- To: slug-chat@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [chat] Generic web standards advice
- From: Grant Byers <grant@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 16:23:21 +1000
- User-agent: Mutt/188.8.131.52i
On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 12:55:16PM +1000, David wrote:
> First: excuse my top posting .. but I want to get to the point quickly,
> which you didn't!
> Nobody reads long winded diatribes. If you want them to take notice, make
> it brief. If you want to give more information, make the intro brief, and
> then add more as an addendum.
> Who is your intended audience? you didn't tell us. I will assume that it
> is webauthors/webmasters.
> Here is my suggestion, which I think is what you are trying to say.
> Use/Ignore as you like:
I do like your response. This is very similar to emails I have fired off
before in similar circumstances. However, I never seem to get any reply
and the websites never get fixed. I thought I may try a more long winded
approach and attempt to clearly define the problem. Obviously I have
failed dismally! ;-)
> Dear Webmaster/Author:
> Your site is broken for me because I don't use Explorer or Netscape. If
> you simply switch off browser detection, your site would work. In the past
> that may not have mattered, but now there are (x) widely used browsers,
> accounting for (x) percent of web users, and rapidly growing.
> I would love to be able to visit your site, and if you simply remove the
> browser detection, I will be able to. Until then, you are losing traffic.
> Common browsers that are compatible with your site, but you artificially
> block them for no good reason include Mozilla (Windows, Apple, Linux),
> Safari (Apple), Opera (Windows, Apple, Linux, Nokia), FireBird (Linux,
> Apple, Windows) and many others. They are better browsers than Netscape
> and Explorer in many ways.
> Many happy returns, and merry Xmas,
> PS: the following sites might be of interest:
> http://blah blah blah
> On Fri, 23 Jul 2004, Grant Byers wrote:
> > The following is something I quickly compiled in an attempt to inform
> > the intended audience of best practices when it comes to web
> > development and the dependancy on particular browsers.
> > Before I sent this email, I thought it may be wise to post it here for
> > comment/review/improvement before hand. A few suitable links would be
> > greatly appreciated. Links discussing the theoretical reasoning behind the
> > re-assembly of the internet explorer team may also be quite persuasive.
> > Cheers,
> > Grant
> > >> begin
> > I would like to inform you that your web developers are ignorant of best
> > practices web develooment. Whilst they do have great design skills, they
> > lack the knowledge to design web sites for your required audience. 12
> > Months ago, Microsoft and netscape/mozilla had 98% of the market share
> > when it came to web browsers. Today there is a shift towards alternate
> > web browsers. The result of this is that many web sites that are designed
> > INCORRECTLY to support only internet explorer and netscape/mozilla break
> > on other browsers. The reason I say that these sites are incorrectly
> > designed is because the browser detection methods used on these sites
> > are, in the IT world, obsolete and ancient. There are far better methods
> > requiring a lot less complexity to implement cross-browser
> > compatability. In fact, these methods are recommended as they adhere to
> > web standards and are forwards compatible. These days, browser detection
> > is frowned upon in the web development world. The truth is, web sites
> > should cater depending on the features a browser supports, not the
> > browser itself. For example, your website will work perfectly on at
> > least 3 other web browsers that I can immediately test with. However,
> > because your web site relies on browser detection, my browsers are
> > rejected and i am unable to view your site (without some very technical
> > tweaks).
> > You can view for yourself browser trends. Please note that whilst
> > some of these reports show none other than Internet explorer, netscape
> > and opera, there is indeed a significant shift in the browser market. It
> > is my own belief that these trends will shift significantly in the next
> > few years. Browsers that may be unheard of now may be the dominant
> > browsers of the future. Do know however, that these browsers I speak of
> > are not unknown, but are in fact already very popular and are rapidly
> > gaining world wide acceptance. It would be pure ignorance to ignore this
> > fact. Migrating currently "broken" web sites to an acceptable state is
> > quite trivial and should not be ignored. Accessability is an important
> > aspect of todays business.
> > This is a request for you to revise best practices to cater for a wider
> > audience. I believe the limited effort involved, of which I have
> > intimate knowledge, is quite worthy considering the extra audience your
> > website will successfully target.
> > [i]
> > *NOTE* these sites were found via a google search. W3C is a worldwide
> > recognised consortium dedicated to the specification of web standards.
> > There may be better resources available. These are, however, indicative
> > of the current browser trend.
> > http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
> > http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat.htm
> > http://www.doctor-html.com/agent_stats/
> > --
> > Kaufman's First Law of Party Physics:
> > Population density is inversely proportional to the square of the distance
> > from the keg.
Kaufman's First Law of Party Physics:
Population density is inversely proportional to the square of the distance
from the keg.