Do we continue to support NN 4? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Web Development] >> Cascading Style Sheets



Message

Thomas Brunt -> Do we continue to support NN 4? (5/22/2003 15:02:40)

So we' re saying there' s no longer any reason to support NN version 4 browsers? I' m very happy to stop supporting them. I' m not trying to argue that you should support them. I do know for sure that a mass market designer has to consider the least common denominator first.

I can recall when it was ludicrous to design a site that couldn' t fit in a 640x480 res monitor. Those days are gone but not long gone. I can remember when the use of bg images in table cells was out of the question because of NN3. My first pure css project using absolute positioning was a year before I started OutFront. I had to do browser checking and return a completely different site to NN users. That' s really about as inefficient of a design process as can possibly be, but we had a big money client who wanted to throw money at the Web.

All here appear to be saying that NN 4.7 no longer qualifies for the title of least common denominator. I want to believe that, but I' m still seeing that browser on the Web. I may be wrong, but I believe that there are 2 OutFront mods who still use NN 4.7.

If you start with css for layout and care about NN 4 then you' re talking about hours and hours of tweaking to get something that looks decent. Is it worth all the tweaking? Or do you just let those users go?

t



abbeyvet -> RE: NN 4 (5/22/2003 15:14:52)

I don' t believe you do have to do hours and hours of tweaking to make a site that works in NN 4.

Sure, if you want it to look identical then you are going to have a bit of a job, but making sites look identical in all browsers was always a bit of a job.

It is a pretty easy matter to serve up a different stylesheet to NN4 users and to make the site operable for them.

There is no dount that this is the approach an awful lot of people are taking now, and increasingly the web is going to look less attractive in that browser to many people. With XHTML now becoming quite commonplace this is going to become rapidly more so.


I personally have not opted to ignore NN4 users, just not to obsess over them or to let such a small percentage of people be the deciding factor when looking at how a site would best be constructed.



Andy from Spain -> RE: NN 4 (5/22/2003 15:43:58)

quote:

I personally have not opted to ignore NN4 users, just not to obsess over them or to let such a small percentage of people be the deciding factor when looking at how a site would best be constructed.


That' s my feeling too - I will still check in NN4.75 and as long as the navigation still works and things are more or less in the place where they should be, I' m content.

I don' t think it' s so much a case of not supporting NN version 4 browsers but not making life impossible for their users whilst having to compromise on results and turn to time-consuming hacks.

Having said that, a site as big as this one http://www.freeserve.com/ is a tad less tolerant than I would be [;)]

Cheers
Andy



Thomas Brunt -> RE: NN 4 (5/22/2003 16:04:26)

I have the utmost respect for you, Katherine. I don' t want to insult you. You' re as knowledgeable a web designer as I know, but I looked at your site in NN 4.7. The home page is somewhat decipherable, but the rest of the pages are not.

My point is NOT that you' re making a mistake with your design. My point is that it' s not completly fair to tell people that this is the right way to build sites in all circumstances.

It may be OK to forsake NN4 in your case and maybe in most cases, but it' s not accurate to say that you can use absolute positioning and have a site that looks like anything you would be proud of in NN version 4 -- a browser that lots of people are still using. If your client or your client' s main customer happens to be using NN 3.2, then you optimize for NN 3.2. This kind of thing happens. It' s why Netscape has a browser archive. That browser archive is going to be around for a while yet.

t



abbeyvet -> RE: NN 4 (5/22/2003 16:10:20)

quote:

I looked at your site in NN 4.7. The home page is somewhat decipherable, but the rest of the pages are not.


LOL - you are so right Thomas! [:o]

Did you ever hear the expression the cobblers children go barefoot?

It wouldn' t happen with a client site, but I admit to having less time to spend and being less fussy with my own! That site sat on my computer for ages, waiting to be finished, then one day I said to hell, I will stuck it up, and I never did get around to going back and playing with the NN stylesheet!


However if you are saying that you think it is too soon for people to move to designing with CSS layouts, even if they look bad in NN4 etc, I think you are wrong. I really think that it time to move forward in that regard, and yes to nod to non-compliant browsers, but not to design for them.

For a long time we made things work in browsers by using tricks and workarounds and doing things ' wrong' because it made it look ' right' . Or using proprietory rather than standard code. That in the end is the road to hell.




