By far the worst

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by ParraCida
You asked can one find out ahead in time if a page will work or not, not if you can find out if a page will work yes or no. There is a difference between loading a page and then finding out it won't work, and checking in advance if a page won't work. So, you simply cannot find out if a page will work yes or no in advance, yes you can run browser version tests but not all browsers tend to send the correct version information. This information from the test then has to be communicated to the user and they have to be given a choice (since otherwise people would be upset they would be redirected to lesser versions of the page without having a say in it), this would require extra pages before the original page doing so, so just like the rest of the internet we choose not to do so.

See, it isn't that hard indeed, but if you keep changing your point then it's going to take a lot more posts before this is settled.

I haven't changed my point, you just keep missing it. I'll state it again--verbatim--for you:

"Suppose I'm a potential customer. Suppose further that I'm running version X of browser Y[*]. Can I find out ahead of time if PA/Portal will (or is supposed) to work with my browser or not?

*Feel free to restrict Y to the set of (IE | Netscape) if necessary."

Note, in particular, the part in parentheses. Solving the "will it work" is, indeed, a difficult problem. Solving the "is it supposed to work" isn't. You just need to say what minimum levels of which browsers are required (and, again, feel free to restrict it to a small set of browsers if necessary).

Originally posted by Obliterate
This whole argument about what browsers are supported or not could be solved by a simple "Best viewed in IE 5.5+" or something along those lines at the bottom of the page.

That way, if you're using an ancient browser you have no grounds to complain that the page isn't rendering properly.

You, sir, are a genius!

[Leshy]

Originally posted by Obliterate
This whole argument about what browsers are supported or not could be solved by a simple "Best viewed in IE 5.5+" or something along those lines at the bottom of the page.

Messages on sites claiming 'Best viewed in IE 4+' are web talk for "This site uses crappy code and only Internet Explorer accidentally renders it somewhat as intended." Any decently coded page follows W3C-standards and can be viewed correctly in any browser, provided that that browser adheres to the W3C standards. If it doesn't, then it doesn't deserve to be called an Internet browser.

The portal code is not an issue, it conforms to the current web standards, and renders correctly in all major browsers that over 95% of people will be using to access it - there is absolutely no need to have a website indicate what version of browsers it was designed to work with.

People on old browsers will be having compatibility issues with a large portion of the Internet, and there is little to no excuse for not upgrading your browser, save freak situations where you are forced to work on an obsolete system for which no recent browser exists, or having an incompetent sysadmin who refuses to acknowledge that Netscape 4.7 was replaced by Netscape 5 and 6 for a reason.

[ParraCida]

Originally posted by Tactitus
I haven't changed my point, you just keep missing it. I'll state it again--verbatim--for you:

"Suppose I'm a potential customer. Suppose further that I'm running version X of browser Y[*]. Can I find out ahead of time if PA/Portal will (or is supposed) to work with my browser or not?

*Feel free to restrict Y to the set of (IE | Netscape) if necessary."

Note, in particular, the part in parentheses. Solving the "will it work" is, indeed, a difficult problem. Solving the "is it supposed to work" isn't. You just need to say what minimum levels of which browsers are required (and, again, feel free to restrict it to a small set of browsers if necessary).

Originally posted by ParraCida
Can you find out from any page on the internet if it will work on your browser? The only way to do that is to put in a page in front of the original page you were trying to visit analyzing your browser and telling you wether you can or cannot view the following page correctly. For the same reasons as the rest of the internet, the portal team choose not to do so. So I guess the answer to your point and/or question is as such:

                                     'No'
---------------------------------------------------------------------

See, I drew a pretty line for you

I thought that answer was pretty clear, with the 'no' part and all.

Then you replied that many pages indicate that it is best viewed in a certain config, however that usually requires you loading the page, hence not finding out in advance like you wanted. I also talked about pages in front of the actual portal that check your config, and also explained why that option was not taken.

