Solved

Flash/NN/HTML 4.01 (now a usability forum!)

Posted on 2002-04-24
148
743 Views
Last Modified: 2006-11-17
Hi,

I am trying to display a Flash movie in an HTML 4.01 site. Validating my page with W3's validator, I get lots of errors about the <embed> tag, which turns out not to be part of HTML 4.01.

Using just <object>, I can only see my movie in IE, not is Netscape, Opera, ...

How can I display the movie in the page so that it will appear in Netscape and Opera, but my page will still validate as HTML 4.01?

No idea how hard this question is, but I need a quick answer - hence the points.

Cheers,

Spadge.
0
Comment
Question by:Spadge
148 Comments
 
LVL 3

Expert Comment

by:malcx
ID: 6965520
I'd suggest it cannot be done, look at:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2002Jan/0050.html

You could just not validate for NN and opera (i.e. only serve the embed tag from the server based on the browser , if it's not IE...)

at least it'll work for 80-90% of users...

Mal
0
 
LVL 19

Expert Comment

by:webwoman
ID: 6965556
Why are you worried about validating? Do you want it to work or not? If you Publish from Flash, using the codes that they generate, it should work on IE, Netscape (4+, including 6), and Opera.

What's the most important thing here? That it 'validate' (which hardly anything does, BTW) or that it work? Because if you want it to 'validate', it's NEVER going to work.

Pick one.
0
 
LVL 3

Expert Comment

by:malcx
ID: 6965590
>>Why are you worried about validating
It's called adhereing to standards.
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:Spadge
ID: 6965657
OK - Malcx, thanks for your comments. Not sure I want to believe it cannot be done just yet - surely this has been tackled before.

Webwoman: It may have been acceptable to churn out any old shite in the past but the importance of standards on the web is rapidly growing. Almost all government and agency funded sites in the UK now insist on compliance to some form of standards. If we want to claim to be 'professional' then we need to do things properly - non-validated HTML is like ASP with syntax errors.

Maybe you don't want to be branded 'professional'. I guess it means something different when used to describe women anyway.

Did it not occur to you that if I didn't have a valid reason for worrying about standards I wouldn't have posted the question.

Thanks though - all comments and observations welcome.

Including the inevitable insulting one that you were going to make until you read this sentence.
0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:Yanwooo
ID: 6965942
I agree with wonderwoman or whatever she's called.

Standards are worthless if they don't quantitatively reflect exactly the essence of what they are trying to achieve.

Adhering to an accessibility standard in way which reduces accessibility seems a little silly doesn't it.

Yan 'Jacob' wooo
0
 
LVL 1

Accepted Solution

by:
Yanwooo earned 500 total points
ID: 6965952
I agree with wonderwoman or whatever she's called.

Standards are worthless if they don't quantitatively reflect exactly the essence of what they are trying to achieve.

Adhering to an accessibility standard in way which reduces accessibility seems a little silly doesn't it.

Yan 'Jacob' wooo
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:Spadge
ID: 6965973
Actually, using flash reduces accessibility. Sadly it ain't my call...

It appears that W3C made a cock-up by removing the EMBED tag from HTML 4 even though it is necessary to display flash in Netscape. Unless of course they were trying to tell us something.
0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:Yanwooo
ID: 6966001
That's a sweeping generalisation - which is utter rubbish.

It's like saying eating red meat makes you fat. It might but it might not - in fact it may actually be part of a diet which helps you lose weight.

It depends on the context and circumstance. Flash can be used to enhance accessibility.

In this example including the flash would not reduce or improve overall site accessibility as you implied it is a additional value-adder as against a core experience issue. Therefore leaving something out just because it is not in a dated standard seems at best slightly silly and at worst foolish.

Yan 'Jacob' wooo
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:Spadge
ID: 6966003
Anyway - other issues aside, does anyone want to confirm or deny the suggestion that <embed> is the only way to display flash in Netscape?
0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:Yanwooo
ID: 6966020
Sorry don't know anything about that.

I'll guess that it is the only way (can I get the points if my guess is correct?)

Yan 'Jacob' wooo
0
 
LVL 6

Expert Comment

by:rootdir
ID: 6966325
Yes <embed> is the only tag used to display flash in netscape

See this url. It has all explanation about why flash is using <object> and <embed> tags

http://www.macromedia.com/support/flash/ts/documents/tn4150.html

http://www.macromedia.com/support/flash/ts/documents/tag_attributes.htm

I think this will help you

Cheers
RootDir
0
 
LVL 6

Expert Comment

by:rootdir
ID: 6966328
0
 
LVL 6

Expert Comment

by:rootdir
ID: 6966349
0
 
LVL 19

Expert Comment

by:webwoman
ID: 6966579
Which basically puts us back to square one -- why are you worried about validating it?

>>It may have been acceptable to churn out any old shite in the past but the importance of standards
on the web is rapidly growing. Almost all government and agency funded sites in the UK now insist on
compliance to some form of standards. If we want to claim to be 'professional' then we need to do things
properly - non-validated HTML is like ASP with syntax errors.

Maybe you don't want to be branded 'professional'. I guess it means something different when used to
describe women anyway.
>>

I worry much more about ACCESSIBILITY than validating to some theoretical 'standards' which may or may not have anything to do with whether the page is usable or not. ASP with syntax errors doesn't WORK. Non-'validated' HTML can. An HTML page without a doctype declaration will display perfectly well in the browser, and can be perfectly coded, but it won't validate.

The governmental/agency sites in the US have to comply to Section508 accessibility standards, which are more complex than just validating the HTML.

As for the last, at some point you'll have a woman for a boss. I hope soon.
0
 
LVL 23

Expert Comment

by:Zeffer
ID: 6967640
Well this is a lively discussion...Excellent comments Jacob..neatly side-steped by Spadge.. but after webwoman's
decisive left-hook to the jaw, I think everyone
should take a short break while Spadge changes his
underwear...



Even with the latest verions of each browser you will
get some variance to the 'Prefered' DOM, as despite
(them) all professing to be adhereing to these 'standards' they are,(all)still playing with one foot outside the park.


Back to ring-side and the main event..

Z
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:thor918
ID: 6967833
How about having two different pages.. one for netscape,opera,mozilla and one page for internet exporer..

ns.htm
-> embed tag - used by netscape

ie.htm
->OBJECT tag - used by Internet Explorer -

and have an redirecting page that choose from those pages..
You will have it validated rigth :D

I guess you where hoping on another tip than this..
But I post it anyway
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:thor918
ID: 6967836
hmm okey..forget my post.. It doesn't make sence
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:Spadge
ID: 6967954
Hello.

Actually, I have a woman for a boss. It's unfortunate that she has so damaged my attitude towards women in this industry but then she did sleep her way to the top.

