[thelist] Netscape 6 loads page twice

aardvark roselli at earthlink.net
Thu Dec 7 13:59:58 CST 2000


> From: "jeff" <jeff at lists.evolt.org>
> 
> you didn't read what i said.  i did *not* say that you should cut out those
> users.  i said you should only concern yourself with making sure your site
> is still usable, but not concern yourself with making the extras work.

ah, see, that's not what i read... oh well, i guess i was reading too 
quickly...

> do i tell that to my clients?  of course i do.  are they aware that will
> save them considerable amounts of money in development dollars?  of course
> they are.  are they fine with that?  why [w/sh]ouldn't they be?

again, it depends on the site (the customers, the clients, etc.)... 
but i've seen too many people who don't inform their client what 
they are giving up...

ultimately, we strive to build sites that work for all, without 
excluding any who can't use bells and whistles... most of them are 
just useless eye candy that slows users down... many are very 
useful (like JS form validation, potentially saving a trip to the server) 
but don't always make the cut because of the *extra* time and cost 
needed to implement them...

so, i don't see how it could save development costs, i can only see 
how it could balloon them... so i suspect we are on different 
wavelengths again... but if i build a site to spec that degrades and 
is emminently accessible, everything else i would do ("making the 
extras work") would be on top of that cost...

> :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> : and if you're making bells and whistles that require
> : the latest browsers, you need to consider how those
> : degrade to older, alternative, and handicapped
> : browsers... as well as those of us with JS turned off...
> :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> you know me better than that - i've argued for usability with or without
> javascript forever.  we always test with older browsers and with javascript
> disabled to make sure that the sites are still usable.  notice i said
> "usable" and not "work the same".

you are absolutely correct, i know you better than that because 
you are one of the few who makes that effort... but i'm making that 
a blanket statement (as i always do) for those who aren't degrading 
well... didn't mean to imply you fell in that mass...

> as an example:
> 
> http://www.mtbachelor.com/
> 
> ignore the design - that wasn't our responsibility.  notice that the

(heh... i know that feeling...)

> navigation is usable no matter whether you're using nn2.0, nn4.0, ie4,
> javascript turned on or off, whatever.  of course it looks and works it's
> best when it's viewed with nn4+ and ie4+, but it illustrates the point i'm
> trying to make.

yes it does...

> :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> : remember, don't build based on how easy it is for you,
> : build based on how easy it is for your users...
> :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> unfortunately it's not always that easy.  it's usually a game of building it
> to meet the client's needs while staying within the development budget.
> somewhere in there you try to make it as usable as possible, of course.

this is true... but we build all the usability/accessibility in... only if 
the client demands it be cut do we cut it... and we still have 
competitive prices... but again, that can be market differences and 
such...

> :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> : i'm always wary of that given IE's propensity to ignore
> : bad code, support proprietary standards, and make
> : developers forget that not everyone surfs in IE4+ on win95...
> :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> the first statement is valid, but the rest is garbage and you know it.  the
> second one netscape is just as guilty of, if not more so.  the third is more
> about the developer than it is any particular browser.  i'm sure nn2/3 could
> have had the same thing said about it with regard to the third statement
> when it's only <sarcasm>competition</sarcasm> was ie3.

i was addressing your point about being happy coding for IE4+ 
only... yes, NN is just as guilty... but by choosing one over the 
other, regardless of market share, you risk losing that chunk of the 
market... i can't tell you if that's good, that's a business decision 
you need to make... i just don't know which part is garbage since 
i've seen people who happily code with only one browser handy 
create some bizarre problems... i think FrontPage is a great 
example of what happens to tools that think the same was, as 
well...

> :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> : works for 100% of users... and it's
> : standards-compliant...
> :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> it doesn't work the same for all users though and no offense but it's also
> not particularly cutting-edge.

and that's the point... does your audience want cutting edge?  or 
do they just want the information?

> :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> : eh, i still code for the user, *every* user, whenever
> : possible... and that happens to be always...
> :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> ah, but that doesn't really have anything to do with standards no matter how
> you slice it.

in general, no, you are correct...

but by targetting the standards it helps ensure i'm not over-
engineering or leaving people out... developing per browser is less 
precise to me, but developing to standards provides a solid 
foundation...

we need to do this more often...




More information about the thelist mailing list