|
|
|
old browser versions...who cares? |
|---|
| message from A.H.O. on 20 Jul 2004 |
I keep hearing people say...Watch out, that technique doesnt work in older
versions of XXX browser. Or "it only works in newr versions of xxx browser".
But with the EASE of use that all of the browsers employ anymore and the
virtual one click update features etc, WHY WHY WHY do we need to worry about
someone who might use Netscape version 4 or older (as one example). I wouldnt
DREAM of using anything on my computer older than 1 version.
Are there reasons that people still have browsers that old? Do we really need
to worry about it? Seems like we should worry more about how the NEXT version
will read the code (is that proper terminology? lol).
Just wondering.
|
| Michael Fesser replied to A.H.O. on 20 Jul 2004 |
.oO(A.H.O.)
As long as the site doesn't fail completely in older versions this is
not really a problem. For example I use CSS3 selectors from time to
time, even if Mozilla is the only browser today that supports them.
Don't think all people think the same or are able to do the same things
like you. Don't even think they all run high-end computers. Ever tried
running a recent browser on an old 386/486? And there are millions of
old machines out there.
Yep, many. But it doesn't really matter, _why_ someone uses such old
stuff, it's enough to know _that_ it's still used. Personally I don't
build websites for browsers (only exception is to fix some major issues
or bugs with workarounds), but for people. I don't care what user agent
they prefer.
You should.
With NN4 it's pretty simple - write standards compliant stylesheets and
hide them from NN4 (@import-rule or media-attributes). Then - if you
like - you can provide a simple extra CSS/JSSS just for NN4. That's it.
Browsers are becoming more stable and more standards compliant with
every release (except for MS-IE *g*), so this is not really a problem.
Of course you should worry if you use broken code that relies on a
certain buggy browser behaviour instead of correct and valid code.
Micha
|
| Jonathan Stowe replied to A.H.O. on 20 Jul 2004 |
Yes, If you care about accessibility - and if you are in europe you will
be made to care about accessibility if you are a business - there are
people who use particular browsers because of some adaption to their
disability and can't upgrade to the browser de jour at a whim, for
example there are some blind computer users who use the text only
browser lynx because it enables them to have web pages read to them by
some additional software.
/J\
|
| darrel replied to A.H.O. on 20 Jul 2004 |
Because *you* are not the same as *everyone else*.
You need to design for your customer's target audience. While it's certainly
true that on desktop computers, there's less of the older browsers in uses,
there's also more alternative browser type applications...PDAs, Cell phones,
text browsers, screen readers, screen scrapers, RSS feeds, etc.
Ultimately, accessibility is the key issue, and an accessible site, when
done right, is independant of any browser.
Depends on your site's audience.
If you are coding to standards, you should have no worries about newer
browsers.
-Darrel
|
| darrel replied to darrel on 20 Jul 2004 |
Well, you could say that about anyone: "Everyone SHOULD be using a fully
functioning standards compliant browser."
But that argument doesn't work real well in the real world ;o)
Also note that some handicaps require completely alternative browsers. JAWS,
I believe (someone correct me if I am wrong), works best with IE, as JAWS is
tightly integrated with most popular Windows Office applications. So, if you
use JAWS, you're actually better off using the non-standards-compliant
browser.
-Darrel
|
| darrel replied to darrel on 20 Jul 2004 |
Excellent point and pretty much sums up the accessibilty debate quite
nicely!
-Darrel
|
| terry replied to darrel on 20 Jul 2004 |
We don't use the term handicapped unless we are talking about horse racing.
"People with disabilities" or a "person with a disability" may find the term
"handicapped" offensive. Much the same way that some dark skinned people
don't like being called something that rhymes with figures.
Terry
|
| darrel replied to terry on 20 Jul 2004 |
That's not really a legitimate comparison.
Regardless, it's important that people understand that accessibility isn't
just about making a web site accessible to their blind neighbor. It's about
making the site more accessible to *everyone*.
The best anology (which is often the case with web design) is in
architecture.
It doesn't take a lot of extra money (if any) to make a house more
accessible. It does take knowlege and careful planning.
The benefit is that once a house is accessible, it helps EVERYONE...not just
grandma and her wheelchair:
level entry (no stairs to get into house): means a wheelchair can get in the
house. It also means kids aren't playing on stairs and makes moving that
piano a lot easer.
lever door knobs: means someone with arthritis can open the door. It also
means a child can use the door easier as can anyone carrying an armload of
groceries.
