What does it take?

[tuulen]

As a Newbie, let me ask the sort of question perhaps only a newbie could ask, please.For instance, considering all of the various browsers in current use, just how could an Internet graphics artist know just what code(s) to use, in order to be "universally" published? I am aware that some code is W3C standard, but I am also aware that not all browsers are W3C compliant.So, as I wonder, does a graphics artist need to have a number of different browsers, in order to check the quality of their work?Thanks!!

[Little Goat]

Actually, Internet Graphics Artists do not use any code (unless you are using SVG or another type I don't know of) And Most Browsers are the same with graphics unless they have a really bad bug, and then they're not worth using. :)So, I don't really think you need to worry about browsers if all you do is graphics.

[boen_robot]

A "graphic" is a file, containing an image, be it a raser one (GIF, JPEG, PNG, etc.) or a vector one (SVG, Flash, etc.). You use those file formats to insert images into web pages. But those images are not web pages themselves.When people say that a browser is not "W3C compilant" they mean it doesn't follow a certain W3C standart the way W3C defined it. Such statements most often refer to CSS- the language used to describe the appearance of a web page. More rarely they refer to incompatabilities in HTML, most notably with the object element.So, what a graphics designer (designing any of the above graphic formats in a certain image editor) doesn't need to know anything about different browsers as browsers render graphics in the same way. What a web page designer (designing in HTML and CSS in any text editor) needs to know is the incompatabilities between browsers, as browsers render HTML and CSS codes differently.

[tuulen]

I thank you, Little Goat, and boen_robot.I now realise, however, that in my use of the term graphic artist, I had intended to speak of everything graphic, that is, anything to appear on a monitor screen, including Web pages, and all. I did not realise that the term graphic could be limited to only certain images.What brought about my question, moreover, were some discussions I had seen on other threads, where, for instance, getting some text to be centered on the monitor screen of one make of browser could be a somewhat different proceedure than getting that same text centered on the screen of another make of browser. So, it had me thinking that it just might be useful to have something of a collection of various browsers, of different makes, some older and some new, just to check for "universal" compatibility.I am sorry if I have misused the term graphic.Yes, I gather that CSS is relatively new, in commercial terms, and that perhaps not all manufacturers have adopted it, at least not yet.I thank you.

[Kevin M]

CSS has actually been around since 1996 I believe. As far as I know most (If not all) of that major browsers support CSS. But some users do have the ability to turn off support for CSS, which can really mess up your pages. I read an interesting article yesterday about the em unit in CSS (I had not idea how to use it) and it got into the fact that some browsers don't use CSS, like browsers that use brail to display certain things, or browsers that say things aloud to the user. So the article said that you should try to make your documents work even without the use of CSS, which would be quite a challenge these days since so many developers rely on CSS. There's also the possibility that the style sheet doesn't load properly, which would mess up the page.Anyway, just thought I'd tell you incase you weren't aware, for some reason IE doesn't support transparent PNG images even though I believe most other browsers do. So there are two ways to get around this that I know of. Either use GIF (which doesn't have much colour support, so you will loose quality), or I believe there is some type of code. I can look for a code like that if you wish.

[tuulen]

CSS has actually been around since 1996 I believe. As far as I know most (If not all) of that major browsers support CSS. But some users do have the ability to turn off support for CSS, which can really mess up your pages. I read an interesting article yesterday about the em unit in CSS (I had not idea how to use it) and it got into the fact that some browsers don't use CSS, like browsers that use brail to display certain things, or browsers that say things aloud to the user. So the article said that you should try to make your documents work even without the use of CSS, which would be quite a challenge these days since so many developers rely on CSS. There's also the possibility that the style sheet doesn't load properly, which would mess up the page.Anyway, just thought I'd tell you incase you weren't aware, for some reason IE doesn't support transparent PNG images even though I believe most other browsers do. So there are two ways to get around this that I know of. Either use GIF (which doesn't have much colour support, so you will loose quality), or I believe there is some type of code. I can look for a code like that if you wish.

