[thelist] Site redirect check : old browser

[Tamara Abbey]

Mark,

After you called NN v.4 *old,* I went and took a look -- interesting, very 
interesting.

>Actually there should be a button on the bottom of the nobrows page - "take
>me to the site anyway" or some such thing.

You need to include form tags around an input button -- that's why we're
not seeing the *go* button.

> >> NN3 is not standards compliant.

And neither is your nobrowser page: 
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fsvc027.bne246d.server-web.com%2Fnobrows.html&doctype=Inline

(kind of helps to have a doctype if you're going to beat the drum about 
standards compliance)

>[...]
>Actually, what I am doing is coding to standards designed to separate style
>from content (HTML 4.01, CSS (including CSSP), ECMA and DOM).  My objective
>is to fully separate design from content (that includes using no tables to
>achieve positioning of major design elements) to get the massive benefit
>that brings from a maintenance and redesign point of view.

Very noble indeed, yet the site is trying to communicate information about 
it's services or products perhaps? And then you tell the viewer that their 
browser is non-compliant? I was just P.O.'d by the page and, except for the 
purpose of this exercise, I would not go back, but, depending on the 
audience this web site is supposed to reach, you could be flat-out scaring 
them. You are also overlooking the fact that some companies and 
institutions /can not/ upgrade or change their browsers. So, basically, 
Ranger Minerals is supposed to reach only a very narrow, very web-savvy 
audience with very fast connections to get the latest browsers? When I was 
on dial-up, the latest Netscape and/or Internet Explorer takes hours to 
download from Evolt.org (days from the *official* sites). You are really 
expecting a lot here IMO.

>as a newbie, from my reading of various articles (including evolt and A List
>Apart),  life is a lot simpler doing that than trying to get the exact same
>layout on NN4x and ie, let alone anything before that.

Yes, life would be simpler. But, then you're gambling that people will 
/see/ this site and appreciate your time-saving efforts.

>I am coding beyond concern for older browsers (actually opera 511 has probs
>with some of the code in the site as well!).  However, I care about those
>older browsers - enough so that they don't try and render the "latest
>standards compliant" site.  I don't want them to get JS errors and I
>definitely don't want their browser to crash if they hit the site.  However,
>if they choose to try and render it - then they have made the choice.  If
>they don't want to upgrade their browsers for free - I'm not forcing them
>to - they can go to the text only site and get a subset of the info
>available.

Well, the first paragraph is very, very offensive (and poorly written, but 
that's a different subject) -- and, the rest of the language really needs 
some copy editing too. But, right there, in the middle on my 800x600 are 
the great big, bold words: Your browser is not W3C compliant . . .

I can hear people now -- WT* is W3C? I'm not compliant?? What did I do wrong?

But, your initial question, yes, the redirect did send me to the nobrows 
page, but without the required form tags, I can't go anywhere else.

<tamara />