Anyhooo - fair comment Yanwooo, it was a bad generalisation but you have to admit that there are still very few good uses of flash - most people still only use it because they can. Please show me some good uses that I can then show our designers. Unfortunately the nature of the projects I am working on means that until screen readers can identify the textual content of flash movies, it is not for me.

From what I've read, it seems that after <embed> was removed from HTML 4 I am a bit screwed. You cannot write valid HTML 4 and still display flash in Netscape! I really want someone to show me that this is not the case...

Currently my site just drops the HTML 4 compliance if the http user agent is not MSIE but this is not what I want to end up with.

Anyway - I have WAI triple-A compliance which is my primary goal, so if HTML 4 goes out the window I wouldn't be that bothered. Don't get me wrong - I am not placing over-importance on HTML 4. The people who employ me are placing over-importance on HTML 4 (that woman again!).
0
 
LVL 3

Expert Comment

by:malcx
ID: 6968103
>>Flash can be used to enhance accessibility
>Yan"Jacob"woohoo
Depends on your understanding of accessibility - if you mean it to be those not as fortunate to have all their senses (blind people relying on screen readers, people without taste not being able to lick the screen etc) then yes it can enhance as long as the developer caters for these groups (which they almost never ever do).
If you mean to be accessible to the largest audience, then it often hinders - many corporations and educational establishments won't let users download/install the latest plugin etc. Some browsers dont even support plugins anyway (personally I use Lynx on a daily basis, which thank god doesnt display those annoying interstitial over the page flash adverts)
Both of the above definitions of "accessibility" are widely used within the industry, for the purposes of this debate I'll assume you meant the first.


>>It appears that W3C made a cock-up by removing the EMBED tag from HTML 4 even though it is necessary
>>to display flash in Netscape
>Spadge
Maybe they meant for us not to support Netscrap 4 :-)

>>Non-'validated' HTML can [work]
>webwoman
Just because one can use unproffessional code doesnt mean one should. I was looking around old articles on webmonkey(any relation? ;) and there was a piece saying "hey look you can reduce your file size and download time by leaving out all these closing tags, </td></tr></font> etc etc" Yes in many browsers that'll render just fine, but it's really not the sort of practice we should advocate and I certainly wouldnt use in my professional capacity.

The standards are, beleive it or not, a way to standardly measure one site against another. I'm guessing the client in this case is enforcing these guidlines on spadge, if the client is a government agency then the guidlines will have been forced upon them from above who will have had them forced from above...

>>Actually, I have a woman for a boss...
>spadge
A little narrow minded, basing your views on the one instance of your female boss, lets assume for a moment that she is fair skinned, are all fair skinned people sluts who sleep their way to the top?

>>Currently my site just drops the HTML 4 compliance if the http user agent is not MSIE but this is not
>>what I want to end up with.
Wasnt that my suggestion?

I might go and write a browser that only supports the blink tag and then complain that it cannot display sites properly. If no-one else is adhering to standards why should I?
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:Spadge
ID: 6968184
"are all fair skinned people sluts who sleep their way to the top?"

In my experience, about 1 in 5. That's 20% which is more than enough for me to form a stereotype with.

"Wasnt that my suggestion?"

Yes - you are indeed a smart-arse. No points though - it isn't what I want to achieve...

As for your last comment, I think the point is that browsers are written to display (among other things) HTML. There is a specification for HTML, and they should support everything in that specification. When I use words you don't understand, it is your own fault if they aren't in the dictionary, but my fault when I blatinglously invented them.
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:thor918
ID: 6968192
Spadge, I found the solution..
I'm putting up an example now
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:Spadge
ID: 6968194
Excellent Smither - Excellent!

Is it HTML 4.01 compliant?
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:Spadge
ID: 6968197
Excellent Smither - Excellent!

Is it HTML 4.01 compliant?
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:Spadge
ID: 6968199
Smithers, even. You don't mind if I call you Smithers, do you?
0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:Yanwooo
ID: 6968203
>> Both of the above definitions of "accessibility" are widely used within the industry, for the purposes
of this debate I'll assume you meant the first.

Re accessibility. I *think* accessibility per se encoporates both defintions - the first defintion you suggest is very much a subset of the second. Ultimate accessibility would indicate everyone could access it, which would obviously included disabled people.

Hence my statement 'Flash can be used to enhance accessibility' - or in laymens terms for you slightly dim people (. . . ) it can be used to increase the number of people that can get value from a site.

Yan 'Jacob' wooo
0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:Yanwooo
ID: 6968207
>> . . . or in laymens terms for you slightly
dim people (. . . ) it can be used to increase the number of people that can get value from a site.

clearly taking this defintion would suggest that usability is a subset of accessibility too.
0
 
LVL 3

Expert Comment

by:malcx
ID: 6968211
which it isnt
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:Spadge
ID: 6968212
It appeals to my sense of humour that we are debating accessibility in a Flash forum.
0
 

Expert Comment

by:LukePryor
ID: 6968213
In order to get anything to "Validate" using the W3C site, you just have to cheat and write the "invalid" HTML after the page has actually loaded.

i.e. for Netshite just access the DOM and do a document.write in the correct place to put the necessary <embed> tags, or whatever, in.

The simplest solution is to not use Flash as it is generally completely pointless and unaccessible.
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:Spadge
ID: 6968215
Ha - and usability too!
0
 
LVL 3

Expert Comment

by:malcx
ID: 6968219
hmm just opened account proposes an answer...
0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:Yanwooo
ID: 6968223
accessibility to value - the only metric worth considering* - would include usability as a subset.

* there is no point making a site physically accessible to a high percentage if the people can't access the value they seek - therefore the only worthwhile definition of accessibility is accessibility to value. So there.
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:Spadge
ID: 6968227
No points for you because you are probably a fair-skinned woman occupying a managerial position.
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:Spadge
ID: 6968230
Smithers! How's that answer coming along?
0
 
LVL 3

Expert Comment

by:malcx
ID: 6968234
Yanwoo I'd disagree on that.
Take SMS on mobile phones, very popular here in the UK, highly accessible - almost everyone has one, but from a usability point of view they'd be considered a nightmare. one button for 4 or more functions. small keys close together.
In theory it shouldnt be very popular, yet oven 1 million are sent every 2-3 hours during the day.

High enough Value + High enough accessibity + low usability = it works
0
 

Expert Comment

by:bignosegonzo
ID: 6968237
The solution is simple.  Just replace the <embed> tag with a <lettuce> tag, with the approriate parameters, and the page will work in all browsers known to man and beast.
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:Spadge
ID: 6968241
Oh - here we go again. There is always some stupid idiot trying to sabotage these things.

Get lost.
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:Spadge
ID: 6968245
Wow! I was wrong - I tried it and it works!

Thanks bignosegonzo. Problem solved!

