A Rant!! and a smile:)

Certainly a good read, and with some very valid points... but unfortunately, many clients are not concerned with how good the code looks, but rather whether their site looks good/displays correctly in all browsers.

Read the article before, and it only made me somewhat comfortable with the minor discrepancies in the output, but not with being more than slightly biased towards one type of user agent.

Yes, I think this kind of stance is fine if you're working on a personal site, or a site that is trying to promote these standards, or if your audience doesn't use old browsers etc.

However, I think that for the most part if you're trying to sell a product or get a business message across and a fair percentage of your users are using older browsers then there's nothing you can do. You kind of have to keep doing it the old way if you want to get your message across to the largers number of users.

I respectfully disagree.

Sort of. Thing is, you're still aware of Netscape, but you're not tied to the old ways.

It's entirely possible to make sites that look fine and dandy in Netscape and are still compliant.

The trick?

Three things:

1. Only standard mark up code, preferably XHTML 1.0, table layouts are permitted
2. Netscape capable CSS in linked global stylesheet, rest of styles in imported global stylesheet (cascading stylesheets)
3. Giving up designs that have to be without page borders (as they can't be set with CSS for Netscape 4.x).

That's it.

It can be done, is being done.

http://www.nypl.org/styleguide/

Suzanne

Okay, but what about tables for layout? That's what I was was thinking of when I said "old way" there. Realistically you're not going to be able to get away with doing a layout like A List Apart does (that looks really bad in NS) if you have a fairly large audience using 4.x browsers.

1. Only standard mark up code, preferably XHTML 1.0, table layouts are permitted

The difference, I suppose, is in what sort of tables layout you use. The ones with spacers and extra pieces and all that aren't good. Just using them to put the content on the page is fine.

I think that's where the line is drawn -- nested 6 levels deep v. using the tables to hold the content.

I think of it as transitional. And so does the w3c, until CSS layouts are fully supported.

Suzanne

I do agree with you Suzanne - what I originally meant to say is that it's not practical, in most cases, to go all the way in terms of sepearating presentation from structure. I definitely agree that one can work with these standards and still be aware of older browsers - to a point. I've always believed that there is no need to go to extreme lengths to get something to render exactly the same in every browser.

And nesting tables 6 deep is a bad idea not matter what standards you're working with

Sorry for not fully reading

Quite funny, that link DM posted doesnt display well in NS4.7, in fact, its a right mess, so funny, at least the rest of the site is done with tables and displays properly.

You realize they want to do away with tables all together, they expect everyone to use the tag, which doesnt work to well in ver4 browsers, but reading some others issues in that site brings up a lot of interesting reading, like how html wont be faded out in the next 5 years or so at least, and quite a few are rebeling against xhtml, the fact it relies to much on something that isnt even fully (or mostly) supported yet - css.

I did all my sites in xhtml at one point and had lots of problems getting them the same, then I decided stuff them and went back to html, all because css isnt supported enough and wont be for a few years yet, they promised html was going to be fully supported, look what happened to that, so when they say css, xml, xhtml etc will be fully supported its very hard to believe them.

how many people do you know upgraded a program, browser, operating system etc only to go back to the old one because of bugs, problems, things not working, security issues ...

I doubt any of us have to worry about making websites with CSS only, maybe our kids might have the joy of working with it with browsers that support it in the future

I see what you're saying Megan.

I get into this all the time with myself -- what is worth it?

For me, any current development is worth it for the sites I work on (forward compliance, less expense for future work, easier to update and change, blah blah). But what, I say to myself, about the quick shots? The one off pages and promotion that won't be on the web in two months much less two years?

What about the art? I think HTML, dHTML, Flash, they are all a transient form of art, really. Like ASCII art, or sand sculpture. The art form ceases to exist if you force it to comply to standards. So some pages are more "concept" pages, and others are not.

The thing with compliance and Busy's vent about N4.x is that no matter what it LOOKS like, nothing on the A List Apart site is unreadable, something that frequently occurs when people use proprietary elements, work arounds, et cetera. While it may not be pretty, the content, the articles (which really is the basis of the site) is still totally viewable. Additionally, A List Apart is a concept site, designed to showcase what is possible.

