Which version in LH for?

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Re: Which version in LH for?

Jane Withnolastname pounced upon this pigeonhole and pronounced:[color=blue]
> On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 01:14:36 GMT, Beauregard T. Shagnasty
> <a.nony.nous@no where.invalid> wrote:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> Uh, no. I design my site for IE6 and that's it.[/color]
> >
> >But it is so simple to design for all.[/color]
>
> I disagree.[/color]

Then you do not know how to design a web site.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> As far as I can tell,
> >> you can't turn JS off in IE6 (maybe it's buried somewhere, but I
> >> remember you used to be able to turn it off in Options, and it's not
> >> there now). I don't use Java or Flash.[/color]
> >
> >I would not say it is buried, and if you had ever looked at the options
> >and settings dialogs, you would have found it. See this page that I put up
> >for some newbie friends. Scroll down just a bit; it's called Active
> >Scripting.[/color]
>
> Well, that's not JavaScript now, is it? Is it? Maybe it is. I don't
> know. How could I possibly know? Previous versions called it
> JavaScript. If they choose to change what they call it, while the rest
> of the world sticks with the same name, I am in the dark.[/color]

Does it matter what Microsloth has chosen to call it? If you tick the
"Disable" choice, JavaScript will not be executed when the page loads. Do
some research.

Better yet, try the "Prompt" choice and see the IE dialogs every time a
script is encountered.
[color=blue][color=green]
> >http://bshagnasty.home.att.net/brows...gs.htm#options
> >
> >[color=darkred]
> >> I have no interest in other browsers since I know FOR A FACT that the
> >> majority of browsers hitting my site are IE4+, which is compatible
> >> with IE6. The minority is Netscape (no other browsers hit my site).
> >> The purpose of the page in question is to tell people using browsers
> >> other than IE why the site looks wrong to them.[/color]
> >
> >If you design carefully, it won't look *wrong*, just maybe different. What
> >is so wrong with "different? "[/color]
>
> If I design carefully - do you mean that I have to use one of those
> browser identifiers every time I do something? If browser is IE, do
> this, but if it's NS do that. Forget it. That makes the page twice as
> big. "Different" ? Hardly. That's like saying, well one browser
> displays H3 text as 500 pixels tall while another browser shows it as
> 100 pixels tall. But don't worry, it doesn't look wrong, just
> different. That's a poor argument.[/color]

If your CSS states

body { font-size: 100% }
h3 { font-size: 130% }

the heading will be displayed as the visitor wants it to be displayed.
And, as you want it to be displayed.

[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> Where it is important, I have <NOSCRIPT> tags for the JavaScript
> >> content. Where it's not important, the NS tags simply say to turn on
> >> JavaScript.
> >> I have seen my site rendered in Netscape 4, 6 and 7 and they all look
> >> different. As far as I'm concerned, Netscape can take a flying leap![/color]
> >
> >Once the masses figure out that IE is not going to be updated until 2005,
> >and then when they see the cost in new OS and hardware, they're gonna go
> >get Netscape, or Mozilla, or Opera. Be prepared.[/color]
>
> I'm fully prepared for the sloth-like, easily contented masses to do
> absolutely nothing. You can design your pages for future editions of
> Netscape, Mozilla or Opera, but I'll stick with IE - as I expect
> everyone else will, too.[/color]

As I said earlier, when the easily contented masses discover they will
have to spend $400US for an IE upgrade, they will soon try something else.

Please post the URL to your site.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Re: Which version in LH for?

Alan J. Flavell pounced upon this pigeonhole and pronounced:[color=blue]
> On Sun, Aug 10, Beauregard T. Shagnasty inscribed on the eternal scroll:
>[color=green]
> > Better yet, try the "Prompt" choice and see the IE dialogs every time a
> > script is encountered.[/color]
>
> Yeah, the prompt which I get from IE (on the minority of occasions
> that I'm using IE instead of a WWW browser) says "Scripts are usually
> safe". That seems to be the wrong emphasis, considering just how much
> can go wrong on the occasions that they aren't "safe".[/color]

Heh, I agree with that. "Safe" in what respect? Mine is set to Prompt, and
that is not much of an annoyance as the only time I use IE is to test a
page of mine.

