
is making and not making, at the same time. Does that make sense? I
mean: there is a problem with current website design and
non-compliance with recommendations; but the problem is not older
browsers vs newer browsers -- it is with developers writing good code
(as Aardvark has pointed out). But, how 'good' is 'good code' -- I
definitely end up simplifying sites I work on right down so that 9
times out of 10 they work surprisingly well on older browsers. On the
other hand I don't even flinch at using validation breaking code in
my header includes like:
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0"
topmargin="0" leftmargin="0">
Now. Hands up who hasn't ever used something like that! Huh? Huh?
So is it as clear cut as WaSP's 'screw the old browsers', Aardvark's
'my sites look the same on all browsers', or golive's 'screw the
standards'? I'd really like to hear how others approach this
(arguably fundamental) problem. To date mine has been tables if
layout is crucial (retail sites, for example), divs if content is
really all that's important and layout's the unnecessary icing on the
cake, and forking if a commercial client is being a downright bastard.
Anyhow, I need a whiskey to clear my mind -- and sorry for the very
long post, I feel better now for ranting/asking.
- Andrew
--
Andrew Forsberg
http://www.thepander.co.nz
More information about the thelist
mailing list