I agree it's not cut 'n' dried by any means, but I think the argument for compliant pages for business sites is a strong one. I don't think it makes good business sense to have to recode the content with every redesign. Using templates and compliant markup for the content, by separating the content from the design, the content becomes more flexible, and when the redesign comes, it is fast and effective.

I say this wishing I had used more compliant code for my business site when I built it two years ago. I am facing updating now hundreds of pages, instead of just a couple of template files and the CSS.

It's an expense I could have avoided if I had listened two years ago to my head instead of following the prevailing wisdom of making it look identical in every browser.

Suzanne

Quote: Originally posted by Busy
Quite funny, that link DM posted doesnt display well in NS4.7, in fact, its a right mess, so funny, at least the rest of the site is done with tables and displays properly.

It depends on what you mean by "properly". They're trying to prove a point here, so they coded to standards and to hell with any browsers that can't handle them properly. So, by this point of view, it's the browser's fault for not displaying it "properly" not the code's.

See, Busy, your problem is that you're still tied, as a user, to a browser that's stuck in the dark ages - and you should know better. The whole problem with the whole issue of standards is that certain people continue to use old browsers which prevents us from being able to make full use of (not really) new technologies.

Oh, and AFIAIK Opera 6 and mozilla/NS 6 *almost* fully support CSS-2. With browsers like these around, which are dedicated to supporting full standards, the promise is there. Maybe someday...

Quote: your problem is that you're still tied, as a user, to a browser that's stuck in the dark ages - and you should know better. The whole problem with the whole issue of standards is that certain people continue to use old browsers which prevents us from being able to make full use of (not really) new technologies.

Finally, someone said what I wanted to say. And that is the point that ALA and WASP is trying to get across also. According to them, many people visit their sites and then complain because they don't work. But in fact they do. The person using the old, non-compliant browser just doesn't get to see how they actually intended the page to be viewed. But they can still see the text part.

And it seems it is their thinking that if enough people do this it will in a way "force" (maybe not a good word) people to upgrade. And why shouldn't they? Heck, browsers are free. And if they don't upgrade then they have chosen to live in the past using non-compliant browsers.

It is my thinking that as web designers, you should want to "educate" your clients and encourage them to upgrade as well try and get them to pass on the message to their friends/clients. I know several people who weren't even aware that you can upgrade until I mentioned it to them. It is kinda like this....Why live in a tent when you can live in a house?? Why use an outside toilet when you can use your inside throne?(exagerated but you get the point)

I have been piddling with web sites for several years now and have never actually validated a page until recently. *shame on me* But I am learning how very important this is as well as how the web will change. Or how browsers of the future may not render what we are doing now for the non-compliant versions. (i think i read that correctly somewhere)

I see now that I have lots of work to do on the sites that I have created. I don't see myself making a site using only CSS anytime soon but that is one of my goals now. I was actually surprised that more of you didn't agree with the articles in ALA.

Quote: made me somewhat comfortable with the minor discrepancies in the output

Did you mean uncomfortable? And what were the minor discrepancies that you saw?

Thanks all for responding. I thought this was an interesting topic.

Quote: Originally posted by disaster-master And it seems it is their thinking that if enough people do this it will in a way "force" (maybe not a good word) people to upgrade. And why shouldn't they? Heck, browsers are free. And if they don't upgrade then they have chosen to live in the past using non-compliant browsers.
[/B]

I agree - I'm thinking of putting some sort of message on my sites asking NS users to PLEASE updgrade for the sake of our sanity.

Quote: Originally posted by disaster-master
Or how browsers of the future may not render what we are doing now for the non-compliant versions. (i think i read that correctly somewhere)

Realistically I don't think this is ever going to happen - and I really hope it doesn't, for two reasons:

1. HTML is very easy to learn. Anyone can make a simple site fairly easily, and that's a wonderful thing.

2. There is tons of content out there that was created years and years ago before many of these standards we speak of were around. That content is still valid and will always be valid and should therefore always be available to the public. Realistically the people who were responsible for creating this content are not going to go back and change everything - it's just too much to ask.

