Results 1 to 24 of 24
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    135

    Designing for browsers

    I always design so that my site will look relatively the same with MSIE, NS, AOL and now (just got it) Opera. I mainly concentrate on the two newer versions of each. My question is, does anyone even consider NS4? (worst thing next to the titanic sinking).

    Because of NS4's unforgiving and difficult ways I basically don't bother with it. Does anyone still use it? Should I rethink my decisson or not worry about it?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Illinois, USA
    Posts
    7,147

    Re: Designing for browsers

    Originally posted by punaboy
    I always design so that my site will look relatively the same with MSIE, NS, AOL and now (just got it) Opera. I mainly concentrate on the two newer versions of each. My question is, does anyone even consider NS4? (worst thing next to the titanic sinking).

    Because of NS4's unforgiving and difficult ways I basically don't bother with it. Does anyone still use it? Should I rethink my decisson or not worry about it?
    I definitely don't....infact, I really don't take NS into much consideration anymore

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    1,802
    Design and Content wise, I do it for IE and Mozzila.

    When it comes to Netscape, I try my best but not worry about it too much, as log as the visitor can get the content, even if it is not the best way I intended it to display. (I.e. with my next site release, I will be using much more CSS, and Netscape does a poor job on that of few of the pages).

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    396
    we never deisng for NS4 anymore. we used to but we found out that like 0.3% of the internet uses it. Its hard to design for it now because its so old, there are new standards.

    YOU HAVE to design for the latest netscapes! (AKA MOZILLA) you are crazy if you dont! AOL will be putting Netscape into America Online SOOON.. Compuserve has it, the next AOL for OSX will have it. And soon AOL for windows. So now M$ has some compitition now.
    Last edited by modihost; 08-29-2002 at 01:55 AM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Illinois, USA
    Posts
    7,147
    Originally posted by modihost
    Are you NUTS?

    So now M$ has some compitition now.
    not really, NS has already ruined their reputation to a point where it may take 1 or two versions to fix AND M$'s slow development to get even slower.....but that's a whole different thread...

  6. #6
    Yeah, we noticed the same stats for NS4. Less than one percent of our visitors were using it, so we gave up on trying to design for it. I guess it is just wishful thinking, but I sure wish they would come up with a standard that all the browser creators would use (so everything rendered the same). Of course I am only dreaming 'cause I know that won't happen anytime soon! LOL.
    Joe Sliva | [email protected]
    Feature Packed PHP / MySQL Hosting
    iCANx Web Hosting
    http://www.icanx.com

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    396
    UUUUM

    www.w3.org



    Mozilla 1.0 actually renders as well as ie now! I always hated Netscape. But when I tried mozilla 1.0 I was hooked. I just didn’t like the way it rendered. It renders perfectly now.

    Actually mozilla follows the rule ALOT more then IE does. If you read the docs it says it’s fully html compliant. That’s why it doesn’t support the <layer> tags like IE because it’s not even in the html 4.0 specification.


    http://validator.w3.org/

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    Posts
    818
    IE and Mozilla

    w3 validator is a nazi, haha. If you can make a great site and have it pass, i give you props!!

    redhat.com did it!
    Nick Twaddell
    WebSpace Solutions - Custom E-Solutions
    Fast, Reliable, Affordable Web Hosting

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    396
    Not too hard if you hand code all of your stuff. That validates the html 4.01 specification; it gives you alot of power.

  10. #10
    if it works in NS4, good, if not, it's not a biggie for me. As long as it works in IE and Mozilla (although i've given up on checkboxes in my phpBB2)

    I also gave up on w3c. I just ran my latest site through it, and even with 4.01, it complained about tags which it claimed weren't open even though they were (it was a link tag)

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Longview, TX
    Posts
    35
    What about screensize settings. Does 800x600 still rule the internet.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    Posts
    818
    Originally posted by modihost
    Not too hard if you hand code all of your stuff. That validates the html 4.01 specification; it gives you alot of power.
    i have got most of mine down, the only thing that i havent been able to replace is html4 doesent support table backgrounds. grrrrrr
    Nick Twaddell
    WebSpace Solutions - Custom E-Solutions
    Fast, Reliable, Affordable Web Hosting

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    396
    what about all images having to have ALT tags? that drives me nuts. its so people using textual web browsers will know what they are.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Westbury, LI NY
    Posts
    1,705
    Originally posted by Trent
    What about screensize settings. Does 800x600 still rule the internet.
    CSS helps a great deal with that.

