Browser versions, Screen resolutions, etc.

Because much of what I post on my sites are liable to be printed I still adhere to the 640x480 resolution. Getting a bit bizzare with the higher screen resolutions. An issue I would really like to see the W3C address is somehow tagging the content to be printed sort of like a CSS for printers. 'Course, fat lot of good it would do, all the browser manufacturers would just run amuck creating their own uncompatable versions of it anyways...

The most recent torment in my life has been my idiot management thinking PDFs solve the problems of posting documents to the web. I was aghast to discover one part of my team blind linking humongous PDFs off of my local navigation bars.

I think this all depends on what your stats are saying. One of my sites, gymn.ca, still gets a fairly high percentage of NS 4.x users. I think that this is because a lot of government agencies and schools etc. in Canada still use NS 4.x pretty heavily. I work at a university and the computers are always set up to favour use of NS over IE. (removal of IE icon from the desktop, NS set as default browser etc.) I really have to wonder why they insist on favouring NS so much.

It really is too bad that we (web developers in generally) have been held back by NS 4 for so long. The web has really started to stagnate because of it, and this has been going on for years already!

Quote: Originally posted by doublehelix
Because much of what I post on my sites are liable to be printed...

Ah, you bring up a good point and one I run into occasionally. Usually, my clients will forgo printability if it means limitations on the site design.

You both are dealing with a different market than a freelancer is. Typically, you know pretty much exactly what technologies your audience will be using whether they fit the public demographics or not. An enviable position in some respects.

Quote: Typically, you know pretty much exactly what technologies your audience will be using whether they fit the public demographics or not

Ohh... I wish. Actually my site serves the public and has to be accessable to the lowest common denominater -- or at least pretty close. We actually keep those poor suckers who bought web TV in mind.

As for why the N4 users never migrated to NS. I think the original release of N6 was such a fiasco that it scared a lot of people off.

I have made a decision to design for 800X600 with larger resoultions in mind. And I will do my code following the standards as much as I possibily can. (my goal is 100%) Sure enough, NS might not be able to see the site as intended BUT it will still be accessible to them. If people choose to keep NS 4 or if by chance they can't upgrade for whatever reason then they can still see, read, use the content--just not the "pretties".

NS4 won't be around forever. I feel that its use as well as other non-compliant browsers will start dwindling once desingers go forward with compliant code, css, xhtml, etc. If we don't push they surely will not pull.

Therefore, I vote compliant code, web standards, accessibility!! That way everybody wins.

Here is nice quote that I found here that says it all IMO:

Quote: quit spending so much time worrying about backward compatibility that your sites end up lacking forward compatibility — the ability to remain viable in upcoming browsers and devices.

OH yes. This post holds a special place in all designers hearts that wish they could just put a black border on a table using some simple css. Rather they must embed a table inside a table or some other hack to get the desired look in Nutscrape 4.x.

I recently started working on my personal site and was at odds whether or not to leave nutscrape behind. It was only a two second decision. Leave it. I guess the same can't be done for paying clients but, if enough sites become nutscrape 4.x uncompliant, those people will upgrade that much quicker. So I think everybody should make their personal sites using the full css properties. Maybe they will start feeling left out and upgrade.

I also think it's partly the responsibility of the designers out there to tell these people to upgrade and promote it. It helps designers and it helps those people. Wow, a win-win situation. Nice.

I design for 640x480 depending on the audience. Although, most often it's unnecessary.

As for browsers, since recently, I've started designing for all (NS4.x, 6, IE5+, O6). i.e. ever since I learnt how to.

For those of you sworn to 800x600, I have a question: Are you absolutely merciless with 640'ers or do you consider some things, like placing navigation menus on the left side so they aren't hidden behind horz scrollbars etc?

