Sent by aardvark on 1 February 2002 01:01
> From: Lee Hinde [EMAIL-REMOVED]>
>
> So, what do you think of the frequently seen:
>
> > This site's design will look best in a graphical browser that
> > supports style sheets. We recommend you download the latest version
> > of ....
[...]
I see the long history of "Best viewed in Netscape 3.0" or "Resize your
browser to this width" or "This page uses frames, but your browser
doesn't support them." or "You must download Flash 5.0 in order to
view this site" etc...
IOW, given all the anti-user history of people trying to control how
people see their site, the examples you cite always sounds like it's just
more of that...
this is part of the reason i didn't much go for the WaSP's upgrade
campaign... i like the idea, but i think they should have been pushing the
other way... that and the fact that you can use CSS *and* still make it
look pretty damn close in older browsers...
(two articles you might find interesting related to this topic:
To Hell With Bad Editors
http://evolt.org/article/css-d/25/6096/
Inside the evolt.org Rebuild: The HTML and CSS
http://evolt.org/article/css-d/20/5816/ )
> Ok, put another way, if you depreciate (is that the right word?)
> gracefully, do you see a need to let your users know that what they're
> seeing isn't the best you have to offer?
if your site degrades gracefully (deprecate on the web means tags that are
being phased out), then no, there's really no good reason, unless either
you're a design nazi, or you want to force a new browser down some poor
sod's throat...
frankly, i'm rebuilding my personal site as a CSS layout just to test some
ideas i have... if not everyone sees it *exactly* as i intended, that's fine...
it's the web... the user will always have more control over your page than
you think, so you might as well accept it...