<lettuce> eh? Well who'd have though!
0
 

Expert Comment

by:bignosegonzo
ID: 6968246
That's all very well, malcx, but the purpose of a mobile phone is not SMS.  The only device to be created for the SOLE use of SMS does have a full keyboard.  People do not buy mobile phones just to use SMS.
0
 

Expert Comment

by:bignosegonzo
ID: 6968247
That's all very well, malcx, but the purpose of a mobile phone is not SMS.  The only device to be created for the SOLE use of SMS does have a full keyboard.  People do not buy mobile phones just to use SMS.
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:Spadge
ID: 6968254
I think with mobile phones we are prepared to sacrifice a fully functional keyboard in favour of a pocket-sized device. The main goal surely is that a mobile phone is indeed mobile. They are usable as mobile communications devices when compared to e.g. walking around with a lap-top to write your SMS messages.
0
 
LVL 3

Expert Comment

by:malcx
ID: 6968261
exactly!
accessibility of a mobile is more important than usabilty thus agreeing with my conclusion that the two are not one and the same (nor one being a subset of t'other)
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:Spadge
ID: 6968264
"Spadge, I found the solution..
I'm putting up an example now "

That was a lie, wasn't it Smithers.
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:thor918
ID: 6968269
nope.. but i need some time to get it working..
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:Spadge
ID: 6968271
Usability and accessibility the same thing, or usability a subset of accessibility?

I would lean toward the second statement. Give me an example of a usability constraint (in web design - I don't care about mobile phones) that is not covered by or associated with accessibility guidelines?
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:Spadge
ID: 6968272
"nope.. but i need some time to get it working.. "

Erm... mine isn't working either. I suggest you post on Experts Exchange and see if anyone can help you fix it.
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:Spadge
ID: 6968277
Hmm... I have to go into a meeting now with the bosses, the designers and the client with whom this is all an issue.

I suspect the level of conversation is about to become "but it looks nice"...

Later.
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:thor918
ID: 6968338
Okey here is my solution..I have tested this okey in Ie,opera,netscape4,(mozilla works but with an alert)
And I have runned it at http://validator.w3.org/
->Congratulations, this document validates as HTML 4.01 Transitional!

But there seems to be buggy on mozilla.. When you remove the "alert(..." it won't work. This is something I will have to investigate some more.

This syntax writes out the flashfile on the page:
->makeflash(flashfile,flashheight,flashwidth)
document.write(makeflash("import-cookie.swf",400,550));

Best regards
Thor Selnes

Htmlfile:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<title>Flash crossbrowser Html4.01 validated ok</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<script type="text/javascript">
function lib_bwcheck(){
  this.ver=navigator.appVersion;
  this.agent=navigator.userAgent;
  this.dom=document.getElementById?1:0;
  this.opera=this.agent.indexOf("Opera")>-1;
  this.ie5=(this.ver.indexOf("MSIE 5")>-1 && this.dom && !this.opera)?1:0;
  this.ie6=(this.ver.indexOf("MSIE 6")>-1 && this.dom && !this.opera)?1:0;
  this.ie4=(document.all && !this.dom && !this.opera)?1:0;
  this.ie=this.ie4||this.ie5||this.ie6;
  this.mac=this.agent.indexOf("Mac")>-1;
  this.ns6=(this.dom && parseInt(this.ver) >= 5) ?1:0;
  this.ns4=(document.layers && !this.dom)?1:0;
  this.mozilla = (this.agent.indexOf("Mozilla")>-1 && !this.opera && !this.ie && !this.ns4)?1:0;
  this.bw=(this.ie6||this.ie5||this.ie4||this.ns4||this.ns6||this.opera);
  return this;
}
bw=new lib_bwcheck(); //Browsercheck object

function makeflash(flashfile,flashheight,flashwidth){
var opent = "<";var close = ">";var flashobj = "";
if(bw.opera||bw.ns4||bw.ns6||bw.mozilla){//do this only for browsers that uses Deprecated embed tag
flashobj += opent+'embed src=\"'+flashfile+'\" quality=\"high\" pluginspage=\"http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash\" type=\"application/x-shockwave-flash\" width=\"'+flashwidth+'\" height=\"'+flashheight+'\"'+close;
flashobj += opent+'/emb'+'ed'+close;
if(bw.mozilla){alert('test');}//for some strange reason mozilla don't work without a alert box, try it your self.. when this line is present it works
}else{//do this if the browser uses the new object tag
flashobj += opent+'obje'+'ct classid=\"clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000\" codebase=\"http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=5,0,0,0\"';
flashobj += 'width=\"'+flashwidth+'\" height=\"'+flashheight+'\"'+close;
flashobj += opent+'param name=\"movie\" value=\"'+flashfile+'\"'+close;
flashobj += opent+'param name=\"quality\" value=\"high\"'+close;
flashobj += opent+'/obje'+'ct'+close;
}
return flashobj;
}
</script>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<script type="text/javascript">
document.write(makeflash("import-cookie.swf",400,550));
</script>
</body>
</html>
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:thor918
ID: 6968352
By the way this must be on one line(or you can just remove it, because it is only a comment)
//for some strange reason mozilla don't work without a alert box, try
it your self.. when this line is present it works
0
 
LVL 3

Expert Comment

by:malcx
ID: 6968432
the alert box problem usually means it hasnt fully loaded - try calling the function with a setTimeout() - should work then.
0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:Yanwooo
ID: 6968469
Two things:

I would disagree with the statement

'. . . from a usability point of view they'd be considered a nightmare. one button for 4 or more functions.
small keys close together. '

Usability is pretty good for SMS which is one of the reasons it has been far more succesful than WAP - which had shocking usability. It's not four functions anyway, it's to rotate through a selection of choices which are clearly labelled on the phone.

It's easy to use, most phones have one touch access to writing an SMS, and people have been familiar with the repeated pressing of a number key to cycle through characters for years (normal touch tone phones have had this feature for donkeys years). Select who you want to send it to and then done. That sounds pretty usable to me.

And if it wasn't people wouldn't do it (like they have with sending email from phones). Usability is NOT necessarily completely about absolute ease of use - there are many other factors to consider.

Essentially, usability is about enabling people to complete their goals in the best/easiest/most logical way possible given certain constraints. It's all about goals. If their only goal was to send messages to somebody else then you could have a full sized keyboard and 40" screen. Clearly one of the reasons SMS has been so popular is mobility - another goal which must be balanced with absolute ease of use.

Usability is also about familiarity. We would probably all agree a keyboard is usable - not because it's easy to use or logical but because *nearly* everyone is familiar with it. It therefore becomes a usability standard. Are underlined blue links a good idea? No - there are better colours to choose but underlined blue links are more usable because *nearly* everyone is familiar with them. Again a usability standard.

I think you're confusing usability with absolute ease of use - their is a significant difference. In simple terms I guess it's just about being natural and intuitive to use either based on natural human instinct and/or experience (if you can separate these two).

