|
Jörgen Andersson wrote: Pixelpushing
Is that some new-age fudgepacking?
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering.-Wernher von Braun
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
I had to look up that. 
You might have a point though.
|
|
|
|
|
> You should also prioritize in which order you fix problems.
Very good point, that's a fight waiting to happen, I'll add that
|
|
|
|
|
Your approach is the right one and Jörgen is wise.
Aim to support the most common browsers (FF - Gecko, Chrome/Safari - webkit, and IE7+ - Trident). Focus on making the site usable (but not pixel perfect) on all browsers above your cutoff line, and provide different levels of features:
1. Mainstream browsers: The site should have full functionality and look great. Do as much as you can without resorting to HTML5/CSS3. Maybe you can't use a canvas, or maybe you can't use the file upload progress capabilities or local storage, but it all works. IE7+ and all other browsers fit in here
2. New browsers: Using progressive enhancement by sniffing for feature availability, add the features you feel are the icing on the cake and/or are feature you want as mainstream in a year or two. The experience on newer browsers should be the same, but little things just work nicer and look nicer. IE9, Chrome, Firefox and Safari latest fit into this.
3. Old dying browsers: information should be accessible and readable. Maybe something doesn't work like drag and drop, maybe you have no shadows or rounded corners. Maybe your DIVS are a little out of alignment. It doesn't matter. It all still works.
4. Mobile browsers: Don't even bother with non-HTML mobile browsers. Consider all mobile browsers HTML5 enabled and focus on a fast, clean, readable experience geared towards touch. It may mean a completely different site
5. Odd, dead or beta browsers. Chrome eleventy-one, Firefox 2.0. IE5 on a Mac. Lynx. Take a moment to see if you have customers that actually use, and need to use, any of these. If they do, support it on an as-needed basis similar to #3.
In all of this, ask yourself whether you expect all your users will have Javascript and images enabled, and whether you can reasonably require this to be the case in order to view the site.
And then, when that's all done, fix the issues in the correct order.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Whohoo, you just made my day, or rather evening.
I'm not often called wise, I'm usually called a PITA.
I'm raising a glass of Espiritu de Chile (Carmenère) in the general direction of Canada.
(Where's the wineglass icon?)
|
|
|
|
|
You may want to look at http://remysharp.com/2010/10/08/what-is-a-polyfill/ and https://github.com/Modernizr/Modernizr/wiki/HTML5-Cross-browser-Polyfills.
Personally I don't work on websites, but on web apps, and use http://qooxdoo.org/. But the framework also has website development support, possibly integrating much stuff listed in the second page linked to above already - I have no idea, since I don't use their website stuff, but judging from what their desktop stuff looks like, they build powerful, solid and comprehensive solutions - nothing half-baked.
|
|
|
|
|
It's not just the browser qua browser. It's the OS, too.
I'm redesigning my site right now and it looks like crap in Chrome and Firefox. Layout? No. Features? No.
Freaking fonts. I can't even get Google fonts to look good in Chrome. Blocky, pixelated, ugly. Looks great in IE. Makes no sense.
I hear tell it's because of a setting in Windows itself (font smoothing? Something. Doesn't matter. I have no control over the users' systems, so I have to find some other way of making pretty.)
|
|
|
|
|
There is a difference between having to support IE7, and having to make it look good in IE7.
If I were you I would create an adaptive layout that looks good in modern browsers and works on different sized windows to solve the mobile device vs. desktop problem.
For the layout details, though, don't limit yourself to CSS that works in IE7. Just accept that things may look not quite right. It's not too hard to make something that works in IE7, though you'll go crazy trying to make it look exactly the same (unless you want it to look like it's 2005 in ALL browsers). If your organization can accept that using an old browser means their web sites aren't going to look like a modern browser, and may have layout issues, then I'd go with that approach.
If they expect everything to look snappy in IE7 too, then you're screwed.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, well said.
> If they expect everything to look snappy in IE7 too, then you're screwed.
That's where we were for this release, and what I'm trying to avoid in the future.
For anyone that still needs to estimate what it would take a competant designer with a lot of CSS experience to make a site that looks good in Chrome/FF look pixel perfect in IE7 a good estimate is +100-150%.
And, yes I mean multiply your IE7 estimate by 2 or 2.5
And, no I'm not the one that did it (I just did the web application).
|
|
|
|
|
My strategy is to support the latest 4 major browsers, which usually are IE, Firefox, Chrome and Safari, then support the 3 most important mobile web browsers, Safari on IOS, Android Browser, Windows Phone IE. For backward compatibility a focus on functionality over design, it should work but it may not look exactly the same and usually i test on the last 4 major versions of a browser, when available.
|
|
|
|
|
We are quite similar. We will support whichever browser/version we choose but will get to N% of observed users. This applies for desktop and mobile seperately (although percentages change and measurement is by country). For internal-use corporate customers we name the versions that make up the N% of browsers/devices and if you want something not on the list you pay to get it added. Otherwise we end up spending lots of effort supporting X.Y.Z for 0.008% of user base. Using percentage rather than direct naming means we guarantee to keep adapting to market trends.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
