|
|
Posted by Bruce Grubb on 04/26/06 23:01
In article <4b9vsbFuq4l8U1@individual.net>, kchayka <usenet@c-net.us>
wrote:
> Bruce Grubb wrote:
> > In article <4b7i5rF106pgqU1@individual.net>,
> > "Paul Watt" <paulioNOSPAM@wattio.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> Write for standards, hack for IE. best of both worlds
> >
> > It is better to write to the standards and KISS.
>
> If you're suggesting that we shouldn't bother trying to get IE to play
> nice, you must not be dealing with any kind of business venture.
Standard HTML and KISS should "get IE to play nice". The less complexity
you have the less that can go wrong.
> Ignoring IE is fine for a personal site, but that's not really an option
> for anything else.
>
> While KISS may be highly desirable, it's a competitive world out there.
> Simple doesn't always cut it.
Simple is a relative term. Take a look at <http://www.w3.org/> which
validates as XHTML 1.0 Strict - three columns of varying width and height
with several different colors. <http://webpagesthatsuck.com/> is another
XHTML 1.0 Strict compliant site that is fairly complex. But note niether
usea drop down menu or other needless eye candy that really doesn't add to
the '20 second window' but does add to the complexity.
Sadly too many web designers see 'competitive world' as a excuse to throw
the latest eye candy up on a web site. This results in the HTML Hell Page
<http://catb.org/~esr/html-hell.html> and/or yet another Web page that
sucks <http://webpagesthatsuck.com/>
Of course if you have somebody producing YAWPTS following the standard is
not going to help any. But I have found odds are if the site is SNAFUed
visually then its HTML is bad as well. Which give somebody who want to fix
the thing a great tool to take the site out if its and everybody's misery.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|