Anyhow I think you misunderstood my point which was that the field of usability falls within the overall topic of accessibility - you are comparing it with a part of accessibility (physical access to something as against access to value)

Lucky I haven't got much work to do today . . .

Yan 'Jacob' wooo
0
 

Expert Comment

by:LukePryor
ID: 6968508
I agree with Yanwoo.  If it was all down to exactly the "functional" aspects of a device then we would all be using the Dvorak keyboard.

The QWERTY keyboard was actaully invented to slow typists down as they would otherwise strike the keys too quickly and jam then on a mechanical typewriter.

However, because people are used to it, the QWERTY keyboard is the de facto standard.

The fact remains though that when you are evaluating something:

You can only evaluate the usability of something is you can actualy access it.  Sic. you must have overcome the problems of accessibilty to reach the question of usability.
0
 

Expert Comment

by:LukePryor
ID: 6968510
P.S. I evidently can't type using a QWERTY keyboard, as my last post shows.  Apologies for the typos.
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:thor918
ID: 6968531
Spadge, can you run a server side script on your server?
This is the easies way of doing this..
You simply detect the browsers and then output the deprecated tags the netscape and opera uses and if the browser is ie we can output the embed tag..
I can make a script for you if you like..(just need to know the serverside script capabilities you have)

or you can just use the code I posted earlier, witch works fine..exept for netscape6 and mozilla.. they need a alertbox to work..

malcx, I tried to use setTimeout(), but it didn't work.

0
 
LVL 3

Expert Comment

by:malcx
ID: 6968538
As I can't show you the OED beside me I'll make do with these definitions from dictionary.com

accessibility
The quality of being accessible, or of admitting approach;

usability
The effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction with which users can achieve tasks in a particular environment of a product. High usability means a system is: easy to learn and remember; efficient, visually pleasing and fun to use; and quick to recover from errors.

That would say to me that accessibility is about getting the user to the functional part of your site.
Usability is about how well they can then utalise that functionality to acheive THEIR goals.

>>Anyhow I think you misunderstood my point which was that
>> the field of usability falls within the overall
>>topic of accessibility
I think you're missing my point that yes the two do overlap significantly, but are still removed from each other, and neither fully covers the other.

You make some good points (esp on familiarity) and TBH i'd agree that maybe SMS wasnt the best example I couldve come up with, but it was meant to illustrate that usability can be reduced (only 11 keys - it WOULD be better with more) for enhancements in other areas (*only* 11 keys allows greater mobility)

I've lots of work today, but this is more interesting.
0
 
LVL 3

Expert Comment

by:malcx
ID: 6968545
>>you must have overcome
the problems of accessibilty to reach the question of usability

Was typing my last one (which pretty much agrees with you) while you posted that...
0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:Yanwooo
ID: 6968610
I take your point on the dictionary definitions - but it wouldn't be the first time I disagree with a dictionary definition.

Although the defintion of usability I would mostly agree with it - except the use of 'tasks'. I would not classify a web site usable if it allows people to complete tasks but not achieve their goals - which is possible.

Perhaps my defintion of usability more falls into what could be more widely called 'user experience'. Which is probably the daddy of accessibility, usability and value.

I just see no point in just focusing on one of these areas separately, you *always* need to consider the end to end experience (the bigger picture) - which incorporates everything a user touches, experiences and interacts with.

To build the best experience you need to find to maximise three as much as possible while also striking an approriate balance between them.

Check this out for usability, or whatever you want to call it, http://www.danger.com/downloads/hiptop_brochure.pdf




0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:Yanwooo
ID: 6968621
I want one!!
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:thor918
ID: 6968644
Howcome everybody is proposing ridiculous answers?????
I'm getting tierd of this!!
0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:Yanwooo
ID: 6968673
GO away then.
0
 

Expert Comment

by:LukePryor
ID: 6968680
This coming from a guy who can't spell "Certified".  Go to bed if you're tired.
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:Spadge
ID: 6968681
Hello.

Been gone for a while so I'll neglect the usability debate for the minute (quite a lot of reading to do...).

Yanwooo - no, you can't have the points.

Smithers - thank you for taking the time to write, test and post your suggestion. Unfortunately there are two problems:

Your javascript just writes HTML which is not valid! You may have defeated the validator but it still isn't correct. I want to meet the requirement, rather than just find a way of getting away with dodging it.

Secondly - while you were away composing your answer, Luke Pryor posted the following:

"In order to get anything to "Validate" using the W3C site, you just have to cheat and write the "invalid"
HTML after the page has actually loaded.

i.e. for Netshite just access the DOM and do a document.write in the correct place to put the necessary
<embed> tags, or whatever, in."

... and beat you to it. What did they tell you in school guys? Read the question twice...
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:thor918
ID: 6968700
Spadge, yeap.. sorry.. This was my only shot on getting it to work..

Yanwooo & LukePryor, Thanks
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:Spadge
ID: 6968711
Thanks anyway Thor.

Next please...
0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:Yanwooo
ID: 6968719
Why don't you just covert the flash animation into an animated gif and put that on the site instead.

Yan 'Kevin' wooo
0
 
LVL 3

Expert Comment

by:malcx
ID: 6968722
>>Which is probably the daddy of accessibility,
>>usability and value
I'd agree to that.

>>I just see no point in just focusing on one
>>of these areas separately
Thats like saying that every bank manager should be acting as if he's chancellor of the exchequor(sp?) Sometimes it's better to be aware of the bigger picture, but maybe you're in an environment where you cant control the holistic situation,
You can just be proactive in the small area you're in and whilst trying to influence the overall scheme dont be shocked if it you cant affect change.

http://www.danger.com/downloads/hiptop_brochure.pdf1
Was just plain ugly though ;-)
Have you seen the forthcoming nokia phone - basically a full featured PDA that looks more like a mobile than a Palm - quite cool

>>Read the question twice...
What about posting an answer twice?
0
 
LVL 3

Expert Comment

by:malcx
ID: 6968723
>>Which is probably the daddy of accessibility,
>>usability and value
I'd agree to that.

>>I just see no point in just focusing on one
>>of these areas separately
Thats like saying that every bank manager should be acting as if he's chancellor of the exchequor(sp?) Sometimes it's better to be aware of the bigger picture, but maybe you're in an environment where you cant control the holistic situation,
You can just be proactive in the small area you're in and whilst trying to influence the overall scheme dont be shocked if it you cant affect change.

http://www.danger.com/downloads/hiptop_brochure.pdf1
Was just plain ugly though ;-)
Have you seen the forthcoming nokia phone - basically a full featured PDA that looks more like a mobile than a Palm - quite cool

>>Read the question twice...
What about posting an answer twice?
0
 

Expert Comment

by:webbitch
ID: 6968731
Spadge i just found that you can put the html 4 logo on your site with out passing the validater test. Just paste this code and it will look like your site is in html 4.