I used to design for 640x480 with still looking good in 800x600, now its the other way around, I'll make it look decent one size up from (1024x768) but any bigger I dont worry about.
the reason I do this is my target group, I target new people to the net, most pc's are sold set at 800x600 and most people never bother to change, or dont know how. its mainly people in the pc business that use the biggest sizes with flashest cards etc and they wouldnt be interested in what I'm offering anyway.

I code to NS4.7, I also have NS6 but dont like it, prefer to use Opera6 (as Opera6). depending on who you make your sites for as to what responce you'll get here, but the fact of the matter is web designers build sites for the people, not for other designers to uhh and agghhh over, (basic web design 101) there are alot of people that will never own a brand new PC, they buy second hand and use whats on it. Most places here in NZ (libraires, schools, gov departments ..) still use NS4.7 cause it is a solid browser where you download it and use it, dont have to update patchs or holes every few weeks.

You can call browsers names, you dont have to use them or even code to them, end of the day its your loss, not the publics, if someone is wanting a service from your site and cant get it/view it they will go elsewhere.

long live freedom of choice.

I use 800x600 (bad eyes) and I actually have the problem of trying to design for higher resolutions (due to the bad eyes). Thought it would be ironic to share.

I design for 800*600 to look good at 1024*768 & ok at larger, with it working well in NS4x and all the others. According to my stats 92% have IE5 or above (with 2% having IE4 still), 3.5% using NS (none of them being NS6) and only 0.06% showing up as Opera6.

However with AOL now using NS instead of IE this is likely to change dramatically in the foreseeable future as they have massive campaigns here to get people using them as an ISP.

Quote: Originally posted by The Webmistress
However with AOL now using NS instead of IE this is likely to change dramatically in the foreseeable future as they have massive campaigns here to get people using them as an ISP.

I would hope that any new campaign to promote Netscape would be pushing the latest version? If so, this would be a good thing I think. I don't use NN6 enough to have discovered any idiosyncracies from a user perspective but on a testing basis, its compliance seems pretty darned good.

As I said in the initial post, I'm not out to open another chapter of the browser wars. I'd be posting this if I was still finding myself dealing with IE3's limitations as well. In fact, was it only 2 years ago or less that I was testing in version 3 browsers? Time flies! NN4 is just out of date, a fact that its makers have well recognized (hence NN6).

Perhaps there is a degree of the "if it ain't broke don't fix it philosophy" amongst NN4 users. If so, we only have ourselves to blame for that one by bending over backwards to make sure it ain't broke

Quote: we only have ourselves to blame for that one by bending over backwards to make sure it ain't broke

I guess that's because we each didn't want to be the first out the door with the arrows in our back.

Quote: Originally posted by The Webmistress
... and only 0.06% showing up as Opera6.

You have to remember Opera6 is set to IE as default. I doubt a lot of people using Opera would even notice this, let alone change it.

Here are some reports on browsers, resolutions and color.(statictics)

http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat_trends.htm

I have 5 browsers on my machine that I test with....Netscape Communicator 4.79 - Netscape 6.2 - IE 5.5 - Opera 5 - Opera 6.

What do I choose to browse with? Netscape 4.79.
Why? Performance.

Of all five it still is the fastest. I'm still on a 56K and most likely will remain on a 56K.

My processor is a CyrixII...so it is a factor. I can't afford to just go out and buy a new machine so I use the browser that gives me the fastest ride through the web. That's why I still sue Netscape 4.79 as my browser of choice.

Not only that........I like haveing my e-mail intergrated right into my browser, so then when mail comes in I'm notified. Yes Opera does this..but even so it runs slower for me than N4 does.

Not only that...........I still feel it's the most secure for doing my banking....paying my bills, and submitting my info when I purchase something online.

On the professional side of things I can understand the push toward newer browsers.

On the personal side, I get tired sometimes of the 'upgrade your browser' messages. Sometimes I will lauch another browser to look, sometimes I won't bother. Personally I can't afford a screaming machine right now, so I run the browser that works best for me on the machine I have.