So your point went from 'knowing ahead' to 'putting it on the page'. Knowing ahead is not an option, putting it on the page is, however that will always result in the page already being displayed incorrectly, therefore the 'damage' already being done. People who can't display the portal correctly will have the same problem with most of the pages on the rest of the internet, so I'm sure they already know that it will work better with a modern browser.

I find it interesting btw that this discussion now boils down to 'I am upset there is no line on the portal that says it is best viewed in a modern browser and that if I use an old configuration it won't display as it should'.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by ParraCida
I thought that answer was pretty clear, with the 'no' part and all.

Then you replied that many pages indicate that it is best viewed in a certain config, however that usually requires you loading the page, hence not finding out in advance like you wanted. I also talked about pages in front of the actual portal that check your config, and also explained why that option was not taken.

So your point went from 'knowing ahead' to 'putting it on the page'. Knowing ahead is not an option, putting it on the page is, however that will always result in the page already being displayed incorrectly, therefore the 'damage' already being done. People who can't display the portal correctly will have the same problem with most of the pages on the rest of the internet, so I'm sure they already know that it will work better with a modern browser.

Pages not being displayed properly isn't often an all-or-nothing affair. For example, when I view the current portal with Netscape 4.7 the top row of buttons is messed up, but the rest of page appears to be ok. If there were something on the page that said 'Requires Netscape 6 or later' then a Netscape 4.7 user might well be able to see that too, and it would be useful information.

Knowing ahead of time, however, would be preferable. Putting the browser requirements on a minimalist page that loads before the portal would be a good idea--you could skip that page after the first visit. I realize most sites don't do that, but the sites that depend on browser traffic (especially the commercial ones) seem to do a better job of supporting older browsers (in my experience).

And as as I said above, most of my problems with 4.7 were with planetarion.com and my bank. The vast majority of other sites I visited (CNN, Amazon, etc) worked just fine. I suspect you don't want to believe that, but it's true.

I find it interesting btw that this discussion now boils down to 'I am upset there is no line on the portal that says it is best viewed in a modern browser and that if I use an old configuration it won't display as it should'.

I find it odd that a browser-based game can't/won't tell prospective customers which browser(s) they need to play it. I think it would be a good idea to tell your customers what browser they need, up front; but if you don't think that's important, or if you can't figure out how to do it, then fine--don't worry about it. I think I've made my point as well as I am able and I don't wish to belabor it further--please consider it as a suggestion offered with the best of intentions and do with it what you will.

[Obliterate]

Originally posted by Leshy
The portal code is not an issue, it conforms to the current web standards

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.planetarion.com - This page is not Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional!

I agree tho - it renders correctly on the modern browsers, and people shouldn't be using ancient ones. I just think that it would take 5 seconds to add one sentence at the bottom of the page, then no-one could possibly compain

[A2]

Originally posted by Obliterate
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.planetarion.com - This page is not Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional!

I agree tho - it renders correctly on the modern browsers, and people shouldn't be using ancient ones. I just think that it would take 5 seconds to add one sentence at the bottom of the page, then no-one could possibly compain

I believe that all bar possibly one of them is due to the &'s in the links and we may have a solution for that.

[Andy_r]

Personally, I think this WC3 thing is a complete red herring. Practically nothing passes the validation tests, and it if you do manage to write something that does pass, it's no guarantee that it will render at all (let alone render as intended) on any browser.

Simply making the 2 text columns percentage widths would make the thing so much more usable for people who don't have the thousand pixel width available (ie the majority of people!), and it's not rocket science to implement. If you are worried about the top menu, just drop the pointless link from the portal to the portal!

[Leshy]

Originally posted by Andy_r
Personally, I think this WC3 thing is a complete red herring.

Incorrect.

W3C standards were brought to life in order to allow people to create websites that can be correctly viewed from any browser, on any platform, in any environment. Web pages should be designed to look good on the Internet, not to look good in Internet Explorer, or to look good in Netscape, or to look good in Konqueror.