<img border="0" src="http://www.w3.org/Icons/valid-html401" alt="Valid HTML 4.01!" height="31" width="88">
0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:Yanwooo
ID: 6968734
I guess I'm just a chancellor and you guys are just monkeys. Sorry. I forgot that.

Yan 'Gordon' wooo
0
 

Expert Comment

by:LukePryor
ID: 6968738
Well done, webbitch!  I'm sure that noone's thought of that one before.  Give yourself a gold star.
0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:Yanwooo
ID: 6968773
Seriously though - what kind of bank manager would act without being aware/understanding the importance of what the chancellor does. Which is what I'm saying.

It would be stupid to set mortgage rates without knowing what the interest rate was or the rate of inflation. I'm not saying evyerbody has to be responsible for everything I'm saying everything is related to everything else (well, you know what I mean) and it's importance to understand the importance of this and influence it in a positive way if you can.

Of course you can specialise in usability - but without understanding the importance of the whole user experience you will not be as good.

>> Sometimes it's better to be aware of the bigger picture, but maybe you're in an environment where you
cant control the holistic situation,

It's *always* better to be aware of the bigger picture. It's more about influence than control.

>>dont be shocked if it you cant affect change.

you can *always* affect change. you just need patience and perserverance.

>> small area you're in

(I) like to call it your circle of influence. much neater.
0
 
LVL 3

Expert Comment

by:malcx
ID: 6968795
>>It's *always* better to be aware of the bigger picture
Ignorance can be bliss ;-)

>>circle of influence
recently read the 7 habits also - good read, although maybe a monkey should see that kind of literature - I might get above my station.....
0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:Yanwooo
ID: 6968828
>> Ignorance can be bliss ;-)

nah. ignorance is ignorance. nothing more. nothing less. knowledge is power.

>>recently read the 7 habits also - good read, although maybe a monkey should see that kind of literature
- I might get above my station.....

good. didn't you read the 8th habit? Monkeys can never change - A monkey will always be a monkey.

Yan 'Ronald' wooo
0
 
LVL 3

Expert Comment

by:malcx
ID: 6968863
well I say "read" I just looked at the pictures and then set fire to it. I've dicovered fire you know!

>>ignorance is ignorance
But how do you know if you're being ignorant?
0
Top 6 Sources for Identifying Threat Actor TTPs

Understanding your enemy is essential. These six sources will help you identify the most popular threat actor tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs).

 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:Yanwooo
ID: 6969062
>> But how do you know if you're being ignorant?

trust me. you are.

Yan 'wise' wooo
0
 
LVL 19

Expert Comment

by:webwoman
ID: 6971539
All of that, and we're right back at the beginning.

Either it works and doesn't validate, or it doesn't work, and validates.

Ask them what's most important. If they want it to validate (and frankly, hardly anything does -- ask them to provide a URL they THINK should, and I'd bet it won't) then they should get rid of the Flash altogether. That would be a start at making your life a little easier. ;-)

They can't have it both ways. Make them pick. And get it in writing. ;-)
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:Spadge
ID: 6971624
Anyone know when HTML 4.02 is due?
0
 
LVL 19

Expert Comment

by:webwoman
ID: 6972241
And more importantly, anybody know what browsers will totally support it? ;-)
0
 
LVL 12

Expert Comment

by:lexxwern
ID: 6972917
Try for validating it to XHTML or switch over the XML, no use working your ass of for something outdated, or which is soon the get outdated.
0
 
LVL 12

Expert Comment

by:lexxwern
ID: 6972921
Spadge, its XHTML and XML from now on.
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:Spadge
ID: 6976545
XHTML and XML? What are they then? Golly - all these acronyms are baffling a poor simpleton like me.

What do they stand for? The only world I know that starts with an 'X' is Xylophone.
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:thor918
ID: 6976559
xhtml -> Extensible Hypertext Markup Language
xml -> Extensible Markup Language
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:Spadge
ID: 6976573
Wondeful, wonderful. Thanks.

And what does FLASH stand for?
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:thor918
ID: 6976583
Uhh, I have never thought on that one.. hehe
Perhaps because things that are made in flash are flashy and stylish..
0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:Yanwooo
ID: 6976589
Genius. Mate you are a true genius.

Let me guess, thor918 an American?
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:thor918
ID: 6976594
nope, why do you ask?
I'm Norwegian.
0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:Yanwooo
ID: 6976598
That makes even more sense.

Anyhow I think FLASH was named after Flash Gordon.
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:Spadge
ID: 6976603
I'm still confused. What does WWW stand for please?
0
 
LVL 23

Expert Comment

by:Zeffer
ID: 6976606
No No..
Xenophobic Headonistic Moronic Lassitude

and

X-rated Malignant Laughter

Affectionately yours
Z
0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:Yanwooo
ID: 6976611
Wild Wild West I think
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:thor918
ID: 6976623
>Let me guess, thor918 an American?
Why do you ask? and why do you think i'm American?
0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:Yanwooo
ID: 6976636
your accent.
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:Spadge
ID: 6976637
You're American? I thought you were Norwegian.
0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:Yanwooo
ID: 6976641
me? No, I'm German.
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:Spadge
ID: 6976642
Aren't there any Norwegians here then? I thought there was one before.
0
 

Expert Comment

by:webbitch
ID: 6976656
I'm Norwegian actually. Hasn't anyone got anything sensible to say :-?
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:thor918
ID: 6976658
Spadge, I'm still Norwegian :D

Yanwooo, strange I had english in school, but that where britsh english.. I have probably been influenced by tv or something.
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:Spadge
ID: 6976669
Too much Sesame Street I expect.
0
 
LVL 2

Expert Comment

by:thor918
ID: 6976686
hehe
0
 
LVL 23

Expert Comment

by:Zeffer
ID: 6976720
Montgomery,I think thor918 has been stand-up actually.
Throw some points at him for gamesmanship.
Z
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:Spadge
ID: 6976732
Eh?
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:Spadge
ID: 6976736
Shall I throw some lightning at him instead?
0
 
LVL 23

Expert Comment

by:Zeffer
ID: 6976754
So your generosity matches your misogyny?
Z
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:Spadge
ID: 6976771
Misogyny? What does that mean then?
0
 

Expert Comment

by:bignosegonzo
ID: 6976772
If you strike him down he will become more powerful than you can ever imagine.
0
 

Expert Comment

by:bignosegonzo
ID: 6976777
If you strike him down he will become more powerful than you can ever imagine.
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:Spadge
ID: 6976778
Oh right. Cool. Why'd you describe me like that, Heifer?
0
 
LVL 23

Expert Comment

by:Zeffer
ID: 6976787
There should be quotes around that.
and you're right..
he could become a phsycomisogynyisticalogomaniaical..lad

It could be too late.
0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:Yanwooo
ID: 6976914
shut up.
0
 
LVL 23

Expert Comment

by:Zeffer
ID: 6976970
Shutdown
0
 

Expert Comment

by:webbitch
ID: 6977010
"There should be quotes around that.
and you're right..
he could become a phsycomisogynyisticalogomaniaical..lad

It could be too late. "

How clever. I fancy you Zeffer.
0
 
LVL 18

Expert Comment

by:bruno
ID: 6996680
Not sure if this discussion is still valid....but I want to add my two cents.

