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

[aardvark]

> From: "Brian King" <BKing at Impact-Technologies.com>
>
> >what sort of glitz are you talking about?
> >it's hard for me to get my arms around since it's *so* easy to build
> >sites that work with most/all browsers without sacrificing
> >functionality...
> 
> Yes we are talking about eye candy.  There are vendors/clients out
> there who want the stuff.  Is it my job to tell them they are stupid? 
> Keep your money?  Go somewhere else if you want this stuff?  I feel
> like I am in an argument about whether the invention of color
> television was worthwhile or not.  Does color actually add anything to
> the pictures on the screen?  Get with it.  Technology moves forward.

wow, i wasn't trying to be combative about this, but i suspect i've 
struck a nerve...

clients may want this, and then you build it, that's simple... but you 
need to inform the client of the *real* numbers and how it may 
affect *their* audience...

keep in mind that the invention of color television had one major 
requirement -- that the signal for color tv still work with black and 
white tvs... curious how even 50 years ago another industry 
recognized the value of not disenfranchising those who couldn't 
upgrade... curious how everyone forgets that...

ultimately, though, a commerce site should present no barriers to 
selling something... if you can get eye candy in there without 
shutting anyone out, then by all means do it... but if someone gets 
left in the cold, especially upwards of 10-20% of your audience, 
you need to think about it...

> It's a proven fact that eye candyand a flashy ad campaign will sell a
> candy bar to a teenager a lot faster than a page of text will.  The

- where is it a proven fact?

- so, the campaign itself may sell the kid on the product, but once 
the kid wants to buy it, are you going to tell 10-20% of them to 
bugger off?  *that's* what i'm talking about, the actual purchase, 
the e-commerce portion...

> site is not functional from a sales point of view without the eye
> candy.  How can you possibly argue that?  It's common sense.  I seem

i'm not arguing the selling, that's just plain ol' marketing... i'm 
talking about getting the customer from the decision to buy to the 
transaction itself... that needs to be open to all...

> to attract clients who want to make use of new technologies.  It's my
> job to warn them of the consequences, but not to steer them away from
> it, or to make it so expensive to build that they can't afford it.  I

with just this minimal interaction, i'm curious how you warn a 
client... it's very easy to skew warnings to get a client to go one 
way or the other, we're all guilty of framing things differently for 
various reasons, but ultimately, you still need to give the client as 
much clinical input as possible...

> just spent the last 5 weeks recoding a site for a client that hasn't a
> prayer of working on a Netscape browser, (less than version 6
> anyways).  They know it and don't care.  The product they sell only
> works with IE browsers anyways.

good for them, if their audience is exclusively IE customers, then i 
don't see a problem...

> >actually, depending on how you code, there are very few
> >'incompatibilities'... no, NN4 and IE4+
> 
> one example, Java Scriptinging?  How many different sets of java code
> am I expected to write to cover all versions of browsers.  It takes
> time to script around each version old browsers and someone has to pay
> for that time.  Certainly I can test for the browser version and write
> a separate set of code for each who's going to write the check?

well, that's an issue with your process... first off, if your e-comm 
site uses JavaScript for things like form validation, you'd better have 
the same checking on the server as well... at that point, you can 
write your JS as a user experience enhancement for those who 
support it, with full confidence the site will still work well for those 
who don't... it also helps ensure your site is secure and your data 
is good...

other than that, i only rely on JS for rollovers... anything else is too 
easy to have fail, not to mention users who have JS disabled... it's 
always better to let the server do the work for the client, since it 
ensures when you do add some JS, the site will still work for those 
who don't support that JS...

if you're writing multiple versions of JS, you need to re-assess your 
approach to the problem -- assuming there really is a problem...

> >there's no reason to dual-code any sites.
> 
> There are a lot of reasons to dual code a site.  Catering to bandwidth
> capability of users is a big one.  There are a number of sites that do
> this now.  Big ones in fact.

big ones like?  are you talking plain-text versions of sites?  their 
reasoning is both accessibility (since their templates don't do well 
in that arena, and it accounts for browsers who don't support their 
JS hacks) and bandwidth...

however, you can cater to the bandwidth of users with clean code 
and layouts that still work when images are unavailable...

and if you target low page-load times, there's no issue there... but if 
you're catering to both broad-band and narrow-band users, yes, but 
you're not dual-coding, you're creating two distinct sites, since you 
need to address everything from code, to JS, to plug-ins, to 
images, etc... that's a *lot* more than dual-coding... don't confuse 
the two...

