Consultation on Public Sector Web Sites
Richard Porter
http://www.coi.gov.uk/guidance.php?page=200
http://www.coi.gov.uk/documents/guidance/browser-standards-draft-v0-13.pdf
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/09/uk_gvt_browser_guidelines/
and respond to the consultation making your views clear. The whole
proposal is nonsense and approaches the problem from totally the wrong
direction. Also it is disgraceful that British Government web sites
should not support British computers and operating systems.
--
Richard Porter
rich@ / www. richardporter.me.uk
"You can't have Windows without pains."
Peter Naulls
> Please read:
> http://www.coi.gov.uk/guidance.php?page=200
>
> http://www.coi.gov.uk/documents/guidance/browser-standards-draft-v0-13.pdf
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/09/uk_gvt_browser_guidelines/
>
> and respond to the consultation making your views clear. The whole
> proposal is nonsense and approaches the problem from totally the wrong
> direction. Also it is disgraceful that British Government web sites
> should not support British computers and operating systems.
Amstrad?
Sinclair?
ARM Linux? (arguably)
Oh, you mean RISC OS*. Yes, I read the article, and I find TR's logic
a bit dubious - the acknowledgment of Firefox et al is plenty
sufficient, and considerably more than many companies still do.
So why is the UK Govt required to support a very minority OS,
with a user base of perhaps a few thousand (considerably less than
the quoted 2%). Shouldn't it be the case that RISC OS should
embrace modern web standards - that would solve many more problems.
Yes, this is advocacy, so read as much flippancy into my post as
you feel is required ;-)
Doug Webb
Richard Porter <dontu...@address.uk.invalid> wrote:
> Please read:
> http://www.coi.gov.uk/guidance.php?page=200
> http://www.coi.gov.uk/documents/guidance/browser-standards-draft-v0-13.pdf
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/09/uk_gvt_browser_guidelines/
> and respond to the consultation making your views clear. The whole
> proposal is nonsense and approaches the problem from totally the wrong
> direction. Also it is disgraceful that British Government web sites
> should not support British computers and operating systems.
I do think the issue here is not supporting British computers or
operating systems rather ensuring that the sites themselves comply
with the recognised web standards rather than specific browsers and
their take on standards or in Microsofts langauage enhanced standards
or default compatibility mode if you have IE8.
If our browsers were then built to work correctly with those standards
then we would be OK.
In this sense Netsurf and Bon Echo/Firefox for RISC OS are the most
likely contenders.
So if you want to protest then do it on that basis and not on the bais
of the OS.
--
Using an IYONIX pc and RISC OS 5.13, the thinking person's alternative
operating system to Microsoft Windows.
druck
> Please read:
> http://www.coi.gov.uk/guidance.php?page=200
> http://www.coi.gov.uk/documents/guidance/browser-standards-draft-v0-13.pdf
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/09/uk_gvt_browser_guidelines/
> and respond to the consultation making your views clear. The whole
> proposal is nonsense and approaches the problem from totally the wrong
> direction. Also it is disgraceful that British Government web sites
> should not support British computers and operating systems.
If everyone still using RISC OS Browsers visited every single
government website, we might get up to 2% on the some of the less
popular ones, such as the one mentioned in the PDF, whatever it was.
Make sure you use the same Browser and have user agent faking turned
off though, or it will all be for nothing.
---druck
--
The ARM Club Free Software - http://www.armclub.org.uk/free/
The 32bit Conversions Page - http://www.quantumsoft.co.uk/druck/
Peter Naulls
> On 9 Sep 2008 Richard Porter <dontu...@address.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Please read:
>> http://www.coi.gov.uk/guidance.php?page=200
>
>> http://www.coi.gov.uk/documents/guidance/browser-standards-draft-v0-13.pdf
>
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/09/uk_gvt_browser_guidelines/
>
>> and respond to the consultation making your views clear. The whole
>> proposal is nonsense and approaches the problem from totally the wrong
>> direction. Also it is disgraceful that British Government web sites
>> should not support British computers and operating systems.
>
> If everyone still using RISC OS Browsers visited every single
> government website, we might get up to 2% on the some of the less
> popular ones, such as the one mentioned in the PDF, whatever it was.