I thank you, Kevin M. Much of what you said reflects the confusion I have had in regard to certain compatibility issues. It seems that what works for one might not work for another, and I was beginning to think that I would need to collect my own browser "farm", just to check for "universal" compatibility.Not that I am complaining, as having such a variety of potential challenges just makes life that much more interesting. Let me add, that as a newbie, I am still in the neophyte stage, where I am just getting a grip on the scheme of things, so I am perhaps prone to asking "dumb" questions, while using incorrect terms or language, although I am sincere.:-)

[boen_robot]

You should read the HTML and CSS tutorials and try out what they have in various browsers. At that point, terms you see in atricles like "property", "unit", "selector" and the such is going to get clear to you and you'll understand what an "incompatability" truly refers to.@Kevin M, IE6 and below do not support alpha transparent PNGs. But IE7 does. The article you read was probably written before the preview version of IE7 came out.Also, you seem to understand the whole acessability deal way wrong. It's not about making your page look good both with and without CSS. It's about separating content from presentation, allowing you to serve different presentations (visuals) to different types of users. Blind users will obviously not care about visuals, so in turns, they can turn visuals off. Accessability is about keeping the page usable, not pretty, for those types of people.Install any screen reader, other then the built-in Narrator and try to read for example W3Schools to see what I mean. Terrible! Try to read for example Wikipedia, and you'll... hear the difference.

[tuulen]

You should read the HTML and CSS tutorials and try out what they have in various browsers. At that point, terms you see in atricles like "property", "unit", "selector" and the such is going to get clear to you and you'll understand what an "incompatability" truly refers to...

I thank you, boen_robot.Although I do try to use correct terms or language, perhaps I am not correct in my use of "compatibility". For instance, on another thread, a Web designer once did well at a particular Web page design, until a friend then mentioned that the same page did not look so good, while the friend was using a different make of Web browser, as one of those Microsoft vs. Apple browser differences. Also, on yet another thread, there was a discussion as to how to "center" some text on a monitor screen, that one browser required certain instructions, while another browser required somewhat different instructions. Eventually, at least three different sets of browser instructions were discussed, just to "center" the same piece of text. So, when I refer to "compatibility", I am thinking of the apparently numerous differences between all of the browsers in current use, older and new.The W3 Schools HTML , XHTML, and CSS tutorials are already becoming old friends!! Yet, there is so much more to learn.Again, thanks.

[boen_robot]

You are correct in the definition of incompatibility. What I meant was that most of the times, it is not required that you have several versions or messy codes. There are simple workarounds for most issues and the better you understand where in the code's construction is the problem, the easier you'll find the solution. And in order to understand what causes the problem, you need to understand the language's workflow, which in turn requires understanding of the terms. And I mean that in general, not only in CSS.

[tuulen]

...There are simple workarounds for most issues and the better you understand where in the code's construction is the problem, the easier you'll find the solution. And in order to understand what causes the problem, you need to understand the language's workflow, which in turn requires understanding of the terms. And I mean that in general, not only in CSS.

My thanks to you, boen_robot, and if there could be a single reason as to why I signed on to this board, it would have everything to do with what you just said!! Frankly, there are so many unspoken "tricks" to Web design, and where other than here to learn of them?Again, many thanks!!:-D

[Kevin M]

@Kevin M, IE6 and below do not support alpha transparent PNGs. But IE7 does. The article you read was probably written before the preview version of IE7 came out.Also, you seem to understand the whole acessability deal way wrong. It's not about making your page look good both with and without CSS. It's about separating content from presentation, allowing you to serve different presentations (visuals) to different types of users. Blind users will obviously not care about visuals, so in turns, they can turn visuals off. Accessability is about keeping the page usable, not pretty, for those types of people.Install any screen reader, other then the built-in Narrator and try to read for example W3Schools to see what I mean. Terrible! Try to read for example Wikipedia, and you'll... hear the difference.

Ah, I get it now. It seems every time I log on here I learn something new from you.

[tuulen]

Ah, I get it now. It seems every time I log on here I learn something new from you.

Well, the truth be told, I have yet to not learn something new, EVERY time I get here!!Signed, Happy Camper!!;-)

[boen_robot]

Ah, I get it now. It seems every time I log on here I learn something new from you.