    Why target specific browers, why not target the spec itself, whether it be html, or hopefully xhtml? After all, isnt that what the browsers are aiming for?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    89
    If there were only one web browser, IE that is, it would make it easy for designers. . .
    Freelance designer, providing CHEAP and HIGH QUALITY designs.
    EMail: webmaster[at]phatronic.com
    Y! Messenger ID: phatronic - ICQ: 159396474
    Portfolio: http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=75511

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    396
    Originally posted by phatronic
    If there were only one web browser, IE that is, it would make it easy for designers. . .
    Another M$ zombie

    If only M$ would conform to the standards and STOP trying to make new standards everything would be ok, but they want to control everything having to do with technology.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    3,109
    If one is going to make a living from coding Web pages or just wants to do it right, then you don't code for Browsers -- you code to Standards. Browsers are supposed to conform to the Standards but the truth is, they all achieve different levels of compliancy.

    IE is the "worst" Browser to test HTML pages with. It's like a Mother that never says "NO" or gets angry with you. Crappy code, not a problem. IE will "hold your hand" and try to accomplish what it thinks you wanted. Being as IE is forced down everyone's throat, Manufacturers included, it may be the most used Browser, but it is far from being the best.

    Netscape was a "coder's Browser" because if your code was crappy or just incorrect, Netscape would let you know. Netscape was King and has now passed the Crown over to Mozilla. Even the new versions of Netscape are built upon the Mozilla code and it acts the way a Browser should. If your code is incorrect you will have problems. And so it should be.

    Mozilla is the same threat to IE as Linux is to Windows!

    As far as what version or type, of a Browser to code for, it all depends on your Visitors. Never go by stats from somewhere else because, really, who cares? All we should care about are the Visitors to "our" site and the Browser they use. You know, I've gotten Visitors using Netscape 2.x and even Windows 3.1.

    There was a time when I coded for everything and anything. This, I figured, would allow me to learn how to code for all Browsers. And so it did. Now after coding in XHTML for over a year, I've drawn the line and code only for Browsers v5.x and up and Accessibility -- which includes Lynx. It's time to fore-go the past and create sites that allow one to take advantage of the newer techniques. Next week I'll have my site re-design up and only one or two pages will use TABLE tags.

    When you learn what CSS1 and some of CSS2 allows a person to do, you get excited again about coding. For me it was more a matter of waiting till the majority of Browsers caught up with the Standards. Now that they have -- including Access ability which is important to some -- it's time to get on with the new and out with the old. The new pages will still be accessible by older Browsers, they just won't look as pretty.

    Don't go by what I say though. Check you Visitor logs and see what OSs/Browsers people use to visit your site. That will give you a good indication. The worst thing you can do is use all Flash, put background music on a site that has nothing to do with music and other things like that.

    Caveat Emptor:
    For personal sites, anything goes.
    For commercial sites, you better code for the majority.

    PotentProducts.com - for all your Hosting needs
    Helping people Host, Create and Maintain their Web Site
    ServerAdmin Services also available

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    135
    IE is the "worst" Browser to test HTML pages with. It's like a Mother that never says "NO" or gets angry with you. Crappy code, not a problem. IE will "hold your hand" and try to accomplish what it thinks you wanted. Being as IE is forced down everyone's throat, Manufacturers included, it may be the most used Browser, but it is far from being the best.

    Netscape was a "coder's Browser" because if your code was crappy or just incorrect, Netscape would let you know. Netscape was King and has now passed the Crown over to Mozilla. Even the new versions of Netscape are built upon the Mozilla code and it acts the way a Browser should. If your code is incorrect you will have problems. And so it should be.
    I agree with that 100% for design/coding. As for viewing and surfing may fav is IE.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,598
    What are the most recent browser statistics anyways? One of my sites, created 2 months ago, has received 600 unique visitors.

    That's not much, but out of those 600, 98% of them were MSIE users.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    3,109
    It's a funny thing, lots of people say their visitors mostly use IE so that's what they code for. Reminds me of build it and they come where most non-professional coders have no idea what their Web pages look like in other Browsers. IE is on their own computer, page looks fine, why shouldn't it look fine for everyone else?

    People may have visited with other types of Browsers, but for whatever reason, the Web pages didn't display/work properly so they left -- never to return. If a person wants to really open their Web site doors they will at least, test their pages in other Browsers.

