[thelist] Variable Stylesheets?

[Shirley Kaiser, SKDesigns]

Hi, Joel,

At 01:12 AM 12/03/2001, you wrote:
>Shirley, didn't you make the comment once that until we stop designing
>for Netscape 4, users won't be motivated to change? I'm beginning to
>think we may actually reach that point.

Well, I'm not the only one who's said this, though. The Web Standards 
Project most likely has stated this (certainly something similar to this), 
and I've always been a strong supporter of their efforts.

At the same time, there are lots of people stuck with using Netscape 4.x 
browsers for various reasons, whether employers, an old computer and no 
money, a combination of factors, whatever. It would be great to continue to 
educate these people and let them know how to easily upgrade, where to find 
the free newer browsers that can still work on an old computer, etc.

So I do indeed have compassion for those stuck with using it. I also think 
we can continue to gently nudge and educate employers, libraries, schools, 
and whatever else to replace those browsers.

And true, too, is that the more we stop designing for netscape 4, the more 
exasperated the users might get and might eventually upgrade their 
browsers. Banks are a big example of relying on the newer browsers to use 
their online banking service. Lots of people use online banking and must 
upload their browsers to do so. Is that such a bad thing? I don't think so 
at all. I don't know how others feel about it, though, and undoubtedly 
there are some who'd love to use the online banking but can't because their 
old computer can't accommodate IE5, IE6 or whatever's needed.

But can many of us handle things that way with the business sites we build 
for clients? Not always so straightforward. It's a tough one, ya know?

I do think we can seek a pretty good balance, though, building our sites to 
utilize the separation of content and structure as much as possible, making 
good use of style sheets, XHTML (or HTML 4.01....), and designing for newer 
browsers while allowing for graceful degradation to older browsers so that 
they can still access the site, even if it doesn't look identical in 
Netscape 4 browsers. This is the approach I've been suggesting to clients 
for new sites during the past 6+ months or so, and that's working fine, 
although there was one client who still required as close to identical as 
possible in Netscape 4. For them I still minimized the use of tables, but I 
did use nested tables for the horizontal and vertical box lines and other 
things that I now do with CSS instead for other sites.

There are varying degrees of what I mention, too. Some are using CSS-P and 
table-less layouts, which will look quite different in Netscape 4 browsers, 
while I haven't gone quite that far yet for clients' sites that still have 
a bunch of customers and visitors to their sites who expect a comparable 
viewing experience in Netscape 4. Hard to justify losing customers because 
of this. On the other hand, would customers not buy from a site just 
because of this? Still seems like if the site is still usable and functions 
that maybe it would be OK.

I think each site and client needs to be evaluated and worked with on this 
appropriately. I don't see the answers as black and white at all.

I also think PART of this is a shift in our own thinking and approaches and 
then how we present our suggestions to clients so that they understand the 
benefits of designing for newer browsers, even if their sites don't look 
quite the same in Netscape 4. (and how much does that really matter anyway? 
It matters to some but not others.)

>We're seeing more browsers. Mozilla and Opera seem to have little quirks
>all their own; nothing really painful, as I recall, but they exist. I
>want my content to be usable by as much of the target audience as
>possible, so degradability is important, but I wonder if we'll ever
>reach the point where there are too many workarounds to be feasible on a
>commercial site? At some point, will the 'balance of power' shift from
>the users (many of whom are told by their employer what browser to use)
>to designers, who just can't fit any more browser/platform checks and
>workarounds into their code any more?

This is the tough thing, Joel. I think we MUST design for the users for our 
commercial sites. But we can find a reasonable enough balance. It's not 
easy to accommodate every single browser on all platforms, so my own 
compromise is that I won't worry so much about sites looking as identical 
as possible. I'll try to make them look very good and similar as much as 
possible, but I don't want to go for the painstaking identical visual 
appearance that I used to do, either. If it looks good, does it matter if 
it's identical on each browser our there? I don't think so, but there are 
those who feel otherwise, too, of course.

I watch the stats and build sites to visually look the best for the largest 
numbers on the stats logs. And then I also include making sure that the 
sites still work fine and are visually OK on the other browsers, too..... 
just not identical. I certainly don't forego using the CSS hovers, but I 
make sure that sites still make sense for Netscape users who don't see that 
feature.

>Of course, a greater evil would be if we DIDN'T have the diversity - in
>spite of a pretty good existing version, I can think of at least one
>company I DON'T want owning the entire browser market (especially since
>they don't even make their own sites comply with existing standards.)

Exactly. We need to continue to have freedom of choice, and the diversity 
of browsers is a part of that. Implementing standards and supporting 
standards is a great way to seek a good balance. After all, light bulbs 
have standards, electricity has standards, and so many other industries 
have standards. What a nightmare it would be to have lamps with millions of 
socket sizes.... we're not asking for any more than that with our 
standards. And there are still millions of lamp styles and a wide range of 
choices with light bulbs. Just having the same size socket hasn't impeded 
our ability to be creative in the least or for lots of companies to exist. 
It's helped it thrive, in my opinion.

>Many inventors and creators worked to fill a need that didn't exist yet,
>except in their own minds. Maybe somehow we really are working toward a
>standards compliant web.

Yes.

>Or maybe it's 1:15 a.m. in SoCal, and somebody's up past bedtime for an
>old man.
>
>Joel at spinhead.com

Old man?!?!  <chuckle>

Warmly,
Shirley
--
Shirley E. Kaiser, M.A.
SKDesigns  mailto:skaiser at skdesigns.com
Website Design, Development  http://www.skdesigns.com/
Pianist, Composer  http://www.shirleykaiser.com/
Brainstorms and Raves http://www.brainstormsandraves.com/
Moderator, I-Design http://www.adventive.com/lists/idesign/summary.html


>-----Original Message-----
>From: thelist-admin at lists.evolt.org
>[mailto:thelist-admin at lists.evolt.org] On Behalf Of Shirley Kaiser,
>SKDesigns
>Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 12:27 AM
>To: thelist at lists.evolt.org
>Subject: Re: [thelist] Variable Stylesheets?
>
>
>At 11:00 PM 12/02/2001, Lon wrote:
> >Will NN4.x ever go away?
>
>I've wondered about a plot to get all the people together who create the
>
>yukky viruses to instead attack Netscape 4 browsers and blast them to
>smithereens. That's been my fantasy toward Netscape 4 for quite some
>time now.
>
>I've been afraid of suggesting such a thing for fear of the FBI storming
>my
>house and taking my computer, or that my friends who swear by Netscape 4
>
>will throw rotten tomatoes at me. Not sure which is worse.