Thomas Brunt -> RE: NN 4 (5/22/2003 16:32:07)

I didn' t say it was too soon for anything. I did suggest that it would be a good idea to optimize for NN3.2 if that' s the browser your client or his customer is using. That' s not the road to hell.

t



abbeyvet -> RE: NN 4 (5/22/2003 16:48:05)

quote:

My point is that it' s not completly fair to tell people that this is the right way to build sites in all circumstances.


I don' t believe I ever said that at any point.

From a personal point of view I can only say that of the last four sites I have worked on, two have been laid out in tables, two using CSS. It still depends on the situation, the client and the needs of the site.

I also do not think that that decision should be based on waht happens in a small minority of browsers. That' s all.


quote:

That' s not the road to hell, and it' s misleading to all for you to say that it is.


I think you may have misunderstood me here. For years and years browser compatibility has been a hell for anone making sites. Part of the reason was that browser creators were each persueing their own agenda, and creating proprietary code which worked in their browser but not someone else' s. We had to follow along and try to make sense of it all.

I meant that allowing those who make browsers go off on tangents with code that was not interoperable was the road to hell, whereas making an effort to standardise things accross the browser world - as the WC3 have been doing for years - was the way to go and deserved our support.

But of course the browser compatibility issue now is worse if you are using CSS as support, while improving, is still not complete and not across the board. It is still the case that laying out a site in tables will make it FAR more likely to render similarly in a wide range of browsers.



Gil -> RE: NN 4 (5/22/2003 17:02:08)

quote:

Katherine;

For a long time we made things work in browsers by using tricks and workarounds and doing things ' wrong' because it made it look ' right' . Or using proprietory rather than standard code. That in the end is the road to hell.


Amen

<opinion>
The obsession with a site' s ' pages' looking the same in any & all browsers and any & all OS' s has been the single most detrimental action effecting the WWW!
<opinion>

I am 100% sure I have been to sites looking for information and have left that site to go to another because I didn' t have time to wade through the " junk" to find what I wanted. If the content/information is accessible and available, the " look" is of little import. I know a ' business' site relies on the visual for a marketing contrivance and fully understand that is a part of what web ' designers' do - Fine; Make the site has ' pretty' as possible in the most popular browsers, but without ' breaking' the navigation/accessibility in other browsers. It actually takes more work and effort to make the content not work in some browsers than it does to make it 100% accessible.
I still use NN3.04 a lot (because it' s fast and IMO the best browser ever developed) and find I can still find what I wnat/need on any well developed site.



erinatkins -> RE: NN 4 (5/22/2003 18:45:58)

I think this a tough subject & I am glad you had the gumption to post it. I know when I buy or sell a template I like knowing it looks good in both browsers.

I know I have one site where it looks great in IE but I do not like the way it looks in NS. I have been trying to figure out how to fix it & it has not been easy.

I think we need to consider most browsers but I will be happy when the browsers are more standardized.



_gail -> RE: NN 4 (5/22/2003 20:51:11)

quote:

So we' re saying


I think I know what you' re saying Tom and, if I' m correct, thank you once again. At least you make me feel like I have a little breathing room.

gail



pageoneresults -> RE: NN 4 (5/23/2003 14:42:32)

NN4.x currently represents less than 2% of the browser market share as of April 2003. It may be different depending on the industry, but that is the overall percentage.

If you are finding that a respectable amount of your visitors are using NN4.x, you can easily appeal to them by using an @import statement to begin with until you fully understand the use of css.

Basically what you do is import two style sheets; one for NN4.x users, and the other for the rest of the world. It is done like this... 

<link href=" /css/file-nn.css"  type=" text/css"  rel=" stylesheet" >
<style type=" text/css" >@import url(/css/file.css);</style>

I' ve been doing that for a couple of years now with great success. In fact, I' ve been able to get sites to look almost identical in NN4.x and newer browsers.

What you do is build your site for the masses. Then after all testing is done with the masses, you create a second copy of your style sheet. You take your original one, save as, and then work from there.

Once you know what NN4.x does not like, you remove those attributes from the NN4.x style sheet and replace them with ones that NN4.x understands. NN4.x does not like margin attributes. They work, but your numbers will be less than your normal style sheet.

NN4.x does not like border attributes. There are a few other basic no-nos when building your NN4.x style sheet.