    To me, there is a difference between "favourite" and "used to". Most are used to IE because it's forced upon them. Some are used to AOL because again, the Browser currently being used is forced upon them. My "favourite" Browser is Netscape 3.04! Man, there was no faster Browser at the time, always pointed out where my coding mistakes were, and I learned a lot about the interaction between Browsers and Windows.

    It took a bit of getting "used to" Mozilla and now that I have, Netscape (any version) is history. Times change and we must change with them. Trouble is, they change so fast sometimes in the Internet world, it's hard to keep up. That is why, unless one takes pride in their work, or likes to do a good job, maybe has some philanthropy in their blood, or even, just gets paid oodles of money, most will code for the Browser that is on their computer.

    BTW, Mozilla is a much nicer Browser than IE, but being new/different, does take a bit of getting used to. Break away from the Microsoft teat and learn what else is available. The "pop-up stopper" included with Mozilla makes it a prize for that alone.

    Then, when one wants to switch to Linux, at least you have a decent Browser you are familiar with. Microsoft is "very afraid" of Linux and with good reason. Not to get into (or start) a holy war, I'm pointing out alternatives that are better than what they were. I wonder how many remember working/coding in DOS -- because Windows was not here yet. Interesting how the GUI for Windows came to be, after Bill Gates was hired by Apple to work out some of their problems. Old news BTW, as that information is available on the Net, in books and movies.


    But I digress...

    Point is, code for Standards then learn Browser specific code. Once HTML is mastered, move on to CSS. Then learn some JS, a bit of XHTML and start coding in a way that makes you feel good. Browsers will always be behind the times, Standards wise, so learn what current versions can do.

    Would sure be a bitch, if all a person ever coded for was IE, got good enough at it that they apply for a job coding Web pages, and are then told: "We need someone who can code using the current Web Standards in HTML 4.01, CSS1, meets with 508 Accessibility Standards (which is the law now for USA Gov sites), works with all Major Browsers and degrades nicely with most non-aware CSS Browsers. Can you do that?"

    You can't please everyone so got to, please yourself.
    PotentProducts.com - for all your Hosting needs
    Helping people Host, Create and Maintain their Web Site
    ServerAdmin Services also available

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    ... in my mind ...
    Posts
    150

    some recent stats...

    SCREEN RESOLUTION USER PERCENTAGES:
    640 X 480 2%
    800 X600 26%
    1024 X 768 50%
    1280 X 1024 22%

    TOTAL NUMBER POLLED:
    5,445


    SIZE COMPUTER MONITOR USED:
    14" 6%
    15" 15%
    16-17" 52%
    18-20" 23%
    21" or larger 4%

    TOTAL NUMBER POLLED:
    5,445

    Mac Fonts PC Equivalents
    Helvetica Arial
    Times Times New Roman
    Courier Courier New
    Symbol Symbol
    Geneva MS Sans Serif
    New York MS Serif
    Chicago No equivalent
    Zapf Dingbats WingDings
    Palatino Book Antiqua
    =================================
    ...every site i design is tested at 800 x 600 and 1024 x 768 in ie and ns with a 17" monitor ...

    ...it's a nuisance, but it seems the majority will be served by those comparisons...

    ...one of my clients uses a mac with 1600 x 1024 on a 22" monitor... this was tough, because he insited I do things so he could view it perfectly on his screen, even though i know that others viewing the site will view the content differently than he would like to have them see it... also, copying and pasting from pdf files he sent didn't work out either... the mac fonts did not display properly in my pc ... an apostrophe became the number "1"... so I sent him the above pc - mac font comparison...
    Mothers of the world unite! Spank your sons and make them quit fighting...

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,991
    I design for standards.

    Heck, IE for Windows and IE for MacOS even render things differently. Atleast in past versions.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    3,109
    That's some good info from the-muse, and I wonder if you would be aware of any difference in how Verdana and Georgia display, between a Mac and a PC? Being as they are Fonts created specifically for Web pages. Also, is there a Mac equivilant for Trebuchet MS?
    PotentProducts.com - for all your Hosting needs
    Helping people Host, Create and Maintain their Web Site
    ServerAdmin Services also available

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    Posts
    818
    mozilla renders faaaaaaaast too.
    Nick Twaddell
    WebSpace Solutions - Custom E-Solutions
    Fast, Reliable, Affordable Web Hosting

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •