[thelist] Old Browsers old Software, cut bait and move on.

[Mark Cheng]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: thelist-admin at lists.evolt.org
>[mailto:thelist-admin at lists.evolt.org]On Behalf Of aardvark
>> From: "Mark Cheng" <mark.cheng at ranger.com.au>
>> >
>> >clearly some people aren't comfortable designing for accessibility or
>> >degradability (not just old browsers, as everyone likes to frame
>> >it)... so, instead of taking the time to learn, or even care, they
>> >just write it off as frivolous and a waste of time... it smacks of
>> >laziness...
>>
>> ahem.  accessibility is an entirely different issue.  I strongly
>> believe in accessability.  I just don't think that degradeability is
>> all it is cracked up to be.  If a web designer wants to learn
>
>re-read what i said, it isn't just about old browsers... if you believe
>in accessibility, then it will work in older browsers... therefore, it
>degrades... how well it degrades is a function of how well you code
>(or choose to code)...
>

Aren't we talking about design??  Every page will have an impact on every
browser.  Some will present design as intended, some won't.  Some will take
a design and crap it up so you can't read it, even though someone with a
speaking browser has few problems.

I view accessibility as catering for things like, speaking browsers, user
changes of font size etc.

degradeability is what the page looks like in each browser.  Some won't be
readable eg a browser which picks up style info from an external stylesheet
but craps the positioning.

>> everything about say, ie55, how to manipulate the DOM with JS, use
>> ASP, why should they not design to that, if they and the client are
>> happy?
>
>because that's pretty narrow and they cannot even advise the client
>very well without the experience doing it... what about other
>clients?  is that kind of client an endless revenue source?
>

coding ie55, ASP, DOM with JS.  yep, they need experience, but they are
catering for the most prolific browser.  I think they'd find more clients
than someone who had little ie5 but could code ie4/nn4.  Because they have
more functionality available to them.


>> Those people who know the intricacies of nn4.x are experts in their
>> field. They probably couldn't design an ie55 specific site as
>> efficiently as someone who devoted their learning solely to that.  Why
>> say that someone who is an expert in ie55 is lazy?
>
>i'm saying anyone who doesn't care to learn how to code
>accessible, degradable pages is copping out when they say that
>no one uses that browser... their comments support that assertion,
>since they rarely know anything about their audience beyond the
>one stat they read that puts browsers like NN4 in the 10% pile...
>

 I agree on the accessibility. I suggest we agree to disagree on the
degradeability (although we may just have a misunderstanding on what we mean
by degradeability)


>> for every business, time learning is time not earning.  The old rule :
>> 80% of revenue from 20 largest customers.  Learn what you need to keep
>> them happy.
>
>that's too bad... here we budget training and education time... we
>expect our staff to constantly learn... we don't expect to build just
>what makes the client happy, we want to grow with them and guide
>them on newer and better things...
>

I didn't mean to imply that you shouldn't continually expand your skills.  I
think that's really important. Spend time to learn the new
languages/technologies etc.  That is time well spent.

>but once you learn how to build something that degrades, what you
>learn tends to not change... you learn it once and lean on it for a
>very long time... you learn the IE5.5 DOM and you have to re-learn
>it for IE6... seems like a no-brainer to take some time to learn
>something you can always call on...
>

I think the key thing is when you start to learn.  I started with ie5,
meaning CSS, JS, DOM 2 or 3 (can't remember).  To me, that is a base of
skills which satisfied the immediate need.  I don't use tables (mainly
because I get really confused when I'm looking at the code), but I use CSSP,
which pretty much means that the pages I code are going to linearise on
early browsers.

I would rather spend time learning PHP/ASP/whatever than how to use a table
to get a design to layout in NN4/ie4/older browser that doesn't layout CSSP.


>> Sorry, but I don't see how learning to code for nn4.x is going to help
>> any developer grow in a useful way.  Spend the time learning XML, ASP,
>> Coldfusion instead.
>
>where have i said coding for NN4.x is a goal?  it's not... knowing
>how to build pages that degrade and are accessible is the
>message, which apparently everyone re-reads as "code for
>NN2/3/4"... perhaps because it's easier to argue that than it is to
>explain why someone would refuse to learn a little something...
>

Are we agreeing? a)  Degrade = design looks pretty similar on older browser,
functionality remains same? or b) Degrade = content is readable on older
browser but may lose some functionality?

if b) i agree.  pages should degrade.


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.