Posted by dorayme on 07/22/07 21:34

In article <j2Ioi.1057$9A6.116@trnddc01>,
"El Kabong" <davelong40@verizon.net> wrote:

> "Ben C" <spamspam@spam.eggs> wrote in message
> news:slrnfa6c1j.l10.spamspam@bowser.marioworld...
> > On 2007-07-22, El Kabong <davelong40@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>
> >
> > 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"?
>
> Time is literally money when designing for payment and the key to staying
> within the tightly bid budget is "stay generic". Since most PC and Mac
> buyers use the machine as it came out of the box, they are my "primary" (not
> "only" just primary) target, they are the group for whom I design. Feedback
> comes to me from some trusted acquaintances and needed adjustments made but
> I just don't waste my time or my client's money trying to ensure that the
> freaks using the latest weirdware are happy.
>
> Thanks to all for the advice, but I'm back to my lurker's corner.
>

You started well with some good points about beta versions and
busy practical web designing. Then, of course, someone came in
with self justifying stats and you responded (not making clear it
was the Beta versions that were the focus) and of course, Ben
made valid points about designing costs that may or may not be
quite relevant to your actual practice.

--
dorayme

[Back to original message]