Who codes for different browsers?

[Anon]

I just finished reading tim's article on browser detection for appropriate css coding (http://www.phpbuilder.com/columns/tim20000821.php3?page=1) and was interested in finding out how many of you programmers out there even try to accomodate for different browsers when designing/coding your web sites.

A poll would have been better but a quick response from you would be appreciated.

Please add your preferred browser too.
My preferred browser is MSE.

Thanx

p.s. As I learn more and more about web building I come closer and closer to the conclusion that NS Navigator is awfully bad. (to put it lightly)

Is this conclusion shared by you too?

[Anon]

netscape rocks...and I.E. sucks big time...

what the hell, why should you want to know anyone's favourite browser...it doesn't matter...i try to code for as much browsers possible, and as much platforms as possible...i test everything with I.E., NS4.7 and 6, Opera...and on windows, a mac, and linux...as a webmaster you're responsible for a site, not for what software you think the visitors should use...i, definitely, when i enter a site that's I.E. only, quit it and never go back, although I.E. is on my comp(for testing only)...it's a matter of respect for your visitors...let people decide on what browser they use...

netscape 6 is just so much more usefull to me than anything else, but i don't force it to my visitors...but again, your message doesn't matter...stupid question

[Anon]

In response to the last message...

I don't want to start a browser argument, because that would be ridiculous...

but maybe back in the 3.x days Netscape was far better than IE -- but IE 4 and above are miles ahead of netscape. From little features (like autocomplete on form fields), to understanding improper syntax in HTML and actually rendering the page instead of showing blank like netscape does, Internet Explorer IS the leader by far.

In terms of coding, it depends from project to project. The more advanced features a client wants to put in, the less browsers it is going to work in. As a bottom line, my rule of thumb is all sites should AT LEAST be 4.x Netscape and IE compatible...

[Anon]

Welllll, sure that previous message could have contained the
same information with less vitriol, but some of the stuff you
cite in favor of IE (e.g. autocomplete on form fields) are merely
matters of security risk^HHHHHHHHHH oops I
mean user convenience, but don't have any bearing on the
rendering of html. So I don't really see how that relates to
the issue of html design. As far as not liking the fact that
Netscape applies stricter rules for html than does IE, what
are you going to do when XML arrives?

[Anon]

Well you can call autocomplete a security issue as much as you like.. but

a) I have a secure system in my office
b) Netscape 6 now does have this feature so your point is moot.

In terms of rendering HTML I am talking about if you miss closing a cell here or a row there, IE figures out what you mean... Netscape tends to just not render the table. By now bringing in XML as an argument you are throwing in a red herring. The fact is, Netscape is not as flexible in reading code. End of story.

Now that you have refuted my benefits of IE over netscape, would someone care to give me one good reason why Netscape is better than IE? If you are going to argue with features of Netscape 6 as your premises, I'd appreciate if you could try to focus on versions below 6.

If you are a Netscape die hard, then you were also a Netscape die hard 6 months ago, when Communicator 4.7 was your browser of choice. I want to know why you prefered 4.7?

BTW, this argument is purely in fun, so if anyone is taking this serious, then please don't.

[Anon]

I won't get caught up in the browser war (but who could seriously prefer Netscape, anyway?) ... but rather answer the original question:

The only difference I make in coding web pages is between IE and "everything else," the majority of which is of course Netscape. I don't do anything too complex with DHTML or applets or anything, so I'm not too concerned with plugin and other platform-related issues - just rendering. I test everything in IE 5.5, IE 4.0, and NS 4.7. I downloaded Netscape "6" and tried it once; it was so slow, ugly, and all-around awful that it convinced me that Netscape has absolutely no chance against future versions of Explorer.

I have yet to receive any complaints about rendering on my sites. You can see my latest at http://prescottontheweb.com/.

-Keegan

[Anon]

Brian wrote:

In terms of rendering HTML I am talking about if you miss closing a cell here or a row there, IE figures out what you mean...

That's what Kirk was talking about too. IE permits badly-formed HTML. Of course that makes it popular among beginners, because it forgives their mistakes, but most experienced web builders prefer not to have mistakes in their HTML, and if Netscape catches errors, that's all to the good.

This has become a pet peeve of mine. Most of the messages on this board that complain about "stupid Netscape" seem to be from people who have trouble writing valid HTML. Not only can't they be bothered to learn the basic skills their jobs require, they refuse to take responsibility for that, preferring to blame the browser.

As for the original question, "Who codes for different browsers?" I would hope the answer is, "any professional web designer or programmer". We don't work for MS OR Netscape. We work for clients who presumably want their websites to be utilized by as many people as possible. That means writing for what's out there, no matter what our personal preference happens to be.

It's funny. Besides the CCS generator Scott mentioned (thanks Tim, it's been a lifesaver), I've had two occassions recently to insert conditional code for IE/Netscape. In one case I had a background image with tables over it. Looks great in IE, but Netscape stops and restarts the image at every cell border, making it look awful. In another case I created a table with alternating row colors. I used two different background jpgs for the different rows, which looks great in Netscape, but IE choked on it. That's been my experience overall. The two browsers render HTML slightly differently, which sometimes makes things look better in IE, and sometimes in Netscape. If you take the time to learn about those differences, it's not that difficult to produce pages that look good in both.

[Anon]

Thanks all, for your replies.

beth wrote:

---

As for the original question, "Who codes for different browsers?" I would hope the answer is, "any professional web designer or programmer". We don't work for MS OR Netscape. We work for clients who presumably want their websites to be utilized by as many people as possible. That means writing for what's out there, no matter what our personal preference happens to be.