Spadage....you seem stuck between a rock and hard place.  

You have two choices.

1)  Write code that works, but doesn't validate

2)  Write code that validates, but doesn't work in browsers that don't comply to the standards.


THE PROBLEM YOU ARE HAVING IS NOT YOURS.  

The problem is with the browsers that don't support valid code.  

There is really nothing you can do to get around this, other than hope that the most current and upcoming versions of those browsers will implement the current w3c standards.  


By the way, why are you only validating for HTML 4.01?  I've got all my pages validating as XHTML 1.0 Transitional now.



BRUNO
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:Spadge
ID: 6996706
Thanks Bruno. I'm afraid it's all been said before though...

I disagree that the problem is with the browsers - EMBED was valid code when NN started using it, W3C then dropped it which was perhaps a bit foolish and left only an Active-X alternative as 'valid' use. Not very 'platform-independent' I fear...

As for your XHTML comment, the rock and hard place are actually client and reality. I had (they've been talked into relaxing it now - woohoo!) a requirement to meet HTML 4.01 - not sure why! As you've probably noticed from the discussions above, I'd personally rather the site was acceptable to users than to validators.
0
 
LVL 19

Expert Comment

by:webwoman
ID: 6997923
The problem IS with the browsers -- you don't control what one the users have, and NONE of them comply with the w3c 'standards'. They just differ in the areas where they DON'T comply.

You can't stop people from accessing your pages without Flash if they really want to, or with the wrong Flash plugin, or with javascript off, or with IE3, or worse, AOL 3.

So 'standards' don't really guarantee anything, except that somebody with a 'standards compliant' browser will see what you expect. Everybody else -- well, you get what you get. Which may or may not be useful. ;-)
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:Spadge
ID: 6998259
Right. I think we're going off on different tangents here...

This specific problem is not with the browsers! Netscape used EMBED to support flash etc when it was STILL part of 'valid' HTML.

Yes - the general problem is *partially* with the browsers which have added functionality of their own beyond defined HTML. However, when they are built browsers are written to the current HTML spec, so theoretically they all support 'correct' HTML. Therefore the problem is back with developers who use browser-specific functionality. Note that I am only talking about regular browsers, not thinks like Lynx which only make provisions for some of the tags because of the restrictions of their medium.

If we're honest, web developers are (or at least have been) a largely lazy bunch who couldn't be bothered to put in the minimal extra work to deliver to those extra few users.

What we're seeing now (and BTW I'm talking UK - I don't know what's going on wherever you people are but I'm sure we're probably behind you if you're American or Scandinavian) is government/client realisation and awareness that by shutting out that small percentage of users you are actually closing the door on a potentially large number of customers. As a result the client is putting pressure on the developer to do our job properly(shame it had to happen that way around in so many places).

Surely this means that 'standards' will gain the respect and significance they deserve - most people where I work see WAI as a 'nuisance' when surely it is one of the best things to happen to web design? W3C and Jakob Nielsen have been preaching accessibility and usability for years and being widely ignored by short-sighted web designers looking for an easy ride and happy to forsake a few users to allow them to show off their latest irrelevant trick. Now we are thinking more carefully, and only using technology where it adds some value.

My point is that the problem is really with web designers. Now we will actually have to earn our exorbitant salaries by showing some professionalism.

Time for a comment from Yanwooo, I think...
0
 
LVL 18

Expert Comment

by:bruno
ID: 6998906
>>Netscape used EMBED to support flash etc when it was
STILL part of 'valid' HTML.



But guess what????  It's NOT anymore!  If Netscape hasn't fixed the problem in the latest version of the browsers, then shame of them.  If they have, then the discussion here is moot.  

If the new version of the browser supports what is the standard, then you have no case.  If the old version doesn't work, and the new one does, then it's simply a case of upgrading.  



BRUNO
0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:Yanwooo
ID: 6998942
I agree with Spadge.

Web designers are generally an ignorant bunch who have less business acumen than your average 3 year old kitten. But it's not really their fault - they can't help the way they are. It's the fault of the organizations, the commercial entities, they're the ones who have messed up.

They're the ones that have let their strategy be dictated to by painters and decorators. They're the ones who have lost sight of their objectives, and the painters and decorators have been all too happy to abuse the extra responsibility placed on them. An they continue to do so - although finally they're being roped in by some business sense.

Get you guys to build a house and you'd put the door ten feet abouve the ground 'cause it looks better. Nice.

Yan 'Honest' wooo




0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:Yanwooo
ID: 6998948
>> that small percentage of users you are actually closing the door
on a potentially large number of customers.

eh? Small and large? That's a customer base I want to get my hands on.
0
 
LVL 3

Expert Comment

by:malcx
ID: 6999036
>> If the old
>> version doesn't work, and the new one does, then it's
>>simply a case of upgrading.  
But what if you cant upgrade?
Should someone be penalised from accessing government information because they're to poor to upgrade from windows 3.1 to something that can handle the latest browser.

>> Get you guys to build a house and you'd put the door
>> ten feet abouve the ground 'cause it looks better.
Very accurate example - well done.
0
 
LVL 18

Expert Comment

by:bruno
ID: 6999067
>>Should someone be penalised from accessing government information because they're to poor to upgrade
from windows 3.1 to something that can handle the latest browser.


yes.

but again, it's not the developer's problem.  Again, it's the browser makers.  They should make their browser compatible to run on 3.1 if it's that big a problem.
0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:Yanwooo
ID: 6999078
Not the developers problem!? Why is it the browser makers problem - they don't lose out because of it. Developers lose because the business/organization loses from reduced accessibility. Fool.
0
 
LVL 3

Expert Comment

by:malcx
ID: 6999098
>>yes.
Thats known as discrimination which can be very costly for government bodies if taken to court. Why do you think all printed documents can be ordered in braile format - surely thats not cost effective?
0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:Yanwooo
ID: 6999101
Not the developers problem!? Why is it the browser makers problem - they don't lose out because of it. Developers lose because the business/organization loses from reduced accessibility. Fool.
0
 
LVL 18

Expert Comment

by:bruno
ID: 6999116
You people are losing sight of the original problem.  Coding to standards.  We have to work with what we are giving.  If it is his job to code to standards, then code to standards he must.  If he can't do that and support everyone, THAT IS NOT HIS PROBLEM.  

