On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 14:05, Anthony Anson wrote:
The message 200312041326.28812.gt@pobox.com from Graham Trott gt@pobox.com contains these words:
He knows that 99% of viewers will be running IE and won't give a toss for the rest. He doesn't do it for the love of it; he has no concept of what makes tidy HTML but wants results NOW and preferably at little or no cost.
There I must disagree: many people run two or more browsers, and 1% is IMO an underestimate by a very large factor. Don't forget, that there are Mac, RISC, Commodore etc users out there as well as Windows-based ones, and of the Windows users, many have more than one browser. I have Firebird, Opera and Netscape on my Windows box, and only keep IE because it's cunningly built into the system.
I test my pages in Mozilla, Opera and Netscape, and I don't give a flying **** if they display in IE.
Hmm. People who are still running Netscape (4 or 6, or whatever they're up to now) have something wrong with them. I don't bother testing anything on 4 anymore. It's simply too utterly broken and old, and 6 is just Mozilla with lots of crap thrown in.
Am I unique in the Linux users world who pines of an IE for x86 Linux? Mozilla's all good and dandy, but it's /slow/ and in my experience, horribly unstable. IE by contrast is simple, and blindingly quick. It's actually a superb browser on balance, no matter what people say.
From a commercial stand point, not giving a toss how well IE renders a
website is a serious mistake. From a personal stand point, I think it's just blinkered advocacy for something else that I think everybody could do without.
B.