Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>__/ [Karl Groves] on Monday 13 February 2006 18:08 \__
>
>> "Dan" <dan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in news:1139853209.939415.282360
>> @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>>
>>> Karl Groves wrote:
>>>> Not on an M$ computer? Sorry, no grant money for you!
>>>> Nothin like hiring professionals!
>>>> http://smallerurl.com/?id=1ai641i
>>>
>>> Ridiculous... do those elaborate, expensive, incompatible "packages"
>>> actually do anything that couldn't have been accomplished with plain
>>> 'ol 1994-style HTML forms, compatible with all browsers and systems?
>>>
>>
>> Definitely not. I just went there and there's really nothing, from an
>> interface standpoint, that should give such trouble.
>
>The visitor can easily spoof user-agent, but try to explain this to any
>amateur computer user. The solution is perhaps to use Opera. They think of
>everything.
>
>What I find least acceptable is that such sites work perfectly fine in all
>modern browser. They are often denied at the gate just for who/what they
>are.
>
I think it's more of who/what they're not. And, I don't think it's
necessarily the fault of the site owner. The fault lies at the feet of the
site developer who attempts to design to a browser's 'peculiarities'
(hello, IE) instead of designing for cross-browser compatibility.
--
Ed Jay (remove M to respond by email)
|
|