Practically nothing passes the validation tests, and it if you do manage to write something that does pass, it's no guarantee that it will render at all (let alone render as intended) on any browser.

As for your first point, if something doesn't pass the validation test, then you're not using it correctly. Do it the correct way instead, and you'll have valid (X)HTML. The validator always explains exactly what's wrong about your code, and you'll find that valid code is usually rendered very well in the latest versions of Opera, Netscape, Mozilla, IE, Konqueror, etc.

The reason why sometimes not all browsers render everything the same has several reasons. At some point both Netscape and Internet Explorer started using custom tags, which only worked on their own browser. Microsoft for example, is still actively trying to force the W3C to accept several Microsoft-specific tags and instructions into the standard (hello Frontpage extensions), while at the same time disallowing anyone but themselves to implement it in browsers, in order to force everyone to use Internet Explorer. Fortunately, the W3C is not budging.

Another reason is because not every browser renders things the way they should do, according to the standards. Generally, Opera is considered to be the most annoying browser to get something to work in, but that is in fact because it's very strict with the standards. Internet Explorer is more forgiving and will often render "faulty code" the way it is intended. This leads to a lot of sites which use crappy code which only Internet Explorer displays as it was intended, leading to the dreaded "Best viewed in Internet Explorer 4.x" messages.

[DarkAngel]

the portal owns :/

[Andy_r]

With IE's maket share, Microsoft can just tell the WC3 where to stick their standards, just like they did with HTML 2.0 onwards.

Putting a lot of effort into passing WC3's incredibly picky restrictions ensures that Opera will show your page, but it might actually reduce the chances that IE 7 will show it.

Oh, lol at the Netscape 5 & 6 references btw :-)

[Leshy]

Originally posted by Andy_r
With IE's maket share, Microsoft can just tell the WC3 where to stick their standards, just like they did with HTML 2.0 onwards.

Would you like your car company to skip safety standards, just because everyone buys their cars anyway?

The idea of the internet is to allow people to use whatever they want to view your content - by supporting crappy code and/or Microsoft-specific instructions, a web designer is only forcing the viewers to use Microsoft's browser. Would you like it if TV stations said you had to get a new TV just to watch their channel?

Microsoft has a fair market share on the browser market, although there won't be an IE7, as Microsoft isn't going to do another IE - not sure what they are planning instead.

Putting a lot of effort into passing WC3's incredibly picky restrictions ensures that Opera will show your page, but it might actually reduce the chances that IE 7 will show it.

Putting a bit of effort into the W3C's standards (they're very easy to adhere to if you know HTML beyond dragging images into Frontpage) ensures that all browsers on all platforms should render the page exactly as you intended.

[Andy_r]

I agree with everything you say about standards, the difference is that I think the standards are dictated by what people actually use, and you think that Microsoft will abandon it's monopoly position and do whatever the WC3 tell them just because they are nice people.

Anyway, this whole debate is drifting away from the point, which is that the portal is very pretty but not very user friendly. The effort involved in making it resize nicely for normal sized windows is probably 10% of that required for WC3 compatibilty, and about 90% of the effort involved in us carrying on this debate here!

[Leshy]

Originally posted by Andy_r
I agree with everything you say about standards, the difference is that I think the standards are dictated by what people actually use, and you think that Microsoft will abandon it's monopoly position and do whatever the WC3 tell them just because they are nice people.

I'm not saying that Microsoft will stick to the standards (they won't), I'm saying that webdesigners should. Microsoft can add all the extensions they want, as long as the W3C keeps setting a standard and webdesigners keep adhering to that standard, Microsoft can't do much. Well, other than disallowing licenses to any other browsers when NGSBC comes around

Anyway, this whole debate is drifting away from the point, which is that the portal is very pretty but not very user friendly.

That is a design issue, not a code issue.

The effort involved in making it resize nicely for normal sized windows is probably 10% of that required for WC3 compatibilty

Not really. The graphics were designed for a fixed width layout, and changing to a dynamic width would require portions of the graphics to be redone. In addition, fixed width definitions all over the portal would have to be altered. Aligning graphics when using fixed widths is easy, doing it correctly for a dynamic width layout is more work.

And I really don't understand why you have any trouble following W3C standards - generally when I write a page I pull it through the validator and find only one or two small issues, often caused by accidentally forgetting to close a tag or doing something in the HTML which should be done in the CSS, which I won't do wrong again next time when writing a page.

[Andy_r]

It would be very easy to just keep the height fixed and stretch the horizontal sizes of the top icons, to the right of the big X. They will be readable down to about 40% width, and even if they get thinner it's not a problem, since the left menu has the same links as the top one!

For the rest of the page, keep the left menu fixed size and just divide the rest of the page between the 2 columns, this should work fine, and it ought to be very easy to do.

The page will still break for people who change their text size, but it will be usable for those of us who have their window size set to less than 1000 pixels.

[furball]

Originally posted by Andy_r
It would be very easy to just keep the height fixed and stretch the horizontal sizes of the top icons, to the right of the big X. They will be readable down to about 40% width, and even if they get thinner it's not a problem, since the left menu has the same links as the top one!

For the rest of the page, keep the left menu fixed size and just divide the rest of the page between the 2 columns, this should work fine, and it ought to be very easy to do.

The page will still break for people who change their text size, but it will be usable for those of us who have their window size set to less than 1000 pixels.

I mentioned this earlier, as did Andy, but let's try to draw attention to this.

Most people use IE 4.x+ - can you say the same for 1000+ resolutions?

Naturally, the reason that I'm griping about this is because I'm suffering, but it's a genuine problem. I truly hate sites where you need the bigger resolution. It's not that hard, from what I've been reading, to change it from pixels to percentages...so, how about doing it? I don't like to demand, but it seems like the only way to get any response .

[princess]

im not sure there is much room to complain much about standards - i mean, the portal fscking loads in lynx

the gfx, tho, are another thing.
word of advice:

BIGGER IS NOT ALWAYS BETTER.

imo, they are flashy and gaudy and impractical. they are nice gfx, don't get me wrong, but if you want the portal to get any -practical- use, they are bloated and far too heavy to use on a regular basis. yes, i know theyre cached and so on, but come on.

im on a well fast connection and it took me almost 3 minutes to fully load the portal for the first time. i could just keep using lynx, but fs

[Obliterate]

Originally posted by princess
im on a well fast connection and it took me almost 3 minutes to fully load the portal for the first time.

Something's wrong with your connection then - it took about 5 seconds to fully load for me.

[Yeggstry]

They comment if its too "boring", they comment if its too "colorful"...

I believe that all bar possibly one of them is due to the &'s in the links and we may have a solution for that.

That is correct, but once the WHOLE system is up and working I was planning on suggesting a few things to improve the system, since the whole site is reasonably dynamic it wont take that much to change it, but if we change it whilst in the middle of finishing it then the whole thing would be completely messed up... and you wouldn't want that, would you??

(P.S. I am ONLY coding the portal for the pages, NOT the gfx side of it so please dont "comment" to me ta )

[Mit]

As i've siad before about the decisions made about the portal. its a no-win situation.

Too plain, too much colour, too small, too big. whatever decisions we make as a portal team, they are always wrong with some.

I notice however, no-one ever complained about the toolkit last round - that was designed for 1024+ (and yes, before u say "no-one used it", plenty did, ta)

Same for Pilkara, that looked even worse than the toolkit at lower resolutions and scrolled too, any complaints about that, no, it was all "make the toolkit like pilkara".

*sigh* Whatever we do, there will always be a small minority not happy... so far, since i released the new passport / portal thou, i've had a lot of good comments, and i'm not going to let a few moaners put a damper on things.

Also, please note, the bits I'm coding (the 'passport', toolkit and all things linking other parts) are being done to be as standard as possible, i'm not using IE specific things etc.