What about people running machines with less processor power than me? Again on the persoanl side, sometimes I feel that it's kind of like a cyberspace kind of discrimination to try to force browser upgrades. Becuase in reality you may be trying to force a machine upgrade in order to run more power hungry browsers.

Then back to the professional side of things..yes I make sure things work in Netscape 4, and yes I do at times get tired of the limitations. But my stats show enough Netsacpe 4X users (as well as several 3X users), that I will continue doing so until I see things change.

As far as res.......I once was the grand defender of 640X...my son with his poor vision has to use this res all of the time. But now I don't bother much with it, I just make sure it doesn't scroll too too far.

I can't do anything above 1024 becuase I simply can't see it to work on it at that on a 17 inch monitor. It's just way too small for me.

I'm curious about one thing - everyone seems to be designing for some size or other.

Why not design for variable width? Some design flexibility should prevent any disasterous appearance.

How can you design for a width anyway? Many viewers don't have their browser maximized, and some will also have panels [Favorites, History] open on the left. Seems like trying to catch the wind to me

Another useful site for up-to-date basic stats:
The Counter

I design for people that actually care about their computer, how they use it, how they surf the web, and how they maintain their computer, meaning they'll use upgraded features, etc.

I design with IE in mind and don't care what it looks like in NS or anything else, I don't even have NS installed on any of my computers to do a "check" with.

I used to design for 800x600 in mind but stopped that a couple weeks ago and am moving up to 1024x768 since it provides a lot more room for what needs to be done.

People have to up the standards else those "other people" (basic users) will feel happy and complete running IE4 or NS4, Flash 3, and an 800x600 screen with 16-bit display.

1024x768, 32-bit, Flash 6, IE6 *sigh* Why can't this be the standard Make everyone's life a lot easier

What about cost? Even as a designer, I have a monitor that can only go 16bit on 1024x768. I can certainly not afford any more, especially when I'm busy spending away on cutting-edge software.

The standard is improving, albeit gradually. Hardly anyone uses 640x480 these days, but that was the standard not long ago. A bit of patience helps.

I agree, you really can't dismiss NS especially as AOL is going to be shipping it as standard soon and there are still big diferences between NS6 & IE6. As designers we are not there to ensure everyone upgrades but to make websites that can be enjoyed by the majority and be aware that that's life!

Personally, I think NS is the poorest excuse for a web browser and people should stop using it. We have banned NS on one of our websites that receives about 2,000 unique visitors per day. The visitors tht come there with NS, they get referred to a page with a message with information.

I don't think many other designers are too happy about wasting extra time to suffering to remove most of the cool effects from their website just because NS can't handle to show them correctly. A couple of years ago you had no choice since a huge percent of your daily visitors were using NS, but today it's less than 10% and most of the users that have NS installed, have another and better browser installed.

Cool effects don't make a website; content does.

Another way of looking at NS is that it - and other browsers like Opera - force designers to code properly. IE tolerates the warts-and-all approach to code, which I think, is the worst way of doing anything, not just code.

Messy code has a lot of problems:

• Makes it hard for future editors to work with it
• It makes some designers often shun crucial sectors of the market just because they don't use the "right" software
• It leads to errors and slows productivity
• There is less understanding of the code's mechanisms which ultimately means less intelligent use of it, and little problem-solving ability.

NS is here to stay and with Microsoft being the company it is then you will always have people who wont use IE out of principle. You really aren't on to a winner with the attitude you have towards NS. IE isn't the bee all and end all you are making it out to be!

Quote: Originally posted by Abhishek Reddy
Cool effects don't make a website; content does.

Very true. To which should be added:
Good code doesn't make a website; content does

The day when browsers move towards less tolerance of sloppy code is the day when a significant section of would-be web authors get shut out from this wonderful medium.

Imagine if your posts wouldn't go thru here unless your spelling, punctuation and grammar were all just so

Browsers need to support standards - but that does not mean they must become less flexible with code handling - at least, I sincerely hope not.

