Professional Web Applications Themes

OT: Fireworks joke! - Macromedia Fireworks

A newbie user asks a Fireworks/Dreamweaver Pro: "Dreamweaver says I missed labelling some Alt tags. I have looked everywhere but I can't find any images I missed..." And the Pro answers: "You forgot the Spacers son!" ;-0 -- Coen Naninck _______________________________ Please do not E-mail me with questions about Fireworks issues. Post them on the Forum instead. All the time I have left to spend in this Forum can't be contributed to also answering questions outside the Forum. It just takes too much time and it doesn't help the rest of the world. Thank you. E-mail & MSN: [email]ccnkhome.nl[/email] Corporate: ...

  1. #1

    Default OT: Fireworks joke!


    A newbie user asks a Fireworks/Dreamweaver Pro: "Dreamweaver says I
    missed labelling some Alt tags. I have looked everywhere but I can't
    find any images I missed..."
    And the Pro answers: "You forgot the Spacers son!" ;-0

    --

    Coen Naninck
    _______________________________

    Please do not E-mail me with questions about Fireworks issues. Post them
    on the Forum instead. All the time I have left to spend in this Forum
    can't be contributed to also answering questions outside the Forum. It
    just takes too much time and it doesn't help the rest of the world.

    Thank you.

    E-mail & MSN: [email]ccnkhome.nl[/email]
    Corporate: [url]http://www.wetworks.nl[/url]

    Coen Naninck Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: OT: Fireworks joke!

    In article <3F2568D6.5060108home.nl>, Coen Naninck <ccnkhome.nl>
    wrote:
    > A newbie user asks a Fireworks/Dreamweaver Pro: "Dreamweaver says I
    > missed labelling some Alt tags. I have looked everywhere but I can't
    > find any images I missed..."
    > And the Pro answers: "You forgot the Spacers son!" ;-0
    That hurts too much to be funny, Coen.

    :-)

    --
    Lanny Chambers, St. Louis, USA
    [url]http://www.hummingbirds.net/[/url]
    Lanny Chambers Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: OT: Fireworks joke!

    Looks like Coen found the W3C validator page....

    :)

    BR



    "Lanny Chambers" <lannyhummingbirds.net> wrote in message
    news:lanny-1B62B0.15092928072003forums.macromedia.com...
    > In article <3F2568D6.5060108home.nl>, Coen Naninck <ccnkhome.nl>
    > wrote:
    >
    > > A newbie user asks a Fireworks/Dreamweaver Pro: "Dreamweaver says I
    > > missed labelling some Alt tags. I have looked everywhere but I can't
    > > find any images I missed..."
    > > And the Pro answers: "You forgot the Spacers son!" ;-0
    >
    > That hurts too much to be funny, Coen.
    >
    > :-)
    >
    > --
    > Lanny Chambers, St. Louis, USA
    > [url]http://www.hummingbirds.net/[/url]

    Bill Ray Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: OT: Fireworks joke!

    Nope, this was JUST a joke. :)

    Bill Ray wrote:
    > Looks like Coen found the W3C validator page....
    >
    > :)
    >
    > BR
    >
    >
    >
    > "Lanny Chambers" <lannyhummingbirds.net> wrote in message
    > news:lanny-1B62B0.15092928072003forums.macromedia.com...
    >
    >>In article <3F2568D6.5060108home.nl>, Coen Naninck <ccnkhome.nl>
    >>wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>A newbie user asks a Fireworks/Dreamweaver Pro: "Dreamweaver says I
    >>>missed labelling some Alt tags. I have looked everywhere but I can't
    >>>find any images I missed..."
    >>>And the Pro answers: "You forgot the Spacers son!" ;-0
    >>
    >>That hurts too much to be funny, Coen.
    >>
    >>:-)
    >>
    >>--
    >>Lanny Chambers, St. Louis, USA
    >>[url]http://www.hummingbirds.net/[/url]
    >
    >
    >

    --
    Good luck!

    Coen Naninck
    _______________________________

    Please do not E-mail me with questions about Fireworks issues. Post them
    on the Forum instead. All the time I have left to spend in this Forum
    can't be contributed to also answering questions outside the Forum. It
    just takes too much time and it doesn't help the rest of the world.

    Thank you.

    E-mail & MSN: [email]ccnkhome.nl[/email]
    Corporate: [url]http://www.wetworks.nl[/url]

    Coen Naninck Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: OT: Fireworks joke!

    When I started using that page I found myself bashing my head on the desk
    but eventually made "nice" with it. :)

    BR



    "Coen Naninck" <ccnkhome.nl> wrote in message
    news:3F2688AD.7080401home.nl...
    > Nope, this was JUST a joke. :)
    >
    > Bill Ray wrote:
    > > Looks like Coen found the W3C validator page....
    > >
    > > :)
    > >
    > > BR
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > "Lanny Chambers" <lannyhummingbirds.net> wrote in message
    > > news:lanny-1B62B0.15092928072003forums.macromedia.com...
    > >
    > >>In article <3F2568D6.5060108home.nl>, Coen Naninck <ccnkhome.nl>
    > >>wrote:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>A newbie user asks a Fireworks/Dreamweaver Pro: "Dreamweaver says I
    > >>>missed labelling some Alt tags. I have looked everywhere but I can't
    > >>>find any images I missed..."
    > >>>And the Pro answers: "You forgot the Spacers son!" ;-0
    > >>
    > >>That hurts too much to be funny, Coen.
    > >>
    > >>:-)
    > >>
    > >>--
    > >>Lanny Chambers, St. Louis, USA
    > >>[url]http://www.hummingbirds.net/[/url]
    > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
    > --
    > Good luck!
    >
    > Coen Naninck
    > _______________________________
    >
    > Please do not E-mail me with questions about Fireworks issues. Post them
    > on the Forum instead. All the time I have left to spend in this Forum
    > can't be contributed to also answering questions outside the Forum. It
    > just takes too much time and it doesn't help the rest of the world.
    >
    > Thank you.
    >
    > E-mail & MSN: [email]ccnkhome.nl[/email]
    > Corporate: [url]http://www.wetworks.nl[/url]
    >

    Bill Ray Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: OT: Fireworks joke!