>
> Make sure you use the same Browser and have user agent faking turned
> off though, or it will all be for nothing.
Yes, in particular (from my own web logs):
"Mozilla/4.72 [en] (Compatible; RISC OS 4.02; Oregano 1.10)"
"Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows NT 5.0; Oregano2 )"
Which could be classified as Netscape or perhaps Firefox,
depending on how extensive their browser database is.
versus:
"NetSurf/1.2 (RISC OS; armv4l)"
Of course, they might never have heard of RISC OS, and it could
be classified as "other".
And for completeness:
"Mozilla/5.0 (ChoX11; U; RISC OS; en-US; rv:1.8.1.1) Gecko/20061224
BonEcho/2.0.0.1"
Just in case your agent string wasn't long enough. And that might
or might not be classified as Firefox (technically, it isn't,
since that's branding I don't have permission to use).
Chika
Doug Webb <doug....@btinternet.com> wrote:
> In message <773533d...@user.minijem.plus.com>
> Richard Porter <dontu...@address.uk.invalid> wrote:
> > Please read:
> > http://www.coi.gov.uk/guidance.php?page=200
> > http://www.coi.gov.uk/documents/guidance/browser-standards-draft-v0-13.pdf
> > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/09/uk_gvt_browser_guidelines/
> > and respond to the consultation making your views clear. The whole
> > proposal is nonsense and approaches the problem from totally the wrong
> > direction. Also it is disgraceful that British Government web sites
> > should not support British computers and operating systems.
> I do think the issue here is not supporting British computers or
> operating systems rather ensuring that the sites themselves comply
> with the recognised web standards rather than specific browsers and
> their take on standards or in Microsofts langauage enhanced standards
> or default compatibility mode if you have IE8.
Agreed. I suspect that the situation with the new Google browser may put a
bigger spanner in the works when it comes to this, however, as Google will
most likely claim that the use of support based on quota could potentially
shut new product out of the market.
> If our browsers were then built to work correctly with those standards
> then we would be OK.
True. However, our biggest problem isn't anything to do with the standards
that W3C controls, though we have enough of those to worry about.
> In this sense Netsurf and Bon Echo/Firefox for RISC OS are the most
> likely contenders.
> So if you want to protest then do it on that basis and not on the bais
> of the OS.
Indeed, that is what it comes down to, and is the essence of the Any
Browser campaign (which now seems to have been running forever). The idea
is that any browser should be able to open a site, regardless of OS or
manufacturer.
The presumed proviso is that the browser is capable of opening a site that
follows the standard, or that the code degrades gracefully enough so that
a substandard browser can still handle it.
That's what annoys me when I see a document like this rubbish from COI -
not that RISC OS is being ignored again (annoying but understandable -
these people are ignorant), but that it perpetuates the old browser wars
and everything they stood for (which makes them doubly ignorant).
--
//\ // Chika <miyuki><at><crashnet><org><uk>
// \// Mitsuo... Menda... naha naha...
... Don't use a big word where a diminutive one will suffice.
Richard Porter
write:
> Richard Porter wrote:
>> Please read:
>> http://www.coi.gov.uk/guidance.php?page=200
>>
>> http://www.coi.gov.uk/documents/guidance/browser-standards-draft-v0-13.pdf
>>
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/09/uk_gvt_browser_guidelines/
>>
>> and respond to the consultation making your views clear. The whole
>> proposal is nonsense and approaches the problem from totally the wrong
>> direction. Also it is disgraceful that British Government web sites
>> should not support British computers and operating systems.
> Amstrad?
> Sinclair?
> ARM Linux? (arguably)
At least the one or two that are still going. Obviously there does
come a cut-off point. You couldn't easily support versions of Mosaic
that don't support tables.
> Oh, you mean RISC OS*. Yes, I read the article, and I find TR's logic
> a bit dubious - the acknowledgment of Firefox et al is plenty
> sufficient, and considerably more than many companies still do.
> So why is the UK Govt required to support a very minority OS,
> with a user base of perhaps a few thousand (considerably less than
> the quoted 2%). Shouldn't it be the case that RISC OS should
> embrace modern web standards - that would solve many more problems.
