Re: [NTO] 20 Things I Learned
- loro wrote:
> You need a very recent browser.In that case, it's NOT html5. Graceful degradition and full basic
functionality without support for added glitz and functionality are
essential and obligatory parts of correct HTML5. That site failed -
- At 22:59 2010-11-18, Axel Berger wrote:
>loro wrote:Glad you liked it. :-)
> > You need a very recent browser.
>In that case, it's NOT html5. Graceful degradition and full basic
>functionality without support for added glitz and functionality are
>essential and obligatory parts of correct HTML5. That site failed -
I can read and navigate the site perfectly fine in IE5 and so I can
in OffByOne that doesn't support anything except plain old HTML.
Graceful degradation isn't about making things look exactly the same
and work exactly the same way in every user agent, it's about making
it work and not leave the site unusable.
- loro wrote:
> it's about making it work and not leave the site unusable.Exactly. I now tried it in my full set of four browsers, though not the
new ones on the eXPerimental machine, I'd have to boot first.
Netscape 4.8 with NO CSS and NO graphics. Yes you're right, there is
some content and it is legible. But a fallback to barest HTML can be
Firefox 184.108.40.206 and IE 5.5: Totally illegible and nearly unusable. At
least half the content is written somewhere outside the window with no
scrolling provided. The reason seems to be that, of course, scripting is
off. Sorry but this is NO acceptable fallback, it's a sham and a
Opera 9.27. This is my browser for viewing things as the "designer"
wanted them to. No minimum font size, no minimal colour contrast,
nothing forbidden. Alright, now I see something somewhat akin to a
So I stand by my first statement, this page has no decent fallback and
needs all the bells and whistles just to provide the bare minimum of
functionality. It's a throwback to the browser wars of the early
nineties and the "designer" has learnt nothing whatsoever from that
Alright, so I am a Scrooge and a Luddite, but new for modernity's sake
is NOT better. Functionality rules.
- Axel Berger wrote:
>Firefox 220.127.116.11 and IE 5.5: Totally illegible and nearly unusable.Yeah, newer browsers are harder. The problem is that for a long time
IIRC Opera was the only browser that followed the CSS guidelines and
offered an easy way for the user the disable CSS. FF does that too
now. I don't remember when that option was added, but it must have
been later than 1.5. All the burden of graceful degradation isn't
supposed to be carried by the author. The amount of so called
"philters" needed to serve specific style rules to fairly new browser
would be humongous, if it would even be possible to to it. Not to
speak of keeping such a monster updated. It wasn't intended to be
this way, that we would be forced to use hacks.
>Alright, so I am a Scrooge and a Luddite, but new for modernity's sakeTell me, how do you go about supporting old browsers that only
>is NOT better. Functionality rules.
understand HTTP 1.0? Or maybe your altruism includes even HTTP 0.9? :-P
Anyway, I didn't post this as a reason to have yet another discussion
about this, it never goes anywhere. Just thought it was interesting
to get a peek of the future and wanted to share. Because believe me,
the future is coming either we like it or not. That the site also
happens to be informative doesn't hurt IMO, I learnt something.
Axel, you are a master in turning a topic to into what you want to
talk about and away from the original intention with the post. Next
time I won't bite. I'll try to better myself. Promise! ;-)