Newer browsers will ignore the first style reference and then adhere to the @import rule. NN4.x does not understand the @import rule and therefore reads the first style sheet.

In my mind, NN4.x is dead, finally! If you must, and only after reviewing statistics, then go ahead and build a style sheet for NN4.x. And for those of you who are high tech, you can use browser detection and serve style sheets based on that. It is a much more robust way of doing it, but requires more maintenance and technical knowledge.

P.S. Hey Thomas, you can run my directory through the NN4.x test to see the @import rule in action. I just added the css beveled button menu at left so there is a little bit of difference there, I' m working on that one. But, the rest of the site looks almost identical in NN4.x and IE6, Opera, Moz, etc.



Gil -> RE: NN 4 (5/23/2003 18:34:09)

quote:

NN4.x currently represents less than 2% of the browser market share as of April 2003


That' s a extremly misleading statistic! That' s overall. which includes all the new computers that have only IE installed.

For instance, I work with the Community College system and NN4.X is well over 50%....



_gail -> RE: NN 4 (5/23/2003 18:40:33)

Questions relating to putting things into perspective.

How long will it be before the full demise of the use of tables in web design? Lots of people still using them. Will future browsers ignore tables and make them look like jibberish as certain things look in NN4 now?

gail



Gil -> RE: NN 4 (5/23/2003 20:06:55)

quote:

How long will it be before the full demise of the use of tables in web design? Lots of people still using them. Will future browsers ignore tables and make them look like jibberish as certain things look in NN4 now?


gail,

Tables will not be obsolete. Tables were originally included in HTML (the TML is text markup language) as way to markup tabular data. The TH, TC, TR and TD tags were so academicians could display their data in an understandable and familiar way. Web " designers" perverted those tags as a work around to achieve some measure of control over the ' style' and layout of web documents. The W3C developed CSS (the middle s is style) to allow web authors to have control over the style and layout of those documents without perverting the HTML subset of SGML.

Tables will still play a part in marking up tabular data - just not for layout and style functionality. The mark up of data will be handled by the HTML of the document and the style/layout will be handled by the CSS of the document. Of course XML and XSL are going to eclipse the use of HTM & CSS someday, but I think that is a ways off.

So, right now it' s; HTML for ' markup' and CSS for ' style/layout'

Sorry if I got too basic, but wanted to be complete [;)]



Mojo -> RE: NN 4 (5/24/2003 1:46:23)

NN is such a non factor in the sites that I operate that I don' t even care. I have anywhere between 1% and 3% of my visitor using NN. IMO, if you just write valid code ( I am valid for 4.01 Transitional) most of the problems will work themselves out in the long run.

The problem that I still see is in Javascript support. So many sites have their entire navigation controled through JS. According to TheCounter there are still above 10% of internet users with JS turned off or not available. I could be wrong, but it seems to be a larger problem than 2% to 6% of NN users.

Joe



caywind -> RE: NN 4 (5/24/2003 2:23:43)

<.02>
quote:

NN4.x currently represents less than 2% of the browser market share as of April 2003. It may be different depending on the industry, but that is the overall percentage.
I always wondered just how much of that 2% was actually just web designers testing their pages!

</.02>




Spooky -> RE: NN 4 (5/24/2003 2:35:35)

Dang - that explains the 4 IE3 and NN2 users I see in the stats [:D]
I bet their experience sucks [;)]



Gil -> RE: NN 4 (5/24/2003 10:04:43)

quote:

if you just write valid code most of the problems will work themselves out in the long run.


True - that' s why it is important to validate.

quote:

The problem that I still see is in Javascript support. So many sites have their entire navigation controled through JS. According to TheCounter there are still above 10% of internet users with JS turned off or not available. I could be wrong, but it seems to be a larger problem than 2% to 6% of NN users.


Great point - Always provide and alternative to JS, Java, or ActiveX navigation



gorilla -> RE: NN 4 (5/24/2003 11:37:12)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pageoneresults

NN4.x currently represents less than 2% of the browser market share as of April 2003. It may be different depending on the industry, but that is the overall percentage.



Such as for instance bioinformatics. Where the proportion quoted above is reversed. NN4.78 for Unix is king in that field. The importance for developers of knowing their audience cannot be overstated. The solution given below is excellent and works very well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pageoneresults

If you are finding that a respectable amount of your visitors are using NN4.x, you can easily appeal to them by using an @import statement to begin with until you fully understand the use of css.