That said, support for newer standard will certainly give developers a much wider range of options.

I do agree with most of what was said in that article - the only thing I have a problem with, realistically, is the idea of going all the way and dumping tables for layout. I have a site with 40-50% of it's visitors using NS 4.x - no way I can start using a lot of fancy CSS on there yet. But as they said, every site is different and you have to decide when is the right time to make the switch.

I wont be giving up NS4.7 any time soon, I also have NS6 but I dont like it, not as fast, reliable or easy to use as 4.7, so in my thinking (yeah I know theres a straight jacket out there for me somewhere) why make it harder for myself, sure I could get used to less, but NS4.7 is solid, trustworthy and reliable.
I recently got Opera6, and find it good to use (a bit slow on my machine) but has problems with older javascript coding (mainly mouseovers etc). When NS6 came out a lot of people noticed a lot of the JS coding wasnt up to stratch, now Opera6 is out they are realising this again.
I think there are so many people out there that will use anything but IE, in the end we will end up with all these unknown brand browsers that, like now dont support half the stuff.
Theres no way they can phase out HTML, which means tables so the ver4 browsers will be safe for a long time yet.

I think the only way I would upgrade and suggest others upgrade their browsers is if they (IE, NS, even Opera) worked off one set of standards and supported them closely if not 100%, until then I doubt a lot of people will upgrade, newer isnt always better. At the moment we are having to play with two sets of standards, old and new, but before long it will be three, old, present and new, xhtml1.1 is already out and they have changed the rules again (for the worst it looks), the plans for css-3 doesnt look very promising either.

We could change our ways as they (W3C) make their mind up what is "the standard", and the browsers comply, changing our ways every time, or sit and wait until they all come together, work together and then we can adapt to suit, like I said before I doubt any of us we see this happening, maybe our kids will.

**sorry for rambling on again**

Busy, why do you think that the A List Apart design, which is coded to the W3C standards, works in every major browser except NS 4.x? It's because all of those other browsers are playing by the rules. The W3C does have a defined standards and the newer browsers are complying for the most part.

This makes me really mad. Right now I feel like purposely coding sites that don't work in NS 4.x just to get people to switch. "To hell with bad browsers!"

Sorry for upsetting you Megan, it wasnt my intention to upset anyone, sorry

You state yourself a lot of your visitors are using vers4 browsers, some of those have upgraded but gone back to what they liked, and there has been mention of a few people on here that have upgraded to IE6 but went back.
Everybody knows if you upgrade today, tomorrow it will be outdated, somepeople just dont want the hassle of having to always be upgrading and getting plugins and fixing bugs ... they find something that does what they want and use it, I reckon a fairly large percentage of surfers dont even know how to clear their temperory internet folder, how to defrag, how to set there homepage, even how to bookmark a site. a lot of people still use modem and are on time limited connections (pay per time used or pay per downloaded) and downloading a new browsers wouldnt be on top of the list.

Interestingly, Opera is a light download (lighter than other options, and lighter than older browsers). Also, valid code is lighter and better for older browsers, ditto compliant code that doesn't use a bazillion work arounds...

I know not everyone can have the latest browser, and using table layouts, but with everything else in CSS, or hidden using the import command, you can serve the information to the older browsers (and they will thank you for it) while still using the latest code.

There are no good excuses to continue to use hefty bloated code. We need to streamline our thinking as well as our code.

Suzanne

Okay, I'll bite. You're suggesting designing one set of pages for current browsers and another for older ones?

I have to admit that I'm a bit conservative when moving to adopt new things. I guess my problem with moving totally to current standards is that most of our clients' customers cannot be guaranteed to be using newer browsers, and we cannot double-code (as per above) *or* allow the sites to look goofy in older browsers.

(Yes -- hi, I'm new here.)

Welcome Diane! Please stop by the Intructions forum and let us know a little more about yourself.

Quote: Okay, I'll bite. You're suggesting designing one set of pages for current browsers and another for older ones?

