BS: Web Standards Assn.

Subject: BS: Web Standards Assn.
From: GUEST,Q
Date: 07 Mar 03 - 11:36 PM

What exactly is this group? The cable server in our area will not service calls about anything above Netscape 5, so few here use the higher pedigree programs unless they have a hankering for IE.
I have run into access refusal by a website, that of someone who advertises through Mudcat- www.collectorsfolk.co.uk.

Subject: RE: BS: Web Standards Assn.
From: mack/misophist
Date: 08 Mar 03 - 12:08 AM

A quick look at google didn't lead anywhere. However, there is an ongoing problem with browsers that ignore international standards and use proprietary versions of HTML, Java, etc. This is the reason some sites work with some browsers but not others. I have seen sites (universities, mostly) that ask users to stick with Netscape 4.8 and Explorer 5.5 because the java on the site won't work properly above those versions. Microsoft is especially pushy about their proprietary code.

Subject: RE: BS: Web Standards Assn.
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 08 Mar 03 - 03:37 PM

The Web Standards Project is at http://www.webstandards.org/act/campaign/buc/. It seems mainly to be an attempt by designers to persuade everybody to upgrade their browsers so that they can incorporate even more flashy stuff without having to bother about backwards-compatibility.

Also have a look at the World Wide Web Consortium: http://www.w3.org/. These are the people who define "web standards"; actually all that means is correct usage of html and the newer markup languages. Mind you, it's not exactly easy to understand what they're talking about much of the time unless you have some experience of programming or maths.

Apart from the curse of the "wysiwyg" webpage-building programs made by Microsoft (in particular) which write non-standard html, often to the extent where a page made in them is garbled or even invisible in competitors' browsers, the main problem with accessibility is that newer forms of markup are not supported by slightly older browsers, and not everybody understands this, or can be bothered to build a site that will work properly in, say, Netscape 4.7, which a lot of people still use. Many web designers want to play with all the new toys (style sheets and the like) and will post patronising notes on their sites telling you that your browser "doesn't support web standards" (not strictly true; it just doesn't support the latest web standards) or simply that they don't support your browser and you should upgrade it. This is unprofessional in my view, and a serious mistake for a commercial site, which will inevitably lose sales as a consequence.

Inevitably, most commercial sites are built to order, so the owners are not always aware of such things, and are rather at the mercy of the designer they hire. Llanerch publishers, for example, have a site which is effectively forbidden to all but users of Netscape 7 and above or IE 5 and above; I doubt that they realise that their designer's lazy and arrogant approach is costing them sales.

"Collectorsfolk", to do it justice, does have a basic alternative set of pages for we Luddites who do not always immediately upgrade to the latest unfinished, bug-ridden piece of software every time a new iteration pops up; but the whole thing could perfectly well have been made in an equally presentable form which would have not have required two parallel versions. As it happens, I know both the owner and the designer; the latter and I disagree about certain aspects of web design, but he's very conscientious about accessibility, if maybe a touch over-enthusiatic about implementing newer forms of style-sheets that are still far from universally supported. I doubt if they realise that some browsers can't even use the alternative pages, though, and that certainly won't have been their intention; exactly what version do you have?

Subject: RE: BS: Web Standards Assn.
From: mack/misophist
Date: 08 Mar 03 - 09:36 PM

There are supposed to be more linux machines than Macs these days. The standard there is Mozilla 1.0 and Netscape 4.8. As a matter of fact, I can't get Netscape 6 to install, not that I've tried that hard.

Subject: RE: BS: Web Standards Assn.
From: GUEST,Q
Date: 08 Mar 03 - 10:35 PM

Netscape Communicator 4.7 is the one I have. The local cable company will not verify service to higher numbered versions, which might put at risk my email service through them.
I could use IE but I don't like the way it operates. It does pick up some websites that don't perform fully with Netscape.
A cable company technician will install higher versions of Netscape, but says he cannot service any glitches or give any guarantees about servicing.
Besides collectorsfolk, I have encountered a couple of small cd distributors who can be used only through IE and there are a few other websites, including Richie's source of fiddle music information.

