Sent by Shirley Kaiser on 1 February 2002 03:03
At 10:54 PM 1/31/2002, aardvark wrote:
> > 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...
Ugh. I'm not in favor of that stuff (to put it mildly). As I mentioned
previously, though, if someone has a personal site and is trying cutting
edge stuff, such as with Flash, then that's their prerogative (and I enjoy
many of them, too). However, I'm not too excited about the 2002 Olympics
site blocking countless users because they don't have JavaScript turned on
or frames (I ranted in a big way about that at my weblog recently)... the
Olympics site is a very different type of site that requires mass
accessibility.
>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...
Could be indeed. Some of the messages I've seen out there absolutely make
me cringe.
>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...
I do feel we need to stress that sites can be built using CSS that can
still work well and look pretty good 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/ )
Yes, these are good.
> > 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...
Which seems like it would alienate people rather than do any good.
>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...
I agree with you on this. Unfortunately there are still many designers out
there (and clients) who want their sites to look absolutely identical
regardless of the browser, and don't really get the nature of the Web as
you and I see it at least. (Well, once again, as I mentioned in my last
note, there are lots of opinions out there about these things.)
I also would love to see what you're doing with your personal site whenever
you're willing to share! :-)
Warmly,
Shirley
--
Shirley E. Kaiser, M.A., SKDesigns [EMAIL-REMOVED]
Web Site Design, Development http://www.skdesigns.com/
WebsiteTips: Design Resources http://www.websitetips.com/
Brainstorms and Raves http://www.brainstormsandraves.com/