I think it all comes down to

1: Knowing your audience.

2: Doing it properly to start off with. It is so much easier to get your content and structure right to start off with and then add the extras if you must. I am always amazed when I hear developers complain because they have added all the pretty stuff first, and almost completely ignored the basics. - It is like a cake, some cake is delightful but a diet exclusively of cake is yuk.

Jesper Krogh
Foreningen bag gorilla
København
Maj 24 2003




_gail -> RE: NN 4 (5/24/2003 19:55:22)

quote:

Sorry if I got too basic, but wanted to be complete


Don' t apologize! Your reply was very helpful. Keeping some of this CSS stuff simple for folk like me is much appreciated!!

Signed,

Your perverted web designer,

gail. [:D][:D][:D] (this part is truly a jest. I sincerely mean it about your post being very helpful. I figure I have about a year to get with it or, (well, you know the saying).


gail



Gil -> RE: NN 4 (5/24/2003 22:13:52)

quote:

I figure I have about a year to get with it or, (well, you know the saying).


Well, as we seen - you are a quick learner. I' ve been attempting to learn this stuff for over 10 years now [:D] Every time I think I' m gainning something changes - I just realized that in a few years XML & XCSS will be the language we' ll be using [:(]



jbrandt04330 -> RE: NN 4 (5/31/2003 14:44:42)

quote:

Knowing your audience.


For more than 3 years I' ve been building/maintaining a website for a organization that' s mission is to ensure accessible technology for people with disabilities in our state. They have been very happy with my web design and we get lots of comments on how good it looks and the fact that it is still accessible under the various WAI/508 standards. The reason is the heavy use of CSS.

Imagine my shock when two weeks ago I found out that the folks in this organization are all running NN4.0 on Macs and that all of my " beautiful" work looks like " c--p" on their screens. They never complained even though some work is almost unreadable given the NN/Mac combo.

I strongly encouraged them to upgrade to new software, but they are content with what they have and feel it is important to view the " world" the way " less fortunate" folks do.

BTW, I just checked and NN4 is down to 1% according to W3school http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

jeb



J-man -> RE: NN 4 (6/16/2003 1:58:07)

I sure get kicks out of this topic...


<HEAD>
<SCRIPT language=" JavaScript" >
<!--
var a = " " ;

var browserVer=parseInt(navigator.appVersion);
if (browserVer >= 4)
{
a = " nothing" ;
}
else
{
alert(" I think you need a new browser!" );
}
//-->
</SCRIPT>
</HEAD>



gorilla -> RE: NN 4 (6/16/2003 11:53:57)

Why potentially irrirtate vistors and waste bandwidth and time with a script when you can just use an @import??????????

Med venlig Hilsen

Slightly irreverent subordinate deputy under assistant to the under assistant deputy spokesgorilla (junior grade)
København
16. juni 2003



pageoneresults -> RE: NN 4 (6/16/2003 12:00:15)

quote:

Why potentially irrirtate vistors and waste bandwidth and time with a script when you can just use an @import??????????

True but, there is a slight bug when using just the @import statement. In IE, when first visiting a page, you may see the unstyled page and then the styled page jump in. I just had this issue with one client where I was testing this. Since I' ve stopped building separate stylesheets for NN4.x, I wanted to see if there was a way to present the unstyled content (like a Lynx browser).

The client sent me an email not long ago saying there was something funny going on when first visiting the site. It was the lone use of the @import statement. I switched back to then normal link statement.



J-man -> RE: NN 4 (6/16/2003 13:31:49)

I' ve had problems with the @import statement as well. With the JS script above, you don' t have to irritate visitors with a pop window as you can display the message in the html using <Div> tags anywhere on the page. the above script just lends itself to the creative possibilities one may hap. upon by using their brain.



slbergh -> RE: NN 4 (7/8/2003 14:37:04)

I' m coming into this discussion quite late, but this is a topic that has been hotly debated several times in my department.

Perhaps I can illustrate why I really don' t take NN4 browsers into consideration that often with my webs anymore (sorry NN users):

Total June web hits: 22,924
Total NN4 browsers in June: 171

That means that only 0.7% of the people who viewed my site were using NN4. IMO, that' s not nearly enough for me to need to worry about. (Keep in mind, I work for an educational institution that has historically been dominated by Netscape.)



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.109375