I guess... I'm kind'a glad you feel that way . And tuulen is right. You (both) and I have yet to learn. We all always do .

[Kevin M]

That's why we come here I guess. Everyone can always learn more. Even Bill Gates could probably learn a thing or two (Like how to make IE better. )That's why forums like this are great. You can learn from people that have much more experience than you.

[tuulen]

... Even Bill Gates could probably learn a thing or two (Like how to make IE better. )

This may not be politically correct, but, the all too real PC troubles I, for one, have had with Micro$oft have been nothing less than horrible, frankly. (In plain language: IE7 appears to be in another world, but which one?)Moreover, and not to degenerate this thread, but, if BG did learn a thing or two, then could that mean that W3C standards could be absolute, as without any other standard? (OH, happy day!!)Please, BG, learn a thing or two!!;-)

[boen_robot]

This may not be politically correct, but, the all too real PC troubles I, for one, have had with Micro$oft have been nothing less than horrible, frankly. (In plain language: IE7 appears to be in another world, but which one?)Moreover, and not to degenerate this thread, but, if BG did learn a thing or two, then could that mean that W3C standards could be absolute, as without any other standard? (OH, happy day!!)Please, BG, learn a thing or two!!;-)

Phew, for a moment there I was thinking you're referring to Bulgaria (country code: BG). Continue your hatred for IE in the browser discussion topic.

[tuulen]

Phew, for a moment there I was thinking you're referring to Bulgaria (country code: BG). Continue your hatred for IE in the browser discussion topic.

I thank you, Sir.In no way did I intend to implicate the excellent nation of Bulgaria, please, and, from this moment forward, I will direct any further Microsoft commentary to the particular browser discussion you mentioned.With all due respect, please, I thank you.;-)

[tuulen]

My thanks to each and to all of you who have responded to my question. Apparently it is not necessary to have a whole bench full of browsers, as a browser "farm", and I am now aware that "workarounds" exist to help solve certain browser incompatibilities.Let me add a vote, that a common WWW standard be adopted, perhaps as W3C.Again, I thank you.:-D

[boen_robot]

My thanks to each and to all of you who have responded to my question. Apparently it is not necessary to have a whole bench full of browsers, as a browser "farm", and I am now aware that "workarounds" exist to help solve certain browser incompatibilities.Let me add a vote, that a common WWW standard be adopted, perhaps as W3C.Again, I thank you.:-D

Actually, you as a developer are required to have such a browser "farm", because you need to notice the rise of such issues and verify that workaround actually work.That last statement didn't made much sence to me, though I guess it doesn't matter much. I mean, there are W3 standarts, and they are created by W3C, but are adopted by the standart's implementors (i.e. browser vendors), which are not W3C themselves, but only W3C members.

[tuulen]

Actually, you as a developer are required to have such a browser "farm", because you need to notice the rise of such issues and verify that workaround actually work.That last statement didn't made much sence to me, though I guess it doesn't matter much. I mean, there are W3 standarts, and they are created by W3C, but are adopted by the standart's implementors (i.e. browser vendors), which are not W3C themselves, but only W3C members.

When I opened this thread, I was wondering about the possible need to have a bench including a number of different browsers, as a browser farm, just to verify that a Web design could be "universally" published. Of course, there do seem to be some limits, that after enough time has passed certain older browsers could for practical purposes be considered obsolete. And, with the notable exception of Microsoft products, there does seem to be some trend toward a browser standard, perhaps more so than, say, several years ago. However, let me thank you for confirming that which I was wondering about. OK, so maybe I could begin to look around for some older, and some newer, PCs. If that is what it takes, then that is what I need to do.By "standard", I was thinking about a universal standard, as one used by all PC manufacturers, so that one Web design language could work on all browsers. However, perhaps that could put certain manufacturers who use a "proprietary" language (Microsoft in particular) out of business. Anyway, the W3C standard seems like a good place to start. I thank you, boen_robot. :-D

[justsomeguy]

There's no reason you would need more then one computer to run different browsers. If you want, you can install every version of IE on one computer and see how your website looks in IE2.0. I don't worry about a lot of the older versions, the oldest thing I worry about now is IE6. There aren't enough people using IE5.5 or earlier for me to justify doing a lot of testing there, and I don't think there are a lot of drastic changes between that and IE6 anyway. I keep IE6 and recent versions of Firefox and Opera installed on the computer I am developing everything on. I develop everything in Opera, and I have buttons on the Opera toolbar to launch the page I'm looking at in either IE or Firefox, and also validate the page, so it makes checking pages pretty quick and easy. It's been my experience that if things work correctly in IE6, Firefox, and Opera, then they will look substantially similar in everything else like Safari or IE7, although within the next several months I'm sure I'll have to add IE7 to my list of things to check.

[tuulen]

There's no reason you would need more then one computer to run different browsers. If you want, you can install every version of IE on one computer and see how your website looks in IE2.0. I don't worry about a lot of the older versions, the oldest thing I worry about now is IE6. There aren't enough people using IE5.5 or earlier for me to justify doing a lot of testing there, and I don't think there are a lot of drastic changes between that and IE6 anyway. I keep IE6 and recent versions of Firefox and Opera installed on the computer I am developing everything on. I develop everything in Opera, and I have buttons on the Opera toolbar to launch the page I'm looking at in either IE or Firefox, and also validate the page, so it makes checking pages pretty quick and easy. It's been my experience that if things work correctly in IE6, Firefox, and Opera, then they will look substantially similar in everything else like Safari or IE7, although within the next several months I'm sure I'll have to add IE7 to my list of things to check.

As a newbie, I am glad to hear that I do not need more than one PC!!However, the truth be told, I have already tried to install, for instance, IE6 on my new PC which came with IE7 installed, and, long story short, apparently IE7 does not allow any installation of IE6. So, I am ready to believe that at least one more PC could be required, one with IE6. Like you, however, I am not concerned about, say, Windows 95, or anything so old as that. After all, the "market" is where the money is, and the real money is not using antique equipment. That, however, is not to say that everybody is using a Microsoft product. Indeed, there are a number of other browsers currently in use. Moreover, I am thinking of switching over to Mac OS X, while keeping my new Microsoft based PC. That, of course, would also give me access to Firefox. So, between just IE7 and Firefox, I should be off to a strong start.Let me add, that although my background is mechanical engineering, I am very much a NEWBIE when it comes to Web design, and I readily admit that there is much more for me to learn!!:-D

[justsomeguy]

You can install multiple versions of IE. You can download all the 32-bit versions of IE from here:http://browsers.evolt.org/?ie/32bitYou can also download an installer for several different versions of IE here:http://tredosoft.com/Multiple_IEThat would probably be a better way to go. Other then that, you can get Firefox from getfirefox.com (imagine that), and you can download Opera from opera.com. If you want to see how your page will look on the Mac OSX Safari browser, you can use this site:http://www.browsrcamp.com/

[tuulen]

You can install multiple versions of IE. You can download all the 32-bit versions of IE from here:http://browsers.evolt.org/?ie/32bitYou can also download an installer for several different versions of IE here:http://tredosoft.com/Multiple_IEThat would probably be a better way to go. Other then that, you can get Firefox from getfirefox.com (imagine that), and you can download Opera from opera.com. If you want to see how your page will look on the Mac OSX Safari browser, you can use this site:http://www.browsrcamp.com/

In plain language, you have just handed me some solid gold. However, I have already downloaded Firefox into this IE7/Microsoft PC, and, unfortunately, the results were not good.There is something about this IE7 which simply resists the various improvements which I have so far tried.It looks as though IE7 was designed to NOT be tampered with.I do thank you, however, and I will return to your post, soon, probably to put that gold into a new Mac PC.Edit: Let me add, that the IE7 I am using is an October 2006 release, and maybe not the latest.:-)

[justsomeguy]

However, I have already downloaded Firefox into this IE7/Microsoft PC, and, unfortunately, the results were not good.There is something about this IE7 which simply resists the various improvements which I have so far tried.It looks as though IE7 was designed to NOT be tampered with.

Yes. And look at that, only 3 more years until 2010. I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that.