Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > IE css problems only on win XP

Reply
Thread Tools

IE css problems only on win XP

 
 
Bob
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-29-2003
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 12:25:21 -0500, Whitecrest <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>The two are not mutually exclusive.


They even share a job
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Fredo Vincentis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-29-2003
"kchayka" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:3ff01ad3$0$43848$(E-Mail Removed). ..
> Fredo Vincentis wrote:
> >
> > some people have their browsers set to a different font-size without

even
> > knowing it. This may have nothing to do with visual impairdness, but

simply
> > a mis-setting in the browser.

>
> And how, pray-tell, do you distinguish between those who intentionally
> set this different font size and those who didn't? Or do you think the
> more clueful user will just have to figure out how to deal with your
> poor choices? I suspect the "back" button will be rather handy in these
> cases.


As I mentioned in the previous post: people with visual impairdness would
surely set their browsers to ignore font settings of websites (or they use
screenreaders).

> > Setting the font-sizes to fixed pts ensures
> > that the design looks the way it was planned.

>
> At the expense of usability and/or accessibility, no doubt, plus it
> frequently ends up as a fragile layout that easily falls apart. You
> must be new around here, or you would have already read the myriad of
> posts and reference sites regarding the ills of fixed designs, the web
> is not DTP, etc. If both you and your client are shooting for form over
> function, then your client probably isn't getting their money's worth.


Trust me, I know the discussions on accessibility well enough. I have also
studied the opinions on limitations of web design long enough to tell you
that there may be rules but also exceptions to the conception that web
design has to be flexible for different resolutions.

All I wanted in this post was to know whether somebody noticed a difference
between XP browser and others, but it seems you are much keener on starting
a discussion on accessibility/usability and web design which I am happy to
join you for a while:

In my opinion you have to be extremely narrow-minded to take it as a rule
that web design cannot be treated the same as DTP! Of course we are talking
about a different medium here and in the majority of cases I agree that a
flexible design is the appropriate solution. However, in the majority of
cases a flexible design breaks all the rules of graphic design! The
positioning of elements and content to eachother is not just a rough
estimation in which the designer says: "Ah well, I will just bash this image
on to the right of the text, no matter whether it is moved further over in
the course of the website on bigger browser windows". Unfortunately there is
more to a good design. The problem in the web is that a planned design can
be limitated by browser- or client-specific characteristics.

Many Web Developers see their job as an advisory role in which they tell the
graphic designers that everything they have learnt so far is not applicable
to the web and that they have to live with the fact that the design will
move in the long run. I myself am accustomed to telling this to designers.
However, this is not always the correct approach to follow. If a target
audience has been analysed and set to follow certain characteristics, the
design and development of a website can be set up to address these
characteristics.

Which leads us directly into a new discussion and I am sure all of you will
be happy that I address this topic:

SHOULD WEBSITES BE GLOBALLY ACCESSIBLE?
I say yes. This means the content can be read and the site can be navigated.

SHOULD WEBSITES BE GLOBALLY USABLE?
This is an interesting one. So we have established a target audience and we
have addressed their criteria in our website. We say: "Make the site fixed
to 800x600 and 11pt font". Now of course we have left out thousands of other
people that are not happy with the way the site looks, as they were not
planned as part of the target audience. "But the web is for everybody!",
some of you will cry now. "It may be accessible to all of the world, but it
is not usable (or at least it looks **** and it's not fun to interact with).
Shouldn't everybody in the world have the right to receive the same
user-experience?"

The answer is simple: no.

Imagine I would go and complain to TV advertising agencies about their
tampon-advertisements: "I don't feel that you are talking to me in this
advertisement. In fact: watching it bores me!". There is no user-experience
for me in watching TV ads or reading print ads that are not targetted at me.
There is a good reason for that: creating a target audience allows to
address exactly the people you need. And this makes money. MONEY, MONEY,
MONEY, MONEY, MONEY. Everybody else that doesn't bring us money: we are not
interested in whether you enjoy yourselves or not.