A comment was raised earlier, if it works in Lynx (and yes, i've just checked that on the ageing Cyrix 100 next to me) that shows that your either using very old and buggy browsers or have something wrong somewhere. i've tested on ie 5 and up, netscape 6, Mozilla (both on Linux and Windows) and Konquerer. It works fine in all of those fine.

I would suggest anyone who's not using an upto date browser, in updating and trying in something slightly more moden than Netscape 4.7 etc

[Andy_r]

Originally posted by Mit
...I notice however, no-one ever complained about the toolkit last round - that was designed for 1024+ (and yes, before u say "no-one used it", plenty did, ta)

I wonder if anyone switched from Pilkara to the toolkit though? If I had visited it more than once, I would certainly have complained about the size, but I had a working alternative at Pilkara, so I didn't feel the need.

Same for Pilkara, that looked even worse than the toolkit at lower resolutions and scrolled too, any complaints about that, no, it was all "make the toolkit like pilkara".

I currently have Pilkara open in a window that is 865 pixels wide, and it has no horixontal scroll bar, and the vertical scroll is only necessary if I want to see subsidiary information, not the most important bits of the content.

i've had a lot of good comments, and i'm not going to let a few moaners put a damper on things.

Of course, but are you going to ignore people who have valid points and are suggesting simple fixes for their issues?

[Mit]

Originally posted by Andy_r
Of course, but are you going to ignore people who have valid points and are suggesting simple fixes for their issues?

You mean the "I have an ancient browser and refuse to update" type of people?

[Mit]

Originally posted by Andy_r
I currently have Pilkara open in a window that is 865 pixels wide, and it has no horixontal scroll bar, and the vertical scroll is only necessary if I want to see subsidiary information, not the most important bits of the content.

Care to explain the scroll bar i'm getting at 1024 then? (hint, look at the front page / rank listings pages)

[Hicks]

Originally posted by Mit
Care to explain the scroll bar i'm getting at 1024 then? (hint, look at the front page / rank listings pages)

I get no horizontel scroll bar on 1024 x768.

I prefer Pikera to the Toolkit at present but I assume the Toolkit will be getting a make over for PA X so who knows. Also you ripped off Sandman's back ground.

[Andy_r]

Originally posted by Mit
Care to explain the scroll bar i'm getting at 1024 then? (hint, look at the front page / rank listings pages)

Actually, having just tried it with Explorer on a PC, I can. It looks terrible in Explorer compared to what I'm seeing on my Macintosh running Mozilla!

It's probably a 72dpi/90dpi issue, and I'm guessing Pilkara was designed on a mac and not cross-platform tested.

Try it on the Mac version of Mozilla and it's much better. If the Toolkit emulated that on IE, I'm sure people would switch from Pilkara!

I'll post a screenshot if you don't have a Mac handy.

As for the people with a valid point and an easy fix, I was talking about the width and the use of percentages as opposed to fixed sizes (and to a lesser extent cropping/shrinking the huge top graphics).

[kaos]

Originally posted by Mit
Care to explain the scroll bar i'm getting at 1024 then? (hint, look at the front page / rank listings pages)

well, actually 1000 pixel or something is the minimung width to get no scrollbars at pilkara (i just tested it at 1024 and had no scrollbars)
and i thing is you don't have to scroll on the portal, its just a blemish that the vertical scrollbar is there imho, because you don't need it, because its only the border which is "hidden" anyways

[Mit]

a Screeny would be appriciated, i hate macs and don't have one to hand (only have access to one at work, and don't have a reason to go near it very often)

Yes, the toolkit is being re-vamped, and i'm trying to make it as browser compatible as possible, but it will be 1024+ like the portal.

[Andy_r]

Now that I can finally resolve pilkara's DNS again...

http://www.abe11.dial.pipex.com/pilkaramozilla.jpg

Nicer, isn't it?

Anyway, please give a thought to using percentages instead of pixels where appropriate, it's easy to do, you will get exactly the same results at your chosen width, and it adds a lot to the usability for everyone with a different sized window to you.