Agreed.

I am merely saying that IE, in particular, is getting very loose with code. It's beginning to slip away from those standards it should be sticking to.

NS & Opera and such aren't too strict, but they aren't very forgiving either.

But which is the lesser evil?

To use your analogy, I am not saying shut out all posts with errors, but rather post with fewer errors -- just so it's easier to read and understand, does not become incomprehensible to others who don't speak the language well, and also to understand the language so as to be able to help others with it.

Humans are smarter than software. Few (non-programming ) people break down every time they see a semicolon or comma is missing. One typo shouldn't cause many problems for us, but missing that one closing tag for a div, which ends up hiding everything on screen in non-IE browsers, can be costly.

Quote: Originally posted by Mike Feury
Good code doesn't make a website; content does

Code is a tool to broadcast good content. Why shut out people from the information in favor of cool effects and poor skill?

I'm not arguing against anything you say - all very valid and desireable

Rather, I'm arguing for something else in addition - not to penalize the poor coders any more than necessary.

For example, say I want to find out about fishing in southern Equador. I want to read the stuff from the guy who's spent his life fishing around the region, and is the acknowledged local authority. It's unlikely he's also going to be one of the better coders in the region.

I want there to be as few obstacles as possible in his way if he decides to share his life's knowledge and wisdom with the world - a generous act from which many thousands would benefit.

Think of how much knowledge and wisdom goes to waste today because publishing a book is such a hassle. The web has the potential to avoid much of such waste in the future, and I want to see that potential realised.

Great if the spelling is good, and it works in all browsers etc - but the key thing is that I'll know there are venomous water snakes in that lake over there

That is a good point.

Quote: Originally posted by Abhishek Reddy
Cool effects don't make a website; content does.

Another way of looking at NS is that it - and other browsers like Opera - force designers to code properly. IE tolerates the warts-and-all approach to code, which I think, is the worst way of doing anything, not just code.

Noone said cool effects make a website, but depending on the site, they sure can be a huge part of it! I have been developing cross-browser websites for many companies for many years. The problem is that I'm simply tired of making a website, viewing it in IE and Opera and they look 99.95% similair, then you load it in NS and the forms are too wide, or half of the background is not showing, or NS can't follow your CSS, the list goes on and on. So if there's anyone you want to point finger at saying they don't code properly, it should be the programmers behind NS.

Also it completely depends on the website. For example, we have a music website and we are using many features that don't work properly in NS and we really want to use those things, that's why we chose to show NS users a "bad browser" message. However, our company website has been made to support all browsers since every visitor could be a potential customer.

They don't have to show exactly the same in all browsers. They could at least be backward compatible enough to show the content that really matters, with loss of some formatting, interactivity, layout and what not.

At least then you're not closing the doors on your visitors. You'd be accommodating them for all that their browser is worth.

Netscape 4.x is now what, seven years old with some newer addons but no underlying upgrade to the engine? Which puts it, frankly, at the pretty damn good for its age level for me. That said, Netscape doesn't support CSS at all, rather, it interprets CSS through its JSS engine. Which is something to keep in mind as well. And it does support a lot of CSS, again, considering its age.

Additionally, it is still the only option for some major institutions where "downloading a new browser" is not an option because the browsers there are heavily customized and installed on a network basis and there are issues involved in that far beyond the "free" status of the browser. Hopefully, this is just a matter of time, especially with N6.2 being more stable and attractive. I won't address the other nations with less access to the Internet and to the web, but suffice it to say that some nations still have party lines.

Anyway, yes, good discussion. I'll only add that content and code must not always go hand in hand. The push for CSS/XHTML, XML, et cetera is to allow for specific markup of the text content that is then "styled" externally, making it rather moot whether you prefer bells and whistles or not. With the code separate from the content, you can serve the same dish with all the trimmings or on its own, no pain to the user, no pain to the developer.