Or if a poster insists that IE is the best browser <g>.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left with finger poised over "N" key.

[Tim]

Re: Which version in LH for?

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 05:33:02 GMT,
Jane Withnolastname <JaneWithnolast nameNOSPAM@yaho o.com> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Well, for the number of people here who would be so interested, it's
>> called a user survey. I ask people what they use. I know it's not as
>> high tech as sneaking a JavaScript in and checking under the hood, but
>> it is more honest and, as you will no doubt understand, more
>> effective.[/color][/color]


On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 06:17:42 GMT,
Greg Schmidt <gregs@trawna.c om> wrote:
[color=blue]
> This is what's known in statistical circles as a self-selecting sample.
> While they can be useful, they are notoriously unreliable for
> determining facts. I'm not sure whether this would be more or less
> accurate than looking at user agent strings in your logs. Then again,
> if the only fact you're interested in is knowing whether the "majority
> of browsers" are using IE, I think any of us could have told you the
> answer without resorting to a survey. Last I checked, lawsuits were
> still ongoing because of that very fact.[/color]

By way of illustrating Greg's (correct) assertion. I've had 15,000 hits
notch up on one of my pages in the last year (most of it in the last few
months), about 2,000 hits on the linked homepage, and I've received
about 56 e-mails from visitors about the site (thank god they all didn't
e-mail me). ;-\

I have no idea about what the rest of the visitors thought about the
site, nor anything else about the site and them. Whether they found the
page accidentally, and only loaded enough of it to register as a hit,
before going elsewhere. Whether the page was what they wanted. Whether
they read it all. Whether they agreed with it. Whether those hit
counters are the same people reloading the page, or different people, or
even "people" visiting the site. How many visited without loading the
hit counter (it's only there for my own curiosity, anyway, as I don't
have access to the server logs). And so on.

i.e. There's a plethora of "assumption s" that could be made about how
people used the site, and that's all that they are.

Occasionally, I trawl search engines looking for anything that linked
back to the site. Some of the comments were interesting, some even
amusing. There was a few idiots (those who don't know what they're
talking about), moaning about something or other, showing off their
ignorance. And that's really the only other avenue of research that's
available to me about how others perceive my site, but probably the best
one (getting to hear what people say about you, rather than to you).

--
My "from" address is totally fake. (Hint: If I wanted e-mails from
complete strangers, I'd have put a real one, there.) Reply to usenet
postings in the same place as you read the message you're replying to.

[Tim]

Re: Which version in LH for?

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 3:25:49 -0400,
Mr. Zucchini <do_you_expect@ realmailaddress .com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Thanks to web designers like you, many people think the only choice they
> have is IE for browsing the web.[/color]

Thanks to twits, like them, that's became a sad reality, for a lot of
people. Perhaps not the whole WWW, but a huge slab of it doesn't work
in decent web browsers (MSIE is not a "decent" web browser).

I guess that I'm lucky that I rarely want to look at dross on the
internet. Unfortunately, that's about all that various people I know
want to do, and I tend to be the one asked to repair their PCs after
MSIE screwed them up.

I think MSIE truly is the trojan horse.

--
My "from" address is totally fake. (Hint: If I wanted e-mails from
complete strangers, I'd have put a real one, there.) Reply to usenet
postings in the same place as you read the message you're replying to.

[Tim]

Re: Which version in LH for?

On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 17:49:00 GMT,
Jane Withnolastname <JaneWithnolast nameNOSPAM@yaho o.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> I have no interest in other browsers since I know FOR A FACT that the
> majority of browsers hitting my site are IE4+, which is compatible
> with IE6. The minority is Netscape (no other browsers hit my site).
> The purpose of the page in question is to tell people using browsers
> other than IE why the site looks wrong to them.[/color]

To which I can only say, "fuckwit."

I'm beyond being polite to such "morons," nor trying to educate them,
who know stuff all about what they're doing with the WWW, spouting
"crap" like that. You've got a whole news group full of advice about
what's wrong with that attitude, if you can't learn it from them, you're
never going to learn.

