Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [NTO] 20 Things I Learned

Expand Messages
  • Axel Berger
    ... In that case, it s NOT html5. Graceful degradition and full basic functionality without support for added glitz and functionality are essential and
    Message 1 of 6 , Nov 18, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      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 -
      dismally.

      Axel
    • loro
      ... Glad you liked it. :-) 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.
      Message 2 of 6 , Nov 18, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        At 22:59 2010-11-18, Axel Berger wrote:
        >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 -
        >dismally.

        Glad you liked it. :-)

        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.

        Lotta
      • Axel Berger
        ... 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
        Message 3 of 6 , Nov 18, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          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
          much better.

          Firefox 1.5.0.12 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
          disgrace.

          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
          legible layout.

          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
          debacle.

          Alright, so I am a Scrooge and a Luddite, but new for modernity's sake
          is NOT better. Functionality rules.

          Axel
        • loro
          ... 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
          Message 4 of 6 , Nov 20, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            Axel Berger wrote:
            >Firefox 1.5.0.12 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 sake
            >is NOT better. Functionality rules.

            Tell me, how do you go about supporting old browsers that only
            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! ;-)

            Lotta
          • Axel Berger
            ... Point taken.
            Message 5 of 6 , Nov 20, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              loro wrote:
              > 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.

              Point taken.
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.