Okay, even after writing all this I am sure some of you will say this is bad
web development: everybody should have a good user-experience when visiting
a website. I tell those of you: you are bad marketers and your clients don't
get their money's worth. If you believe it or not: commercial clients are
not there to entertain the world. They are not there to ensure that
everybody likes their website. What they want is for the website to create
money.

Here goes. NOW we've got a discussion going.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Eric Bohlman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-31-2003
"Fredo Vincentis" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:bsqc7p$2h3k$(E-Mail Removed):

> Imagine I would go and complain to TV advertising agencies about their
> tampon-advertisements: "I don't feel that you are talking to me in
> this advertisement. In fact: watching it bores me!". There is no
> user-experience for me in watching TV ads or reading print ads that
> are not targetted at me. There is a good reason for that: creating a
> target audience allows to address exactly the people you need. And
> this makes money. MONEY, MONEY, MONEY, MONEY, MONEY. Everybody else
> that doesn't bring us money: we are not interested in whether you
> enjoy yourselves or not.


This is a false analogy, because when advertisers talk about a "target
audience" they mean something completely different from what old-school Web
designers talk about when they use that phrase. Advertisers do *not*
define their target audience in terms of their viewing equipment. No TV
advertiser defines his audience as people viewing on a particular brand of
TV set or people viewing on a screen of a given size.

The tampon advertiser defines his target audience as a certain subset of
post-pubescent, pre-menopausal females, *not* as people with 36" Sony
televisions. They realize that people who buy tampons are going to be
viewing their ads in all sorts of different situations, and that they
therefore *must* not try to "optimize" their ads for a particular viewing
situation. If one of the creative types at an ad agency came up with an
idea for a tampon ad that looked just wonderful on a 52" plasma screen but
that was unviewable on a 13" screen, it would be shot down right away.

They don't have to make their tampon ads appeal to *men*, but they *do*
have to make them appeal to the majority of women who see them, regardless
of what kind of equipment they're using.

Web dee-ziners, OTOH, define "target audience" in terms of the type of
computer, monitor, operating system, and Web browser brand and version
that people are using, rather than in terms of what they're interested in.
This is a totally different concept from what advertisers do, and using the
same term for it just leads to muddled thinking. It's a rather geeky
definition, and I don't mean "geeky" in any sort of good sense; I suspect
it comes from the "autistic traits" part of geekiness rather than the "high
intelligence" part.

It's just like the way business schools often teach something they call
"networking." That same term is also used by participants in pyramid-sales
schemes to describe their activities, but that does *not* mean that
business schools are teaching pyramid sales. In both cases, what's going
on is the logical fallacy of equivocation: taking a word or phrase that can
have multiple meanings, using it in two or more senses, and treating each
use of it as equivalent.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-31-2003
Quoth the raven named Eric Bohlman:

<much snippage>
> The tampon advertiser defines his target audience as a certain subset of
> post-pubescent, pre-menopausal females, *not* as people with 36" Sony
> televisions. ...


That's exactly what I was going to reply with yesterday, but didn't
bother. Do all those targeted females have perfect vision?

Thanks for the excellent post.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Fredo Vincentis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-31-2003
"Eric Bohlman" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Xns9461E792FCBA9ebohlmanomsdevcom@130.133.1.4 ...
> "Fredo Vincentis" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:bsqc7p$2h3k$(E-Mail Removed):
> Web dee-ziners, OTOH, define "target audience" in terms of the type of
> computer, monitor, operating system, and Web browser brand and version
> that people are using, rather than in terms of what they're interested in.


That is sad that you think that.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Applet to run on Win 98, Win ME, Win XP, Win Vista & Win 7 ?? Krist Java 6 05-06-2010 11:53 PM
loading problems in IE only - clipping only happens onload windandwaves HTML 1 04-10-2006 04:35 AM
Win 2k Pro can't see Win XP Home =?Utf-8?B?SmltIEM=?= Wireless Networking 1 03-15-2005 09:20 PM
WIN XPsp2 - WIN 98se wireless network file sharing impossible =?Utf-8?B?WW91dmVz?= Wireless Networking 1 01-18-2005 09:40 PM
Laptop Win XL and PC with Win 98se Wireless Connection sam Wireless Networking 0 07-29-2004 07:05 PM



Advertisments