|
|||||||||||
PREVIOUS PAGE • SUBSCRIBE TO THE NEWSLETTER • CLIENT LOGIN Browsers: No shortage of standardsYou want standards? We got standards. Microsoft's got standards. Netscape's got standards. All God's browsers got standards. Unfortunately, they're not the same standards. And if the standards aren't, well, "standard", what good are they? Even more important: Does it matter? Those of us who tinker with Web sites know that Microsoft has some exciting browser extensions. "Really kewl!" in the vernacular of the 14-year-old site designers. Likewise, Netscape. But if you use a Netscape Navigator extension, you'll probably break Microsoft's Internet Explorer. And guess what happens if you use an Explorer extension! There are other browsers - Norway's Opera, the text-only Lynx browser, and Mozilla (the open-source Navigator). Combined, these and a few others command about a 2% market share. If you're designing a Web page, you may be able to ignore them, but you must be certain that your page works with Microsoft and Netscape browsers. But which Netscape and Microsoft browsers? Should you design for Explorer 5.01 (which handles Javascript reasonably well) or for Explorer 3.02 (which doesn't). Should you use "cascading style sheets" (more or less supported by Explorer 4 and Navigator 4, well-supported by Explorer 5)? And that brings us to my other question - Does it really matter? Not everyone upgrades immediately to the latest version of their favorite browser. If they did, my job would be easier. I track browsers used by visitors to my sites and about 2% of my visitors are still using a version 2 browser. I have no idea what my sites look like with a version 2 browser, but I can tell you this: They're ugly! Those who are using version 2 browsers think all Web sites are ugly. And there are the unfortunate folks who use an old AOL browser. Now that AOL owns Netscape, the browser the company provides its clients is at least functional. I know that visitors who have Internet Explorer version 4 or 5 will see my site as intended. Those who have Netscape Navigator version 4 will see most of it as intended. Netscape's main shortcoming is lackluster support for cascading style sheets. Maybe they'll get it right in version 5, due out before the end of the millennium. (End of millennium 12/31/2000.) My planThe ideal solution for clients with more money than brains would be to develop a site for Internet Explorer 2, Internet Explorer 3, and Navigator 2; another site for Explorer 4 and Navigator 3; yet another for Explorer 5; one for Navigator 4; and one for Lynx. Since it's possible for the index page (or any page) to ask the browser what it is, the site can direct specific browsers to specific files. But that's 5 versions of each site! This is feasible if your site consists of half a dozen pages, but I have some clients with 300 or more HTML files on their sites. Even if they'd be willing to pay me to develop 1500 pages instead of 300, I wouldn't do it because it would be so damn boring and because maintenance would be virtually impossible. So I use a "moving average" to decide which features to use. If 80% or more of the visitors to a site have browsers that can deal with a feature, I use it. Cascading style sheets are more or less supported by all current browsers, so I use CSS. Netscape 4 doesn't display some CSS features right, but CSS doesn't break the browser. In geek-speak, it "degrades gracefully" - meaning that when the browser encounters CSS coding, it simply ignores it and goes on. View a CSS site with MSIE 4 or 5 and you'll see what you're supposed to see. Use Netscape 4 or Opera 3 and you'll miss only a little. View it with an earlier version of either browser and you won't get exactly what I had in mind, but you won't be aware of a problem, either, because the CSS site will look like any other site on your browser. (To my way of thinking, that's pretty kewl!) With Opera 2, Lynx, or one of the other browsers you'll see a plain page. Stay away from the heavy armamentBoth Netscape and Microsoft make it possible to overlap graphics or to place text on top of a graphic. Great! I wish I could use it, but I can't. Microsoft uses a method that won't work at all with Netscape or even with earlier versions of Internet Explorer. Netscape uses a method that won't work at all with Explorer or with earlier versions of Navigator. So what good is this feature?I consider it particularly annoying that both Microsoft and Netscape were members of the committee that established "standards" for this technology. Both companies support some of the "standard" specifications, but both have added their own "features". The result is "kewl" features that nobody can use. Should we create multiple versions of sites, one for each version of each browser? Or should we use only the "lowest common denominator" functions? I'm more in the second camp, but I know that both techniques are flawed. Developing multiple versions of a site is frustrating because the developer must create the same page several times and test it with a variety of browsers. Creating a single page that will work acceptably with most browsers is just as frustrating because the developer has to avoid using the latest fun features. Is it too much to hope that Microsoft and Netscape will some day comply with international standards? I think it is, unless they're forced. Version 5 of Netscape's Navigator is reported to have much better support for CSS. Microsoft is working on version 6 of the Internet Explorer. I'm not sure that I have enough hair left on my head to deal with these developments. XHTML (THIS IS NOT A CLOTHING SIZE)XHTML is extended HTML. If it becomes the standard and if Netscape and Microsoft support the same "standard", site development will be a whole lot easier - but not immediately. Even if somebody decreed XHTML as the new standard today, anticipate at least a 1-year delay before XHTML-capable browsers to reach 50% market penetration. Until that happens, we'll still be forced to design for "browsers that suck". |
|
William Blinn Communications - All Rights Reserved |
|||
 |
|
|
|