    I don't see its use since 98% of people browse with Internet Exploder. IMHO

    Bill Ray wrote:
    > When I started using that page I found myself bashing my head on the desk
    > but eventually made "nice" with it. :)
    >
    > BR
    >
    >
    >
    > "Coen Naninck" <ccnkhome.nl> wrote in message
    > news:3F2688AD.7080401home.nl...
    >
    >>Nope, this was JUST a joke. :)
    >>
    >>Bill Ray wrote:
    >>
    >>>Looks like Coen found the W3C validator page....
    >>>
    >>>:)
    >>>
    >>>BR
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>"Lanny Chambers" <lannyhummingbirds.net> wrote in message
    >>>news:lanny-1B62B0.15092928072003forums.macromedia.com...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>In article <3F2568D6.5060108home.nl>, Coen Naninck <ccnkhome.nl>
    >>>>wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>A newbie user asks a Fireworks/Dreamweaver Pro: "Dreamweaver says I
    >>>>>missed labelling some Alt tags. I have looked everywhere but I can't
    >>>>>find any images I missed..."
    >>>>>And the Pro answers: "You forgot the Spacers son!" ;-0
    >>>>
    >>>>That hurts too much to be funny, Coen.
    >>>>
    >>>>:-)
    >>>>
    >>>>--
    >>>>Lanny Chambers, St. Louis, USA
    >>>>[url]http://www.hummingbirds.net/[/url]
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >>--
    >>Good luck!
    >>
    >>Coen Naninck
    >>_______________________________
    >>
    >>Please do not E-mail me with questions about Fireworks issues. Post them
    >>on the Forum instead. All the time I have left to spend in this Forum
    >>can't be contributed to also answering questions outside the Forum. It
    >>just takes too much time and it doesn't help the rest of the world.
    >>
    >>Thank you.
    >>
    >>E-mail & MSN: [email]ccnkhome.nl[/email]
    >>Corporate: [url]http://www.wetworks.nl[/url]
    >>
    >
    >
    >

    --
    Good luck!

    Coen Naninck
    _______________________________

    Please do not E-mail me with questions about Fireworks issues. Post them
    on the Forum instead. All the time I have left to spend in this Forum
    can't be contributed to also answering questions outside the Forum. It
    just takes too much time and it doesn't help the rest of the world.

    Thank you.

    E-mail & MSN: [email]ccnkhome.nl[/email]
    Corporate: [url]http://www.wetworks.nl[/url]

    Coen Naninck Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: OT: Fireworks joke!

    "Coen Naninck" tippelte ...
    > I don't see its use since 98% of people browse with Internet Exploder.
    IMHO

    Ouch ... didn't you want to become a TMM one day?

    SCNR

    Jolantha

    --
    Jolantha Belik - jbel's design: [url]www.jbels-design.com[/url]
    TMM volunteer [Contribute]: [url]www.macromedia.com/go/team/[/url]
    Buch zu Macromedia Contribute: [url]www.webstep.at[/url]


    Jolantha Belik - TMM Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: OT: Fireworks joke!

    > Ouch ... didn't you want to become a TMM one day?

    AFTER I finish my Fireworks Productivity website Jolantha,
    (and AFTER I learn to never say those foolish things again! :-D )

    Jolantha Belik - TMM wrote:
    > "Coen Naninck" tippelte ...
    >
    >
    >>I don't see its use since 98% of people browse with Internet Exploder.
    >
    > IMHO
    >
    > Ouch ... didn't you want to become a TMM one day?
    >
    > SCNR
    >
    > Jolantha
    >

    --
    Good luck!

    Coen Naninck
    _______________________________

    Please do not E-mail me with questions about Fireworks issues. Post them
    on the Forum instead. All the time I have left to spend in this Forum
    can't be contributed to also answering questions outside the Forum. It
    just takes too much time and it doesn't help the rest of the world.

    Thank you.

    E-mail & MSN: [email]ccnkhome.nl[/email]
    Corporate: [url]http://www.wetworks.nl[/url]

    Coen Naninck Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: OT: Fireworks joke!

    IE6 is a fairly decent browser in terms of standards support. If you weigh
    CSS support, DOM support, and rendering, all of the modern browsers are on
    rather even terms. That you trivialize this is not good considering this
    newsgroup is comprised of image-centric people who may see it as an easy way
    out and as an endorsement to continue relying on the type of markup that
    image editors write. By the way, when an assistive reader encounters an
    image that does not have alt text (or empty alt text) it will read "aloud"
    the image's name.

    "Spacer, spacer, spacer, spacer, spacer, spacer, spacer, spacer, spacer,
    spacer, spacer, spacer, spacer, spacer, spacer, spacer, spacer, spacer,
    spacer, spacer, spacer, spacer, spacer, spacer, spacer, spacer, spacer,
    spacer, spacer. Welcome to my Fireworks/Image Ready table."

    --
    Al Sparber - PVII
    [url]http://www.projectseven.com[/url]
    Dreamweaver Extensions - DesignPacks - Tutorials - Books
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    The PVII Newsgroup | [url]news://forums.projectseven.com/pviiwebdev[/url]
    The CSS Newsgroup | [url]news://forums.projectseven.com/css[/url]
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------



    "Coen Naninck" <ccnkhome.nl> wrote in message news:3F26B11F.908home.nl...
    > I don't see its use since 98% of people browse with Internet Exploder.
    IMHO
    >
    > Bill Ray wrote:
    > > When I started using that page I found myself bashing my head on the
    desk
    > > but eventually made "nice" with it. :)
    > >
    > > BR
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > "Coen Naninck" <ccnkhome.nl> wrote in message
    > > news:3F2688AD.7080401home.nl...
    > >
    > >>Nope, this was JUST a joke. :)
    > >>
    > >>Bill Ray wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>Looks like Coen found the W3C validator page....
    > >>>
    > >>>:)
    > >>>
    > >>>BR
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>"Lanny Chambers" <lannyhummingbirds.net> wrote in message
    > >>>news:lanny-1B62B0.15092928072003forums.macromedia.com...
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>>In article <3F2568D6.5060108home.nl>, Coen Naninck <ccnkhome.nl>
    > >>>>wrote:
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>>>A newbie user asks a Fireworks/Dreamweaver Pro: "Dreamweaver says I
    > >>>>>missed labelling some Alt tags. I have looked everywhere but I can't
    > >>>>>find any images I missed..."
    > >>>>>And the Pro answers: "You forgot the Spacers son!" ;-0
    > >>>>
    > >>>>That hurts too much to be funny, Coen.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>:-)
    > >>>>
    > >>>>--
    > >>>>Lanny Chambers, St. Louis, USA
    > >>>>[url]http://www.hummingbirds.net/[/url]
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>
    > >>--
    > >>Good luck!
    > >>
    > >>Coen Naninck
    > >>_______________________________
    > >>
    > >>Please do not E-mail me with questions about Fireworks issues. Post them
    > >>on the Forum instead. All the time I have left to spend in this Forum
    > >>can't be contributed to also answering questions outside the Forum. It
    > >>just takes too much time and it doesn't help the rest of the world.
    > >>
    > >>Thank you.
    > >>
    > >>E-mail & MSN: [email]ccnkhome.nl[/email]
    > >>Corporate: [url]http://www.wetworks.nl[/url]
    > >>
    > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
    > --
    > Good luck!
    >
    > Coen Naninck
    > _______________________________
    >
    > Please do not E-mail me with questions about Fireworks issues. Post them
    > on the Forum instead. All the time I have left to spend in this Forum
    > can't be contributed to also answering questions outside the Forum. It
    > just takes too much time and it doesn't help the rest of the world.
    >
    > Thank you.
    >
    > E-mail & MSN: [email]ccnkhome.nl[/email]
    > Corporate: [url]http://www.wetworks.nl[/url]
    >

    Al Sparber- PVII Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: OT: Fireworks joke!

    Hmm, everytime I make a statement about something you seem to just
    around the corner offering a different twist on the subject Stéphane.

    Onto some of your replies:
    > Validation ensures at the very least that your code is error free. Not
    > all browsers are as forgiving as IE 6 and even it won't be around
    forever.

    True. Although the next release of IE (which by the way won't be called
    Internet Explorer anymore) will most likely be backwards compatible (or
    just display the pages the same way that previous versions have).

    > And 98%? Not all sites are the same, so such wide reaching
    > generalizations are always way off the mark. Most sites have nowhere
    > near that many IE only users and even if they did it still doesn't make
    > sense to exclude anyone, especially when it's just as easy to create
    > browser neutral sites.
    I meant 98% of the browsers, not 98% of the sites. I meant 98% of the
    users worldwide are using IE so why make sites for that 2% that do.
    Of course, by making such a bold statement as mine I also say "to hell
    with that 2%, they should just upgrade". This would be stupid of me to
    say if IE were not for free, but the thing is Stéphane, the IE browser
    has - up until now - been free. If what you say about IE7 (or whatever
    its name will be) is true, then I will retract that statement, because
    that would force people to buy an operating system.
    I am just saying that if people can get a free browser which the entire
    world uses, then why use something else? For me it's like this: If I can
    get a free ride from home to my work by riding along with a friend, but
    the rest of the country take the free bus to keep traffic down - then
    why would I still take the friends car? See, IMO people have a right to
    use what software they must, but there is nothing wrong with IE6
    compared to Mozilla or any of the other browsers. Sure, they have other
    features that IE doesn't and I am very aware of this.
    But what about using 2 browsers? So people can use both Opera,
    Konqueror, Jaguar, Mozilla, Netscape AND Internet Explorer. If you fancy
    working with Mozilla or any of the other browsers outside of IE that's
    fine, but then you would still have the option to view them should only
    IE be supported.

    I know a guy that works for a large design company here in Holland and
    he tells me thay have ceased designing for Netscape browsers since the
    production costs just don't justify the actual benefit. Now I
    wholeheartedly agree with you about the 2% but what about all that extra
    work which is involved? I have a company myself and getting a large
    project to work for ONE BROWSER is alot of work as it is, let alone
    designing it for ALL the other browsers out there.

    Whatever the motivations for designing or not designing for multiple
    browsers Stéphane, I DO respect the other 2%, however, it is not always
    possible - or wise - to spend alot of financial resources into trying to
    make everybody happy. (IMO)

    > Furthermore, are you banking on the fact tha IE will continue to be used
    > by a majority of users forever?
    See my answer to that above.


    In the meantime, Mozilla will continue to thrive,
    > so will Opera and the Mac specific browsers who's user base keep growing
    > since IE5 Mac has also been discountinued.
    I hope it will continue to thrive, and I also hope that IF it does - it
    will become the most used browser.
    Stéphane, I am NOT a big fan of Microsoft. On the contrary. However, IE
    is a very forgiving browser - you said it yourself. If Mozilla can do
    what IE has done before it, than Mozilla is a welcome browser for me.
    For me the webbusiness is the ONLY place where I don't mind to see a
    monopoly since it makes work for us webdesigners a whole lot easier. I
    am sure you'll agree with me on that my friend. :-)

    > The web is not, has never been and never will be a one browser
    > environment so it doesn't make any sense whatsoever to code for any
    > specific browser and its quirks. That's what people did in 1997 when
    > Netscape 4 was all the rage? Where's that browser now?
    Netscape got ed up by IE's big mouth. That is where it went. And if
    you have followed the news lately *p* you may have read that AOL will no
    longer be supporting Netscape. So much for that browser.

    Netscape 6 and 7 were good browsers and where I prefer IE for my browser
    I prefer Netscape 7 Messenger for my E-mail and Newsreader application.
    This very reply is written on Netscape 7 Messenger. I have no intention
    to bragg about Microsoft or simply put down Netscape (or Mozilla for
    that matter). I just choose my applications for what I need them for. I
    think Outlook is buggy and most Virusses are written for (or ironically
    "against") Outlook.


    I will look at the referring URL's. Thank you for those resources. As
    always, I respect your opinions and others'.


    Coen



    Stéphane Bergeron wrote:
    > Coen Naninck wrote:
    >
    >> I don't see its use since 98% of people browse with Internet Exploder.
    >> IMHO
    >
    >
    > Validation ensures at the very least that your code is error free. Not
    > all browsers are as forgiving as IE 6 and even it won't be around forever.
    >
    > And 98%? Not all sites are the same, so such wide reaching
    > generalizations are always way off the mark. Most sites have nowhere
    > near that many IE only users and even if they did it still doesn't make
    > sense to exclude anyone, especially when it's just as easy to create
    > browser neutral sites.
    >
    > Furthermore, are you banking on the fact tha IE will continue to be used
    > by a majority of users forever? I wouldn't bet oin it. Have you missed
    > the annoucement that IE as a standalone browser is no longer supported
    > by Microsoft and that the next version will not be made available
    > outside of the next MS OS (Longhorn) to be released sometime in 2005?
    > That's, no free standalone downloads anymore. You'll need to buy
    > Longhorn to get IE 7. In the meantime, Mozilla will continue to thrive,
    > so will Opera and the Mac specific browsers who's user base keep growing
    > since IE5 Mac has also been discountinued.
    >
    > The web is not, has never been and never will be a one browser
    > environment so it doesn't make any sense whatsoever to code for any
    > specific browser and its quirks. That's what people did in 1997 when
    > Netscape 4 was all the rage? Where's that browser now?
    >
    > [url]http://www.webstandards.org/buzz/archive/2003_07.html#a000170[/url]
    >
    > Coding for standards is the only thing that makes sense and that's what
    > yields the best results in all modern browsers, including IE 6. It also
    > has several advantages over older Web design methodologies. Some of them
    > can be found here:
    >
    > [url]http://devedge.netscape.com/viewsource/2003/why-web-standards/[/url]
    >
    > I would strongly suggest that you try to learn about the modern methods
    > of Web design. A great introduction would be this Webmonkey article:
    >
    > [url]http://hotwired.lycos.com/webmonkey/03/21/index3a.html[/url]
    >
    > Another great source of info might be Jeffrey Zeldman's new book
    > "Designing With Web Standards". To get an idea of what it's about, go to
    > the book site:
    >
    > [url]http://www.zeldman.com/dwws/[/url]
    >
    > Project Seven who's DHTML menus have often been recommended as
    > alternatives to Fireworks' built-in ones have a great eBook called
    > "Foundations" that deals with these issues with a Dreamweaver centric
    > slant:
    >
    > [url]http://www.projectseven.com/foundations/index.htm[/url]
    >
    > Their free tutorials also teach many real world techniques that are
    > grounded in modern standards based, accessible Web design.
    > Before dismissing the W3C validator as useless, I would try to
    > understand its use and benefits better first... :-)
    >
    > HTH!
    >
    > Stéphane
    >

    --
    Good luck!

    Coen Naninck
    _______________________________

    Please do not E-mail me with questions about Fireworks issues. Post them
    on the Forum instead. All the time I have left to spend in this Forum
    can't be contributed to also answering questions outside the Forum. It
    just takes too much time and it doesn't help the rest of the world.

