Posted by Mika on 11/24/07 18:25

"Bone Ur" <monstersquasher@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99F2567FC2910boneurhyphe@85.214.90.236...
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 24 Nov 2007 09:20:14
> GMT Mika scribed:
>
>> It is incredible how we ask:
>>
>> Q: IE cannot open Internet site ... Operation aborted
>> and get the response
>> A: You should be careful the shops on your site don't sue you
>>
>> Er...
>>
>> People! :-S
>
> It is incredible how we reply "Do this, do that," and you answer "Okay,
> I'll do this but I don't wanna do that because it screws up something else
> and the site _has_ been working successfully as-is for over a year..."
>
> Fishbowl or arrogance - which is it?

Logic. If the site works perfectly which it does right now on any decent
broadband computer it was designed for, why change something because someone
here tells us to, if it breaks the site.

Remember you guys are all a minority to the general public, who don't know
or care if the word Transitional or Strict is at the top of a page as long
as it looks and loads right.

They also don't mess around disabling JS, installing Ad Blockers, etc.
generally speaking.

Over the past year we had 5.5 million page views in IE. 0.5m in FF. This
is why we cater for IE mostly, but the site is FF compatible also. And not
one complaint from FF users that the doctype is not 100% valid as there are
12 minor inconsistencies in the code! Come on, the site works as designed.

The only issue we do agree with is the load times can be high, however not
by broadband, which as we say, the site is labelled as being designed for.

What exactly else is there to complain about? We have taken on some
valuable advice here and the site is now CSS W3C validated and a lot cleaner
thanks to the input here.

[Back to original message]