[thelist] Old Browsers old Software, cut bait and move on.

[Brian King]

>what sort of glitz are you talking about?
>it's hard for me to get my arms around since it's *so* easy to build
>sites that work with most/all browsers without sacrificing
>functionality...

Yes we are talking about eye candy.  There are vendors/clients out there who
want the stuff.  Is it my job to tell them they are stupid?  Keep your
money?  Go somewhere else if you want this stuff?  I feel like I am in an
argument about whether the invention of color television was worthwhile or
not.  Does color actually add anything to the pictures on the screen?  Get
with it.  Technology moves forward.
It's a proven fact that eye candyand a flashy ad campaign will sell a candy
bar to a teenager a lot faster than a page of text will.  The site is not
functional from a sales point of view without the eye candy.  How can you
possibly argue that?  It's common sense.  I seem to attract clients who want
to make use of new technologies.  It's my job to warn them of the
consequences, but not to steer them away from it, or to make it so expensive
to build that they can't afford it.  I just spent the last 5 weeks recoding
a site for a client that hasn't a prayer of working on a Netscape browser,
(less than version 6 anyways).  They know it and don't care.  The product
they sell only works with IE browsers anyways.

>actually, depending on how you code, there are very few
>'incompatibilities'... no, NN4 and IE4+

one example, Java Scriptinging?  How many different sets of java code am I
expected to write to cover all versions of browsers.  It takes time to
script around each version old browsers and someone has to pay for that
time.  Certainly I can test for the browser version and write a separate set
of code for each who's going to write the check?

>there's no reason to dual-code any sites.

There are a lot of reasons to dual code a site.  Catering to bandwidth
capability of users is a big one.  There are a number of sites that do this
now.  Big ones in fact.


Addressing these points:
>wow, this is really a WaSP message your touting, which has been
Where did race and religion come into this?

>addressed many times in much more thorough forums... the fact
>is, not everyone can upgrade... generally accepted reasons --
>those beyond the control of the user -- include:
>- locked down corporate environments...
Companies that do are not going to realize the error of their ways unless
you stop catering to them.

>- public terminals (schools, libraries)...
Maybe we should be keeping a closer watch what our tax dollars are paying
for.

>- slow connections (30MB on my 33.6?  nope)...
Maybe you should invest the $15 it takes to get a 56K modem at least.
Replace some of your 1980's hardware.

>- old machines ($800 to view your site? nope)...
If I am selling broadband services, These people  most likely aren't going
to buy it anyway.

> no other reason to upgrade (NN4 is fine for my grandma)...
 Same argument.  If I am selling broadband services, and grandma can't view
my site, she isn't going to buy the service anyway, should I care?

> lack of understanding...
It's our job to educate people.  Not to bust our butt to make sure that they
remain in ignorance, (code around their ignorance).

> no other choice (browsers for handicapped, blind, etc.)..
This is a completely different argument.  I support compatibility here 100%.

> have you looked at the evolt.org site?
I will probably get kicked off the list for saying this, but it's boring.
It's the kind of site that you would have a hard time selling to a marking
department, who has the dollars to spend to promote their product.  Maybe it
is the circles I am running in, but they want their site(s) to catch
people's attention and more importantly retain it.  Unfortunately, it takes
eye candy.  Try selling a Black and white TV to someone today!

Please don't get upset at my remarks.  They are not meant to alienate
anyone, but to arose good discussion on the subject.

Brian W. King