Subject: RE: BS: Web Standards Assn.
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 08 Mar 03 - 11:07 PM

I can access Collectorsfolk with Netscape 4.7.9, though I only get the basic "Luddites" version. Do you not see it at all? Please say, as I'm sure they'll want to fix it if there are people who can't see it at all. Have you tried Opera? It has its own eccentricities, as they all do, but on the whole it's less of a pain than IE, and can handle stuff that Netscape 4 can't. Also it doesn't time-out on slow connections.

Subject: RE: BS: Web Standards Assn.
From: GUEST,Q
Date: 08 Mar 03 - 11:22 PM

When I access their site, I get a message saying that their site conforms to web standards, and there is a link to a message describing the Web Standards Assn., stating that the standards were set up for a purpose, etc., which teed me off. I didn't go any farther.
I don't believe Opera is usable through my cable operator, but I will ask, out of curiosity if nothing else. Haven't heard of anyone here using it.

Subject: RE: BS: Web Standards Assn.
From: mack/misophist
Date: 09 Mar 03 - 10:33 AM

One thing I can't understand is why your cable operator cares what kind of browser you use. Since they're only a pipeline, they shouldn't notice; unless this is some new variety of ISP.

Subject: RE: BS: Web Standards Assn.
From: Rapparee
Date: 09 Mar 03 - 10:57 AM

I had horrendous problems with Netscape 6.x, but I moved to Netscape 7.x and have had very few problems. Moreover, I have had no problems accessing any site.

Unless your cable access has some sort of filter (Internet or otherwise) or antivirus software or something as part of its "service" I too can't see why they should care what browser you use.

Opera is a decent browser, as is Mozilla. Both are "open source" I believe.

As far as I know there is no one agency charged with enforcing standards for the Web. There should be, but it would certainly be a massive undertaking!

Subject: RE: BS: Web Standards Assn.
From: GUEST,Q
Date: 09 Mar 03 - 12:14 PM

Technicians of my cable company won't say anything about limitations beyond what I have posted here. If I knew one of them and fed him enough single malt, I might be able to find out why their service is limited to Netscape 4.7.

Some of the rural service around here, 'phone system based, is really poor. Honking Duck is really difficult according to my bluegrass-jugband playing son-in-law- takes forever to load each selection, but it is almost instantaneous with the cable service here.

As I noted above, what really turned me off was the nasty message from this so-called web standards assn. If the website had just failed to fully come up, I might have switched to IE.

Subject: RE: BS: Web Standards Assn.
From: Blackcatter
Date: 09 Mar 03 - 03:18 PM

I have had better success with Netscape 7.X than with 6. But I still have some problems with websites not recognizing Netscape completely. I couldn't access the website of my bank with any Netscape browser - they said I had to use I.E. I changed banks, instead.

It's clear that many of the people who have websites designed for them never access them or they would stop having designers put all the flash crap on the sites. Why anyone would think that people would love to see a 30 second flash program before actually being able to use their sight is beyond me. Beyond that is the assumption that many sites have that everyone has cable modems. When it takes over a minute for a frontpage to load on 56K, they're just loosing customers.

I usually complain in an gentle email whenever I access such a site. I encourge you all to do the same. It's the only way they'll change.

Subject: RE: BS: Web Standards Assn.
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 09 Mar 03 - 04:16 PM

All web pages are written with some form of HTML. That means that when you point your browser to a web page you download HTML instructions for creating that page as distinct from downloading the page itself. How your computer constructs that page from the HTML instructions depends on the computer, the monitor, the speed of the connection and the browser software.

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is a group containing representatives from all major software companies that has attempted to create standards for HTML so that all browsers can reconstruct the pages in the same way. They suggested that certain codes no longer be used and then added something called Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) to replace them. The result was not much better so they invented XML as a new language to write pages in. Unfortunately, XML is harder to use and there are millions if not billions of HTML web pages in existance. So, they invented XHTML which is a sort of combination of XML and HTML that, in theory, is easy to use and can be understood uniformly by all browsers.

Unfortunately, at present no browser can fully support CSS and XHTML. Also, many people are using older browsers. So, when you design a web page you have to make certain decisions. Do I want older browsers to be able to view this page? If I do, I will be severely limited in what I can include. Do I want to accomodate dial-up connections? If I do, I will be severly limited in how much information I can include. Do I want to include all the new whiz bang features or am I more interested in reaching a larger number of viewers?

These are decisions all web designers must face. Sometimes it makes (commercial) sense to ignore people with older browsers, sometimes not. But, as Blackcatter noted, if you pay someone to design your site these decisions are being made for you and you may not be aware of them.

So, either learn to design your own page or at least have this discussion with your designer so that you are aware of what you are doing.

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Web Standards Assn.
From: mack/misophist
Date: 09 Mar 03 - 04:27 PM

Modern hard drives are very big and very cheap. I use 3 different browsers for different things. If it makes you feel any better, all HTML courses remind the students to validate their web siters with at least 2 browsers. The pages you couldn't open were, thus, incompetent.

Subject: RE: BS: Web Standards Assn.
From: Rapparee
Date: 09 Mar 03 - 05:18 PM

When I was writing webpages (and I'm sure to be doing that again soon) I always checked them against both Netscape and IE, as many versions of each as I could. Since I was writing for a public library, we WANTED as many people to be able to use the site as possible -- likewise for web-based library catalogs, although there the vendor usually writes it and the library doesn't have a lot of say in the matter.

As I see it, part of the problem is Microsoft's insistence upon trying to dominant the Web. For instance, until just a few weeks ago MS didn't include the software necessary to read Sun's Javascript; then a Federal judge got insistent and now MS is supposed to. Microsoft's inaction (they had an agreement with Sun) required users to download the missing peice seperately when MS included software for their own "version" of Java with IE. Since Java was intended to be browser-independent, this did nothing for the end user, especially since MS was supposed to include the necessary parts.

So frustrating, dealing with a company ajudged a monopoly but which the Dept. of Justice won't make do what is right....

Subject: RE: BS: Web Standards Assn.
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 09 Mar 03 - 09:21 PM

It appears that the "web standards" page is just a site set up so that people who are too lazy to make compatible web pages can send you there instead of finishing their own site design.

The standard referred to on that page is the W3, although they don't say which version they think you should use. They do list a number of browsers - mostly the same ones talked about in this thread - that have versions that "comply" with whatever (unrevealed) version they want you to use.

In actuality, even though the W3 has been at it for a number of years, they have never "adopted" a STANDARD. The best that's come out is a series of "proposed rule-making" documents - none of which has ever been formally agreed to by any of the "significant players."

Most of the browser designers have attempted to conform to the main "proposed rules," since their browsers would be useless if they couldn't read at least "plain-vanilla" html. Most of the browser designers have wanted additional functions to "jazz up" the "web experience," so they've all used at least a few non-standard tricks.

Microsoft has not incorporated full "Sun Java" in their browsers primarily because Sun has refused to let them use "their" Java in Microsoft web design software (proprietary stuff, and all that). Microsoft has come up with their own "Java-like" features as a result, so now Sun is whining about them having something different that the "Sun" Java can't work with.

The dispute should have been settled in the W3 committe - and probably would have been - rather than in court; but that was Sun's choice.

It's a little like a gang of schoolboys arguing about who's can to use in the kick-the-can game.

I find it presumptious that the "web design committee" should issue dictates about what browser a person should use, when they have totally failed to get agreement, and to issue in final form, any standard for web design, but then I'm only a user.

(And most of the new "features" are so they can do things TO you, not FOR you.)

John

Subject: RE: BS: Web Standards Assn.
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 10 Mar 03 - 12:36 AM

We are new to web design having done only one site - our own. We validated it on the W3C site and it pointed out literally dozens of problems which we fixed. It's pretty basic and when we checked it on a variety of browsers, it seems to look pretty good no matter what browser is used.

On the other hand, our daughter hired a professional to do hers and it is much more sophisticated than ours. But, it completely fails on older browsers and on all versions of Netscape. When we told her that, she said she doesn't care because the people she wants to see it all have the latest software and nobody important (to her) uses Netscape.

In her business, she may be right.

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Web Standards Assn.
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 10 Mar 03 - 03:10 AM

Anyone wanting to do a "compatible" website might ought'a take a look at the O'Reilly HTML book(s). I was very much impressed (well, I'm easy) with the clarity with which the 3d edition pointed out the non-standard tags, and which browsers could - maybe could - and could not - use them.

The 3d edition is long since "obsolete." In fact I got it some months ago off a Barnes "selloff" table. I've seen the new XML on the shelves, but haven't felt the need to get it - yet.

My list of publishers that I "trust" is shrinking rapidly, but O'Reilly seems to still have the user in mind, and I'd expect the quality to be maintained at least for a few more issues.

Just wish they did windows.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Web Standards Assn.
From: Rapparee
Date: 10 Mar 03 - 06:36 AM

JiK, I completely agree with you. I wonder how long it's going to be before someone -- business, government, someone -- starts mandating standards.

Subject: RE: BS: Web Standards Assn.
From: Mr Red
Date: 10 Mar 03 - 07:06 AM

I test my website on IE5.5 and Netscape 4.5 for this very reason. And on other machines. There is 'cat WebTV user who cannot see my website the only reason I can think is page size (in Kbytes) but I haven't got enough info to understand the problem. A lot of web designers (amatuer and professional) who can't see it is a problem.

Flash and such is even more of a problem. I hate it because there are many company PC's that have rules about downloading and in my experience Flash (eg) can take 5 mins to load (plus 5 mins to get Flash) and then 5 mins to run. AND the information content is unlikely to be great and not uptodate. BUT we are such suckers for eye-candy. I refuse to wait - if the website spends more time on the movie than on the content I move on. Immediately.

Subject: RE: BS: Web Standards Assn.
From: Rapparee
Date: 10 Mar 03 - 07:10 AM

A few years ago, WebTV couldn't handle Java of any sort -- I don't know if that's changed, but it was certainly true then and caused no end of complaints. If it is still the case....

Subject: RE: BS: Web Standards Assn.
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 05:34 AM

Reminds me of a cheap Mah Jongg set I once had. The rules were neatly printed out, and included the explanation:
"There are many different sets of rules for Mah Jongg, but if everyone used these rules they would be the standard"

Yeah!
Nigel

Subject: RE: BS: Web Standards Assn.
From: hesperis
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 12:08 PM

Yeah, there are a lot of designers who use only IE - that is because IE caters to the designers by allowing pages to look great with a minumum of effort.

Netscape is HELL to try to comply with if you're doing anything but plain vanilla. Every different version does something different, breaks a certain part of the site... and their use of layers is really buggy and UZUGLY.

Flash annoys me, I'm probably one of the few designers out there who hates it. Especially in navigation bars... An HTML splash page is a good idea, then all the standard navigation images can load, and the user will already have the images in the cache when they start viewing more content-rich areas of the site. That is the purpose of the splash page, as far as I'm concerned. Flash defeats that purpose. Sure it looks great, if you can see it. And why so many people don't put a "skip intro" link in the html part of the flash intro... ARRRGH!

For my game development site, I am planning a flash introduction later this year. Since a game is multimedia, flash is an easy way to give viewers a visual sense of the game. However, it will be LINKED from the splash page, and people can choose if they want to see it or not.

I'm creating a customer site right now, where the content needs to be heavy on flash. But the navigation and the gallery will be plain html, so that the artwork is accessible to everyone, and people can choose to view the flash artwork part or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Web Standards Assn.
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 11 Mar 03 - 12:26 PM

Mr red-i use Web Tv [KIT) www.kit.co.uk and i can se your site no problem.One thing that really annoys me though, is wewbsites that dont work with old browsers, i recently found out that KIT uses Mozilla as its browser, there is no way to download any others, there has been loads of times when people have posted links to funny sites, but all i can see is a sqaure box saying "unsupported plug in data".And some sites say give a message saying if you want to read this site you have to get the latest software, this is daft, you dont need to buy a new radio to listen to new stations, or buy a new car to drive on new roads!