Netscape, Why bother??

[808s]

Does anyone bother supporting netscape anymore? I mean with 98% of users using a microsoft browser, is there any need?

I usually design for Explorer, and if it works for that, thats enough. I think most of it works in netscape anyway, but I will not stress about the stuff that doesnt.

Whats every one elses view, and is there anything to look out for in the future??

[allida77]

Usually that percentage is around 90%. The other view is to design to w3c standards and not to concern yourself with browsers. There is no a need for supporting Netscape IMO unless your PM tells you to :).

[808s]

Our site gets a massive amount of unique visitors a month and we see no need. I just dont understand why people go to so much trouble to "optimize" for netscape.

For me as long as the code is good, thats fine by me.

If there isnt going to be another Netscape now, is IE the only real browser left. Or are we going to see another challenger, and another set of coding practices?

[bazz]

I don't design for a specific browser. I used to without realising it, in the days before I arrived here and heard so many features are MSIE only.

Now I try to design to standards (and find it easier), though I still use the scrollbar colours .css for the majority of my visitors who use it.

I just wish we could build in javascript in the knowledge that it would work and that individuals couldn't turn it off, thus rendering (sorry for the pun) useless my menu :(

If I could finds a double dd menu that doesnt use Javascript I'd be a happy bunny :)

[808s]

You could use a layered menu effect, using Layers and css but that uses the mouseover event. I have seen them implemented rather well, and have a very modern design. Its a bit like the way Microsoft menu works.


I am same as you, I try to code to stanards and dont touch any of the gimicks that browsers add on.

[Skyzyx]

Originally posted by 808s
For me as long as the code is good, thats fine by me.

If you code it properly, it will work in Netscape, Mozilla, Phoenix/Firebird, Chimera/Camino, Galeon, K-Meleon, and other Gecko browsers. It'll also work on Safari and Opera browsers as well.

Since Netscape (and all of the other browsers I just mentioned based on the same engine) does it right, and IE has a habit of doing it wrong (but somewhat supporting the right way), I always code for Netscape (which does it right), then check it in IE to make sure IE can swallow that valid coding. That way I know it works on everything, and it's no longer an issue.

Besides, does anyone remember when Netscape held 90% of the browser market, and nobody in their right mind would touch IE with a 10 ft (meter, whatever) pole? See how drastically that changed? Who says it won't happen again?

Of all the browsers based on the Gecko engine, only Netscape has come to an end. And with all the web browsers that are out there, IE/Win is the least compliant, least featured, and the least updated browser available. Personally, I think it's retarded to design only for IE/Win, and I really don't understand the mentality.

For example, Yahoo! Launch (http://launch.yahoo.com) supports IE5/Win and Netscape 4.x, but they haven't updated to support current generation browsers yet. Gecko is capable of doing everything that IE can do, and more! Why haven't they updated? Because they don't understand (or are ignorant of) valid coding practices behind Web Standards.

People need to get with the program. If you do it right, then you'll have nothing to worry about.

[pardicity3]

Originally posted by bazz
If I could finds a double dd menu that doesnt use Javascript I'd be a happy bunny :) What about Brothercake's List Menu (http://www.brothercake.com/scripts/listmenu/)? Atleast it doesn't use javascript when it doesn't have to (if the client's browser supports the standards :)).

Oh, and I pretty much second everything skyzyx said :thumbsup:

[allida77]

Not trying to argue but I think that there are some that code for standards and some who code for their actual users. I know it has been said before but it is very inefficient to code to 10% of your user base. There is no way I could argue to the powers to be that we should be coding to standards first. I know it is retarded design but it is reality for many of us. I realize that by doing this in the future you may have to recode but thats the way it goes. I am not saying standards are a bad thing. I think it will be excellent if it becomes the norm but until then viva los ie :D

[brothercake]

Internet Explorer is the new Netscape 4 :p

There's a (very) long article and discussion on the "browser wars" at evolt - http://www.evolt.org/article/Browser_Wars_II_The_Saga_Continues/25/60181/index.html

[Vladdy]

Originally posted by allida77
Not trying to argue but I think that there are some that code for standards and some who code for their actual users. I know it has been said before but it is very inefficient to code to 10% of your user base.
<flameretardant suit="on">
I would say that >95% of web sites are coded for
a) Ignorant marketing-type executives who have no clue what web is about and how people use it.
b) Web designers, who are trying to impress themselves and their geek friends with the crap they can put on a web page.

Vast majority of actual users, especially those who bring income to site owners, (which excludes those leet dudes who look for kewl stuff they can add to thier own web site :thumbsup: ) are looking for INFORMATION. They do not care about how pixel perfect the design is. Most try to ignore the graphics that jump at them and the more artistically inclined just do not know how it is "supposed to be" in the first place.