>>Thats known as discrimination which can be very costly for government bodies if taken to court

Micrsoft doesn't even support their programs from 3.1 anymore, so I think your argument has no steam behind it.


I have a 74 Honda motorcycle, which the local Honda motorcycle shop does not want to work on.  Should I sue them for discrimination because I am too poor to buy a newer model?  They know it's not worth their time trying to find parts and fix mine....It's not their problem that I have an old bike.  

Yanwooo, if you insist on being an ass I'll just ignore your comments from now on.  


BRUNO
0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:Yanwooo
ID: 6999134
>> It's not their problem that I have an old bike.  

That's bad business sense on their part - but I'm not sure you're old enough to understand that so I'll leave that for another time.

Anyhow, making your site accessible and usable is *normally* cheaper to develop than a site less accessible and usable. So that's like your garage refusing to service your bike even though they would make more money than servicing newer bikes (and it wouldn't affect their ability to service new bikes as well).  Your argument sounds a bit silly now, doesn't it?

Yan 'Wise' wooo
0
 
LVL 18

Expert Comment

by:bruno
ID: 6999160
>>That's bad business sense on their part


Depends on who you ask....from their point of view, I am a hassle.  I have a old bike with hard to get parts, that even after they service, might need more service.  Could lead to me accusing them of not doing the first service properly, and basically just a waste of their time.  I'm sure they have reasons for not wanting to service me.  Granted they might lose me as a future customer if they don't service me, but they might not care.  

Somewhat like I personally don't care about people who are too lazy to upgrade to the newer versions of the browsers.  

BTW, I never said the garage DIDN'T service me...just that they didn't want to.  I talked them into it.  I have talked to someone else who had a same year bike, who said they wouldn't service him however.  

As far as my personal coding, I code to XHTML 1.0 Transitional compliance.  



BRUNO
0
 
LVL 3

Expert Comment

by:malcx
ID: 6999161
>>You people are losing sight of the original problem
Yes, extending the debate as I think we're all finding it interesting having strong yet differing opinions.

>>Micrsoft...
>>...local Honda motorcycle shop...
>>...It's not their problem...

These are comercial unregulated entities that have no requirement to support anyone or anything unless they wish to do so. (usually financial or PR related)

Public bodies are different, BY LAW have to support the vast majority. Banks (at least in the UK) are governed and have to provide bank accounts to private individuals as well as business accounts. Do you think they make any money on personal transations on someone paying a £5 cheque in? Banks make a loss for each personal customer but are regulated into providing the service in order to be allowed to trade with businesses, which is where the money is made. (With the advent of online banking this may no longer be true - I dont know. And there are some exceptions such as banks that deal specifically with certain industries e.g. shipping)

ma"l"cx
0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:Yanwooo
ID: 6999180
>> Somewhat like I personally don't care about people who are too lazy to upgrade to the newer versions
of the browsers.  

I think brunobear is stuck in techy land. I think you need to wake up and smell some real world beans.

Like I said, which you failed to comment on, what you are suggesting is like the garage refusing to serve you despite being able to make more money on you than on it's customers with new bikes - without affecting their ability to serve their new bike customers.

What would you think of the people who run that garage if the above scenario was the case. Silly. Foolish. Missing out on good money. Exactly. But that's what you're suggesting by your naive comments.

Yan 'my case rests' wooo

0
 
LVL 18

Expert Comment

by:bruno
ID: 6999186
I do not mind continuing this debate, but refuse to do so within this thread, as I have no idea if Spadge is at all interested in what we are saying, and the thread is taking MUCH to long to load.  This should perhaps be moved to the lounge if you guys want to continue....


BR "U" - "NO"
0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:Yanwooo
ID: 6999192
Spadge is cool about this. He has been contributing quite  a lot.
0
 
LVL 3

Expert Comment

by:malcx
ID: 6999217
>>and the thread is taking MUCH to long to load
Thankyou for proving my point!
I have a dedicated T1 line and the page loads in under a second. I consider you or your company to be stuck in the past and therefore in this debate no longer wish to support slow connections.
Who's hurting more from this? You, because you're penalised for being "behind the times". Me, for being too arrogant and not supporting the majority of users and only accepting the latest greatest technology?

I think we both lose.

"M" "A" "L" "C" "X"
0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:Yanwooo
ID: 6999223
No probs loading times here. I didn't realise brunobear was a common non-broadband user - I don't like talking to common people. I feel so dirty.

Yan 'Sloane Square' woooo
0
 
LVL 18

Expert Comment

by:bruno
ID: 6999234
yes, but we have hit quite a tangent....


>>Like I said, which you failed to comment on, what you are suggesting is like the garage refusing to
serve you despite being able to make more money on you than on it's customers with new bikes - without
affecting their ability to serve their new bike customers.


Like I said, the garage DID service me.  But again, I am a hassle to them.  Similar to how when a developer has to support an older browser, non standards compliant, it's a hassle.  

But the difference is, when I have to support older browsers, it DOES affect my ability to serve the customers with the new technology.  I can't give them nice clean code.  I can't give them stuff that only runs on the new browsers.  Why?  Because the old browsers can't support it.  


This is a really silly conversation.  You support the new browsers.  Forget the old.  Why support NS 4.x? It's a piece of crap, all developers know it.  If you are supporting that, why not support NS 1, 2, 3?  IE 2?  Cause it would be rediculous to do so.  

This however, has nothing to do with providing a page that is accessible by those with handicaps, which is where the legal aspect comes in.  In fact, in order to make a page that rendors correctly on the older browsers, layout was usually done with tables.  Tables don't work properly with screen readers.  However, in the new browsers, you can use DIVS and CSS for layout, which work fine and provide better accessibility to the page.  

Again, this is all a really silly discussion.


BRUNO
0
 
LVL 18

Expert Comment

by:bruno
ID: 6999238
You guys are both wrong...I am on a cable broadband connection, but waiting a few seconds for a thread to load is annoying to me when a brand new one would load in less than a second.
0
 
LVL 18

Expert Comment

by:bruno
ID: 6999242
Huh...I didn't realize Yanwooo was just a common EE user, not an Expert with lots of expert points....I feel so dirty!
0
 
LVL 3

Expert Comment

by:malcx
ID: 6999263
>>Why support NS
>>4.x? It's a piece of crap, all developers know it.
Yes but my 50 something year old mother doesnt why should she? Only having had computers around for the later part of her life doesnt make her as savvy as us, but as a user requiring information she is just as important as an 18 year old who builds his own computers (OK so she uses IE, but...)

>>but waiting a few seconds for a thread
>>to load is annoying to me when a brand new one
>>would load in less than a second.
As I said this loads just fine for me, why should I go out of my way to accomadate you who is "handicapped" with a slower connection than I?

>>why not support NS 1,
>>2, 3?  IE 2?
Because when they become enough of a minority you can acceptably "discriminate" against them. NS4 still has over 4% penetration - too high to ignore.

until tomorrow,
0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:Yanwooo
ID: 6999264
>> Like I said, the garage DID service me.  But again, I am a hassle to them.