---

Good answer! I too have learned that this is the correct attitude when programming a web application, but IE let's you do many more things with let's say, less effort. And there are many less work arounds with IE as with NS to get things looking right. Not to mention that the IE market share, as a conservative estimate, is well above 70% now.

Ok, somebody mentioned that NS Navigator is stricter when it comes to enterpreting HTML.
What advantage does that give me as web programmer? It means that I have to troubleshoot my code just to get it to look right for NS. And then it looks like crap anyway.

---

netscape rocks...and I.E. sucks big time...

---

A hard core NS fan eh? Glad I received different view points to my thread.

So, to rap things up.

*** Program for all browsers a much as possible. Give all visitors a chance to see your great work.

*** Don't force a browser on your visitors. This means don't write anywhere "This site requires Browser X to work".

*** MS is more forgiving when it comes to HTML booboos. Whether this is good or not we'll leave alone.

*** NS requires tighter HTML. (less mistakes) Same as above.

*** I assume from out of 6 answers 5 have a tendancy towards IE and 1 for NS. The majority also mirror my preference.

If there are more programmers with an opinion out there I would like to here from you.

Again thanx for your responses.

[Anon]

If there are more programmers with an opinion out
there I would like to here from you.

I'll give you mine. What I appreciate mostly in IE is its celerity. Nothing to do with NS, especially NS6 which is awfully slow to start. And IE supports more CSS and Javascript features, even if NS6 seems to have corrected this at last.
Now the bad side of IE. What I hate the most is the will of Microsoft not to respect the standards. You forget HTML tags, no matter. You write incorrect CSS styles, doesn't care. You send a specific mime-type, it's ignored. All this is supposed to make user's life easier, and it turns into developpers' nightmare, because what seems to work on one browser doesn't on the others.

[Anon]

Scott Molinari wrote:

*** I assume from out of 6 answers 5 have a tendancy towards IE and 1 for NS.

You're from Florida, right? 😉 I count 3 people (including you) for IE and 3 (including me) for NS. Olivier's vote would swing the election to NS, but he may have missed the deadline.

Regarding HTML-compliant code, you asked, "What advantage does that give me as web programmer?" It gives you a number of advantages. First it means your code will run in any browser, so if NS or some other browser attains prominence or if MS decides to make the next version of IE more compliant, your website will still work. It also makes it easier to translate your pages into XML or WML. If you think it's a pain to add closing tags while you're writing the HTML, just wait until you have to go back and insert them all later.

• Beth

[Anon]

I really don't want to get into this, because browser debate is on par with religious debate.. people tend to be very closed minded, etc...

but I guess my point is this.... if you are really going to argue about which browser is "better" -- I think its important to look at it from a developers perspective... but more important to look at it from a users perspective.

Not everyone that makes web sites, pages, etc is a professional. Very, very far from it. If you want to talk about the moral goodness of having a browser with strict tolerances, fine. But the fact is, strict tolerances are good for developers, and poor for users. Not everyone that makes pages does it for a living, for some its a hobby.

Why punish people that don't have the time to learn all the standards?

Here's another debatable topic for y'all.

It is my estimate that within 2-3 years, a very minute percentage of the developing community will be competent to do so without tools such as Frontpage or Dreamweaver, etc....

As it is, I run into "professional" web designers every day who don't actually know how to code a table without their tool.... is this a bad thing? Comments...

[Anon]

And just for precision, nobody better be counting me for either. Nothing I said was meant to favor one over the other--I was merely (a) disagreeing that some purely client-side issues such as autocomplete had any bearing on the html programmers' perspective, and (b) trying to point out that strict html compliance in a browser was not necessarily a bad thing (expecially considering xml and other future things that require strictness.)

My own personal working scenario is to check things with NS first (since it is more particular) but also to check IE, Opera, and even occasionally Amaya.
However I do not ever--or perhaps I should say, have not yet had a situation which forced me to--write browser-specific code. When I do find a conflict, my preference is to go back and rework things until it's tolerable or better on all platforms. (Hmm, what's the emoticon for "keeping my fingers crossed"?)

[Anon]

I prefer Netscape...there, I said it. I'm not afraid. 🙂

I downloaded it for testing, to make sure my pages looked good in each browser, just like everyone else. I like the idea that it's strict and doesn't let you make mistakes. Yeah, it's annoying at first, but when you learn to write clean code, you don't have to worry about it. I also really like that it doesn't have that damn clicking sound every time you click on a link.

I'm using 4.7 right now. I saw netscape 6 and also thought it was very ugly and slow. I don't think I'll be upgrading, unless I have to, since Netscape is crashing fairly often now that version 6 was released...hmmmm....

As for the dreamweaver vs frontpage vs notepad debate...hmm...I'm a dreamweaver fan. I do know how to code a table by hand, as I frequently do it in my PHP code. I just find it's easier to lay things out, join cells, split cells, align, move, etc, with a simple drag and drop interface. It makes for faster basic HTML coding. I would never go back to Frontpage, though. I think we all know how aweful it is. Dreamweaver doesn't mess with my code at all, PHP or HTML. My vote is for Dreamweaver, if we're counting again.

Are these programs bad? Yes, I think they're bad in the same way as IE is bad by letting you write sloppy code. Both let beginners get away with things that they shouldn't. They teach bad habits and give a poor foundation to the newbies.

We don't want a bunch of newbies falling on us later on because of a crappy foundation, do we?

I think I should also say that Linux sucks and Windows is the best operating system in the world!!!

muuuaaaaahahahahhaahaha (evil mad scientist laugh)

---John Holmes...