Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > Browser validation

Reply
Thread Tools

Browser validation

 
 
Els
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-12-2006
dorayme wrote:

> In article <bnkfw8zy6pnw$.xhljjz2wkunp$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Els <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> dorayme wrote:
>>
>>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>> Els <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Of course not. But your clients just may expect their websites to
>>>> a) work in all currently used browsers (that includes oldies like IE5
>>>> as well as text browsers and screenreaders)
>>>> b) be accessible to everybody, including the blind and those without a
>>>> mouse.
>>>
>>> I would fall over backwards if my clients ever said anything as
>>> sophisticated as this. I mean it. It is just not on the radar for
>>> most people, I am talking intelligent people here too. I would
>>> not be surprised if most clients have to a be persuaded by their
>>> website makers to have such thoughts... especially if they were
>>> lucky enough to have one like you to educate them. Methinks the
>>> push for standards is not driven by the market (proof: look at
>>> the state of it!), but by the trail blazers at alt.html and the
>>> like.

>>
>> If that were true, I don't think I would get all those clients who
>> want accessible websites. Most of them have never heard of alt.html
>>
>>

>
> I have never heard anyone wanting a website actually talk about
> IE5 or the blind or the mouseless or the mouse-shys or PDA's or
> mobile phones without leading questions by me...


Me neither - they ask for "accessibility", and I recall one client
wanting the site to look good in IE5, cause that happened to be the
only browser they were using :\

> I have made
> websites for people in organizations who have IT depts that have
> written specifications recommending or requiring accessibility
> criteria, true, but these may as well be double-dutch - sorry Els
> - to the particular hirer.


I didn't say they *understand* accessibility
They have just heard the accessibility buzz word, and want me to build
it like that. It's just a starting point though, I still have to
explain about tiny fonts, skip links, and the rest of it.

> And from the look of almost every
> other page at these organizations, no one seems to take a lot of
> notice of these standards however generally competent and
> generally useful these "non-assessible" pages are.
>
> But I work for people who appreciate these standards, who can be
> led to see they are good things. Just my experience I guess... So
> I was thinking that when most people hire people to make a
> website, it would be very few indeed who talked the talk.


Yup - few understand what it is, but the word itself is spreading

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
accessible web design: http://locusoptimus.com/
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Toby Inkster
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-12-2006
GĂ©rard Talbot wrote:

> But the best conformant ones are (in descendant order):
>
> Firefox 2.0
> Opera 9.02
> Safari 2.0.4
> Icab 3.03


When you include DOM, perhaps. But for straight HTML+CSS make that:

Opera 9.02
Safari 2.0.4
Konqueror 3.5.2
Icab 3.03

Firefox doesn't pass the Acid2 test yet.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Joe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-13-2006
In article <452cc4e6$0$10150$(E-Mail Removed)>,
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) says...

> BTW I stopped testing in IE5 and 5.5. In FF and Opera I only apply the
> latest version)
>

ummm Some "web statistics" sites indicate that IE5.x (for Win) is used
by more people than Opera v9.x . Sobering thought, if true. And it just
may be so - there are still people using Windows98.

http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat_trends.htm
 
Reply With Quote
 
rfr
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-13-2006
It seems to me that the W3 specifications need to be alot clearer for the
browser designers to use. They are too loose and open to diferent
intepretations. And it would even be more helpful if there were examples of
exactly what was to be the rendered result for the browser software people
to validate their work. There is a browser test kit, I think it is done by
Eric Meyer who was part of the standards committee.

It would even be better if ONE master coding of this as done in pseudocode
or something like that and licensed to other browser firms. This would
result in much closer cross-browser results.

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Are there any W3C validated browsers?
>
> So if the code and style sheet validate at W3C
> the it will display as intended.
>
> It all seems arse about face, you need compliant
> browsers, or even a compliant, browser before
> you consider code validation.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Nico Schuyt
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-13-2006
Joe wrote:
> (E-Mail Removed) says...


>> BTW I stopped testing in IE5 and 5.5. In FF and Opera I only apply
>> the latest version)


> ummm Some "web statistics" sites indicate that IE5.x (for Win) is used
> by more people than Opera v9.x .


Opera only for the View->Small screen

--
Nico Schuyt
http://www.nicoschuyt.nl/


 
Reply With Quote
 
Spartanicus
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-13-2006
"Nico Schuyt" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>>> BTW I stopped testing in IE5 and 5.5. In FF and Opera I only apply
>>> the latest version)

>
>> ummm Some "web statistics" sites indicate that IE5.x (for Win) is used
>> by more people than Opera v9.x .

>
>Opera only for the View->Small screen


Testing a site with "Small Screen Rendering" mode using the desktop
version of Opera will only show you how it will look on a small screen
device that has a similar screen width and *if* it uses Opera as the
browser. It won't even come close to how it will look on a similar
device that *doesn't* use Opera as the browser. And Opera is also a
minority browser in the mobile segment.

The purpose of the SSR mode in the desktop version of Opera is
effectively an advertisement for how the proprietary Opera manipulation
of web pages can render web sites in a usable form despite the fact that
they have been designed for desktop usage.

It is delusional to think that if something displays fine using Opera's
SSR that it will do so on small screen devices in general.

--
Spartanicus
 
Reply With Quote
 
Nico Schuyt
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-13-2006
Spartanicus wrote:
> "Nico Schuyt" wrote:


>> Opera only for the View->Small screen


> [snip]
> It is delusional to think that if something displays fine using
> Opera's SSR that it will do so on small screen devices in general.


I will download the emulator from http://www.palmos.com/dev/tools/emulator/
Any other suggestions for testing?

--
Nico Schuyt
http://www.nicoschuyt.nl/


 
Reply With Quote
 
Toby Inkster
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-13-2006
rfr wrote:

> It seems to me that the W3 specifications need to be alot clearer for the
> browser designers to use. They are too loose and open to diferent
> intepretations.


That's often intentional.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

 
Reply With Quote
 
Spartanicus
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-13-2006
"Nico Schuyt" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>> It is delusional to think that if something displays fine using
>> Opera's SSR that it will do so on small screen devices in general.

>
>I will download the emulator from http://www.palmos.com/dev/tools/emulator/
>Any other suggestions for testing?


Test on the actual devices.

--
Spartanicus
 
Reply With Quote
 
Andy Dingley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-13-2006
rfr wrote:

> It seems to me that the W3 specifications need to be alot clearer for the
> browser designers to use. They are too loose and open to diferent
> intepretations.


If they'd done that, there would never have been "a web". We'd just
have an awful lot of separate AOLs, Compuserves and Blackbirds, none of
which interlinked usefully.

 
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
Displaying a Validation Error in a Validation Summary Control Lucas Tam ASP .Net 2 02-26-2004 07:49 PM
ASP.NET Web Forms Validation Controls are Server-Side or Client-Side Validation? Matt ASP .Net 14 01-30-2004 09:15 AM
Web form validation vs object validation Colin Basterfield ASP .Net 1 11-29-2003 12:10 AM
validation summary doesnt display when there's client-side validation Libs ASP .Net 0 06-25-2003 03:05 PM
Re: only custom validation control does server side validation? Colin Mackay ASP .Net 0 06-25-2003 07:54 AM



Advertisments