Viewing On Different Platforms Doesnt Work
Viewing On Different Platforms Doesnt WorkThere are numerous WebBrowsers and platforms out there, ranging from desktop (InternetExplorer or NetscapeNavigator, on Windows or Mac, for example) to embedded (my cable TV box has a web browser in it now). A conscientious website designer will attempt to ensure that their site renders attractively (or at least correctly) on those browsers that their expected audience will use. However, this is difficult, particularly if you don't have a captive audience (e.g., an intranet).
It would appear that the only way around the problem is to code to standards, and most web "designers" haven't got a clue about that - certainly they aren't helped by most of the web-page editors available from large software suppliers. The WorldWideWebConsortium (W3C) HTML 4.01 spec is pretty solid. All modern day browsers for the PC market (InternetExplorer 6, NetscapeNavigator 7, OperaBrowser 6, etc.) comply to varying degrees with W3C, and almost all of them understand and comply with CSS 1.0 as well. There is no excuse for a web site to lock out users of one browser or another just to favor those users who choose a particular browser.
The use of non-ECMA JavaScript is in a similar vein. Using extensions specific to a particular browser means that all users of other browsers will eventually end up with JavaScript errors. Sometimes, these errors occur after successful navigation through several previous pages/operations. Yahoo signup is a classic example. There is nothing like kaking in the middle of a long online operation to piss off a user.
If you don't pay enough attention to this, then ViewingOnDifferentPlatformsDoesntWork.
Original discussion:
This is what happens when someone building a site is extremely negligent and doesn't test how it looks when viewed with various combinations of browsers and operating systems.
Some take gentle exception to this concept. While the claim is valid, it makes it a bit hard for anyone to put up a website at all. A given developer won't have all possible platforms (in one case, only 4) and all possible browsers (only 5). Developers don't have the time to try all possible configurations on the 20 possible combinations, and so design their sites using only simple constructions that they're sure will work.
This is why you should code to standards, not to browsers. It is up to the browser implementors to ensure correct behavior. In a market like today's, where one browser dominates the desktop market (and therefore all other markets, for now), it is against the best interests of web designers etc. to work around issues/non-standards in InternetExplorer, since this just encourages MicroSoft to do what they want to the browser - and assume that other people will put in the effort needed to make it work. Unfortunately, many people do not see this. The short term gain of going with the 'features' of IE is dwarfed by the long term pain of having web content driven by a company with its own priorities. As in most things, many people operate in a shortsighted way, and so go for the short term gain.
Original contributors: RogerLipscombe
Whilst it would be nice to support all browsers you must determine whether it makes economic sense for you. There is are issues: added development cost; limitation of functionality; and huge testing cost. Bearing in mind that InternetExplorer 5 onwards represents 90% of the browser market.
Sadly, you can't test to standards, you can only test on browsers. Plus the standards allow for 'innovation', so the standards have doomed themselves to always being one step behind. I agree with the sentiment, however.
I agree that the standards allow a bit too much leeway, but that is politics: you don't have to play.
Actually, you can test to standards. Use a validation tool, such as the online validation tool at http://validator.w3.org/ .
Also there are sites like http://www.quirksmode.org/ which try to catalog the various browser differences and provide cross-browser code.
Purely an anecdote, and not even from my personal experience, but I read that one way for a startup to get notice (when Web companies could get funding easily) was to be able to say, yes this site runs on WebTv. This showed you were paying attention to the details. -- RobertField
Quoting: A conscientious website designer will [...]
What does this have to do with being conscientious? It's about communicating. I could write my thoughts in Latin or Esperanto, but I seldom do because the whole point of writing them is to communicate them to other people. Except in unusual circumstances, putting my thoughts into Latin or Esperanto would be a barrier to communication. (Although, at times, Latin or Esperanto has allowed me to communicate with someone that English didn't.)
Likewise, a web designer--in general--tries to ensure that the pages he designed aren't specific to a particular platform because he is interested in communicating, not erecting barriers to communication. (Note that this is a generalization, and so it fails when applied to some specific situations.)
There is a website that can take screenshots of your website in different browsers and OSes, and show you the images.
I use it mostly because I don't have access to Mac platform. -- MilanBabuskov
EditText of this page
(last edited November 5, 2007)
or FindPage with title or text search