On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 22:40:45 +0200, Manuel González Noriega <manuel at simplelogica.net> wrote: > David, there are some interesting issues to discuss about this > situation, if you will > > a) If your users will be using IE6 to access the site, why is there a > need to look for non-IE users in the user-agent string? > > b) Any well coded site that works ok in IE6 cannot be too screwed in > other browsers. What's the worry? > > c) Related to b), there are zillions of sites that work perfectly with > and without IE. What's so special about yours? What IE-only features did > you code for? I don't really understand the outlash, here. He's done what a Good Web Developer is supposed to do: (1) Analyze his or her site's audience. (2) Develop predictions of loss due to lack of support for certain browsers. (3) Determine whether these losses are acceptable or whether it is worth it to work to support these other browsers. Now, you may disagree with his results with this process, but that can be argued ad nauseam in any situation. Web developers in standards-oriented communities tend to overapply the "standards are best" mantra. Coding to standards is a great way to get the most out of 95% of web sites. But, for those other 5%, very often including specific web-based applications, this is not necessarily the case. If he believes his audience to be Internet-naive, which it seems like he does, I think he would be silly to put any extra effort into supporting non-IE browsers.[*] -- Matt Warden Berry Neuroscience Lab Department of Psychology Miami University This email proudly and graciously contributes to entropy. * To an experienced developer (a description which would likely apply to nearly everyone here), developing for IE and developing to standards are often the same amount of effort. But, developing to standards includes a learning curve of its own. If the developer is not used to doing it, it will take extra effort.