> Addressing these points:
> >wow, this is really a WaSP message your touting, which has been
> Where did race and religion come into this?

Web Standards Project (WaSP)
http://www.webstandards.org/upgrade/

i'm guessing you'll like this article, although i fear you'll get the 
wrong message:
To Hell With Bad Browsers
http://www.alistapart.com/stories/tohell/

another perspective:
To Hell With Bad Editors
http://evolt.org/article/list/25/6096/index.html

> >addressed many times in much more thorough forums... the fact
> >is, not everyone can upgrade... generally accepted reasons --
> >those beyond the control of the user -- include:
> >- locked down corporate environments...
> Companies that do are not going to realize the error of their ways
> unless you stop catering to them.

um, no, companies know the tech support and security hassles 
involved... i can walk down the street to a 700 person call center, 
and there is no way in hell their light staff is going to take a couple 
weeks out to upgrade and support all the versions of IE on those 
desktops...

and more than half of those 700 people bought their christmas gifts 
online... in IE4... or, in many cases, NN4...

so, what is the company doing wrong again?  what is its error?

> >- public terminals (schools, libraries)...
> Maybe we should be keeping a closer watch what our tax dollars are
> paying for.

oofah... there's no way to address that without questioning your 
political views... should we not allow people to surf in school or in 
libraries because they can't use the latest browser?  should our tax 
dollars pay for more techs for schools and libraries to support 
upgrades to keep systems on the bleeding edge?

> >- slow connections (30MB on my 33.6?  nope)...
> Maybe you should invest the $15 it takes to get a 56K modem at least.
> Replace some of your 1980's hardware.

that's very condescending and you know it... not everyone can be 
bothered, wants to, cares, or can even spare the more than $15 for 
a new modem (let alone install it)... in my case, my 33.6 is fine... 
and the 56k modem will shave how much time off that 30MB 
download?

here's a banner for your sites:
"Using Navigator?  Or a modem?  Are you in a school or a library?  
We don't want your business.  Go hunt rats for food.  Damn 
cavemen."

> >- old machines ($800 to view your site? nope)...
> If I am selling broadband services, These people  most likely aren't
> going to buy it anyway.

no, but are you only selling broadband?  are your e-commerce 
clients restricted to such a narrow market?

> > no other reason to upgrade (NN4 is fine for my grandma)...
>  Same argument.  If I am selling broadband services, and grandma can't
>  view
> my site, she isn't going to buy the service anyway, should I care?

well, no, she certainly won't after you make it clear she's not 
welcome... but again, do your clients *only* sell broadband?

> > lack of understanding...
> It's our job to educate people.  Not to bust our butt to make sure
> that they remain in ignorance, (code around their ignorance).

ok, then you go out and personally explain to the 30 million or so 
internet users why their decisions on how they surf are silly... you 
tell them they are uneducated, that bad sites are their fault, that 
they're holding us back...

tell 5 people that... lemme know how it goes...

> > no other choice (browsers for handicapped, blind, etc.)..
> This is a completely different argument.  I support compatibility here
> 100%.

no you don't.

send me a URL, then we'll talk about that.

and it's not a different argument... some browsers for the disabled 
are just screen enlargers for people who have bad vision... and they 
can run quite well on other browsers or platforms... some are text-
to-speech devices that run on IE, but will choke on sites with lots 
of JS, Flash, or other eye candy...

> > have you looked at the evolt.org site?
> I will probably get kicked off the list for saying this, but it's
> boring. It's the kind of site that you would have a hard time selling
> to a marking department, who has the dollars to spend to promote their
> product.  Maybe it is the circles I am running in, but they want their
> site(s) to catch people's attention and more importantly retain it.

heh, it's not a site created by marketing types... it's not supposed 
to appeal to people buying toys, or looking for eye candy, or selling 
ad banners...  there is no marketing department whose opinion 
matters on that site... it's an informational resource for 
developers... the design *should* be simple, because it isn't the 
message... the content is the real meat of the site, not spinning 
logos and Flash intros...

the point was, however, that it's easy to build pages that support 
*everyone*...

> Unfortunately, it takes eye candy.  Try selling a Black and white TV
> to someone today!

well, they still make and sell black and white tvs, so there is a 
market for it... they're cheap and fit in the kitchen...

> Please don't get upset at my remarks.  They are not meant to alienate
> anyone, but to arose good discussion on the subject.

you need to take them down a notch, but otherwise, keep it 
coming...