| Msg # |
User |
Message |
Date |
1
|
lk2fireone (0)
|
Just the ones I use. :)
|
08-09-10 12:03am
Reply To Message
|
2
|
bjajlt362 (0)
|
Webmasters should feel obligated to support web standards. If the individual browser doesn't want to support web standards than that's their own fault.
|
08-09-10 12:56am
Reply To Message
|
3
|
Capn (0)
|
Just the popular ones.
|
08-09-10 01:33am
Reply To Message
|
4
|
Jay G (Disabled)
|
No obligation, but no customers, maybe.
|
08-09-10 02:01am
Reply To Message
|
5
|
BadMrFrosty (0)
|
REPLY TO #2 - bjajlt362 :
While I agree in principle with what you say, in practice that just won't work. You cant say to over half of your potential market that your site wont work in their "broken" browsers no matter how much you want to. I know the pain of writting horrible hacks so that perfectly valid code will work in certain browsers but if you want to sell your product sacrifices have to be made. Yes, IE, I am looking at you :)
|
08-09-10 02:17am
Reply To Message
|
6
|
bjajlt362 (0)
|
REPLY TO #5 - BadMrFrosty :
I suppose my point was that websites should only be obligated to support web standards. If they feel like they want to take the time and hack something together for a browser that doesn't render pages properly, like IE (admittedly the newer versions are better than the older versions), than they are welcome to. However that should not come at the expense of web standards for everyone else.
I too have had to lots of time writing hacks and poor code/html just in order to get a site to work in those browsers. That is why I'm so passionate about web standards.
|
08-09-10 09:53am
Reply To Message
|
7
|
bootsulike (0)
|
death to ie6. but...
best efforts please and i'd rather sites avoided using javascripts - not the best from a security pov.
html5 should deal with a lot of these issues, but you're going to have people using legacy browsers for a long time.
oh, and any web developer who can't be bothered to code to standards should be fired.
|
08-09-10 02:03pm
Reply To Message
|
8
|
turboshaft (0)
|
There are a lot of browsers out there, in multiple release versions, so to expect webmasters and mistresses to write their sites to support every single one of them seems to be asking a little much. But at least the newest versions of the most popular ones (yes, including IE) should be common sense.
By the way, if anyone actually reads this and just happens to run a site, I am currently using Firefox v3.6.8. Just putting it out there... ; - )
|
08-09-10 04:29pm
Reply To Message
|
9
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
I agree with 247skizia. The reason we have web standards for God's sake is so that people DON'T have to write patches for the rouge browsers out there -- IE being one of the most notorious in the history of the web. Sites have enough to contend with. You want to make a market argument out of this? How long is a site going to last if they have to pay someone to fix browser code crappola all over the place when the dough would be better spent on quality content?
I think it's absurd, really absurd, to expect CONTENT providers to spend their resources on coding out anti-standard browser glitches.
Hey, if you don't like particular brand of ink pen, you don't buy it; you don't take the damn thing apart and try to make it work better. You've got better things to do!
|
08-09-10 04:58pm
Reply To Message
|
10
|
PinkPanther (0)
|
I've seen sites where the webmasters lay out their hatred for IE and encourage people to use Firefox and I've seen sites where the webmasters say that anything prior to IE is not going to work well.
Like with most things, so long as the webmasters are being honest and informative, I'm fine with it.
|
08-09-10 05:48pm
Reply To Message
|
11
|
pat362 (0)
|
No, they shouldn`t feel obliged to do anything but I would hope that they would choose to support as many as possible. Mind you I`ve yet to see one site that didn`t support my 2 browsers.
|
08-09-10 07:07pm
Reply To Message
|
12
|
dracken (0)
|
There really aren't that many browsers out there, chrome, IE, firefox and maybe opera or safari. That's what five pieces of code you write once, right?
I mean porn sites shouldn't have crazy flash applications anyway, a basic search function and a way to list the scenes is all we really need.
|
08-09-10 09:58pm
Reply To Message
|
13
|
nadiencendia (0)
|
I think it is for their own good that they need to adapt themselves for IE, although the effort to adapt to IE6 probably is not worth it any more. But all the rest, including newer versions of our beloved explorer, yes, they should work with every porn website.
|
08-09-10 11:00pm
Reply To Message
|
14
|
redrum (0)
|
If they want to make money, they should support the most popular browsers. Other than that its really a question of economics, will the added work and money be worth it to them? This is a free market system and technically I think they can do as they wish, and I can use any browser I want and spend my porn dollar where ever I like.
|
08-10-10 08:16am
Reply To Message
|
15
|
bootsulike (0)
|
you write the code once. that code should meet web standards.
but you may have to write patches - or fixes - too compensate for browsers that are not fully standards compliant and that make all the features you've written in compliant code work in other browsers.
ie6 is the bugbear. apart form the technical issues, it's a function of microsoft's dominance. ie6 was the standard browser delivered to a very high proportion of pcs bought say 5+ years ago. i'm amazed at looking at site stats that it still covers a big sector of the market.
there are more browsers than dracken mentions. there's also konqueror, older versions of netscape and a few more i don't know that run on linux or other more obscure operating environments.
even compliant code in compliant browsers can appear different because browsers will render differently and a lot depends upon your screen resolution.
then there's the server side and client side scripts - or mini-programs - that developers use to get sites to do cool stuff. javascript is probably the most common. apart from mundane uses, javascript can deliver a lot of dynamic activity like scrolling pictures and interactive menus. it can be used to run searches, but there's other code that can do that.
flash is usually used for video and a lot sites will use it for streaming. youtube uses it.
some users choose to turn off client side scripts like javascript because these can be exploited by hackers.
web standards require that the site delivers the same usability if scripts are turned off. some hope.
it's a mess really. but the good developers can usually write code that will work reasonably well for 95% of users.
|
08-10-10 01:25pm
Reply To Message
|
16
|
Sevrin (0)
|
I think that it is their interest to support the browsers their customers use most. There aren't that many. I've had far fewer problems with porn sites than I have with many B2B websites.
|
08-10-10 04:41pm
Reply To Message
|
