|
|
Posted by Ben C on 07/22/07 10:24
On 2007-07-22, El Kabong <davelong40@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> "Neredbojias" <monstersquasher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9974AD1D14682nanopandaneredbojias@198.186.190.161...
>> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 21 Jul 2007 19:35:22
>> GMT nice.guy.nige scribed:
>>
>>> While the city slept, El Kabong (davelong40@verizon.net) feverishly
>>> typed...
>>>> In fact, why waste time designing for browsers that stats show
>>>> are used by less than 5% of Web visitors?
[...]
> No, when my client is looking at doubled or tripled costs for his site's
> design
How do you work that out? How can it possibly cost less to "design" for
all the bugs and unspecified behaviour in IE than to start with a
(relatively) stable platform like Firefox or Safari for which you have
available such powerful tools as specifications and logic?
> in order to appeal to a handful of nerds who are more interested in
> research (or just being weird) than actually shopping, he'll usually
> opt to ignore those visitors using the geekware. It just boils down to
> a combination of diminished return on investment and good business
> sense.
No, it's very poor business sense to work with bad tools and in a stupid
way because you can't see past the immediate goal.
Even once you have managed to concoct a tag soup that works on some
version of IE, what reason is there to believe it will continue to work
on even the next minor revision? How difficult will it be to fix if it's
a mess thrown together to target a particular browser by people who
think that reading specs and understanding things is only for "nerds
doing research"?
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|