If you've got half a brain, research for yourself what the internet is
about, and why you DON'T author for specific browsers. I don't know why
you're even bothering asking for advice in a "WWW authoring" newsgroup,
when you clearly have no intention of doing so.

--
My "from" address is totally fake. (Hint: If I wanted e-mails from
complete strangers, I'd have put a real one, there.) Reply to usenet
postings in the same place as you read the message you're replying to.

[Jane Withnolastname]

Re: Re: Which version in LH for?

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 05:59:01 +0000 (UTC), Darin McGrew
<mcgrew@stanfor dalumni.org> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Beauregard T. Shagnasty <a.nony.nous@no where.invalid> wrote:[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> If you design carefully, it won't look *wrong*, just maybe different. What
>>> is so wrong with "different? "[/color][/color]
>
>Jane Withnolastname <JaneWithnolast nameNOSPAM@yaho o.com> wrote:[color=green]
>> If I design carefully - do you mean that I have to use one of those
>> browser identifiers every time I do something? If browser is IE, do
>> this, but if it's NS do that. Forget it. That makes the page twice as
>> big.[/color]
>
>Designing separate versions for different browsers is a fool's errand.
>You've seen that, and you're only paying attention to two of the hundreds
>of browsers out there: http://webtips.dan.info/brand-x/[/color]

That's my point - I have no intention of putting in any extra effort
for more than one browser.
[color=blue]
>So design a single version that works for everyone instead. If you're
>feeling energetic, apply some of the well-known workarounds to help common
>buggy browsers cope with HTML/CSS that is beyond their capabilities.
>[color=green]
>> "Different" ? Hardly. That's like saying, well one browser
>> displays H3 text as 500 pixels tall while another browser shows it as
>> 100 pixels tall. But don't worry, it doesn't look wrong, just
>> different. That's a poor argument.[/color]
>
>It's also reality on the WWW. Different browsers will display your content
>differently. Even MSIE lets its users ignore document fonts and colors.
>Better browsers provide the user even more control.[/color]

Yup. Which is why I tell people how to set their IE to get the most
out of my pages.
[color=blue]
>See also http://www.westciv.com/style_master/...oil/not_paper/[/color]

[Jane Withnolastname]

Re: Which version in LH for?

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 14:17:24 GMT, Beauregard T. Shagnasty
<a.nony.nous@no where.invalid> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>> >> Uh, no. I design my site for IE6 and that's it.
>> >
>> >But it is so simple to design for all.[/color]
>>
>> I disagree.[/color]
>
>Then you do not know how to design a web site.[/color]

I disagree.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>> >> As far as I can tell,
>> >> you can't turn JS off in IE6 (maybe it's buried somewhere, but I
>> >> remember you used to be able to turn it off in Options, and it's not
>> >> there now). I don't use Java or Flash.
>> >
>> >I would not say it is buried, and if you had ever looked at the options
>> >and settings dialogs, you would have found it. See this page that I put up
>> >for some newbie friends. Scroll down just a bit; it's called Active
>> >Scripting.[/color]
>>
>> Well, that's not JavaScript now, is it? Is it? Maybe it is. I don't
>> know. How could I possibly know? Previous versions called it
>> JavaScript. If they choose to change what they call it, while the rest
>> of the world sticks with the same name, I am in the dark.[/color]
>
>Does it matter what Microsloth has chosen to call it? If you tick the[/color]

It kinda does, really. If they call it something that is not
JavaScript, how am I supposed to know it is JavaScript? You've asked a
bit of a silly question, don't you think? If all of a sudden everybody
started calling computers boxes how would you know what anybody was
talking about? And how would you find computer support if you're not
specifically looking for box support?
[color=blue]
>"Disable" choice, JavaScript will not be executed when the page loads. Do
>some research.[/color]

Why would I want that? I said I want JavaScript enabled.
[color=blue]
>Better yet, try the "Prompt" choice and see the IE dialogs every time a
>script is encountered.[/color]