Yes, that would be nice, but don't forget that all the 'under-2%s' can
add up to more that 2% of the total browser population.
The whole thrust of the article is that web sites should not be
designed around the latest non-standard features of particular
browsers but should conform to internationally agreed standards.
You should not be continually updating your sites to use the latest
version of any software. Rather, you should be using the earliest
standard that supports the functionality you need, and providing an
adequate fallback if that functionality isn't available - not "Sorry
we can't be bothered to talk to you so piss off you silly little man
we don't need your business and anyway why can't you use windows just
like everybody else" (or words to that effect).
> Yes, this is advocacy, so read as much flippancy into my post as
> you feel is required ;-)
Peter Naulls
>> So why is the UK Govt required to support a very minority OS,
>> with a user base of perhaps a few thousand (considerably less than
>> the quoted 2%). Shouldn't it be the case that RISC OS should
>> embrace modern web standards - that would solve many more problems.
>
> Yes, that would be nice, but don't forget that all the 'under-2%s' can
> add up to more that 2% of the total browser population.
And, thereby adding yet another variable for each minority browser
you take into account.
> You should not be continually updating your sites to use the latest
> version of any software. Rather, you should be using the earliest
> standard that supports the functionality you need, and providing an
> adequate fallback if that functionality isn't available -
Whether they should or not, it's pretty consistent with what
is done elsewhere. "Shoulds" doesn't improving browsing
experience. And even if they _did_ do what you insist,
it doesn't help the rest of the web one jot.
As it stands, it just looks like you're trying to justify
people putting in more effort just so there is
support for a very minority platform, with questionable
browsing abilities. Anyone else with sense would be asking
(a) why the hell anyone is using the platform and (b)
if they are, why isn't anything being done to improve the
browsing on it.
Richard Porter
write:
> Richard Porter wrote:
>>> So why is the UK Govt required to support a very minority OS,
>>> with a user base of perhaps a few thousand (considerably less than
>>> the quoted 2%). Shouldn't it be the case that RISC OS should
>>> embrace modern web standards - that would solve many more problems.
>>
>> Yes, that would be nice, but don't forget that all the 'under-2%s' can
>> add up to more that 2% of the total browser population.
> And, thereby adding yet another variable for each minority browser
> you take into account.
No, you can't possibly test a web site on every single platform/
browser combination. You can write html that is likely to run on any
browser, and enhance it to take account of more advanced browsers
without compromising more basic browsers.
>> You should not be continually updating your sites to use the latest
>> version of any software. Rather, you should be using the earliest
>> standard that supports the functionality you need, and providing an
>> adequate fallback if that functionality isn't available -
> Whether they should or not, it's pretty consistent with what
> is done elsewhere. "Shoulds" doesn't improving browsing
> experience. And even if they _did_ do what you insist,
> it doesn't help the rest of the web one jot.
I don't know what you mean by "help the rest of the web". I want
information, not a "browsing experience".
> As it stands, it just looks like you're trying to justify
> people putting in more effort just so there is
> support for a very minority platform, with questionable
> browsing abilities.
On the contrary, I'm suggesting that people put in less effort by not
trying to exploit the latest gee-whizz features of Browser X when
those features are not necessary for the job in hand.
If you're writing an interactive entertainment site then you may well
need to restrict it to more up-to-date browsers, but there's a big
difference between entertainment sites and public sector web sites
that everyone might need to use.
> Anyone else with sense would be asking
> (a) why the hell anyone is using the platform and (b)
> if they are, why isn't anything being done to improve the
> browsing on it.
I don't intend to throw any more petrol on that fire!
Peter Naulls
>> And, thereby adding yet another variable for each minority browser
>> you take into account.
>
> No, you can't possibly test a web site on every single platform/
> browser combination. You can write html that is likely to run on any
> browser, and enhance it to take account of more advanced browsers
> without compromising more basic browsers.
Which is what the Govt is trying to do, and most of the web
is about. No doubt you disagree with the specifics, but that
doesn't help solve browsing in general.
>> Whether they should or not, it's pretty consistent with what
>> is done elsewhere. "Shoulds" doesn't improving browsing
>> experience. And even if they _did_ do what you insist,
>> it doesn't help the rest of the web one jot.
>
> I don't know what you mean by "help the rest of the web".
What else _could_ I mean? I mean every other page out there.
For me, UK Govt sites have limited interest.
> I want information, not a "browsing experience".
There isn't much difference. The web is increasingly
applications, not just information like it was 10 years ago.
> If you're writing an interactive entertainment site then you may well
> need to restrict it to more up-to-date browsers, but there's a big
> difference between entertainment sites and public sector web sites
> that everyone might need to use.
Then you still miss the logical flaw in your argument. It doesn't
_matter_ if a tiny subset of sites on the internet are held
to stringent standards. None of that helps RISC OS in general
for every other site out there that uses post 1998 technology.
Whether it be "entertainment" (and my definition over what
constitutes that is likely different than yours) or something
else. This is RISC OS in a nutshell - we focus on tiny problems
at the expense of trying to solve a bigger more general problem
which would produce a result that is magnitudes better.
Richard Porter
write:
> Richard Porter wrote:
>>> And, thereby adding yet another variable for each minority browser
>>> you take into account.
>>
>> No, you can't possibly test a web site on every single platform/
>> browser combination. You can write html that is likely to run on any
>> browser, and enhance it to take account of more advanced browsers
>> without compromising more basic browsers.
> Which is what the Govt is trying to do, and most of the web
> is about. No doubt you disagree with the specifics, but that
> doesn't help solve browsing in general.
But the government is saying don't worry if your web site doesn't work
on any browsers with under a 2% penetration. I'm saying you shouldn't
be concerned about specific browsers.
>>> Whether they should or not, it's pretty consistent with what
>>> is done elsewhere. "Shoulds" doesn't improving browsing
>>> experience. And even if they _did_ do what you insist,
>>> it doesn't help the rest of the web one jot.
>>
>> I don't know what you mean by "help the rest of the web".
> What else _could_ I mean? I mean every other page out there.
> For me, UK Govt sites have limited interest.
Maybe, but if you need to use a government web site to pay your tax or
find out about the benefits you're entitled to or whatever, you
expect it to work on your browser without having to download the
latest version of Internet Explorer.
>> I want information, not a "browsing experience".
> There isn't much difference. The web is increasingly
> applications, not just information like it was 10 years ago.
Phrases like "browsing experience", "shopping experience", "viewing
experience", "travel experience" make me squirm. It sounds as though
I'm being sold something I don't want, and wrapped in cotton wool to
boot. I just want to get some information, buy something, see
something or get from A to B with the minimum of hassle. If I have to
fight my way through the ticketmaster web site and beat its stupidly
short timeouts I'm not going to bother whatever platform I'm using.
As for "applications" that would just appear to be moving more
processing client side to take some load off the server. It isn't
usually necessary. There's a great temptation to do things just
because you can rather than because you need to.
>> If you're writing an interactive entertainment site then you may well
>> need to restrict it to more up-to-date browsers, but there's a big
>> difference between entertainment sites and public sector web sites
>> that everyone might need to use.
> Then you still miss the logical flaw in your argument. It doesn't
> _matter_ if a tiny subset of sites on the internet are held
> to stringent standards.
There are all sorts of web sites out there some of which haven't been
updated for years, and browsers have to do the best with what they
find. The other side of the coin is that web sites have to work with
whatever browser finds them.
> None of that helps RISC OS in general for every other site out there
> that uses post 1998 technology. Whether it be "entertainment" (and my
> definition over what constitutes that is likely different than yours)
> or something else.
Let's just say that an entertainment site is one you visit because you
want to for your own enjoyment and not because you need to execute
some sort of financial/commercial/governmental transaction or just
find out about something.
> This is RISC OS in a nutshell - we focus on tiny problems at the
> expense of trying to solve a bigger more general problem which would
> produce a result that is magnitudes better.
That's true because we don't have enough financial clout and manpower
to do anything about it, and because not all the commercial parties
involved are necessarily pulling in the same direction. But that has
nothing to do with public sector web sites.
Peter Naulls
> The date being 12 Sep 2008, Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> decided to
> write:
>
[not much, just repeating the same old argument]
>> Then you still miss the logical flaw in your argument. It doesn't
>> _matter_ if a tiny subset of sites on the internet are held
>> to stringent standards.