The problem with the those who design web pages is that they KNOW the content. And it's their perception that it needs "spicing up".

If they ever looked at their web site from visitor's perspective, they would not worry about "oh... my border does not line up here" and "I really need this fading rollover to work".

If someone is still browsing web with NS4.* it is most probably because they can not upgrade their computer , therefore chances are they would prefer a straight up CONTENT without any extra "design". Same goes for owners of PDAs and cell phones.


</flameretardant>

[allida77]

I agree with some of that. "a) " is somewhat true...at me day job our new internet design going through the multiple,multiple, and more multiple channels to get approved. We have already been told that we have to code for NN 4 and up. Sure I dont agree with it but thats the way it goes in dilbertland. It is not just marketing-tyes who make these decisions but trying to explain of why we should code foward instead of backwards is a lost cause.

Sure people are looking for information but I have looked at some of these compliant sites in NN 4 and there is no way a user would take a site serious that has no visible structure. When I say NN 4 I think I am meaning any browser where a site does not render as expected. I doubt there is a large amount of NN4 users.

I know cause I disagree it may seem like I am trying to flame but I am not. I just have a different opinion. Semantics and seperation of content and design should be a standard practice. I just dont think coding striclty 100% to a standard is not the best practice now.

BTW that was a good link.

[Vladdy]

Originally posted by allida77
...no way a user would take a site serious that has no visible structure...
... I am meaning any browser where a site does not render as expected.
Correct mark-up guarantees proper visible structure (headers, paragraphs, lists) WITHOUT application of style sheets.

Add to it the fact that the user does NOT KNOW how the site is "expected" to render which was my point to begin with.

[Nightfire]

For example, Yahoo! Launch supports IE5/Win and Netscape 4.x, but they haven't updated to support current generation browsers yet. Gecko is capable of doing everything that IE can do, and more! Why haven't they updated? Because they don't understand (or are ignorant of) valid coding practices behind Web Standards.


I think they haven't updated coz it'll prolly cost them alot of money to do :)

[MotherNatrsSon]

Originally posted by Vladdy
Correct mark-up guarantees proper visible structure (headers, paragraphs, lists) WITHOUT application of style sheets.

Add to it the fact that the user does NOT KNOW how the site is "expected" to render which was my point to begin with.

I think what he means is that people use web browsers for the most part and not text readers. As I have stated before, if I wanted to write a letter, I'd call it a "document", if I am building a web site, I'd say it needs to be a little more appealing than text on a white background to keep visitors there.

MNS

[brothercake]

We're talking about using a technique whereby pages continue to look lovely for the majority, and plain for one minority, so that the overall accessibility is greatly increased, which brings other minorities into the game (non-visual user agents, access technologies, et al). Overall, browser support increases.

The tag-soup method may make it look nice in netscape 4, but for those other minorities it's now completely inaccessible.

If you code rich-content support in this way, you quite literally preclude compliance, accessibility and semantic richness - they are mutually exclusive

I consider tag-soup coding to be worse than "wrong" or "outdated"; I consider it extremely irresponsible.

[Skyzyx]

Originally posted by Nightfire
I think they [Yahoo! Launch] haven't updated coz it'll prolly cost them alot of money to do :)

Yeah, but Netscape 6.0 debuted in 2000, Netscape 6.2 (in my opinion, the first decent version of 6.x) came out in 2001. We're over halfway through 2003, and Yahoo is a big company. Their design team is all in-house, so what's the problem?

I've simply stopped using their site because I don't use NS4 and I shouldn't have to use IE 5 or 6.

[zoobie]

The worst is when the geek has javascript disabled, pop-up blocker on full, animations disabled, sound disabled, etc...then writes you an email saying your site isn't functioning properly...what a doof :rolleyes:

[brothercake]

Originally posted by zoobie
The worst is when the geek has javascript disabled, pop-up blocker on full, animations disabled, sound disabled, etc...then writes you an email saying your site isn't functioning properly...what a doof :rolleyes:
A doof? Or are they being Socratic .. pointing out the site's lack of functionality when these thing are diabled, but playing it like they don't understand why ... ;)

I've done it myself before .. happen upon some big-name high-street retail site in mozilla with JS turned off ... and then email them all innocent saying "how come your site doesn't work in my browser?"

And you know what? They always say exactly the same thing - "our site is optimised for Windows Internet Explorer with Javascript enabled. Please use that browser to access our site".

I usually drop the innocent act in my replies ... and I usually don't get another answer after that ...

[hrsdh]

I consider tag-soup coding to be worse than "wrong" or "outdated"; I consider it extremely irresponsible. (brothercake)

Well said, brothercake!