And that's just annoying.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>> >> I have no interest in other browsers since I know FOR A FACT that the
>> >> majority of browsers hitting my site are IE4+, which is compatible
>> >> with IE6. The minority is Netscape (no other browsers hit my site).
>> >> The purpose of the page in question is to tell people using browsers
>> >> other than IE why the site looks wrong to them.
>> >
>> >If you design carefully, it won't look *wrong*, just maybe different. What
>> >is so wrong with "different? "[/color]
>>
>> If I design carefully - do you mean that I have to use one of those
>> browser identifiers every time I do something? If browser is IE, do
>> this, but if it's NS do that. Forget it. That makes the page twice as
>> big. "Different" ? Hardly. That's like saying, well one browser
>> displays H3 text as 500 pixels tall while another browser shows it as
>> 100 pixels tall. But don't worry, it doesn't look wrong, just
>> different. That's a poor argument.[/color]
>
>If your CSS states
>
>body { font-size: 100% }
>h3 { font-size: 130% }
>
>the heading will be displayed as the visitor wants it to be displayed.[/color]

Uh, yeah, well, I have no interest in how my visitor wants it
displayed. I want total control. If my visitors don't want to
relinquish the control, it's their problem, not mine.
[color=blue]
>And, as you want it to be displayed.[/color]

My example was an exaggerated, non-real-life situation. My point was
that because different browsers display different things differently,
it does not look as I intended, therefore it is wrong.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>> >Once the masses figure out that IE is not going to be updated until 2005,
>> >and then when they see the cost in new OS and hardware, they're gonna go
>> >get Netscape, or Mozilla, or Opera. Be prepared.[/color]
>>
>> I'm fully prepared for the sloth-like, easily contented masses to do
>> absolutely nothing. You can design your pages for future editions of
>> Netscape, Mozilla or Opera, but I'll stick with IE - as I expect
>> everyone else will, too.[/color]
>
>As I said earlier, when the easily contented masses discover they will
>have to spend $400US for an IE upgrade, they will soon try something else.[/color]

That's not at all what you said before. You mentioned nothing about
money. Call me a doubting thomas, but I really don't think MS is going
to go from giving away their browser to charging $400 for it. If that
happens, then I too will switch and everything will change THEN, but
not now.

[Jane Withnolastname]

Re: Re: Which version in LH for?

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 06:10:51 +0000 (UTC), Darin McGrew
<mcgrew@stanfor dalumni.org> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Jane Withnolastname <JaneWithnolast nameNOSPAM@yaho o.com> wrote:[color=green]
>> My site feeds a very tiny niche. If they don't wanna get a proper
>> browser and come back and see what it's all about, it's their loss,
>> not mine.[/color]
>
>But I thought you were designing your site for MSIE 6, rather than for
>proper browsers...[/color]

Semantics. Funny.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> But the text is there telling them that if they would just use
>> IE6, everything would be fine.[/color]
>
>Or maybe everything won't be fine: http://www.pivx.com/larholm/unpatched/[/color]

I don't run a malicious site. Get IE6, use it on my site, you are
safe.
[color=blue]
>Or maybe MSIE 6 isn't available on their platform.[/color]

Which platform would that be?
[color=blue]
>Or maybe they don't want to surf the Microsoft Narrow Web.[/color]

What you want and what you get are two different things. Life isn't
always fair.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Once they upgrade to IE6, they will see the site working perfectly as
>> intended.[/color]
>
>Or maybe not. Depending on how they've configured their version of MSIE 6.[/color]

Part of the page in question tells people *exactly* how to configure
their IE6.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> The fact that everyone wants to argue with me about MY personal choices
>> implemented on MY personal web site is frustrating - and I'm not even a
>> regular.[/color]
>
>Welcome to USENET. It's a discussion forum. People post messages, and other
>people discuss them.[/color]

Oh, is that how it works. Thanks for clarifying.

[Shawn K. Quinn]

Re: Re: Which version in LH for?

Jane Withnolastname wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 05:59:01 +0000 (UTC), Darin McGrew
> <mcgrew@stanfor dalumni.org> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>Designing separate versions for different browsers is a fool's errand.
>>You've seen that, and you're only paying attention to two of the hundreds
>>of browsers out there: http://webtips.dan.info/brand-x/[/color]
>
> That's my point - I have no intention of putting in any extra effort
> for more than one browser.[/color]

Right, so why not put in *less* effort to make a site for *all* browsers?
[color=blue][color=green]
>>It's also reality on the WWW. Different browsers will display your content
>>differently . Even MSIE lets its users ignore document fonts and colors.
>>Better browsers provide the user even more control.[/color]
>
> Yup. Which is why I tell people how to set their IE to get the most
> out of my pages.[/color]

You completely miss the concept of "World Wide Web" don't you? Hint: the
user has already decided how to set up his/her browser *before* visiting
your site.

I forget the URL off-hand, but there's an essay which should be locatable
using the search phrase "this site optimized for arguing with customers".

--
Shawn K. Quinn

[Jane Withnolastname]

Re: Which version in LH for?

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 06:17:42 GMT, Greg Schmidt <gregs@trawna.c om>
wrote:
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>>I have no interest in other browsers since I know FOR A FACT that the
>>>>majority of browsers hitting my site are IE4+, which is compatible
>>>>with IE6. The minority is Netscape (no other browsers hit my site).
>>>
>>>I'm sure a number of people here would be interested to know how you are
>>>aware of these facts.[/color]
>>
>>Well, for the number of people here who would be so interested, it's
>>called a user survey. I ask people what they use. I know it's not as
>>high tech as sneaking a JavaScript in and checking under the hood, but
>>it is more honest and, as you will no doubt understand, more
>>effective.[/color]
>
>This is what's known in statistical circles as a self-selecting sample.
>While they can be useful, they are notoriously unreliable for
>determining facts. I'm not sure whether this would be more or less
>accurate than looking at user agent strings in your logs. Then again,
>if the only fact you're interested in is knowing whether the "majority
>of browsers" are using IE, I think any of us could have told you the
>answer without resorting to a survey. Last I checked, lawsuits were
>still ongoing because of that very fact.[/color]

So what exactly is the problem then?
[color=blue][color=green]
>>My site feeds a very tiny niche. If they don't wanna get a proper
>>browser and come back and see what it's all about, it's their loss,
>>not mine.[/color]
>
>I checked the entire discussion, and as far as I can see you haven't
>posted a URL or a description of the site. Without knowing anything
>about the site, it is reasonable to think that it might be a corporate
>site of some sort, where someone is expecting to make money through it,
>either directly via e-commerce or indirectly by providing product
>information intended to drive sales. If this were the case, your
>attitude is clearly inappropriate. If this is not the case, your
>attitude is instead just somewhat worrisome.[/color]

Don't worry, be happy. I don't know why everybody is worried about
what I do with my site. A site, I might mention, that has been going
strong for the past seven years.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>aware that the set of bugs in IE4 is vastly different from the set of
>>>bugs in IE6, so that you may not even be getting the level of
>>>compatibilit y that you think you are?[/color]
>>
>>Uh, well, actually, I have no idea what you're talking about. That's
>>OK because at least I have the guts to say so.[/color]
>
>I mean that if you are looking at your page in IE6 and expecting it to
>look the same in IE4, you may be in for a big surprise if you do someday
>get to see it in IE4. Especially if it doesn't even render the same
>between Netscape 6 and 7.[/color]

I expect it to look the way I want in IE6. Maybe I'm naive to think it
will look more or less the same in IE4. I concede that point. But I
also really don't care. As I've mentioned before, it's for IE6.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>>The purpose of the page in question is to tell people using browsers
>>>>other than IE why the site looks wrong to them.
>>>
>>>I just want to make sure I understand. This particular page is only
>>>ever expected to be visited by people who are not using IE, so you have
>>>carefully designed it to look how you want in IE and you don't care how
>>>it looks in other browsers?[/color]
>>
>>Heh. That is how it sounds, isn't it? That's kinda funny. In fact, you
>>are absolutely correct. But let me put it this way: have you ever seen
>>a Flash page that tells you something like, "if you can't see the
>>wheel turning, you don't have Flash. go get it"? How is that any
>>different from what I am doing?[/color]
>
>It is different because the "you don't have Flash" page is not written
>in Flash. It is entirely usable by anyone who doesn't have Flash
>installed, or else it would be of no use at all.[/color]