>
> There are all sorts of web sites out there some of which haven't been
> updated for years, and browsers have to do the best with what they
> find. The other side of the coin is that web sites have to work with
> whatever browser finds them.
You're trying to argue for a reality which isn't. And you still
miss the point I made at the very beginning and repeated above.
>> None of that helps RISC OS in general for every other site out there
>> that uses post 1998 technology. Whether it be "entertainment" (and my
>> definition over what constitutes that is likely different than yours)
>> or something else.
>
> Let's just say that an entertainment site is one you visit because you
> want to for your own enjoyment and not because you need to execute
> some sort of financial/commercial/governmental transaction or just
> find out about something.
Say it all you want. That doesn't make it true. And it certainly
doesn't help RISC OS.
>> This is RISC OS in a nutshell - we focus on tiny problems at the
>> expense of trying to solve a bigger more general problem which would
>> produce a result that is magnitudes better.
>
> That's true because we don't have enough financial clout and manpower
> to do anything about it, and because not all the commercial parties
> involved are necessarily pulling in the same direction. But that has
> nothing to do with public sector web sites.
No, it is nothing to do with that whatsoever. It's about the
navel-gazing problem solving that we insist upon doing, instead of
solving the correct problems. Taking a short-sighted approach
simply means making the problem much worse later. In this case,
it means solving the web browsing problem on RISC OS - not
complaining (as we are so good at doing) that certain sites
on the internet do not conform to ancient standards, just because
our browsers cannot cope.
But obviously it's much easier to complain, so I fully expect,
again, that to be the outcome.
Greg
dontu...@address.uk.invalid says...
> The date being 12 Sep 2008, Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> decided to
> write:
>
> > Richard Porter wrote:
>
> >>> And, thereby adding yet another variable for each minority browser
> >>> you take into account.
> >>
> >> No, you can't possibly test a web site on every single platform/
> >> browser combination. You can write html that is likely to run on any
> >> browser, and enhance it to take account of more advanced browsers
> >> without compromising more basic browsers.
>
> > Which is what the Govt is trying to do, and most of the web
> > is about. No doubt you disagree with the specifics, but that
> > doesn't help solve browsing in general.
>
> But the government is saying don't worry if your web site doesn't work
> on any browsers with under a 2% penetration. I'm saying you shouldn't
> be concerned about specific browsers.
The heck you should. How the hell will anything advance with a view like
that!
Why should everything point down to the lowest denominator.
--
Greg Harris (Norwich)
Alex' A. Interrants
Richard Porter <dontu...@address.uk.invalid> hat geschrieben:
[snip]
> The whole thrust of the article is that web sites should not be
> designed around the latest non-standard features of particular
> browsers but should conform to internationally agreed standards.
That's a political issue. It would avoid a lot of problems and
distribute the power to more as a few companies - good for the business,
security and market.
[snip]
Alex'
--
Venusberg, European Alps (693 m above sea level)
The used e-mail address is dustbin. Contact:
http://home.chiemgau-net.de/ausserstorfer/
Richard Porter
write:
>> But the government is saying don't worry if your web site doesn't work
>> on any browsers with under a 2% penetration. I'm saying you shouldn't
>> be concerned about specific browsers.
> The heck you should. How the hell will anything advance with a view
> like that!
Because standards evolve. New techniques come along. If they solve a
problem or allow you to provide a new service that you couldn't before
that's fine as long as you accept that those services might not, at
least initially, be available to everyone.
> Why should everything point down to the lowest denominator.
I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying use what gets the job done and
don't try to over-egg the pudding. All I'm asking is that if you are
providing a facility that you can easily provide in a compatible
manner, don't do it in a complicated way that just causes problems for
some users.
If I'm designing a web site I want it to be readable by 100% of my
potential audience, not 80% or 90% or even 98%.
Peter Naulls
> I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying use what gets the job done and
> don't try to over-egg the pudding. All I'm asking is that if you are
> providing a facility that you can easily provide in a compatible
> manner, don't do it in a complicated way that just causes problems for
> some users.
You're avoiding specifics. What is "compatible" and how do you
test it against many obscure browsers which do not conform to
standards (and which standards)?
