|
|
Posted by Chaddy2222 on 02/17/07 04:21
John Hosking wrote:
> robert maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t wrote:
> >>From: "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@centralva.net>
>
> [attributions screwed up again, good luck]
> >>
> >>>I use a text-only browser because it's the **only** browser
> >>>available to me. So fuck off with your stupid remarks about my
> >>>motivation for using a text-only browser.
> >>
> >>I think you have it ass-backwards. If your document is for the *public*
> >>(i.e., published to the Internet) then what *you* use for a browser is
> >>not important. What *is* important is what your visitors will be using!
> >
> > What *I* use for a browser is entirely crucial to the development
> > process. When I write come HTML, I have *no* way to see how it
> > might look in some *other* browser I don't have access to. All I
> > can see is how it looks in lynx, and what the validator says about
> > it. If it seems correct as I design it, and if lynx agrees by
> > presenting it the way I expected it to look, and if the validator
> > says it's "correct", that's the very best I can do from here. I can
> > only *hope* that it looks equally as-intended with other browsers.
> >
> > Now if I had access to somebody with another browser, who would
> > tell me on a regular basis how it looked there, but I don't.
>
> Robert, you sound like a home construction contractor who wants to build
> homes for a living, but doesn't own a power saw, just a thin little
> hacksaw which cuts just fine if you don't go too fast because if you do
> then the blade overheats and so nobody should complain because a saw is
> a saw and you've got yours.
>
> The house will take longer to build but you don't seem to mind, and if
> the walls are a little crooked here and there it's really the saw's
> fault, because after all it's only a little hacksaw.
>
> When you say, "I have no way to see how it might look in some other
> browser," you're following in the footsteps of so many folks who
> designed only for IE (or earlier, only for Netscape) because that's all
> they had. Such pages are a plague on the Web still today. And folks who
> code in that way (even for IE6, currently the most common browser out
> there) in 2007 don't get much sympathy. Coding for Lynx only won't get
> you many friends, or technical support.
>
> >>So if this is for the Internet then your visitors, (even those
> >>from 3rd-world countries) will using a CSS supporting, GUI based
> >>browser! Even if you only access the web in Lynx your can design
> >>and test your page local with <insert GUI browser of your choice>
> >>then upload it when your done.
> >
> > I don't have access to any machine which has a GUI browser and also
> > has a working modem that would allow me to upload anything. My laptop
> > has a very very old (1999) version of NetScape, but no working
> > modem. My Macintosh has a working modem, but no working GUI
> > browser.
>
> My recommendation is that you write the content and forget the
> publishing part. When your work is done, somebody else can mark it up or
> help you mark it up, and then publish it, or help you publish it *once*.
>
> By that time, there may be a different constellation of Web standards,
> available browsers, and equipment available to you.
>
> There is no good reason for anybody (including yourself) to expect that
> you can publish to the WWW (a largely graphical space based on data
> access enabled by the electronic transmission of said data) without a
> graphical browser and electronic transmission capability.
>
I could not agree more! I mean I can hardly see what's on my monitor,
and for a lot of web based stuff I read it with my ScreenReader (Text
too speach device), but I still use the graphical browser for testing
my websites.
> People can (and do) argue about specific lists all the time, but if you
> can't or won't test in *at least* IE6 and a version of Firefox, you
> shouldn't bother publishing. In any case, you have no place to whine
> about things like the spacing after a <pre> element.
>
Yeah, I could not agree more.
> I hesitate to mention the tool at http://www.browsershots.org/ because
> (1) while it can be very helpful it is not perfect and (2) it is still
> in an alpha release. You might not get along with it.
>
I reckon Browser Cam is better, http://www.browsercam.com they have a
free trial which I do use at times.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|