D forums now live!

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2012-02-21 01:53, James Miller wrote:
> 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

I completely agree. And it's hell for you when you're forced to support 
IE because more than 50% of the customers use IE.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg