Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
In the UI development area there has been lot of emphasis on adhering w3 standards. I have very basic question why the webpages should adhere w3 standards. My specific questions are
(1) What are the top 10 reasons adhere w3 standards?
(2) What are the top 10 issues I will get if I don't adhere to w3 standards even though web page I have developed working fine?
As a web developer, adhering to w3 standards is strongly recommended, simply because browsers implement those standards. Without standards imagine IE 6-7 like stylesheets for every browser out there.
By coding to standards we do our but in giving users accross platform, browsers and screens that will get a uniform experience, that said there are a few things that browsers render differently. But with IE 9, Internet Explorer also started falling in line with other browsers.
Also, there are ton of libraries and frameworks that assume you have valid markup to work properly.
Just a demo, try and remove doctype declaration and open your site in IE.
See this link for info about HTML validation: http://validator.w3.org/docs/help.html#why-validate
I also like their saying WYSINWOG - What You See Is Not What Others Get because it's so true (a lot of the time, at least).
I think the answer to this question could possibly become a list, but the primary reason that stands out for me is compliance.
Your site may look fine to you among the browsers you are able to test on, but if you start to go outside the standards the chances of it working in browsers that you couldn't test goes down.
There's lots of browsers available today on an increasingly broad spectrum of devices with multiple versions available. Its just not possible to test everywhere.
You can validate your webpages against the w3 validator at http://validator.w3.org/
As for WHY keeping your pages up to standards is because those standards are there for a reason.
Your pages work fine for you. Have you tested how the pages look / perform in all browsers? IE 8+, Chrome, Safari, Firefox, Opera, SeaMonkey, etc.? Are you 100% sure your website is handicapped accessible?
When developers adhere to w3 standards, and browsers adhere to w3 standards, then the chance that users will have a consistent experience regardless of what browser they use increases. Visitors who don't have an ideal experience won't return. Adhering to the w3 standards increases the odds in your favor of a visitor having a positive experience, thereby increasing the chances that they will return.
One of the first things I learned when I started developing webpages/sites was to never let the phrase "It works on MY machine" be part of my professional vocabulary (except in jest). It doesn't matter how much a dev likes something or how well they perceive something to work - all that matters is the user's experience. If you have to bend over backwards to make the user's experience enjoyable then so be it - they are the ones who write the checks after all.
I have a problem that I want you to help me, I am currently making a website, I am building that website on HTML5 and CSS3 technology, every feature I'd like to use I check it first in "CAN I USE", the technology I use most is box-shadow, and I already made some great things with it but, I have a doubt about the percentage of browser that don't support that technology, the percentage of browser that do not support box-shadow is around 17.12%, and if you see the conclusions (show options => other options => show conclusions) they say that that feature isn't ready yet because they are "Waiting for Opera Mini 5.0-6.0 to expire", I personally think that the best that we can do in order to make people update their browsers is not support older browser, but ...
am I right thinking like this?
will I have bad consecuences if I don't support older browsers?
is worth to work twice just to support older browsers?
should I still working with box-shadow?
As always....
Progressive Enhancement.
Build your site so it works well for everybody regardless of their browser settings and capabilities. Then add features that enhance the experience but don't cause the site to break for those who cannot take advantage of that feature.
Some CSS3 elements(shadow, rounded corners,...) will not work in older browsers. That's a fact, but you can still use them as the mentioned browsers simply ignore this attribute.
Best way would be that the design of the website doesn't rely on the shadow and other effects, but only to enhance it.
Also take into account the market share of the browsers that don't use these elements. Opera's got a tiny share on the desktop market, and a little bigger on mobile devices, but in no case is a major player. Pre 8 Internet Explorer will give you the most headaches...
I completely agree with John Conde,
Do you want to make a website to teach a lesson to people who still use old browsers?
Or are you seeking more visitors?
Start with a simple design that everybody could use, and then improve it for modern browsers while keeping old browsers in mind.
I am in the process of updating my business website and I've decided to use HTML5/CSS3 (with some PHP) for the whole thing and it works fantastic in every new browser (IE9, FF6, O11, S5, C13) with or without JS.
Now I am not sure what I should do about every other browser version. I imagine I have a small amount of leeway with most of the browsers (atleast the previous version) except IE8 (I have the IE shiv, but it doesn't cover non-js browsers.). Most of the features degrade nicely, but there will always be issues with older browsers.
I know nonJS browsers are probably a minority, but it would be nice
to cover them as well
This list is ordered in the order of current preference to cover the
largest number of browsers(nonJS/JS) but time to implement hasn't been
considered.
Only considering web-browsers, plan is for a mobile site for mobile browsers
Here is the list:
Build a really dodge version of the site using tables^, etc. and redirect the users there if they have an old version of the browser (server-side) and have a warning on there about upgrading.
Use Javascript to fix up the bits they don't work (like the shiv). This doesn't really cover the nonJS browsers which as stated are probably a minority.
Build a static old browser page to redirect the old browser users to a page with links to upgrade download links. This is a real copout solutions, but is quick to implement
Assume the only users that have old browsers are IE users, and use conditional comments to implement one of the previous options. Assumptions are always bad
Pretend users have the most upto date browsers and make no attempt to fix the site at all. Not really a practical option
Rebuild the website for HTML4 and use it accross the site. Bit of a waste of current work. As well as it looks a bit dissappointing if a webdeveloper has a site using old technologies, which was the driving force for the upgrade
What are your thoughts/solutions to the HTML4/5 limbo? Is there anything you've done in current projects to combat this?
Cheers,
Steve.
P.S. Being a member of the 'I hate IE6 and don't care for it's existance' club, I'm pretending that IE6 (or less) never existed.
Update (to clarify)
^ - by tables, I mean are really slapped together version of the current website, using either a table/non-table based layout. But something that may not look pretty when the source is viewed, it's really just there to fill the compatibility void.
It's perfectly acceptable to have features in some browsers and no features for an older browser. See Here.
However, it should be noted that whenever a fix is doable, you should have it. Unless a website is a JavaScript based app, it should be working without JavaScript, note that working != working perfectly.
if you have a hover state with a cool transition, which Chrome 23423 will support, but IE7 won't, then you can either emulate it using Modernizr and jQuery, or leave it as is, and IE7 won't enjoy the goodness. BooHoo.
You must however, give older browser users a message to encourage them to upgrade to a better ones, especially talking about IE<=7.
You built the website in the wrong direction.
If you want to support older versions, instead of building a cutting edge website and then trying to get it to work in older browsers, you need to build a basic site that works everywhere, then use advanced CSS and Javascript feature detection to add features for the newest browsers.
I meet a problem that my page works well in firefox and chrome(almost the same look and feel) but very bad in IE. It's time consuming to adjust the differences. Is there any research has been done already to tell the differenceS, or any automation tool to examine the uncompatibilities?
BTW: which tool you guys are using when debugging in IE(like firebug for IE)?
Your best starting point is to always use some kind of "reset mechanism" like Eric Meyer's CSS Reset or framework like HTML5 Boilerplate, they help in reducing differences between browsers (not all, but most of it). If this is not possible (project is already in finishing phase, etc.) you can always ask questions here, check Position Is Everything for description of bugs, Quirks Mode, SitePoint reference and various other sites (Google is your friend :)). Hope this helps.
There is "debugging" tool for IE - IE Developer Toolbar - but it's usefulness can't compare to that of Firebug, Dragonfly and such. IE8+ does have better support for debugging, though… There are some articles that suggest using Visual Studio, but I haven't tried it. Mostly it's just trial and error with IE :).
ie7-js is a JavaScript file that automatically fixes many Internet Explorer bugs for all versions. Works like magic.
