[thelist] Award Winning Site???

Paul Backhouse paul.backhouse at 2cs.com
Wed Oct 10 09:29:44 CDT 2001


>If testing starts turning turning into a never-ending cycle of changes
>trying to 'support' every browser on your list, with one change for
>one browser screwing the design for the next in the circle, then
>perhaps you should pick a smaller value for 'support'. Especially if
>your initial value for 'support' is 'looks the same on everything'.

>First relax your conditions on the design slightly. Admit the
>possibility of *some* users seeing basic text, another set getting
>colours but no fancy CSS layout, and the rest getting the works.

>If that doesn't work, swallow your pride and consider what complexity
>to drop next; test again, lather, repeat, rinse.

>You might want to drop some of the complexity anyway as part of Your
>Design, particularly if the resticted amount of information you'd be
>bombarding the user with would make the site more easily graspable
>(works for Google still, just; used to work for Yahoo. You don't have
>to copy them though. Compare and contrast with what Altavista's turned
>into).

Andrew,
	i totally agree with you, alot of the complications i get are from our
designers - i am solely a programmer - our designers get the time to string
together their nice designs , the customer signs off and i get started on
programming - unfortunately the problems start when the designer starts
explaining how they want the navigation to work etc... i - as a base -
program for IE 4+ and NS4+ on PC and Macs, our company feels that this the
main area which i agree with in most aspects.

CSS is a great way to program across the scale but you still come across
problems, not too major but they exsist, i end up using javascript or asp to
do different things depending upon the users browser - it can be a pain and
normally means i end up being the update guy for the websites i program cos
no one else gets what ive done and seems scared to start messing about with
the code, but hey i can live with it.

i more of a database programmer now but i still help out in the simple stuff
now and again.

your comment on the new gadgets they will statr bringing out - now thats
when the funs gonna start - where do you draw the line - do you make a
standard and make everyone conform to it, no - because no-one will conform
to it - but its and interesting point about smaller text and pictures.

i reckon it will be the TV thing that will take off - you'll buy a whole box
set which comes with your sky dish and internet ready interactive TV - watch
the video and check out the interactive website online.

cheers

Paul Backhouse


-----Original Message-----
From: thelist-admin at lists.evolt.org
[mailto:thelist-admin at lists.evolt.org]On Behalf Of Andrew Chadwick
Sent: 10 October 2001 15:07
To: thelist at lists.evolt.org
Subject: Re: [thelist] Award Winning Site???


On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 02:13:29PM +0100, Paul Backhouse wrote:
> its a never ending circle of browser compatibilty.
> lets face it - if we programmed a site to work in every browser available
to
> users you'd be looking at a white page with some basic text links - not
very
> exciting and not the most exciting of websites your likely to ever want to
> look at again.

I disagree.

If testing starts turning turning into a never-ending cycle of changes
trying to 'support' every browser on your list, with one change for
one browser screwing the design for the next in the circle, then
perhaps you should pick a smaller value for 'support'. Especially if
your initial value for 'support' is 'looks the same on everything'.

First relax your conditions on the design slightly. Admit the
possibility of *some* users seeing basic text, another set getting
colours but no fancy CSS layout, and the rest getting the works.

If that doesn't work, swallow your pride and consider what complexity
to drop next; test again, lather, repeat, rinse.


You might want to drop some of the complexity anyway as part of Your
Design, particularly if the resticted amount of information you'd be
bombarding the user with would make the site more easily graspable
(works for Google still, just; used to work for Yahoo. You don't have
to copy them though. Compare and contrast with what Altavista's turned
into).


I like simple sites. I'm biased towards ones that work. The two tend
to correlate in my experience.


> as painful as it is for me to say, its microsoft IE thats leading the way
> (forgive me father i have sinned) - it lets you program lazily, agreed -
but
> its the most used  browser around and with netscape on the verge of
dropping
> out of the browser market what else will dare challenge???

(And here's why we should code more simply and make more use of
portable design and CSS cascading, and here's why CSS might not be
enough): Embedded browsers. Web-to-WAP gateways for mobile
phones. Information appliances. I-mode. 3G services. Whatever other
Next Big Things the dinky gadget manufacturers are planning on
throwing together. Increasing numbers of users of desktop platforms
that don't and can't run IE. Hell, even web boxes on top of the telly.

CSS (specifically the Cascading part) is a good thing to adopt, and is
one way towards satisfying all these users. But is it enough? At some
point the content itself needs simplifying - simpler writing, smaller
and clearer pictures - for smaller devices. Hmm.


--
Andrew Chadwick, UNIX/Internet Programmer, PR Newswire Europe, Oxford
--
The views or opinions above are solely mine and are not necessarily those
of PR Newswire Europe. The message may contain privileged or confidential
information; if you are not a named recipient, notify me, and do not copy,
use, or disclose this message. <andrew.chadwick at prnewswire.co.uk>.

---------------------------------------
For unsubscribe and other options, including
the Tip Harvester and archive of TheList go to:
http://lists.evolt.org Workers of the Web, evolt !





More information about the thelist mailing list