h a l f b a k e r yI CAN HAZ CROISSANTZ?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Code browsers so that they can't be used in a few years, pushing people to upgade to modern versions.
Web developers would have less of a burden to code for old browsers, making their lives easier.
Cello
http://www.law.cornell.edu/cello/
Long may it live. [waugsqueke, Jul 27 2005]
[link]
|
| |
damn right! and the same with windows. and houses! and old people! |
|
| |
That's effectively what's happening. Have you ever visited a site but been locked out saying you didn't have a "new" browser? |
|
| |
It's easy for the webmaster to implement this on his/her site using existing standards. |
|
| |
[Snuffkin], in my opinion that's a terrible idea. Not everyone can afford the latest technology required to run the latest browsers, nor has the bandwidth to continually download new versions. All this would do is increase the 'digital divide' between rich and poor. |
|
| |
It really doesn't take too much effort to produce nicely designed sites that work across all browsers (even text ones). |
|
| |
Furthermore, web designers producing code which only works on certain platforms may be leave themselves liable to prosecution under (e.g. Section 508) laws on information accessibility. |
|
| |
Well, probably only if it's a government site. |
|
| |
well, there are laws in the UK and Australia (hugely untested, I admit) which mean your website needs to be accessible. The Sydney Olympic Games organising committee (and IBM) were taken through the courts. |
|
| |
//there are laws in the UK and Australia
(hugely untested, I admit) which mean
your website needs to be accessible.//
you're kidding? Whose website? I can't
believe that I'm committing an offence
by launching a website that's only
accessible with certain browsers. |
|
| |
I was under the impression that the accessibility laws said something more like your website can't be accessible for disabled people in -most- browsers. If a browser isn't standards compliant, you've got a ready made excuse. |
|
| |
Ian, whatever happened to the 80-90% using IE in commonly spouted statistics? |
|
| |
bless 'em, [Snuffkin], they're still using IE.
the offence is in eriting code which isn't standards compliant (assistive technologies are a lot less forgiving, generally, than standard browsers. So.. [alt] your images, don't use fixed sized fonts, and CSS to the hilt and everyone will be happy. |
|
| |
//I don't know anyone who still has IE
on their Macs// Errr, I do, and I use it
for pages that crash Safari. However,
this is as far as I can get into a
conversation on this topic. |
|
| |