Ah, well, you seem to have missed my point completely. My page tells
the user what browser to use and how to set it. It also includes a
screen cap of what they should be seeing. If they are using anything
other than IE6 with the settings as prescribed by me, they will see
that the page does not display as it should. Much like the Flash wheel
that doesn't turn if the user doesn't have the correct version of
Flash.
[color=blue][color=green]
>>I came here to ask a question. The question was answered. I was then
>>given some advice on how to make my page better through proper use of
>>CSS combined with HTML. I intend to take this advice. The fact that
>>everyone wants to argue with me about MY personal choices implemented
>>on MY personal web site is frustrating - and I'm not even a regular.
>>I appreciate the advice and will use it ... if only I could find some
>>time to do so, rather than continue to be hassled here!
>>I absolutely have an open mind and I have no intention of being a pain
>>in thy ass.[/color]
>
>I do see that you have taken some advice. At the same time, you seem
>single-minded in your determination to ignore and even annoy a small but
>significant (and quite likely growing) portion of the world's
>population. If this is the only site you will ever do, and you don't
>much care who visits it or what it will look like in whatever the
>predominant browsing environment is two years from now, then of course
>that's your call, but understand that the regulars here have a broader
>vision and will do their best to take off your blinders, no matter how
>comfortable they may be to you.[/color]

Why are people writing pages for two years from now? Don't you want
people to look at them today? When things change in two years, I'll
change. Right now, everybody who visits my site uses MSIE. I see no
reason to design for some other browser that never visits my site!

Here's a story: a few years ago I noticed there were a few users
checking my site from WebTV. I did a lot of research on that and began
redesigning the site to display properly in WebTV (because, hoo boy,
it looked absolutely horrid in that "browser"). At the same time, I
was trying to facilitate those people who were still using a display
resolution of 640x480, since the elements of the site got all moved
around on that res. WHAT A PAIN!
After many weeks of late nights and hair loss, I gave it up. Not
because I couldn't do it - I had half the site re-written and working.
I just didn't want to anymore.
Now all of a sudden, instead of two or three browsers, there are 500,
not to mention the different versions of the same product that don't
even comply with their own standards.
I've had enough. Excuse me if my vision is narrow, but I'm sticking
with IE6 and that's it.
[color=blue]
>The point others are trying to make, that you seem to be missing, is
>that if you do things properly then it will work just fine in any modern
>browser, including ones that have yet to be released. Moreover, doing
>things properly is actually (in most cases) easier than doing them so
>that they only work in IE (or any other single browser) and break
>everything else. And learning the proper ways to do things will stand
>you in good stead when you do your next site, if there ever is such a
>thing.
>
>If you provide a URL, I'm sure that you will get many concrete
>suggestions on how to fix your HTML structure and your CSS so that it
>looks just like you want in all modern browsers, and will at the same
>time be easier to maintain and update as time goes by.[/color]

You may be right. In fact, I'm almost certain you are right. But for
now at least, I will live in my hermit hole and stay with IE6.
When I'm absolutely finished and can do no more to my site, maybe then
I will be bored enough to want to fill all my waking hours by
completely redesigning it to incorporate all browsers. Until then, I
thank all for your advice and hope you don't all hate me *too* much :)

[Eric Jarvis]

Re: Re: Which version in LH for?

Jane Withnolastname wrote:[color=blue]
>
> That's my point - I have no intention of putting in any extra effort
> for more than one browser.
>[/color]

point made...and understood

you are designing to please your own ego and have no
interest in the site actually being useful on any
serious basis...I don't think there's much point reading
any more

--
eric

https://www.ericjarvis.co.uk

"Hey Lord don't ask me questions
There ain't no answer in me"

[Jane Withnolastname]

Re: Which version in LH for?