    Thank you.

    E-mail & MSN: [email]ccnkhome.nl[/email]
    Corporate: [url]http://www.wetworks.nl[/url]

    Coen Naninck Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: OT: Fireworks joke!

    I did not know that.
    So the point you're making is that people with a disability will have a
    problem with a website I would have made?


    Al Sparber- PVII wrote:
    > IE6 is a fairly decent browser in terms of standards support. If you weigh
    > CSS support, DOM support, and rendering, all of the modern browsers are on
    > rather even terms. That you trivialize this is not good considering this
    > newsgroup is comprised of image-centric people who may see it as an easy way
    > out and as an endorsement to continue relying on the type of markup that
    > image editors write. By the way, when an assistive reader encounters an
    > image that does not have alt text (or empty alt text) it will read "aloud"
    > the image's name.
    >
    > "Spacer, spacer, spacer, spacer, spacer, spacer, spacer, spacer, spacer,
    > spacer, spacer, spacer, spacer, spacer, spacer, spacer, spacer, spacer,
    > spacer, spacer, spacer, spacer, spacer, spacer, spacer, spacer, spacer,
    > spacer, spacer. Welcome to my Fireworks/Image Ready table."
    >

    --
    Good luck!

    Coen Naninck
    _______________________________

    Please do not E-mail me with questions about Fireworks issues. Post them
    on the Forum instead. All the time I have left to spend in this Forum
    can't be contributed to also answering questions outside the Forum. It
    just takes too much time and it doesn't help the rest of the world.

    Thank you.

    E-mail & MSN: [email]ccnkhome.nl[/email]
    Corporate: [url]http://www.wetworks.nl[/url]

    Coen Naninck Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: OT: Fireworks joke!

    I don't understand this line Jolantha:

    some Opera
    versions do have IE as identifier by default

    Jolantha Belik - TMM wrote:
    > "Coen Naninck" wrote ...
    >
    >
    >>I meant 98% of the users worldwide are using IE
    >
    >
    > Well, Coen, you are living in Europe, you might have a look at European
    > statistics too. In Europe you won't find statstics with 98% IE users!
    > e.g. [url]http://www.webhits.de/[/url] then click on "Live Demo" in the middle of the
    > page. There you will find only 85% IE users ... and don't forget, some Opera
    > versions do have IE as identifier by default and you can chose in the
    > preferences what browser name should be found in statistics instead of
    > "Opera"!
    >
    > Jolantha
    >

    --
    Good luck!

    Coen Naninck
    _______________________________

    Please do not E-mail me with questions about Fireworks issues. Post them
    on the Forum instead. All the time I have left to spend in this Forum
    can't be contributed to also answering questions outside the Forum. It
    just takes too much time and it doesn't help the rest of the world.

    If you are sending me a file on my own request for help purposes, then
    please include the threads subject header.

    Thank you.

    E-mail & MSN: [email]ccnkhome.nl[/email]
    Corporate: [url]http://www.wetworks.nl[/url]

    Coen Naninck Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: OT: Fireworks joke!

    I do Jolantha and I think this Opera 'feature' was build into the a
    certain release when Microsoft had decided (a claim by some people) to
    sent a very 'nasty' css file to the Opera users browser.
    It was speculated at the time that Opera would come up with some form of
    'countermeasure' and I was very interested to see exactly how they would
    counter this Microsoft behaviour. I am very happy to see how they did
    that now and saw the connection right away after reading your last reply.
    Hahahaha, that sure is some funny sh*t!


    Jolantha Belik - TMM wrote:
    > "Coen Naninck" <ccnkhome.nl> wrote ...
    >
    >
    >>I don't understand this line Jolantha:
    >>
    >>some Opera
    >>versions do have IE as identifier by default
    >
    >
    > Well, when you browse to a page with your browser, the server where the
    > files of the page are located, will detect that your browser is an IE,
    > Netscape, Mozilla or something else. Well, Opera can "hide" it's real
    > identity and Opera is able to tell the server "I'm an IE". You can chose in
    > Opera what it should tell a server when you browse to a page ;-)
    >
    > Now, do you understand what I meant?
    >
    > Jolantha
    >
    >

    --
    Good luck!

    Coen Naninck
    _______________________________

    Please do not E-mail me with questions about Fireworks issues. Post them
    on the Forum instead. All the time I have left to spend in this Forum
    can't be contributed to also answering questions outside the Forum. It
    just takes too much time and it doesn't help the rest of the world.

    If you are sending me a file on my own request for help purposes, then
    please include the threads subject header.

    Thank you.

    E-mail & MSN: [email]ccnkhome.nl[/email]
    Corporate: [url]http://www.wetworks.nl[/url]

    Coen Naninck Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: OT: Fireworks joke!

    Coen Naninck wrote:
    > Hmm, everytime I make a statement about something you seem to just
    > around the corner offering a different twist on the subject Stéphane.
    I simply think that I have been at it longer than you have that's all. I
    just have a different perspective on those issues.
    >> Validation ensures at the very least that your code is error free.
    >> Not all browsers are as forgiving as IE 6 and even it won't be
    >> around
    > forever.
    >
    > True. Although the next release of IE (which by the way won't be
    > called Internet Explorer anymore) will most likely be backwards
    > compatible (or just display the pages the same way that previous
    > versions have).
    It might be or it might not, don't count on it. Users who used the
    Netscape "layer" tag in '97-98-99 must be thrilled that support for it
    has been dropped in Gecko (Mozilla, NN6, NN7, etc) right?
    > I meant 98% of the browsers, not 98% of the sites. I meant 98% of the
    > users worldwide are using IE so why make sites for that 2% that do.
    I mean browsers too. All sites on the Web do not have 98% of their users
    using the latest version of IE. I'm curious where you got that number
    from anyway because it certainly doesn't reflect my perception of real
    world browser usage on the Web. In any case, the statistics of whatever
    site you are working on should be the ones taken into consideration, not
    the widely biased and highly innacurate numbers of most well known
    browser stats sites.
    > Of course, by making such a bold statement as mine I also say "to
    > hell with that 2%, they should just upgrade". This would be stupid of
    > me to say if IE were not for free, but the thing is Stéphane, the IE
    > browser has - up until now - been free. If what you say about IE7 (or
    > whatever its name will be) is true, then I will retract that
    > statement, because that would force people to buy an operating
    > system.
    What I said about IE is true. The current version will continue to get
    incremental updates (security fixes and stuff like that) but the
    standalone version will no longer be developed. You will have to buy
    Longhorn to get IE7 or whatever the next version will be called.
    > I am just saying that if people can get a free browser which the
    > entire world uses, then why use something else?
    Because other free and even better browsers exist right now and big
    corporations who are still standardized on older browsers for example
    will think twice before upgrading all their desktops to a dead piece of
    software. We already have better browsers with things like better
    security, popup window blocking, properly working text resizing, better
    CSS support, tabbed browsing, etc, etc Such browsers include Mozilla 1.4
    (and Netscape 7.1 and other Moz offsprings), Opera 7.11, etc...) Average
    users hearing that IE will no longer be free might think twice about
    downloading or using the latest current version as well.
    > For me it's like this: If I can get a free ride from home to my work
    > by riding along with a friend, but the rest of the country take the
    > free bus to keep traffic down - then why would I still take the
    > friends car? See, IMO people have a right to use what software they
    > must, but there is nothing wrong with IE6 compared to Mozilla or any
    > of the other browsers.
    IE is a very decent browser but it still has plenty of annoying bugs
    that designers have to work around all the time. And it still cannot
    resize text sized with fixed units like pixels in CSS.
    > Sure, they have other features that IE doesn't and I am very aware of
    > this.
    These features can make or break the user's experience. When I go to a
    site with IE and 5 popup windows spawn without my asking and more still
    are opened as I try to close the first ones then I thank God I have
    Opera and Mozilla installed and ready to use...
    > But what about using 2 browsers? So people can use both Opera,
    > Konqueror, Jaguar, Mozilla, Netscape AND Internet Explorer. If you
    > fancy working with Mozilla or any of the other browsers outside of IE
    > that's fine, but then you would still have the option to view them
    > should only IE be supported.
    I use several browsers myslef but I'm a web designer, I'm a geek and I
    like keeping several browsers installed and using them. Most normal
    people won't. They'll use whatever's installed on their machine and
    probably stick with it for a long time. Telling them to upgrade their
    browser won't help. They'll simply go to another site that accommodates
    them with less trouble. Your job as a Web designer is to make end users'
    lives easier, not yours...
    > I know a guy that works for a large design company here in Holland
    > and he tells me thay have ceased designing for Netscape browsers
    > since the production costs just don't justify the actual benefit.
    This is a ridiculously outdated attitude that is sadly rampant in our
    business. The costs that businesses really cannot afford are the costs
    of loosing customers because Web site designers are either too lazy or
    ignorant to use better development methodologies. You do not need to do
    anything particular to support Netscape browsers. You just have to code
    to standards. It will take less time, create leaner pages that save
    bandwidth (= diminished hosting costs) and will actually make sites
    accessible to MORE browsers, not less. Tell this guy that, unlike
    him, the Web has not stuck in 1995, it has moved on to better things...

    Once again, I urge you to at least read the following page:

    [url]http://www.zeldman.com/dwws/[/url]

    It's real world advice for today's Web designers who need to create more
    accessible better working sites today at a lower cost.
    > Now I wholeheartedly agree with you about the 2% but what about all
    > that extra work which is involved?
    There is NO extra work involved. That's why I have been trying to make
    you understand all along. Take a look at the links I supplied in my
    other post. Get reading and learn how many pros are doing it now and why.
    > I have a company myself and getting a large project to work for ONE
    > BROWSER is alot of work as it is, let alone designing it for ALL the
    > other browsers out there.
    You are not hearing me Coen. You should not code for any specific
    browsers. All modern browsers will render clean, valid code almost
    identically. By using CSS and the Progressive Enhancement method
    described here ([url]http://hotwired.lycos.com/webmonkey/03/21/index3a.html[/url]),
    you can give every browser and device what they need. It won't look the
    same in NN4 as it does in NN 7.1 but that's an unrealistic goal to begin
    with. Some workarounds and hacks may be necessary in the CSS itself to
    accommodate some browser bugs but that's a couple of files in a whole
    site. It's certainly better that using hacks in the markup. By truly
    separating content from presentation you make site maintenance far
    easier than it has traditionally been and you make sites more accessible.
    > Whatever the motivations for designing or not designing for multiple
    > browsers Stéphane, I DO respect the other 2%, however, it is not
    > always possible - or wise - to spend alot of financial resources into
    > trying to make everybody happy. (IMO)
    As I hope you are starting to see, this is not necessary.
    > Stéphane, I am NOT a big fan of Microsoft. On the contrary. However,
    > IE is a very forgiving browser - you said it yourself.
    It's not a matter of being a fan of Microsoft or Mozilla or whoever,
    it's about building your site in a way that accommodates the most people
    possible. You have to shift your focus from the specifics of the
    browsers to building sites using more accessible methods that are
    browser neutral. The fact that IE is so forgiving is a flaw in my view,
    not a quality. If it was stricter then it would force designers to
    create bettter coded sites and that would benefit end users.
    > If Mozilla can do what IE has done before it, than Mozilla is a
    > welcome browser for me. For me the webbusiness is the ONLY place
    > where I don't mind to see a monopoly since it makes work for us
    > webdesigners a whole lot easier. I am sure you'll agree with me on
    > that my friend. :-)
    Actually I don't ;-) I don't see monopolies in any business as a good
    thing. It usually stiffles innovation. But that's a whole other debate
    that has no place here.
    >> The web is not, has never been and never will be a one browser
    >> environment so it doesn't make any sense whatsoever to code for any
    >> specific browser and its quirks. That's what people did in 1997
    >> when Netscape 4 was all the rage? Where's that browser now?
    >
    > Netscape got ed up by IE's big mouth. That is where it went. And
    > if you have followed the news lately *p* you may have read that AOL
    > will no longer be supporting Netscape. So much for that browser.
    Netscape was dead the day they released version 4 in my view. I was a
    hard core Netscape fan up until that day in 1997 (I beta tested NN 2,
    NN3 and NN 4 in turn). I found Netscape 4 so utterly broken that I
    switched to IE 4 immediately when that came out. I was already sold on
    CSS then and NN4's implementation was so atrocious that it disgusted me.
    Netscape may be dead but Mozilla is not and Netscape 7.1 will keep being
    supported the same way as IE 6 will for the foreseeable future. The Web
    will keep being a multibrowser environment and I doubt IE will keep its
    stronghold for the years to come. Most average users do not upgrade free
    browsers unless they buy a newer computer. They won't upgrade a costly
    OS to get a new version of that browser.
    > Netscape 6 and 7 were good browsers and where I prefer IE for my
    > browser I prefer Netscape 7 Messenger for my E-mail and Newsreader
    > application. This very reply is written on Netscape 7 Messenger. I
    > have no intention to bragg about Microsoft or simply put down
    > Netscape (or Mozilla for that matter). I just choose my applications
    > for what I need them for. I think Outlook is buggy and most Virusses
    > are written for (or ironically "against") Outlook.
    I'm not putting down any browser, I'm just trying to make you see that
    you should not code for any particular browser but code to standards
    instead. Your sites will work only better for it. They won't look
    exactly the same in all of them but that has always been the case. You
    should download a text only browser like Lynx. That would give you a
    good idea of how your sites work for disabled people using assistive
    devices like text to speech browsers. ([url]http://lynx.browser.org/[/url])
    > I will look at the referring URL's. Thank you for those resources.
    No problem Coen. If you do you will understand better where I come from.
    Those people make those arguments a lot better than I do and they are
    important arguments to hear because, in these times when any browser's
    future is uncertain, it makes even less sense to use outdated browser
    specific methods to create Web sites. That's all I've been trying to say.

    Cheers!

    Stéphane

    Stéphane Bergeron Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: OT: Fireworks joke!

    Yes.



    "Coen Naninck" <ccnkhome.nl> wrote in message
    news:3F26EB34.5010703home.nl...
    > I did not know that.
    > So the point you're making is that people with a disability will have a
    > problem with a website I would have made?

    Al Sparber- PVII Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: OT: Fireworks joke!

    I have reconsidered my 'strategy' and will start to look into Mozilla
    and other browsers' support in the future.

    Thanks all for the comment/feedback. Your help is - as always - greatly
    appreciated!

    Al Sparber- PVII wrote:
    > Yes.
    >
    >
    >
    > "Coen Naninck" <ccnkhome.nl> wrote in message
    > news:3F26EB34.5010703home.nl...
    >
    >>I did not know that.
    >>So the point you're making is that people with a disability will have a
    >>problem with a website I would have made?
    >
    >
    >

    --
    Good luck!

    Coen Naninck
    _______________________________

    Please do not E-mail me with questions about Fireworks issues. Post them
    on the Forum instead. All the time I have left to spend in this Forum
    can't be contributed to also answering questions outside the Forum. It
    just takes too much time and it doesn't help the rest of the world.

    If you are sending me a file on my own request for help purposes, then
    please include the threads subject header.

    Thank you.

    E-mail & MSN: [email]ccnkhome.nl[/email]
    Corporate: [url]http://www.wetworks.nl[/url]

    Coen Naninck Guest

  17. #17

    Default Re: OT: Fireworks joke!

    That's great, Coen. I was afraid I'd dappened your enthusiasm, which I'd
    never want to do :-)

    --
    Al Sparber


    "Coen Naninck" <ccnkhome.nl> wrote in message
    news:3F27E4E2.1000809home.nl...
    > I have reconsidered my 'strategy' and will start to look into Mozilla
    > and other browsers' support in the future.
    >
    > Thanks all for the comment/feedback. Your help is - as always - greatly
    > appreciated!
    >
    > Al Sparber- PVII wrote:
    > > Yes.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > "Coen Naninck" <ccnkhome.nl> wrote in message
    > > news:3F26EB34.5010703home.nl...
    > >
    > >>I did not know that.
    > >>So the point you're making is that people with a disability will have a
    > >>problem with a website I would have made?
    > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
    > --
    > Good luck!
    >
    > Coen Naninck
    > _______________________________
    >
    > Please do not E-mail me with questions about Fireworks issues. Post them
    > on the Forum instead. All the time I have left to spend in this Forum
    > can't be contributed to also answering questions outside the Forum. It
    > just takes too much time and it doesn't help the rest of the world.
    >
    > If you are sending me a file on my own request for help purposes, then
    > please include the threads subject header.
    >
    > Thank you.
    >
    > E-mail & MSN: [email]ccnkhome.nl[/email]
    > Corporate: [url]http://www.wetworks.nl[/url]
    >

    Al Sparber- PVII Guest

  18. #18

    Default Re: OT: Fireworks joke!

    This thread just keeps going on forevah...

    | Netscape "layer" tag in '97-98-99 must be thrilled that support for it
    has been dropped in Gecko (Mozilla, NN6, NN7, etc) right?

    As far as I know my layers always worked fine in NS4.75 and onwards.
    They performed just as right in NS6 and 7.
    Maybe I misunderstand you here.


    | not the widely biased and highly innacurate numbers of most well known
    browser stats sites

    That may be the reason behind my statement. I did not know they were false.
    Tell me, how can ANYONE make a solid statement if the actual info they
    believe is to be righteous - in fact is based on faulty or perhaps even
    worse - fabricated numbers.

    I always apologise for any mistakes I make for statements, but I can not
    know that every piece of information has indeed been confirmed by a
    multitude of sources. :-) (added the smiley intentionally, I am NOT
    feeling attacked here :) )


    | What I said about IE is true.

    I believe you (did so the first time) :-)


    | Average users hearing that IE will no longer be free might think twice
    about downloading or using the latest current version as well.

    I downloaded Mozilla 1.4, 1.5 Beta and Firebird today for testing
    purposes. I think you are right about alot of issues concerning using
    other browsers. But don't you think that a smaller company like myself
    should really invest all this time to make a site 100% the same as it
    does in IE6? I don't know if you could afford that, I certainly can't.


    | And it still cannot resize text sized with fixed units like pixels in
    CSS.

    Again, this is personal. Personally I prefer CSS text not to be
    resizeable because that also prevents visitors from seeing the site in a
    way it wasn't meant to be seen in.
    Then again, having a separate CSS text resize option should be a welcome
    option for me.
    For me the main reason to use CSS is really twofold:
    1) More control over content / easier applying of changes
    2) More control over HOW a user should view the page.

    In respect to point 2 I have to add that personally a visitor should be
    able to set his/her own settings for any page, but being a designer you
    must certainly know that some designs just don't display as nice anymore
    when a visitor is resizing text. The entire layout gets messed up.
    Of course, this is an entirely different discussion and although I
    brought it up myself I really don't want to get too deep into this (my
    time is limited).


    | then I thank God I have Opera and Mozilla installed and ready to use...

    Absolutely! That is why any statement can't always be the best possible
    view. Each product has its own advantages and disadvantages.


    | Your job as a Web designer is to make end users' lives easier, not
    yours...

    I partly agree. But if downloading a simple plugin is the only thing
    that is required than so be it that they surf away from the site I made.
    There is a difference between downloading the Flash Player and
    downloading a 10+ Mb browser (such as Mozilla 1.4).
    Besides, I try to stay away from using advanced techniques such as
    animated layers and all that advanced
    "you-should-really-do-this-in-Flash" crap anyway. That does not
    contribute to good design. I used to make to things myself, but nowadays
    I just like crips, nice and simple design. For example, see this site
    which is really simple but looks very nice (although done with CSS which
    is not an old technology but anyways a nice layout):
    [url]http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile=/017/017.css&page=2[/url]
    To me that is KILLER Hardcore HTML design. No fancy Flash stuff, no too
    advanced crap, just nicely done. :-)


    | The costs that businesses really cannot afford are the costs of
    loosing customers because Web site designers are either too lazy or
    ignorant to use better development methodologies.

    Maybe so, but it is a decision YOU are not making. I think you should
    respect that Stéphane. Maybe you believe in making sites for the public
    that everyone in the world can view, perhaps even in the oldest most
    browsers ou there - but the fact of the matter is that alot of people
    use modern browsers and some people always get left behind. That is just
    a fact of life. You may think that lazyness to implement proper support
    for standards is reason enough to lose customers, but anyone in his/her
    right mind understands that time also has its less desirable effects.
    If you want to use a USB enabled device for example you can absolutely
    forget support on Windows 95, you will have to upgrade. Not because
    Microsoft refuses to implement it, but simply because the old system
    can't support the USB addressing codes. Windows 95OS2 DOES support it
    because it was an update of the first version of '95.
    Now, I am not trying to compare Apples and Oranges here, but it should
    be clear to anyone - even a visitor of a site - that he or she should
    have newer software every now and then.

    You can say all you want about standards and I will always agree to a
    certain point about standards, BUT - to go and tell a webdesigner such
    as myself that endless implementation of old technologies is wise design
    too me is just utter nonsense. (I know these weren't your exact words,
    but your claim with the above sentence certainly points in that direction).

    This thread is costing me my entire evening :-)


    | [url]http://www.zeldman.com/dwws/[/url]

    I will read this. But I will stay with my comment above. It is a choice
    for each designer to make himself.
    I also want to point out here, that although I create websites - it is
    by far my most practiced work. I "design" logo's, make Flash designs,
    produce Print work etc. That is my core activity. To follow standards
    for me just isn't as important as for others - also considering the fact
    that I am using other resources (people) to do the actual HTML code
    crunching.


    | There is NO extra work involved. That's why I have been trying to make
    you understand all along. Take a look at the links I supplied in my
    other post. Get reading and learn how many pros are doing it now and why.

    I invite you to take a look at the following page and mark the
    difference: [url]http://www.wetworks.nl/showcase/htm/var/showcase.htm[/url]
    between Mozilla and IE5.5 / IE6
    The CSS "FlipH" style does not work with Mozilla. This renders my CSS-P
    animated Layers presentation somewhat useless.
    See what I mean?


    | You are not hearing me Coen.

    That's right, I am "reading" ;-o

    (although I might consider to start using a verbose screenreader after
    going through THIS particular reply LOL!)


    | You should not code for any specific browsers.

    I don't. It just so happens that my sites created in Dreamweaver always
    come out right. No always so in Opera. But you're right, most items look
    the same.


    | By truly separating content from presentation you make site
    maintenance far easier than it has traditionally been and you make sites
    more accessible.

    Didn't you know? I'm a CSS geek!


    | Financial resources ..// As I hope you are starting to see, this is
    not necessary.

    Point taken.


    | The fact that IE is so forgiving is a flaw in my view, not a quality.
    If it was stricter then it would force designers to create bettter coded
    sites and that would benefit end users.

    True, but a forgiving browser makes life for alot of people easier. It
    is them who draw a line between better code or faster money...
    It differs per project I guess.


    | I don't see monopolies in any business as a good thing. It usually
    stiffles innovation.

    Hmm, you have made a good point there. I ALSO believe in innovation. IMO
    also as being the key to evolution. But it would still make life easier. ;-o


    | They won't upgrade a costly OS to get a new version of that browser.

    No, but they WILL eventually buy a new OS. So much for that itchy
    browser problem. ;-o


    | Those people make those arguments a lot better than I do and they are
    important arguments to hear because, in these times when any browser's
    future is uncertain, it makes even less sense to use outdated browser
    specific methods to create Web sites. That's all I've been trying to say.

    Okay, then at that I would like to leave this. (But i'm sure you have
    already begun replying this message haven't you? *P*

    Just know that I understand what you are trying to make clear. Giving
    the arguments I have you probably also understand my views. The example
    with the Showcase animated site is just one example. If you want
    another, I can point you to Bill Rays latest site:
    [url]http://www.billraydrums.com[/url]
    where his animated Project Fireworks' autolayers feature looks a mess in
    Netscapes latest browser. Then again, like I said, advanced features
    such as those should be avoided if you're targeting a multitude of
    browsers.


    It is a good thing we did not discuss this on the phone Stéphane. My
    chat with Bill Ray the other day almost took two hours. Imagine my
    phonebill if I were to call you and 'chat' about these issues. It would
    probably cost me my entire income. :-D


    Stéphane, if you haven't already made a reply to this message, please
    keep your answers short when you do so. It took me over two hours to
    write this reply.
    I DO appreciate your time but I hope you also appreciate mine. And right
    now, I should've updated a clients site two hours ago. Go figure how
    much I appreciate your advice and respect your opinions.


    Coen Naninck
    _______________________________

    Please do not E-mail me with questions about Fireworks issues. Post them
    on the Forum instead. All the time I have left to spend in this Forum
    can't be contributed to also answering questions outside the Forum. It
    just takes too much time and it doesn't help the rest of the world.

    If you are sending me a file on my own request for help purposes, then
    please include the threads subject header.

    Thank you.

    E-mail & MSN: [email]ccnkhome.nl[/email]
    Corporate: [url]http://www.wetworks.nl[/url]

    Coen Naninck Guest

  19. #19

    Default Re: OT: Fireworks joke!

    I presume you mean "dampened" my enthusiasm?

    Well, that would be impossible. I suffer from a hyperactivity syndrome
    so my energy supply never runs out my friend.

    Al Sparber- PVII wrote:
    > That's great, Coen. I was afraid I'd dappened your enthusiasm, which I'd
    > never want to do :-)
    >

    --
    Good luck!

    Coen Naninck
    _______________________________

    Please do not E-mail me with questions about Fireworks issues. Post them
    on the Forum instead. All the time I have left to spend in this Forum
    can't be contributed to also answering questions outside the Forum. It
    just takes too much time and it doesn't help the rest of the world.

    If you are sending me a file on my own request for help purposes, then
    please include the threads subject header.

    Thank you.

    E-mail & MSN: [email]ccnkhome.nl[/email]
    Corporate: [url]http://www.wetworks.nl[/url]

    Coen Naninck Guest

  20. #20

    Default Re: OT: Fireworks joke!

    Stéphane, please read through the entire message before replying. I
    don't want to make this thread into a bedtime story. :-) Reply AFTER you
    have read it please.

    This thread just keeps going on forevah...

    | Netscape "layer" tag in '97-98-99 must be thrilled that support for it
    has been dropped in Gecko (Mozilla, NN6, NN7, etc) right?

    As far as I know my layers always worked fine in NS4.75 and onwards.
    They performed just as right in NS6 and 7.
    Maybe I misunderstand you here.


    | not the widely biased and highly innacurate numbers of most well known
    browser stats sites

    That may be the reason behind my statement. I did not know they were false.
    Tell me, how can ANYONE make a solid statement if the actual info they
    believe is to be righteous - in fact is based on faulty or perhaps even
    worse - fabricated numbers.

    I always apologise for any mistakes I make for statements, but I can not
    know that every piece of information has indeed been confirmed by a
    multitude of sources. :-) (added the smiley intentionally, I am NOT
    feeling attacked here :) )


    | What I said about IE is true.

    I believe you (did so the first time) :-)


    | Average users hearing that IE will no longer be free might think twice
    about downloading or using the latest current version as well.

    I downloaded Mozilla 1.4, 1.5 Beta and Firebird today for testing
    purposes. I think you are right about alot of issues concerning using
    other browsers. But don't you think that a smaller company like myself
    should really invest all this time to make a site 100% the same as it
    does in IE6? I don't know if you could afford that, I certainly can't.


    | And it still cannot resize text sized with fixed units like pixels in CSS.

    Again, this is personal. Personally I prefer CSS text not to be
    resizeable because that also prevents visitors from seeing the site in a
    way it wasn't meant to be seen in.
    Then again, having a separate CSS text resize option should be a welcome
    option for me.
    For me the main reason to use CSS is really twofold:
    1) More control over content / easier applying of changes
    2) More control over HOW a user should view the page.

    In respect to point 2 I have to add that personally a visitor should be
    able to set his/her own settings for any page, but being a designer you
    must certainly know that some designs just don't display as nice anymore
    when a visitor is resizing text. The entire layout gets messed up.
    Of course, this is an entirely different discussion and although I
    brought it up myself I really don't want to get too deep into this (my
    time is limited).


    | then I thank God I have Opera and Mozilla installed and ready to use...

    Absolutely! That is why any statement can't always be the best possible
    view. Each product has its own advantages and disadvantages.


    | Your job as a Web designer is to make end users' lives easier, not
    yours...

    I partly agree. But if downloading a simple plugin is the only thing
    that is required than so be it that they surf away from the site I made.
    There is a difference between downloading the Flash Player and
    downloading a 10+ Mb browser (such as Mozilla 1.4).
    Besides, I try to stay away from using advanced techniques such as
    animated layers and all that advanced
    "you-should-really-do-this-in-Flash" crap anyway. That does not
    contribute to good design. I used to make to things myself, but nowadays
    I just like crips, nice and simple design. For example, see this site
    which is really simple but looks very nice (although done with CSS which
    is not an old technology but anyways a nice layout):
    [url]http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile=/017/017.css&page=2[/url]
    To me that is KILLER Hardcore HTML design. No fancy Flash stuff, no too
    advanced crap, just nicely done. :-)


    | The costs that businesses really cannot afford are the costs of
    loosing customers because Web site designers are either too lazy or
    ignorant to use better development methodologies.

    Maybe so, but it is a decision YOU are not making. I think you should
    respect that Stéphane. Maybe you believe in making sites for the public
    that everyone in the world can view, perhaps even in the oldest most
    browsers ou there - but the fact of the matter is that alot of people
    use modern browsers and some people always get left behind. That is just
    a fact of life. You may think that lazyness to implement proper support
    for standards is reason enough to lose customers, but anyone in his/her
    right mind understands that time also has its less desirable effects.
    If you want to use a USB enabled device for example you can absolutely
    forget support on Windows 95, you will have to upgrade. Not because
    Microsoft refuses to implement it, but simply because the old system
    can't support the USB addressing codes. Windows 95OS2 DOES support it
    because it was an update of the first version of '95.
    Now, I am not trying to compare Apples and Oranges here, but it should
    be clear to anyone - even a visitor of a site - that he or she should
    have newer software every now and then.

    You can say all you want about standards and I will always agree to a
    certain point about standards, BUT - to go and tell a webdesigner such
    as myself that endless implementation of old technologies is wise design
    too me is just utter nonsense. (I know these weren't your exact words,
    but your claim with the above sentence certainly points in that direction).

    This thread is costing me my entire evening :-)


    | [url]http://www.zeldman.com/dwws/[/url]

    I will read this. But I will stay with my comment above. It is a choice
    for each designer to make himself.
    I also want to point out here, that although I create websites - it is
    by far my most practiced work. I "design" logo's, make Flash designs,
    produce Print work etc. That is my core activity. To follow standards
    for me just isn't as important as for others - also considering the fact
    that I am using other resources (people) to do the actual HTML code
    crunching.


    | There is NO extra work involved. That's why I have been trying to make
    you understand all along. Take a look at the links I supplied in my
    other post. Get reading and learn how many pros are doing it now and why.

    I invite you to take a look at the following page and mark the
    difference: [url]http://www.wetworks.nl/showcase/htm/var/showcase.htm[/url]
    between Mozilla and IE5.5 / IE6
    The CSS "FlipH" style does not work with Mozilla. This renders my CSS-P
    animated Layers presentation somewhat useless.
    See what I mean?


    | You are not hearing me Coen.

    That's right, I am "reading" ;-o

    (although I might consider to start using a verbose screenreader after
    going through THIS particular reply LOL!)


    | You should not code for any specific browsers.

    I don't. It just so happens that my sites created in Dreamweaver always
    come out right. No always so in Opera. But you're right, most items look
    the same.


    | By truly separating content from presentation you make site
    maintenance far easier than it has traditionally been and you make sites
    more accessible.

    Didn't you know? I'm a CSS geek!


    | Financial resources ..// As I hope you are starting to see, this is
    not necessary.

    Point taken.


    | The fact that IE is so forgiving is a flaw in my view, not a quality.
    If it was stricter then it would force designers to create bettter coded
    sites and that would benefit end users.

    True, but a forgiving browser makes life for alot of people easier. It
    is them who draw a line between better code or faster money...
    It differs per project I guess.


    | I don't see monopolies in any business as a good thing. It usually
    stiffles innovation.

    Hmm, you have made a good point there. I ALSO believe in innovation. IMO
    also as being the key to evolution. But it would still make life easier. ;-o


    | They won't upgrade a costly OS to get a new version of that browser.

    No, but they WILL eventually buy a new OS. So much for that itchy
    browser problem. ;-o


    | Those people make those arguments a lot better than I do and they are
    important arguments to hear because, in these times when any browser's
    future is uncertain, it makes even less sense to use outdated browser
    specific methods to create Web sites. That's all I've been trying to say.

    Okay, then at that I would like to leave this. (But i'm sure you have
    already begun replying this message haven't you? *P*

    Just know that I understand what you are trying to make clear. Giving
    the arguments I have you probably also understand my views. The example
    with the Showcase animated site is just one example. If you want
    another, I can point you to Bill Rays latest site:
    [url]http://www.billraydrums.com[/url]
    where his animated Project Fireworks' autolayers feature looks a mess in
    Netscapes latest browser. Then again, like I said, advanced features
    such as those should be avoided if you're targeting a multitude of browsers.


    It is a good thing we did not discuss this on the phone Stéphane. My
    chat with Bill Ray the other day almost took two hours. Imagine my
    phonebill if I were to call you and 'chat' about these issues. It would
    probably cost me my entire income. :-D


    Stéphane, if you haven't already made a reply to this message, please
    keep your answers short when you do so. It took me over two hours to
    write this reply.
    I DO appreciate your time but I hope you also appreciate mine. And right
    now, I should've updated a clients site two hours ago. Go figure how
    much I appreciate your advice and respect your opinions.


    --

    Coen Naninck
    _______________________________

    Please do not E-mail me with questions about Fireworks issues. Post them
    on the Forum instead. All the time I have left to spend in this Forum
    can't be contributed to also answering questions outside the Forum. It
    just takes too much time and it doesn't help the rest of the world.

    If you are sending me a file on my own request for help purposes, then
    please include the threads subject header.

    Thank you.

    E-mail & MSN: [email]ccnkhome.nl[/email]
    Corporate: [url]http://www.wetworks.nl[/url]

    Coen Naninck Guest

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Max 3 years to $3M :: No Joke!
    By Kevin in forum ASP.NET Building Controls
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 7th, 10:03 PM
  2. funny joke
    By |-|erc in forum PHP Development
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: September 21st, 10:29 AM
  3. Joke sort of
    By Grant Dixon in forum Adobe Photoshop Elements
    Replies: 108
    Last Post: July 30th, 12:18 AM
  4. VERY OT: Joke!
    By Dan Vendel *GOF* in forum Macromedia Dreamweaver
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: July 23rd, 01:49 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139