>-----Original Message----- >From: thelist-admin at lists.evolt.org >[mailto:thelist-admin at lists.evolt.org]On Behalf Of Tamara Abbey >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. Tamara, I am not going to attempt to control the reactions or emotions of people hitting the site. Yes the wording needs a bit of adjustment, but the message is not going to change. The simple fact is that NN4 is out of date. So is ie2,3,4 . When you hit a site and something goes screwy, you have a fair idea what happened - your job is to design them. Most users won't. What is the problem with pointing out that their browsers are old, don't support the latest standards and you can upgrade for free? >You are also overlooking the fact that some companies and >institutions /can not/ upgrade or change their browsers. Where is that written. Companies can change their browsers - in many cases they update faster than the general public. Some choose not to, just like any user has a choice. >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? The only difference between the Ranger site and hundreds of sites that only use, say <marquee> or document.all is that Ranger is telling the users why the site might not work or looks like crap in their browser. This site is targeted at high bandwith users mainly because some of the geological images are in excess of 1MB. >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. True, one of the amendments to the wording is that you can get explorer or Netscape from cds distributed with computing magazines. Also - this is a matter of timing. One day they will need to upgrade (to do their banking for example) - why not now? >>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. > The time saving efforts are for my time now, and future time for redesign. The users who have Gen 6 browsers won't know or care, which is how it should be. >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? > So you think we need more explanation? What did you find offensive about the first paragraph? - it appears factual to me? This email may be confidential and contain commercially sensitive information. Only the intended recipient may access or use it. If you are not the intended recipient please delete this email and notify us promptly. We use virus scanning software but exclude all liability for viruses or similar in this email or any attachment.