I think you're getting confused. Very confused.

Firstly, any business that considers a customer 'hassle' is a very strange business.

Secondly, it maybe hassle for developers to backwardly cater for older browsers (although with the proper processes and good developers it probably wouldn't be and as I said earlier it's cheaper and quicker to develop an accessible usable site) - but that is just not important. I'm sorry, but as I indicated earlier, this is not an issue for developers at all. It's a strategic issue, not one that should be decided by developers in the slightest. I don't care if it's hassle for developers or not - it's just not interesting enough to worry about. You're a painter and decorater - if I say I want my lounge pink you do it whether it's hassle or not - otherwise I'll get somebody that will.

That's been one of the major problems with the Internet, a factor in the dot com crash, business decisions made by painters and decoraters. These decisions are based on whether it makes business sense or not.

Back to your garage - would the mechanics decide they didn't want to service a particular car because it was too much 'hassle'? or would management decide based on what's good for the business. As in your example, from a short term financial view mending your bike wouldn't make sense - that's a business call (rightly or wrongly) not based on moaning mechanics.

Know your role and stick to it Painter Pete and Decorator Dave.

Yan 'Rock' wooo
0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:Yanwooo
ID: 6999273
>> Yes but my 50 something year old mother doesnt why should she? Only having had computers around for
the later part of her life doesnt make her as savvy as us, but as a user requiring information she is
just as important as an 18 year old who builds his own computers (OK so she uses IE, but...)

In some cases, more important from a revenue perspective. That demographic in certain domains is considered very important because of their spend profile.

So there.

Yan 'Waffle' wooo
0
 
LVL 12

Expert Comment

by:lexxwern
ID: 6999280
just another cocky beginner. i remember myself being the same.  but the point here is Yanwooo you can flame brunobear howmuch ever you want. but atleast have a point.

i totally agree with his argument here and if anybody could rationally think he/she/it would agree to bruno too!

Anybody would want to validate in all browsers; but if its a choice betw old or new, any sane person would choose validating for the new browser.
0
 
LVL 18

Expert Comment

by:bruno
ID: 6999300
I guess the problem here is that I am not a "painter" and "decorator".....if you want your lounge pink, and that is a stupid-ass decision, I'll tell you so.  Go get someone else to do it.  Doesn't bother me in the least.  

aned mal, i refuse to believe that this thread loads just as fast as a new thread for you.....T1 or no.  


BRUNO
0
 
LVL 18

Expert Comment

by:bruno
ID: 6999323
Thanks Lexx...


I guess what people (ANYBODY) who deals with technology have to understand is that it changes.  

Spadge's clients didn't seem to understand it.  Your 50 yr old mother might not understand it...(mine either, don't worry)....but regardless, that doesn't stop it from happening.  

If developing valid code that works on NS 4 is an impossibility then the developer needs to stand up and say so.  I don't care if the code USED to be valid, it's not anymore!  

My bike, at one point, was brand new technology.  It's not anymore, and they don't want to support it.  Regardless, I am a customer, and they did support me, but for how much longer?  Eventually my bike will be the same as IE 2....old, not supported...


BRUNO
0
 
LVL 12

Expert Comment

by:lexxwern
ID: 6999347
since im anyway concerned about the PAQ these days... It is Q like these that dont deserve to go to the PAQ...
0
 
LVL 22

Expert Comment

by:cookre
ID: 6999642
Bruno, it's fine to tell Joe Sixpack to upgrade to the browser du jour, but for some of us it's a bit more involved.  

The folks I work for have 130,000 internal desktops to worry about.  Upgrading all of those boxes has significant direct and indirect costs.  Just consider - a success rate of 99.9% still means we get 130 trouble calls.

Add to that mix a public web site that averages 100,000 daily visits among which every browser is represented and you end up with an organization that is rather methodical and deliberative about changes.
0
 
LVL 18

Expert Comment

by:bruno
ID: 6999710
>>you end up with an organization that is rather methodical and deliberative about changes.


*sigh*  i know...unfortunately....
0
 
LVL 6

Expert Comment

by:Mindphaser
ID: 6999716
OK kids, fun's over now :-)

It looks like this thread is a bit out of bounds now. It takes up a lot of bandwith and space already and I would suggest to stick with the original topic here. We owe that to the people who want to get anything out of the question.

On the other hand I REALLY enjoyed your offtopic fun here and would suggest you start a thread wit it in the Lounge area at http://www.experts-exchange.com/jsp/qList.jsp?ta=lounge . You will find lots of unsuspicious vitims there ...

** Mindphaser - Community Support Moderator **
0
 
LVL 18

Expert Comment

by:bruno
ID: 6999782
hmm...didn't i recommend that 30 posts back?  if someone wants to continue this, start a lounge thread, and post the URL here....

btw, mindphaser, most of this has actually stayed somewhat on topic...

BRUNO
0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:Yanwooo
ID: 7000666
Continued sitting comfortably in the Lounge with a couple of beverages . . .while we try to watch TV. Alas the painters and decorators have restricted the world to only broadcasting in digital and we have an old analogue TV.

http://www.experts-exchange.com/jsp/qManageQuestion.jsp?ta=lounge&qid=20299098
0
 
LVL 1

Author Comment

by:Spadge
ID: 7001313
Fair point - convinced the client of this and they have agreed to accept 'deviation where necessary to facilitate accessibility'.
0

Featured Post

How to improve team productivity

Quip adds documents, spreadsheets, and tasklists to your Slack experience
- Elevate ideas to Quip docs
- Share Quip docs in Slack
- Get notified of changes to your docs
- Available on iOS/Android/Desktop/Web
- Online/Offline

Join & Write a Comment

Suggested Solutions

Introduction This article is primarily concerned with ActionScript 3 and generally specific to AVM2.  Most suggestions would apply to ActionScript 2 as well, and I've noted those tips that differ between AS2 and AS3. With the advent of ActionS…
In my long career of working as an actionscript developer, I had spent sleepless night often working hard to solve some small problems which actually took a lot of my development time; later found out the solutions to be a line or two. Here are s…
In this tutorial viewers will learn how to create a basic motion tween animation in Flash Open a new document in Flash: Draw/import an image: Press CTRL + F8 to convert it into a graphic symbol: Select a frame (how long you want the tween to last): …
The goal of the tutorial is to teach the user how to select which audio input to use. Once you have an audio input plugged into the laptop or computer, you will go into the audio input settings and choose which audio input you want to use.

708 members asked questions and received personalized solutions in the past 7 days.

Join the community of 500,000 technology professionals and ask your questions.

Join & Ask a Question

Need Help in Real-Time?

Connect with top rated Experts

14 Experts available now in Live!

Get 1:1 Help Now