> If I'm designing a web site I want it to be readable by 100% of my
> potential audience, not 80% or 90% or even 98%.
Laudable, but you have to remember that the goal of your audience
is to view arbitrary websites 100%, on the platform they're using -
your site or otherwise. Just because your site conforms to
some as yet unnamed standards fails to help them elsewhere on
a site which conforms to a different set of standards.
Richard Porter
write:
> Richard Porter wrote:
>> ... All I'm asking is that if you are providing a facility that you
>> can easily provide in a compatible manner, don't do it in a
>> complicated way that just causes problems for some users.
> You're avoiding specifics.
Exactly!
> What is "compatible" and how do you test it against many obscure
> browsers which do not conform to standards (and which standards)?
The whole point, which you don't seem to be able to grasp, is that you
don't test on lots of obscure browsers. You design your site in a way
which is unlikely to cause any problems, and if you or your visitors
find any you fix them.
>> If I'm designing a web site I want it to be readable by 100% of my
>> potential audience, not 80% or 90% or even 98%.
> Laudable, but you have to remember that the goal of your audience
> is to view arbitrary websites 100%, on the platform they're using -
> your site or otherwise.
This thread is about designing sites to work with browsers, not about
designing browsers to work with sites although that is just as
important. But browsers tend to have much better backwards
compatibility with sites than vice versa, mainly because web designers
tend to assume that you can just go off and download the latest
version of whatever browser they assume you're bound to be using.
> Just because your site conforms to some as yet unnamed standards fails
> to help them elsewhere on a site which conforms to a different set of
> standards.
My sites do not conform to unnamed standards. Each page conforms to
the standard explicitly declared in the first line of the source and
which is shown by the W3C HTML/XHTML/CSS button(s) at the foot of the
page.
Your last sentence is ungrammatical. What is the subject of "fails"
and what does "them" refer to? What has this mythical other site got
to do with it?
Peter Naulls
> The date being 15 Sep 2008, Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> decided to
> write:
>
>> Richard Porter wrote:
>
>>> ... All I'm asking is that if you are providing a facility that you
>>> can easily provide in a compatible manner, don't do it in a
>>> complicated way that just causes problems for some users.
>
>> You're avoiding specifics.
>
> Exactly!
Exactly a good way to continue with a vague argument and avoiding
the point.
>> What is "compatible" and how do you test it against many obscure
>> browsers which do not conform to standards (and which standards)?
>
> The whole point, which you don't seem to be able to grasp, is that you
> don't test on lots of obscure browsers. You design your site in a way
> which is unlikely to cause any problems, and if you or your visitors
> find any you fix them.
Nice theory, but full of problems. I think I can safely assume
you've never worked on a browser. Again, how can you be sure
your site is "unlikely to cause any problems" with this last
2% of browsers (which could be a great many), without testing
on them - you cannot, promises to adherence or otherwise. You
can simply hope for the best, or make a realistic choice about
what browsers you _will_ test on. As has been done here,
and is done on most of the web.
>>> If I'm designing a web site I want it to be readable by 100% of my
>>> potential audience, not 80% or 90% or even 98%.
>
>> Laudable, but you have to remember that the goal of your audience
>> is to view arbitrary websites 100%, on the platform they're using -
>> your site or otherwise.
>
> This thread is about designing sites to work with browsers, not about
> designing browsers to work with sites although that is just as
> important.
Nope, you're trying to read meaning into my argument. It's about
giving RISC OS some kind of non-1998 web experience (a phrase
you can dismiss all you want), but unless RISC OS has modern
browsing features, much of the internet will be unusable.
> But browsers tend to have much better backwards
> compatibility with sites than vice versa, mainly because web designers
> tend to assume that you can just go off and download the latest
> version of whatever browser they assume you're bound to be using.
Frankly, a reasonable assumption. They have no reason to concern
themselves with the limited browsing abilities of a backwater
OS.
>> Just because your site conforms to some as yet unnamed standards fails
>> to help them elsewhere on a site which conforms to a different set of
>> standards.
>
> My sites do not conform to unnamed standards. Each page conforms to
> the standard explicitly declared in the first line of the source and
> which is shown by the W3C HTML/XHTML/CSS button(s) at the foot of the
> page.
