D forums now live!

James Miller james at aatch.net
Mon Feb 20 16:53:43 PST 2012


As a web-dev-for-food, I can say that trying to design a site that
works on all browsers, all the time, is an impossible task. You think
that a few odd settings producing this: http://tinypic.com/r/2ch9ykj/5
or this: http://oi39.tinypic.com/2s7e1dy.jpg is horrible. Try using a
browser that doesn't properly support a certain CSS feature, or a
small javascript bug with some sites and they are literally unusable.

I get that "well other sites are worse" is not an excuse, but you've
got to judge it accordingly. If, under normal browser settings, the
site looks good, then that should be enough. If you then have
suggestions, present them as such, do not try to present the site as
broken and needing to be fixed. Web design is hard, trying to cover as
many bases as possible is a nightmarish task.

For example: "Long lines?" "They should be broken, otherwise it looks
bad"/"They shouldn't be broken because it looks bad." - Some lines are
broken by the software the person is using, other times the user has
done it deliberately because of the interface they are using and the
reflow has broken things.

There are a potentially infinite number of possible configurations,
and sites need to be aimed at the lowest-common denominator. Doesn't
look right with an enlarged font size? Tough. Doesn't look good on
Netscape 2.0? Tough.

Of course you try to code to make it works as well as /possible/ in
browsers outside the Webkit/Firefox/IE trifecta, and you try to make
it flexible, but at some point, you need to sacrifice portability for
aesthetics, otherwise we're still stuck in the early nineties...

I'm pretty sure that making a website work in all browsers and all
configurations is a punishment in hell for IE developers...

--
James Miller


More information about the Digitalmars-d-announce mailing list