The comparisons go on and on...
-Darrel
|
| terry replied to darrel on 21 Jul 2004 |
<snip>
It is where I am sitting. So what part of the world are you from Darrel?
I am not entirely sure who the rest of your post was aimed at but,
hopefully, it will be well read and digested.
One of the biggest problems that faces us is disability awareness, or lack
of it.
FYI, I am disabled and I have worked as a Disability Access Consultant. I
have helped with a number of Access Surveys in our local hospitals and
shopping centres. I am now,with my very limited skills, trying to help a
few non-profit organisations in the area bring their web sites up-to-date
with regard to accessibility.
Regards
Terry
|
| darrel replied to terry on 21 Jul 2004 |
The United States. Handicapped probably isn't a good word to use, but it was
never used in the same way that racial slurs against black people were.
Granted, there were much worse words to call Handicapped people as
well...and I see your point. And there's nothing wrong with discouraging the
term 'handicapped'
Everyone. Including the disabled. I find the biggest hurdle to getting web
folks to worry about accessibility issues is that people still mainly equate
'accessibility' with 'blind people'. They consider accessibility being a
niche-market issue and that it's rarely worth the extra effort to appease a
small segment of the target market.
The truth, however, is that worrying about accessibility makes your site
better for your ENTIRE market. And actually does not take as much effort as
people assume. The goal is to make accessibility a bottom-line economic
issue for clients. If you make your site accessible now, you will get
greater rewards down the road.
True.
Keep spreading the word!
|
| nekkochan replied to darrel on 21 Jul 2004 |
blind people do not buy mirrors
deaf people dont' buy headphones
paraplegics dont' buy ATV's
and parables can be found outside the Christian Bible.
|
| darrel replied to nekkochan on 21 Jul 2004 |
BTW, here's a real-world example of how that kind of short-sighted thinking
can lead to lost sales:
A few years ago, when Audible first came out, they only supported Windows.
As such, they decided that their web site shouldn't have to work with
Macintosh computers. There logic being, I guess, was that a person browsing
with a Macintosh would never have use for a Windows product.
This was incorrect/ignorant in two ways:
1) I use a PC all the time, just prefer to surf on my wireless Mac on the
couch
2) In this particular case, I was buying this as a gift for my father.
Well, since their site didn't even let me in using my Mac, I just forgot
about it. Went to Amazon and bought something else.
They lost a sale because their site was not fully accessible and because
they thought I was part of their market that had no interest in buying their
product.
-Darrel
|
| Murray *TMM* replied to nekkochan on 21 Jul 2004 |
However, not all blind people are blind, not all deaf people are deaf, and
not all paraplegics are incapable of performing tasks involving limb motion.
Your attitudes seem very narrow in their focus to me. But, that's just my
opinion.
|
| Michael Fesser replied to nekkochan on 21 Jul 2004 |
.oO(nekkochan)
Such generalizing comparisons are stupid and simply wrong. What makes
you think that people will buy products only for themselves?
Micha
PS: Last words of a blind: "I've seen that coming ..." SCNR
|
| Mick White replied to terry on 21 Jul 2004 |
Some of my best friends are "disabled"....
Some are deaf (hearing challenged?) and dumb (speaking challenged?),
some are crippled with arthritis (lubrication challenged?)
I appreciate your trying to put me straight Terry, but we still have
parking spots for the "handicapped" here in the US. The term is not
reviled here.
Mick
Much the same way that some dark skinned people
|
| Jonathan Stowe replied to darrel on 20 Jul 2004 |
No, they should be using a piece of software that best matches their
requirements - if you want to determine that "fully functional" as being
able to run client side scripts or display flash movies or java applets
then you will be losing potential customers if you have not taken steps
to ensure accessibility. After all Lynx *is* standards compliant
http://lynx.browser.org .
I would suggest perusing the content at http://www.w3c.org/WAI/
/J\
|
| SpiritoftheRadio replied to A.H.O. on 20 Jul 2004 |
I recently got my webmaster/ web software dev certification - during that year
when we made web site (or in some discusions).. the older browser
question/issue did come up. In fact one of our assignments was to make our
site NS 4.0 compliant or even earlier than that if I remember correctly. The
reason is that some schools etc can't afford newer computers or for whatever
reason don't upgrade . I do believe though- that everyone should be up to
speed and if you have an old browser - than you are missing out!