Oh heavens, no, I'm suggesting the opposite. Or rather, that you use the power of CSS to keep the CSS that will blow up Netscape out of its sight.

With templates and CSS, you can certainly serve entirely different sites to different browsers, but it's not necessary. I wouldn't recommend that.

Using templates and includes + standard XHTML and CSS, you can build a table layout today and easily replace it with a CSS layout tomorrow.

I would suggest using the available technology to its full potential, not sticking with static HTML pages because of older browsers.

Suzanne

> Using templates and includes + standard XHTML and CSS, you can build a table layout today and easily replace it with a CSS layout tomorrow.

I know what you mean. This is basically what we've been doing for a while. That is, I assume you're referring to DreamWeaver Templates to speed up updates(?), which have been the how-to-work-smarter/faster saving grace for many of us (ex-hand-coders). And yes, you can crowbar DW into turning out pretty clean code.

However, I have to say I'm pretty marketing-oriented, and while I can appreciate concept behind what A List Apart is doing, ALA is basically intended for web designers and developers ... and it's really no skin off their noses if we don't see the site as displayed in current browsers. We were forewarned, and we're not going to run screaming from the site if we've chosen to view it in an older browser.

However, I do not have one client with whom I could take the same risk.

Actually, I'm refering to templates on the server, not in Dreamweaver.

The content isn't republished when the design changes, only the few files holding the design are updated. Think more like Greymatter or Movable Type as far as that goes.

But I go a step further and use includes, so the content is entirely separate from the design.

That is how I can happily say, sure, we'll use tables for layout, and move to CSS when it's supported. I have a handful of files that control the entire site's look and layout, the content is untouched. The CSS for text controls its look, colour, et cetera.

Suzanne

quote:
Oh heavens, no, I'm suggesting the opposite. Or rather, that you use the power of CSS to keep the CSS that will blow up Netscape out of its sigh.

Ok, I know you are talking about the @import for nn here,
but does this mean for the whole global style sheet?
Or for individule sheets?
I guess what i want to know is:
If you have a rel link to a global site wide style sheet..
would it be better to link to it using @import?

This has been a great thread, btw.

dragonsjaw

Suzanne -- ah, I get it. Nice. I may go about it a little different way, but I suspect I'm getting to the same place ( more or less) -- easy to manage layout and content.

Quote: Ok, I know you are talking about the @import for nn here, but does this mean for the whole global style sheet? Or for individule sheets?

You can use a global stylesheet with the and another more advanced stylesheet with @import.

So you can use what IS supported in the ed stylesheet, and what isn't in the @imported one.

Since stylesheets are built to cascade, put the first, then the @import.

***

Quote: I suspect I'm getting to the same place ( more or less) -- easy to manage layout and content.

Exactly -- the user sees the same thing, but how it's put together can make a big difference in cost and time for the site owners.

Suzanne

Got it. And you might be surprised how fast and efficient site management tools can be.

However, to me, a site is not just about how it was made, though it's easy to get wrapped up in the tech and technique of it all. In my experience, what clients focus on is whether it achieves their goals -- branding, sales, whatever. That's what keeps them coming back and recommending.

But, we all have our opinions, and this is just mine. Viva la difference.

I don't want to sound too pretentious here (too late!!) but this is one of the most intelligent threads I have read on ANY forum for ages.

It is a shame that the industry for the most part is way behind the developers. The only thing I really have to say is (heavy pessimism) we can all get excited about when this will happen and what this new technology will mean.... BUT what is the point if the take-up is only 60-70 % of visitors to a site.

I suppose the upside to the browser wars with regards to support of standards is that if they were all compliant and there were no headaches with compatibility, half of us would be out of work.......

Oh, no contest, content is king. But it must work in concert with both the function and structure of a website (which includes the design).

I think that the newer technologies will be better for designers. They will be able to do less of the repetitive junk work and far more of the design itself. Plus -- PLUS! -- this will free up money for actual content development, and copywriting. Which means we could see some vastly improved options opening up.

Hopefully even some more exciting writing, better customer support, archives that help people, and more.

Content is the most expensive thing on a site, so I'd really like to see it get some attention.

Suzanne