[thelist] Netscape 6 loads page twice

[jeff]

aardvark,

:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: From: aardvark
:
: if i told a client that we build sites that only cut out
: 13% of their users, i don't think they'd accept that...
: do you tell your clients that?  would they accept it?
: especially e-commerce clients?
:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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.

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?

:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: 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".

as an example:

http://www.mtbachelor.com/

ignore the design - that wasn't our responsibility.  notice that the
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.

:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: 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.

:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: 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.

:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: 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.

:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: 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.

again, just my 2c,

.jeff

name://jeff.howden
game://web.development
http://www.evolt.org/
mailto:jeff at members.evolt.org