Sure they do, you've yet to tell us what standards you're talking
about, and which ones you think RISC OS supports, or what the
common denominator is - you can always find some standard which
isn't supported by some browser, somewhere.
> Your last sentence is ungrammatical. What is the subject of "fails"
> and what does "them" refer to? What has this mythical other site got
> to do with it?
It was grammatical, but perhaps not clear (not helped by your
breaking up the paragraph) - the "them" refers to the "your
audience", in the now snipped paragraph.
I'm afraid your POV fails to help RISC OS any; unless by
some miracle, the UK Govt happens to take notice, but then
you'll just make them annoyed by making them do extra work.
OTOH, if RISC OS browsers are improved, then RISC OS users
benefit on the entire web, not just some fraction that
conforms to some ill-defined standards. But as I said
earlier, it's easy to complain, and this is the most
likely outcome.
I guess it's too much to ask you to restrain from replying unless
you have some suggestion that credibly improves the situation
for RISC OS, since nothing you've said far does :-(
Richard Porter
write:
> I guess it's too much to ask you to restrain from replying unless
> you have some suggestion that credibly improves the situation
> for RISC OS, since nothing you've said far does :-(
I could say exactly the same to you. If you don't want to continue the
discussion then don't.
Peter Naulls
> The date being 16 Sep 2008, Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> decided to
> write:
>
>> I guess it's too much to ask you to restrain from replying unless
>> you have some suggestion that credibly improves the situation
>> for RISC OS, since nothing you've said far does :-(
>
> I could say exactly the same to you. I
You could, but I have plenty of suggestions, not to mention the work
I'm personally doing, which unfortunately, is very slow. But I
can come up with tasks for others.
> If you don't want to continue then discussion then don't.
I'm afraid a discussion in which one of the antagonist refuses to
name specifics, is destined to go nowhere. Improving RISC OS
means moving beyond that, naming specific problems and solutions.
Even in the case where it's in the form of a complaint, that needs
to be specific as well.
Martin Bazley
spouted the following:
> Richard Porter wrote:
> >
> > The whole point, which you don't seem to be able to grasp, is that you
> > don't test on lots of obscure browsers. You design your site in a way
> > which is unlikely to cause any problems, and if you or your visitors
> > find any you fix them.
>
> Nice theory, but full of problems. I think I can safely assume
> you've never worked on a browser. Again, how can you be sure
> your site is "unlikely to cause any problems" with this last
> 2% of browsers (which could be a great many), without testing
> on them - you cannot, promises to adherence or otherwise. You
> can simply hope for the best, or make a realistic choice about
> what browsers you _will_ test on. As has been done here,
> and is done on most of the web.
>
I would just like to add some of my own fuel to the fire here.
Personally, I believe both your arguments have their good points and
their bad points. The fact is, Peter, that there *are* internationally
agreed standards - they are set by the World Wide Web consortium
( http://www.w3c.org/ ); they are continually updated and not outmoded
as you suggest; they are there to be used by everyone, and any website
which does not conform to said standards and instead relies on an
obscure feature of a specific browser is, technically, the one which is
outmoded, and you have the right to complain.
OTOH, I agree that there are limits. There is, for example, no reason
why websites should be made to work properly with non-graphical browsers
- it complicates things no end. The 'alt' image text is mainly useful
where the image is, for some reason, unavailable, although highly
graphical websites should probably provide simpler versions for printing
purposes. CSS is also an internationally agreed standard, and websites
should not bother with browsers which cannot cope with it; Javascript is
also common enough to be declared a standard, and I agree with Peter on
this point - instead of complaining, we really should get to work on
supporting it properly.
Yet there is such a thing as over-designing. For example, does an
informational section of a website really need to be a PowerPoint or
Flash presentation? Is the information not readable without a thousand
silly transitions and fades and various wiggly things? Isn't conveying
information what HTML was written for? PowerPoint is not necessary
anywhere - there is no situation where text in such a presentation
offers any more than aesthetic improvement over plain HTML and images,
and it holds a lot of compatibility issues. Flash is overused, but I
agree that it is necessary if you are going to play online games.
