What do you think about this image?

[hmsnacker123]

hey everyone, I was just wondering what your thoughts were about this image:


http://www.gosquared.com/liquidicity/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/lq_how_to_pie_2.jpg

Whether it's true or not?

[Snookerman]

:D This is of course just a joke, mocking IE, but I guess we do spend a lot of time making the sites-cross browser compatible (not just because of IE, other browsers have their own problems), however, I think I spend a lot more time on designing the layout and actually writing the code (which is not even mentioned).

[allahverdi]

yeah it's a joke. Actually, i will need to agree with Snookerman. When i'm making a site (cross-browser), i just start with FireFox. After making it, usually there is just one problem: png transpearency. And it doesn't take too much time.
But pffff, when using javascript. Especially when trying with frameworks.

[Medyman]

We've dropped IE6 from our list of supported browsers. Clients wanting IE6 compatibility are charged extra. So, I happily say that the graphic doesn't represent my time breakdown. I don't find IE7 that troublesome. There are a few sticking points but as long as the code is valid, it doesn't take very long to iron out those issues.

Where is actually writing the code in that graphic?

[Twey]

Haha.

For me, on the average oh-gosh-I-want-a-blog website, it would be something like:
2319
(I design the user interface before even thinking about the backend; that way it's easy to create a user-friendly back-end by thinking about it in terms of the interface, rather than to design the interface around the backend).

[Snookerman]

We've dropped IE6 from our list of supported browsers. Clients wanting IE6 compatibility are charged extra.
I'm happy to hear that, but what does that really mean? Can we really stop caring about what our pages look in IE6? That would be awesome! If someone on this forum has problems with IE6, could we just tell them to not bother about it? How dead is IE6 really?

[magicyte]

How dead is IE6 really?

I still use it (that way I can make the CSS look good in IE6 FIRST). I use Firefox as a start-up browser for the websites that I make. But IE6 was a bad part on MS (even though they're as bad as they are ;)).

I guess it isn't really dead, considering that all of those programmers and designers go to all of that hard work to make websites look nice in IE (no matter the version).

-magicyte

[Twey]

(that way I can make the CSS look good in IE6 FIRST)That's probably not a very good idea. This way you'll end up with IE code mixed in with the standard code and possibly invalidating the stylesheet, whereas if you do it last you can write standard code first and then just override it in a separate IE-only stylesheet (using conditional comments) that other browsers (and the validator) will never see.

[Medyman]

I'm happy to hear that, but what does that really mean? Can we really stop caring about what our pages look in IE6? That would be awesome! If someone on this forum has problems with IE6, could we just tell them to not bother about it? How dead is IE6 really?

No, you can't and shouldn't. This was just a decision we made based on the kind of work we do, the limitations that IE6 puts on us and how much time we spend developing for IE6.

By dropping support, I don't mean that our pages aren't usable in IE6. We're all web developers and are in the habit of writing compliant code and use progressive enhancement techniques with backups for the usual javascript off, flash off, no transparency etc...

As we strictly state in our contract, we won't go to great lengths to make the design look perfect in IE6. So if some padding or margins are off, so be it. The content is accessible and that's the extent to which we care about IE6.

Really, if there is no incentive to switch to IE6, people won't. So, at some point some people are going to have to make a decision to stop supporting IE6 and thereby rendering it obsolete overtime. I'm optimistic that IE8's release will go to great lengths in reducing IE6's market share but it's only optimism. I also have no illusions that by us changing our support for a particular browser that it's going to make that big of a difference. But it has to start somewhere.

[jscheuer1]

I think that in the broadest terms it's absolutely appropriate to drop IE 4, and probably 5 (though you still get the occasional person that weeps when support for 5 breaks). It's actually relatively easy to support IE 5.5 and up, at least on the basis that Medyman states - not perfect but accessible.

[Twey]

Professionally I still support IE6 by default, although I'd be prepared to offer a discount to an employer who didn't require it. IE5 is obsolete and unsupported, and the effort required to make it work far outweighs the benefit. If the user really can't use anything but IE5, they should consider browsing the Web via sourcecode. :rolleyes:

[jscheuer1]

Accessibility in IE 5 really isn't that tough. That was (more or less) the question. The wisdom of surfing the internet with any version of IE is another matter. As I've stated before in several places in these forums, the latter is lunacy except in a few specific cases, none of which really qualify as 'surfing' in the sense of just bopping around from link to link following any that appear interesting. Though I suppose that with near crippling security in place, it should be OK, at least most of the time. ;)

[Twey]

Accessibility in IE 5 really isn't that tough.That depends. Basic accessibility, i.e. allowing the user to read the page, isn't — as I said, they could just read the source. :) However, visually speaking, certain designs and layouts simply cannot be realised in IE5, especially 5.0 and the Mac versions. IEs 6 and 7 also have this issue — they fail to support CSS properties vital to certain design methods, such as display: table-cell. However, enough people use them that it is usually worthwhile to downgrade the design (or implement it with <table>s) rather than lose that demographic.

[jscheuer1]

There are alternatives to that and other unsupported styles that do work though, without having to resort to tables. And really, the source code? For the average user that's no more accessible, even if they know how to view it, than an unknown foreign language. Accessibility in earlier browsers need not be pretty, just legible

[Twey]

There are alternatives to that and other unsupported styles that do work though, without having to resort to tables.No, not for every design.
And really, the source code? For the average user that's no more accessible, even if they know how to view it, than an unknown foreign language.If designed well, the source will be quite legible. They don't have to understand the HTML, they just have to be able to pick out the text and the URLs. I think anybody should be able to do that.

[jscheuer1]

No, I suppose not every single design, but you would be surprised. Even the best coded HTML completely devoid of inline style, attributes and javascript can still be quite inscrutable to the average user who never became familiar with reading HTML code at all. You say all they have to do is 'pick out', but even this simple task is, if not beyond the average user, troublesome and prone to misunderstanding.

[Nile]

Hahah, for me half of it is probably doing the CSS(I wish it could just make it self). Wouldn't that be neat? If whatever you thought of it would just code it automatically? I'd buy that whether it costed $10 or $100,000,000. Lol.

[Twey]

I think that something like:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<title>Title Goes Here</title>
</head>
<body>
<div class="something to do with style">
Content goes here, and <a href="http://www.example.com/another/page.html">this</a> is another page!
</div>
</body>
</html>... is very easy to pick out, especially with the syntax-highlighted source that modern browsers are providing.

[djr33]

I think anybody should be able to do that.Then you severely overestimate the average web-user's ability, Twey.

Perhaps they all SHOULD, but whether they can is a completely different issue-- most can't.

Additionally, if it's completely illegible onscreen for me, whatever browser I'm using, I'll just go to another site. I know how to read the source, and I won't, unless there's some really important reason for me to view the site.

[jscheuer1]

I agree with djr33's sentiments, and would like to add something that occurred to me at some other point today. Twey, you have a facility for language, so what seems simple to you may seem quite complex to others. Many users live in fear of doing anything other than using a program for its most basic purpose. For a browser, that would be surfing. For a word processing program, that would be typing. Anything more than that, they are afraid it will ruin either their work or their computer.

[Twey]

I'm fairly sure that is a hideous travesty against the information movement. :rolleyes:

We should teach them. I blame the schools.