anybrowser.com - completely useless?

[jdyndale]

Hey,

I was over at anybrowser.com right now to test it. I'd read somewhere quite some time ago that it's a good tool for making sure your web site looks the way you want it to for your visitors.

But then I got there and of course my site is completely messed up in their "browser".

Why? Because they use the HTML 3.2 standard, with additions for bgcolor for tables, td's and one other thing - plus the "face" attribute of the font tag.

Surely the general internet population isn't living in the stone age?! If this really is the case then I hope every site designer out there wakes up one morning and decides to not code in anything lower than the HTML 4 standard, preferably no lower than the XHTML 1 standard.

By continuing to include versions of sites for those with very very old browsers we're doing the internet community a huge disservice. Older browsers are much less secure than newer ones - and the browsers are FREE for pete's sake. If anyone is still using Internet Explorer 4 (or even 5.0 for that matter) then they can blame themselves for not being able to view sites properly.

The age of IE4, IE5 and Netscape 4 and 6 should be over. Those browsers made it extremely difficult to make sites look the same in all browsers. We're still not quite there yet, but at least it doesn't require too much of an effort these days (in most cases). We're getting there - but we WON'T get there if we continue to support legacy systems for a completey unreasonable length of time.

I would understand if upgrading to the latest browser version cost $10 or more per machine - but IT'S FREE...

Feel free to correct me here, but this is how I feel at the moment.

[/rant]

[Faglork]

But then I got there and of course my site is completely messed up in their "browser".

Why? Because they use the HTML 3.2 standard, with additions for bgcolor for tables, td's and one other thing - plus the "face" attribute of the font tag.


At anybrowser.com *YOU* chose the standard *YOU* want your site measured against. If you don't care about HTML 3.2, simply chose another level of compatibility. To cite anybrowser.com:

To validate your site for other levels of compatibility select the HTML Compatibilty level that you wish.

To repeat it: The level of compatibility is YOUR choice.



Surely the general internet population isn't living in the stone age?! If this really is the case then I hope every site designer out there wakes up one morning and decides to not code in anything lower than the HTML 4 standard, preferably no lower than the XHTML 1 standard.

Which does *not* hinder you in any way to serve useful content to <=4.xx browsers. E.g., just feed them a usable text version.



By continuing to include versions of sites for those with very very old browsers we're doing the internet community a huge disservice. Older browsers are much less secure than newer ones - and the browsers are FREE for pete's sake. If anyone is still using Internet Explorer 4 (or even 5.0 for that matter) then they can blame themselves for not being able to view sites properly.

You seem to forget that there are a lot of people who a) cannot update (for whatever reasons) and b) have to use user agents (a.k.a. "browsers") with very low compatibility e.g. screen readers. Those people know about the compatibility problems of their UAs, so at least feed the something useful. With proper CSS/XHTML coding this is absolutely no problem.



The age of IE4, IE5 and Netscape 4 and 6 should be over. Those browsers made it extremely difficult to make sites look the same in all browsers. We're still not quite there yet, but at least it doesn't require too much of an effort these days (in most cases). We're getting there - but we WON'T get there if we continue to support legacy systems for a completey unreasonable length of time.

In principle, I agree. But do not confuse "backwards compatibility" with "looking the same in NN4 and IE7". As a general rule, I suggest that your sites
- are at least usable with browsers of generation 4.xx and lower
- look well in generation 5.xx browsers
- are crossbrowser-compatible in all browsers of generation 6.xx and higher

Given the current standard in CCS coding, this should be no big issue.



I would understand if upgrading to the latest browser version cost $10 or more per machine - but IT'S FREE...

You seem to think that everyone on the 'net has the same control over the machines they use as you do. Try being a little less self-centric and accept the circumstance that there are people out there who simply have no choice. It is in your power to support them, and it takes little effort to do that.

So do it.

Cheers,
faglork

[kgun]

You seem to think that everyone on the 'net has the same control over the machines they use as you do. Try being a little less self-centric and accept the circumstance that there are people out there who simply have no choice. It is in your power to support them, and it takes little effort to do that.

Great post.

[zeruel]

Great post Faglork! It is definitely my pleasure. Thanks for the enlightenment! :D