W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-evangelist@w3.org > September 2002

Re: PCMag ranks the browsers and says IE6 is the best...

From: Randy Reames <randy@reames.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 09:46:49 -0500
Message-ID: <3D9863D9.1040007@reames.org>
To: public-evangelist <public-evangelist@w3.org>
CC: Isofarro <w3evangelism@faqportal.uklinux.net>

Isofarro wrote:
> From: "Randy Reames" <randy@reames.org>
>>I think we all agree that the Web would be a much better place if NN4.x
>>would go away and everyone would upgrade to the newest, best compliant
> I don't see how upgrading to a browser that allows a web author to get away
> with tag-soup is any better. Netscape 4 is only an excuse to use tag soup.
> Removing the excuse just hits us with the next brick wall "Well it still
> works in IE".

Agreed, now if every Web site builder and browser maker would understand 
  this. But that is why this list and other organizations promoting Web 
Standards are here for.

> There needs to be a rational and practical understanding of why tag soup and
> nested layout tables is a bad thing - IMO its not about modern browsers,
> since they don't have a problem with tagsoup. Until that is tackled
> seriously, its going to be a long struggle to entice web authors to
> compliancy, because what they do now looks like it works.
> I feel that we need to start stressing the importance of non-browser
> agents - this is probably a stronger argument for clean HTML and CSS
> presentation separation. Although I am biased, I have a strong interest in
> intelligent agent technologies and leveraging information on the World Wide
> Web
> I think the problem is that the perception of the World Wide Web is as a
> TV-like visual only medium, a marketing billboard, rather than an
> interactive source of information. If we can stress the value of
> information, and why it needs to be released from the confines of its
> presentation, then we start making some inroads toward clean markup.
> Its not about browsers, its about people and their Web user-agents. Until
> the perception of the World Wide Web as a browser-dependant experience is
> tackled, then the arguments for standards compliancy remains weak.

I also agree, although testing with links and/or lynx does not give 
complete accuracy of how a screen reader or other agents perform it is a 
good test, and sometimes I do use lynx quite a bit myself.

>>The Web is still evolving
>>and we should push as hard as we can for standards, but still understand
>>that each site has its own needs for its users.
> The strongest and most compelling reason for standards and accessibility is
> the benefit it gives to visitors. The Web has more readers than writers.

Web site builders and browser makers are the ones that need the most 
convincing. Average users for the most part do not really care. It's 
like the long time Linux users vs Windows users. Linux users say "It 
should be done this way." Windows users say "Why? It works fine this 
way." Linux "But it's wrong." Windows "oh well, it works for me." and 
round and round.

Although there is probably a better solution. I still use the 
display:none and have a small note that says "This site may be viewed in 
any browser or Internet device, but looks best in one that complies with 
   Web Standards." With a link to the Web Standards Project, in hopes 
that some user or author may click on through and get an understanding 
of what Web Standards are.

Randy Reames > Web Developer > Midwest Energy
I use OS X and Linux. I use the Mozilla browser.
I support Web Standards and Accessibility.
blog: www.reames.org   work: www.mwenergy.com
Received on Monday, 30 September 2002 10:48:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:16:17 UTC