-
I hope I haven't lost your attention yet because I think that there are other things to consider. Being a perfectionist isn't all that it's cracked up to be, and we (I'm somewhat of one myself) can sometimes be too easily swayed by what may seem like problems and solutions.
You say your goal is to be cross browser. What does this mean? No complex page will work down version in all browsers, there are simply too many incompatibilities in the way browsers work over their histories. The good news is that virtually all current browsers adhere closely enough to the standards that most things written with those in mind look at least OK in all of them. That's being cross browser.
The web is not a magazine or a TV. You cannot expect your content to play exactly as printed/taped. There have been several (probably more) techniques invented over the years to try to get that effect. They all fail because in their rigidity, they let some user agents fall through the cracks. They don't account for the old, they don't account for the new, they don't account for people without the plug in, or they don't account for the capabilities of a given system, aside from the browser and plug ins in use on it. Or they account for none of these things.
Now what you are doing is high end. However you choose to do it will leave out some low end users. So the trick would be to find a way to do it that reaches the most user agents in an flawless manner, second most in an acceptable manner while degrading gracefully in as many others as possible. Without extensive statistics on your site's usage, that is impossible to know with any certainty. It can generally be assumed that what you have already is very close though. If you go to Flash, it will solve the issue for some while creating problems for others.
Flash may still be the way to go for you, but it will leave out all dial up users, many with slower DSL connections, and those without the plug in unwilling or unable to install it.
You should take some gauge of your audience and of your target audience. If they are all upscale with high end machines, Flash is a pretty good avenue. But so it what you are already doing, and that present method will be accessible to more down end users than will Flash.
-
food 4 thought
yeah there is food for thought - but r there still so many people dialing up for connection? and r these my target-vieuwers - but a site should work on any browser with as less posible differences in appearance - i know about the differences in type and colour in the different browsers and platforms so thats already a thorn in the eye ;).
Still what can one do else than use strict codes of the W3 organisation? xmtl with css, mayb supported by javascripts, php and asp for codes and the expertise of good people like u. It would b great if there is a way to avoid plug-ins and other extensions 4 browsers to b down-loaded b4 vieuwing the content of a site, frankly speaking i myself loose intrest when hitting one of these sites. That brings me back to the issue how 2 solve this strange effect of freezing images. Ive noticed that when hitting the links the slideshows work all fine. Nice puzzle ha.
-
I can say from knowledge of the subject, that in the case of Opera, it was actually designed to favor speed over (among other things) the rendering of complex scripts on page reloading from the back button. Folks who choose it for that reason sooner or later become aware of the issue and refresh as needed/desired. Other Opera users may be mystified, and a bit disappointed at this behavior. Opera is evolving and now does many things it did not once do, in effect gradually mainstreaming itself while still trying to maintain optimal speed. It's doing a pretty good job of this, so this back button issue may be 'fixed' (rather changed, actually) in it at some point.
As for other problem browsers, they may simply be outdated, or there could be other reasons I'm not aware of.
If what you are doing isn't essential to the content of the page, this hardly matters much. Scripts (and all other non text only content) should be used in full knowledge of their limitations, which are several. In all cases, a page can be made to render acceptably as text only if no other technique can be made to work properly in a given user agent. It is a matter of opinion if this should always be the goal. It clearly will not leave behind an overwhelmingly number of users if it is not, but that's not always the point, and sometimes those users are actually the target audience. One really needs to judge for oneself what to do. Some scripts lend themselves more easily to degrading if unsupported, but one can always devise a way to avoid problems from them in user agents that don't support javascript. It is in the area of partial support where things get tricky and either some compromises must be made there, or one must do extensive testing and usually modification to be assured 'all is well' in that area (the goal there being to either do the script as intended, or to have the user agent skip it). That is generally considered too extreme for most developers, and can require either a complete redesign, or the use of 'browser sniffing', which must be monitored on an ongoing basis to make sure that it isn't failing to perform as desired as newer user agents are released.
I find it most helpful to realize that the web is a fully protean medium and that one basically just has to take one's 'best shot', and be wiling to update as needed. In fact, it is generally best to overhaul a site periodically for a 'new look' anyway.
-
Getting back to the original question, I found this in another thread:
PHP Code:
<?php
session_start();
$_SESSION = array();
session_destroy();
?>
This supposedly will force the browser not to cache the page. If so, it may be a solution. I imagine it must go near the top, if not the exact top of the page. If it is at the exact top though, before the DOCTYPE, it may interfere with DOCTYPing in IE.
I've little knowledge of this technique, it may also mess up something else with your set up, like if there is any other stuff that depends upon the session remaining intact. But it also looks like it may be creating and destroying a session, perhaps leaving others intact.
If you want more information on it, Google or post in the PHP forum.
