Ease I suppose. It comes with Windows so you know everyone has it. Most of the people are already familiar with it. And a lot of the security concerns can be mitigated.
Ease I suppose. It comes with Windows so you know everyone has it. Most of the people are already familiar with it. And a lot of the security concerns can be mitigated.
Aww boohoo. I think the IT security department should educate them in FF of Opera.
And I think you should grow up and realize that idealism must be tempered with reality. Training 200K+ employees to use a different browser and then the maintenance on those computers would be pretty costly.
And that'd only work for the intranet. For the internet I can't forbid IE. The 33 million people in the state would get upset if they can't access the state internet pages because the most popular browser was blocked.
I use Firefox at home, but have to use IE in work, or when I'm working remotely.
Why? Because because I cant remote desktop into my server unless it's using IE. Also, I cant use share point versioning properly without IE.
It comes down to a compromise between reality and desire - I could shutdown the remote web workspace facility and train everyone to use SSH, and I could can share point and use an open-source versioning system. Realistically this isn't going to happen because all of the other users would lose their functionality and have to retrain due to my beliefs - NOT GOING TO HAPPEN! The fact is that if it seems to work, is expected to work for the foreseeable future without suddenly dying and doesn't require specific training then it isn't likely to be changed. And no amount of "your doing it all wrong and you should do it as I say" posturing will matter.
CSS is actually quite rigid. But the most basic properties of the web, namely the diversity of devices (and thus sizes) make it impossible to go beyond a certain level of specification.Originally Posted by Thantos
Screen readers read the screen. Aural browsers read the HTML - but AFAIK there's not a single non-experimental aural browser out there.I'm not sure how much screen readers read the screen and how much they read the underlying HTML.
All the buzzt!
CornedBee
"There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
- Flon's Law
And CSS is IE's biggest weakness.
Elysia. You're arguing for arguments sake and have not contributed anything new to this discussion. You seem so determined to have this point of view that you're not listening to a word anyone is saying.
When you've worked in this arena, like many people here have, then you can argue all you like because you might actually have something valid to contribute. Until then...
...grow up. Closed-mindedness is not an asset and some people would like to discuss this issue minus the juvenile (see above) influence.Aww boohoo. I think the IT security department should educate them in FF of Opera.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if screen-readers were able to read tabular layouts... well, is it a good idea? and will it encourage this layout type? I have always treated this with a 'thou shalt not touch with thine 30-ft barge-pole' attitude even without the influence of my job. I see table-based layouts as being very messy in the markup and generally more difficult to hone than nested divs. If other people feel differently I'd like to hear their reasoning on the matter.
You know it really depends on the extent you take it. For example if you used one table that was one row with 4 cells in order to do a 4 column layout I don't see a problem with it. Especially if you are using a lot of floats in those columns as it becomes very nasty otherwise.
If you have 10 nested tables with rowspan and colspan all over the plan then I see a problem.
Yes, I'd agree with that. A single table which exists just inside the body tag. It should not be difficult to alter the way a screenreader interprets the page if the highest level element is known. Then, presumably each column would be interpreted as though it were a separate page. and be read top to bottom.
[OFF TOPIC]
|HHHHHHHHHHH;'[P78UBNM,.0L;56TTTTTTTT
That would be the mistress wanting attention (my cat). Got to go. [/OFF TOPIC]
It's not like there's someone here I need to convince, nor is there any need for anyone to convince me--I'm not designing web pages for someone.
And I'm not stupid enough to start an argument over it. I do believe the matter is discussed thoroughly and there's not much more to add.
Others may have something to contribute.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.webcredible.co.uk/
This is a website that is centred on accessibility standards. It's worth having a browse through the accessibility 'rules' which outline how pages should be designed. It can be restrictive and often leave you with a 'bells and whistles' site alongside an accessible version of it.
How I've built them before is to detect a, which browser they're using and b; if they have Javascript enabled and render the page with the appropriate layout based on that. If they have javascript... wonderful! They get all the posh, polished, client-side stuff. If not, they get a functional but less funky version. This causes fewer issues than having two separate web applications as there is no duplication of the code behind but it can make a fantastic mess of the markup which prompted me to write my own ASP.NET controls to replace the stock ones (this was before CSS-friendly adapters was released). Does anyone have any suggestions or thoughts on this sort of functionality split?
In case someone misunderstands, I yield. Obviously the world is a complex place. For commercial sites, there's no such thing as ignoring IE6/7. I've mentioned my piece why I don't like it and why I avoid it, which I can since I don't design webpages for others, but others do not have such an option.
I understand this and I am not implying that anyone should ignore IE. It's completely up to them.
There. Now, have a nice day
Last edited by Elysia; 11-27-2007 at 06:43 AM.
One thing that is hard for many people to do but is worthwhile (IMO) is to seperate out your data from the presentation of the data. Excluding the most trivial of pages, I write everything in PHP and make extensive use of template functions to do common elements. The body portion of the file contains only the markup needed to logically represent that data. So things like headers, paragraphs, tables (for tabular data only), links, and some other elements as needed. Hardly anything that defines the layout. I then use CSS to handle layout and JS to do any client side scripting. The upside to this is that I can restructure all the pages by editting only a few files. It also means that I can offer an "accessible" page without duplicating code.
I do believe that making sure your pages are usable if CSS and/or JS is disabled is important. I think everyone should turn off CSS and JS (as a test) and then look at their site to see how it functions. It might be fugly but the main thing is if the information is there.
I hadn't thought of that, but the main mass usually don't touch such options, they use it as is - with javascript enabled.
Oh I usually assume people have JS and CSS enabled. However, by doing that check I ensure that my base is functionally complete and that everything else just improves the page.
