Re: wine and IE
Paul Johnson wrote:
>On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 09:27:22PM -0600, Gary Turner wrote:
>> It's not really a question of who sucks and who blows ;) Java Script,
>> Flash, frames, tables, and graphics are compliant technologies, so does
>> Lynx suck if it doesn't support them? Do you tell folks to eff off if
>> they choose to use Lynx?
>and Flash. The former could be improved in (e)l[iy]nks, though.
Actually, until you test, you are likely not to have a clue how Lynx
will render your frames or tables (especially as layout becomes more
complex). Unless the HTML writer makes the needed concessions to
text-only browsers, graphics rendering is worthless.
>> All web sites (except maybe 'look-at-me' sites) are meant to sell
>> something and/or provide information. It stands to reason that the web
>> site designer is charged with the responsibility of making sure that the
>> site can be viewed by the maximum number of people and does not break on
>> some browser(s).
>Isn't that why standards exist to begin with?
It is certainly a goal to shoot at. The reality is that most people use
browsers that are a couple (or more) releases behind. You cannot forget
that the overwhelming majority are users. By comparisons, Linux tends
to draw user/administrators.
>> Telling your (potential) customers they're not welcome on your site is
>> not an option.
>I never suggested it was. What I did state, though, is that folks run
>a reasonably recent version of whatever browser they prefer and file
>bug reports against non-compliant rendering. IMO, this is the Right
>Way to handle the problem.
By suggesting that the customer is at fault because he can't see your
site the way you intended it be seen, is to suggest they are not
welcome. Remember, the average visitor to a web site has no idea what a
bug report is.
What is more reasonable, the shopkeeper cater to the customer --- or
If someone tells you---
"I have a sense of humor, but that's not funny."