For fast and better results in IE you can use CSS Hacks for adjusting the HTML elements.
For IE we have IE Developer AddOn
you can download it here : http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?FamilyID=95e06cbe-4940-4218-b75d-b8856fced535
Welcome to the tiresome world of IE.
IE8 has some version of developers tools, hit F12 on your keyboard and it will pop up. (not present in 6&7)
There are many documented bugs in IE, a simple Google Search would help you out better, but a lot cannot be accounted for until you have your site working in FF.
What most developers I know do is to make the site in FF, make small changes for Webkit browsers then go over to IE (not including 6) and debug.
In my experience there really is no way to tell what IE is going to mess up next, so you'll probably just have to deal with it as it happens.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
From a web developer point of view, what changes are expected in the development arena when Google Chrome is released?
Are the developments powerful enough to make another revolution in the web? Will the way we see web programming change?
Or is it just another web browser?
I think this is just another web browser. The most impact I expect to be improved Javascript performance, and the usability perspective. The first will benefit developers, especially when using Google Gears. I think the users will benefit the most from an enhanced user experience, the safety features, and ease of use.
I can only hope other browser vendors (MS) will follow Mozilla and Google to create a faster Javascript implementation, since this is the only thing that can truly impact web development.
This is long-term positioning for Google; they are clearly trying to build a more stable application platform for web-based development. All of their changes (security, sandboxing, process isolation) are clearly intended to make the browser a better application for hosting complex apps.
This is what Microsoft was worried about with netscape, and why they broke antitrust rules to "cut off their air supply". It's going to be interesting to see how MS responds.
It's also interesting to see how the mozilla / firefox team deals with this- Google is pretty much funding firefox now, so it's going to be a potential conflict of interest for these folks down the road.
In a nutshell, things are going to get more complex, require more testing, and will (hopefully) force recalcitrant vendors like Microsoft to become more standards-compliant.
Considering most develops want to reach the larger audience, it just means one more place to test. Since it uses Webkit, hopefully it will render almost identical to Safari.
Integrated Gears may mean a solid place for apps to be developed though. If you have an internal system it may be nicer to just put Chrome on all the machines than building an app that runs locally.
I think the whole purpose or at least the emphasis of the release, as Kamiel said, is to provide better javascript performance. So many of Google's services rely on heavy javascript usage that this is a smart move by them. This should be good for everyone as IE and Firefox work to compete against Google every browser should get better at javascript.
Google Chrome looks promising. It is of course in an early beta so it's missing a lot of the things people would need or at least feel they need, like plugins, cross-machine synchronization of data (could be done with plugins), cross-platform support (ie. Linux and Mac versions).
So far it renders Gmail like a bat out of hell, so I'm going to pay very close attention to it.
Edit: In fact, these posts are done using it, and except for some minor issues like smaller font in input fields, it works as I expect it to. Fast, stable (already tested it with a javascript killer-page I have for some test applications).
This is just a natural for Google. This way they can control how well their apps work in a container on & off line. Expect more tools, potentially GUI designer type tools and an IDE for use with their cloud offerings as well as a mobile version of this for Android. It's most likely a lead in to Visual Google.
If they are smart they will have this container/browser perform other tasks like parsing content for a fresher Google cache and search results.
Personally, I'm hoping it has less of an impact on web developers and more of an impact on browser developers. Some of the features are really nice, and while the process-oriented approach to separation of tabs will probably make it hefty compared to other browsers, I like the ideas behind it.
My guess is it's going to have to spend a year or longer post-beta to make the kind of impact that Firefox has on web development.
I'd say that I see the improved Javascript engine being the major contribution as far as web applications go. And hopefully will cause a new look for the other browsers and possibly make Javascript implementations a bit more standardized.
Chiming in on this topic. If you have used Chrome, you'll notice a significant speed upgrade, especially on sites using js. I have found that it renders things almost EXACTLY the same as Safari (as you would assume), so I think this drastically minimizes the issue of having to develop on yet another browser.
