[thelist] Browser Stats

aardvark roselli at earthlink.net
Thu Aug 29 17:58:01 CDT 2002


> From: "Daniel Medley" <dm at lgcy.com>
>
> Everyone is talking about the importence of 3 or 4% of those using
> old, outdated, and bad browsers. One thing I'm wondering about: When
> discussing the prospect of telling someone that the site you're making
> for them will not look the same in 3% of the browsers out there, maybe
> also tell them that it will cost more to make a site that will look
> the same. I wonder what the cost ratio would be for, say, one thousand
> sites made to look the same to accomodate those 3% versus just
> ignoring them and going with standards and the $ not spent coding
> hacks? Now, I'm sure that those of you who earn your livelyhood doing
> this html/web design like the idea of convincing people that you have
> to spend a little extra time and money to code hacks and work arounds.
> Right?

not right... at least not for me...

yes, i educate my clients and they do understand that there will be
differences, but we also don't build sites that require some false
notion that they must look *exactly* a certain way... if i wanted
that, i'd move to print... i build within the medium...

this education alone elminates 99% of our issues... if the client
knows that the background in that cell won't show in Navigator 4.x,
and they understand why, they don't mind... if they do mind, then
we talk about solutions and impact...

as for coding to standards vs. coding hacks... we code to
standards... we don't use hacks... in fact, the only "hack" i allow
without having to provide justification still validates -- it's the
perfectly standards-compliant and functionality-checking @import
rule for CSS... that way i can keep styles away from NN4.x that
might hose the page...

our sites don't cost more because of that, either... we code to
standards, we eliminate accessiblity barriers, we avoid bleeding
edge or proprietary code, we get designs that work for all
browsers...

there is a misconception that standards-compliance, accessibility,
and browser support results in bloated code, increased
development time (and cost), and loads of hacks...

that's wrong...

and i appeal to anyone on this list who experiences that bloat --
keep sharpening your tools, because you're doing yourselves and
your clients a disservice...


--
Read the evolt.org case study
Usability: The Site Speaks for Itself
http://amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1904151035/evoltorg02-20
ISBN: 1904151035



More information about the thelist mailing list