R
|
| turtle replied to A.H.O. on 20 Jul 2004 |
| WHY do we need to worry about someone who might use Netscape version
| 4 or older (as one example). I wouldnt DREAM of using anything on my
| computer older than 1 version.
|
| Are there reasons that people still have browsers that old? Do we
| really need to worry about it?
Here are some browser/OS/rez stats that you can chew over
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
|
| terry replied to A.H.O. on 20 Jul 2004 |
<snip>
Some people:
can't afford new hardware that software requires
are more comfortable with familiar software
don't know how to upgrade and don't like asking
realise that new does not necessarily mean better
Recent legislation also means that if your web site is part of a service
that you provide, then that site has to be accessible to all. This is so
people with older browsers can receive the same level of service as the
people that live in Utopia.
I hope this goes some way to answering your questions.
Regards
Terry
|
| middletree replied to terry on 20 Jul 2004 |
Say what? For one thing accessibility has to do with people with physical
limitations, not with older browsers. And the only legislation I am aware of
affects site which are involved with Certain govt agencies or funded by the
govt. Can you elaborate on the legislation of which you speak?
|
| terry replied to middletree on 20 Jul 2004 |
The Disability Discrimination Act 1995
and accessibility is not limited to people with physical limitations
|
| Murray *TMM* replied to terry on 20 Jul 2004 |
Whom do you know that has been prosecuted for violating this?
How many websites are there out there that violate it.
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================
"terry" <terryuse@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:cdjvap$nf$1@forums.macromedia.com...
|
| darrel replied to Murray *TMM* on 20 Jul 2004 |
In the US, no one. When it comes to 'electronic media' there are some pretty
big loopholes in the way of enforcing it.
Overseas, there have been some succesful cases in (I believe) Australia and
Britian.
Plenty
You probably shouldn't worry too much about the law. Worrying about
accessibility, though, is a good thing, and only leads to better sites.
-Darrel
|
| terry replied to Murray *TMM* on 21 Jul 2004 |
Sydney Olympics Committee
I believe the RNIB are in the process of taking legal action against a
number of businessess with sites that are not accessible.
Millions - all with an attitude like yours - ...worry about other things.
Worry that you never become disabled
Terry
|
| Murray *TMM* replied to terry on 21 Jul 2004 |
Check my personal site to see how much I worry about it.
http://www.great-web-sights.com
While I have not "Bobbied" it, I don't think it's unfriendly.
Sensible design/layout practices will always lead to accessible sites, I
think. But I'd love to know if I am correct.
|
| darrel replied to middletree on 20 Jul 2004 |
No, accessibility is about both. And more. It's about making your web site
accessible INDEPENDANT of physical, software, or hardware limitations as
best you can.
It depends on what country you are in. In the US, we only have to make sites
accessible if you are a government entity or receive contracts from
government entities. There's also a gigantic loophole that pretty much makes
it irrelevant. However, making things accessible is simply good for business
period, so hopefully people will catch on before we have more heavier handed
legislation.
-Darrel
|
| John Gaver replied to darrel on 20 Jul 2004 |
One thing to remember is your audience. For example, if your audience is
international, then you should keep in mind that many people in some of the
so-called, "third-world" countries, are still using some very old browsers.
I have some business associates who, until we virtually forced them to
upgrade, were still using W98 and a some real antique browsers. That can
happen in the US and other developed countries, too. But, you see it a lot
less in the developed world.
John Gaver
Action America
(forget everything to contact me direct)
Microsoft: (n) Job security for IT consultants.
|
| Mad Dog replied to A.H.O. on 19 Jul 2004 |
It's a simple question of doing what's right for your site's audience. Of
course people around here are techie and up to date on these things, but the
average person isn't. Not only do they not have any idea what browser
version they use, but you'd be surprised how many are using old machines
with Windows 95 or 98 and Netscape 4.78 or whatever. If you're sure your
audience is all up to date, don't support them. There are people around here
who work hard to support every browser. Others ignore old ones. Hell, 90% of
the PC market is Windows, should you support Mac versions? You have to make
a lot of decisions about your audience when you create web sites.....
MD
A.H.O. wrote:
|
|