I think the main thing Chrome does is to offer another (and even perhaps the best to date) alternative to IE. If people start using these, 'advanced' web browsers (man it's sad I have to say that), Microsoft will almost certainly have to step things up with IE9. IE8 seems to me to be more of the same from Microsoft who just can't seem to grasp the UI goodness and overall speed of Safari, Firefox and now Chrome. IE8 is freaking 360MB for godsakes. I think FF3 is like 90MB.
On a side note, has anyone checked out how fast Chrome opens? I found that very impressive.
#Lassevek - The first thing I did was check the js speeds on gmail and "bat out of hell" is precisely how I would describe it.
I just hope Chrome, Firefox and Safari can be temporary friends so they can overthrow IE. After that, it's fair game!
To be quite honest I've always hated Google, with a passion. But, I love their web browser Chrome. It just works. No need to download updates every 5 minutes, No stupid security bars that pop up every time you visit a website, and when I'm writing webpages - I don't even have to test my code anymore because it is standards-compliant, and it just works properly. My current website that I'm building now is about half-done, and it works and looks perfect in Google Chrome. Looks and works perfect in Opera, but as for Internet Explorer, it looks terrible, and it looks fairly good in Firefox.
I don't know. People should stop using Internet Explorer (in my opinion) because it just doesn't work the way it should. Have YOU ever noticed after downloading Internet Explorer 8 on WindwosXP that once you start visiting a few websites, the more sites you visit the longer it takes IE to open a new tab. Sometimes I'm left frustrated, almost sending me into a murderous-rage waiting for a new empty tab to open up! Blah!
As always, it depends on their implementation. If they decide to mess with the rendering engine, we could be looking at a whole new list of browser "quirks" which will mean WebDev's will be uber-pissed.
If they stay standards-compliant (which TBH, I expect they will) it could be a really good thing to heat up the competition.
Be interesting to see how the sandbox mode affects plugin compat, and of course, the tight Gears integration..
That fact that its OSS is a really good thing.. Since any of the above issues could easily be fixed with a patch as soon as the dev community get on to it. :)
Hopefully it will be standards compliant and erase a little midget of Internet Explorer's market share - Firefox has ease of use and plugins going for it, but "security" is something non-technical people can understand... which one could hope would make development easier.
That's assuming it stays standards compliant and innovates well, of course.
As long as there are the other web browsers (and I don't believe that they will die - which is good, because I don't want to see the internet in the hands of Google) it's just another web browser that you need to check compatibility with.
It's not good. More platforms leads to more testing, leads to more time fixing bugs, leads to less time having fun implementing new features, leads to anger, hate, suffering, etc.
I wonder whether plugins/addons will ever be a big focus for Chrome. It seems to be very much focused on providing a fast, clean environment that puts the focus on the web rather than the browser. I suspect that in order to keep it nimble and stable, they may keep the extension capabilities fairly limited (plus, they wouldn't want Adblock for Chrome, would they :-)
I wonder also, given Google's existing relationships with OEMs to include things like the Google Desktop on PCs sold, whether we might start to see Chrome pre-installed on computers. If that were the case, it might become more prevalent than other competitors to IE.
#bpapa
It's just another web browser that
very few people are going to use
because there are already 4 major
browsers out there that work just fine
for most people. It doesn't have the
extensions like Firefox,
Actually, it is pretty clear that it has a plugin architecture
it doesn't
have browser sync with an iPhone like
Safari, it doesn't come with your
computer like IE, and it doesn't...
well I don't know what Opera does that
makes it stand out but I don't think
Chrome has it.
"I don't know what Opera has, but this piece of software that I've never touched clearly doesn't have it"... what??
Another reason why I don't see it
taking off - since it's not on OS X a
lot of tech people aren't going to be
using it.
Did you miss the part where the Linux and OS X distros are coming right behind Windows?