[thelist] WebReview responds to WaSP browser death march

Sun Feb 25 22:28:20 CST 2001

>all of my e-commerce jobs are expected to work in *all* browsers...
>not just IE5.5 with full JS capability... *and* i code to standards....
>so this WaSP thing doesn't affect me... the ALA approach is
>unrealistic to me... the only affect is has is that i'll have a better
>edge by coding to standards *and* cross-browser as people flock
>to the new model...

While I pretty much totally agree with everything that has been said 
about this (the webreview, Aardvark's comments, and the general 
feeling on the list towards this topic) -- I really want to play 
devil's advocate and ask a really basic question.

'Gracefully degrading' sites / sites that 'work in *all* browsers.' 
OK, so out with the details -- where is this holy grail of web 
development?

Sure divs just get rendered in the order they are written with no 
stylistic info on pre v4 browsers. So you can get the same content to 
everyone, but it looks like consecutive hunks of meat on v3 and 
earlier browsers. Is this really designing with pre v4 browsers in 
mind? or just letting them see something rather than nothing? This is 
largely an aesthetic issue however, since the content is separate, 
and the site is still accessible. With a modicum of care the whole 
thing will make sense on Netscape v2. I do think, though, that it 
reeks a little of 'you get the photocopy of the photocopy of the fax 
of an inkjet printer's output; and you, madam / sir, get the real 
McCoy.' And of course there's Navigator 4's 'implementation' of CSS 
and DOM.

On the other hand using tables for layout rather than purely 
tabulated information is not a cool thing to do. Most sites do 
though, don't they? These sites validate just fine with w3.org. The 
major problem, as I see it, with tables as a solution to reasonably 
compatible presentation problems is that they have a tendency to 
screw over users with disabilities' screen readers. (Or so I hear -- 
I have yet to play with one. Shame on me.) Oh, and tables are 
downright ugly from a code point of view (which seems to be the 
primary argument by Zeldman).

It's either that or fork your code so that some get tables, others 
get divs. I'm not complaining about the extra work of forking a site 
-- but it is a right nuisance to maintain on anything larger than a 
very small site.

This is a web design 101 type problem, so I'm quite reluctant to 
raise it here, but there is an important issue here that I think WaSP 
is making and not making, at the same time. Does that make sense? I 
mean: there is a problem with current website design and 
non-compliance with recommendations; but the problem is not older 
browsers vs newer browsers -- it is with developers writing good code 
(as Aardvark has pointed out). But, how 'good' is 'good code' -- I 
definitely end up simplifying sites I work on right down so that 9 
times out of 10 they work surprisingly well on older browsers. On the 
other hand I don't even flinch at using validation breaking code in 
my header includes like:

<body bgcolor="#ffffff" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" 
topmargin="0" leftmargin="0">

Now. Hands up who hasn't ever used something like that! Huh? Huh?

So is it as clear cut as WaSP's 'screw the old browsers', Aardvark's 
'my sites look the same on all browsers', or golive's 'screw the 
standards'? I'd really like to hear how others approach this 
(arguably fundamental) problem. To date mine has been tables if 
layout is crucial (retail sites, for example), divs if content is 
really all that's important and layout's the unnecessary icing on the 
cake, and forking if a commercial client is being a downright bastard.

Anyhow, I need a whiskey to clear my mind -- and sorry for the very 
long post, I feel better now for ranting/asking.

- Andrew
-- 
Andrew Forsberg
http://www.thepander.co.nz