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 10:12:16 +0000, Isofarro
<spamblock@spam detector.co.uk> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Jane Withnolastname wrote:
>[color=green]
>> If they don't wanna get a proper
>> browser and come back and see what it's all about, it's their loss,
>> not mine.[/color]
>
>Please provide a link that documents what this "proper browser" is?[/color]

Apparently my choice of the phrase "proper browser" was poor one.
Excuse me. Please replace "a proper browser" in the above sentence
with "IE6". I do not mean to imply, infer or state that IE6 is a
proper browser or even the best browser or anything like that. It is
simply my browser of choice and it is what my site is designed for.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> The fact that
>> everyone wants to argue with me about MY personal choices implemented
>> on MY personal web site is frustrating[/color]
>
>Yet arguing with a visitor about HIS personal choice of browser isn't?[/color]

I wasn't arguing with anyone's choice of browser. I simply tell the
visitor what my site is designed for and if s/he wants to view it the
way it was intended, s/he should get IE6. I have no interest in
arguing about their personal choice of browser.

[Jane Withnolastname]

Re: Re: Which version in LH for?

On 10 Aug 2003 13:28:05 +0100, Chris Morris <c.i.morris@dur ham.ac.uk>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>Jane Withnolastname <JaneWithnolast nameNOSPAM@yaho o.com> writes:[color=green]
>> Once they upgrade to IE6[/color]
>
>Upgrade? Why would I consider switching to a browser almost three
>years *older* than my current one with half the features and twice the
>bugs an *upgrade*?[/color]

I knew I shouldn't have said "upgrade". But you'll also notice, I
didn't say "switch". Who's asking you to switch browsers? Just use IE6
to view my site. I could care less what you use the rest of the time.
And, if you're so concerned with writing for every browser, don't you
test your pages in IE6 anyway? So it's already on your computer. So
what's the problem? :)

[Isofarro]

Re: Which version in LH for?

Jane Withnolastname wrote:
[color=blue]
> Please replace "a proper browser" in the above sentence
> with "IE6".[/color]

Where do visitors download IE6 for Linux?




--
Iso.
FAQs: http://html-faq.com http://alt-html.org http://allmyfaqs.com/
Recommended Hosting: http://www.affordablehost.com/
Web Standards: http://www.webstandards.org/

[Jane Withnolastname]

Re: Which version in LH for?

On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 23:22:18 -0700, Joel Shepherd
<joelshep@ix.ne tcom.com> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> The point is, if your C++ generated compiler warnings on some
>> else's computer, you would be able to show them that it did not do
>> so when run through a proper program[/color]
>
>[boogle] Seriously, if the analogy didn't make sense, just say so and
>I'll try again.[/color]

Well, it made sense to me, but if my rebuttal is confusing you, you
could try again and I'll try and make my point again.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> From the sounds of it, a simple <p> element would have done the
>>> job, and would have demonstrated better appreciation for what the
>>> Web is about.[/color]
>>
>> That makes no sense at all.[/color]
>
>Doesn't it? This page's purpose, apparently, is to state that the rest
>of the site is valid markup, and therefore if the visitor is having a
>problem with the site, it may be a browser issue as opposed to faulty
>HTML. Are you honestly telling us that A) You cannot express that
>thought in something as simple as a <p> element, and B) You don't see
>the benefit to using simple markup over something as problematic as
>JS, particularly when it comes to such a simple bit of content?[/color]

The page contains a list. The list looked good with a header. The
header doesn't validate. I worked around it using ill-advised
JavaScript. A <P> would not have helped in the least.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> ... ah yes, but only to you ... not the folks visiting my site, who
>> have not seen this thread and actually think I know what I'm doing
>> :)[/color]
>
>The difference might be that I don't try to mislead people, let alone
>take pleasure doing so. If that's your purpose, then no surprise you
>don't care what a hatchet-job you make of it.[/color]

I don't mislead people at all on the site, though I admit that it can
certainly be fun to do so in reality. It's not my purpose and there is
no hatchet-job. Hatchets and keyboards don't work well together.