RE: Re: Clarification needed on ALT/TITLE tooltips

Brian Bober wrote:

> The biggest problem is that most users haven't even
> tried IE for Mac, so as far as they are concerned, its the
> same thing as IE for Windows.

True.

> Mac barely has more of a user base than Linux, maybe twice
> the Linux base at most, as compared to Windows which is a
> majority of the market, so people fall into the trap of not
> even considering the Mac version of IE when talking about it
> because its a small percentage of the users.

Well, about considering and not; I support the standards in my
work, not browsers. If it looks *really horrific* in IE, I might
tweak a little, but otherwise I leave it as is; HTML 4.01 Strict
with CSS validated and the whole shebang.

The problem is of course that the main pack of web developers
don't support standards, but browsers. It's of course nice if
things looks neat everywhere, but if it doesn't, the information
should at least come through in a clear way. That's why I put an
"id" attribute on my stylesheets so Netscape 4.x (which undoubtly
is *much* worse than IE in almost any version) won't render them.

Yes, it looks really terrible, but the information is there, and
100% available.

> Even more so, a good majority of web developers wouldn't even
> have the capability to test it on their pages since they don't
> own a Mac. 

Also true, but services like Browser Cam[1] really helps.
And not to mention; *works*.

> The other problem is that a lot of developers have an
> attitude, "Screw standards, if it works in IE that's
> all that matters."

Yes, or even worse; most developers don't even know that
web standards exist, nor have they never heard of W3C.

> I agree that I would love to see Tasman eventually ported
> to Windows.

Absolutely. Hopefully, they'll do this, or rewrite IEOM
some day, and then maybe IE, FrontPage, Visual Studio etc.,
will comply to the standards. I'm not holding my breath.

> Some web developers need their pages "broken" (its their
> fault) by a major change in IE to even consider following
> standards.

Yup. Even better; no valid HTML, no visible page. "This web
page isn't valid HTML 4.01 Transitional. Please correct 
immediately!". :)

____
[1] <URL: http://www.browsercam.com/>

-- 
Asbjørn Ulsberg           -=|=-          X-No-Archive: No
"He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away"

Received on Tuesday, 1 July 2003 06:00:41 UTC