In short, standards are there to be used, not abused, and there is fault
on both sides. Websites need to conform to internationally agreed
standards in order to ensure the widest possible audience, but RISC OS
also needs to support said standards in order to ensure the best
possible web access. Only when there is effort on both parties' parts
will the WWW be the free-for-all information source it was originally
designed to be.
--
__<^>__ === RISC OS is a work of art. Some people adore it, ===
/ _ _ \ === others can't see the point of it, and it's really ===
( ( |_| ) ) === expensive. ===
\_> <_/ ======================= Martin Bazley ===================
Peter Naulls
>
> Personally, I believe both your arguments have their good points and
> their bad points. The fact is, Peter, that there *are* internationally
> agreed standards - they are set by the World Wide Web consortium
> ( http://www.w3c.org/ ); they are continually updated and not outmoded
> as you suggest; they are there to be used by everyone, and any website
> which does not conform to said standards and instead relies on an
> obscure feature of a specific browser is, technically, the one which is
> outmoded, and you have the right to complain.
No, this is not an argument I made, nor is it valid. I never said
anything about it being "outmoded", although I can see perhaps
why you think I might have. What I _did_ say is that expecting
people to adhere to older standards just so RISC OS browsers will
work on them is highly unrealistic. As for the standards - they
contain many holes (only recently did the mainstream browsers
have Acid2 work fully for example), or degrees of interpretation -
in fact, HTML is horrible in this respect (never mind deliberate
actions by Microsoft to break it - and yes, I personally know an
ex-Netscape person who was on the HTML standards board). Newer
standards are much better of course, but without RISC OS
browsers conforming to them (and which browser(s) and which
standards?) it doesn't mean much.
> In short, standards are there to be used, not abused, and there is fault
> on both sides. Websites need to conform to internationally agreed
> standards in order to ensure the widest possible audience, but RISC OS
> also needs to support said standards in order to ensure the best
> possible web access. Only when there is effort on both parties' parts
> will the WWW be the free-for-all information source it was originally
> designed to be.
No one's disagreeing here, but the reality is there's been little effort
on the part of RISC OS to do anything coherent here (some counter-
examples exist, see current thread on csa. about NetSurf's new HTML
enginer and dealing with broken sites). And ultimately all we're
doing here is exchanging platitudes, rather than addressing
specific issues which would improve things for RISC OS. Meanwhile,
there's plenty of sites I'd like to use which have imperfect
HTML, JavaScript, CSS etc, which for better or worse, are handled
much better in "mainstream" browsers rather than for example,
Oregano 1.
Martin Bazley
Harriet.)
The date being 15 Sep, Peter Naulls
spouted the following:
> Richard Porter wrote:
>
> > I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying use what gets the job done and
> > don't try to over-egg the pudding. All I'm asking is that if you are
> > providing a facility that you can easily provide in a compatible
> > manner, don't do it in a complicated way that just causes problems for
> > some users.
>
> You're avoiding specifics. What is "compatible" and how do you
> test it against many obscure browsers which do not conform to
> standards (and which standards)?
>
I would just like to add some of my own fuel to the fire here.
Personally, I believe both your arguments have their good points and
their bad points. The fact is, Peter, that there *are* internationally
agreed standards - they are set by the World Wide Web consortium
( http://www.w3c.org/ ); they are continually updated and not outmoded
as you suggest; they are there to be used by everyone, and any website
which does not conform to said standards and instead relies on an
obscure feature of a specific browser is, technically, the one which is
outmoded, and you have the right to complain.
OTOH, I agree that there are limits. There is, for example, no reason
why websites should be made to work properly with non-graphical browsers
- it complicates things no end. The 'alt' image text is mainly useful
where the image is, for some reason, unavailable, although highly
graphical websites should probably provide simpler versions for printing
purposes. CSS is also an internationally agreed standard, and websites
should not bother with browsers which cannot cope with it; Javascript is
also common enough to be declared a standard, and I agree with Peter on
this point - instead of complaining, we really should get to work on
supporting it properly.
Yet there is such a thing as over-designing. For example, does an
informational section of a website really need to be a PowerPoint or
Flash presentation? Is the information not readable without a thousand
silly transitions and fades and various wiggly things? Isn't conveying
information what HTML was written for? PowerPoint is not necessary
anywhere - there is no situation where text in such a presentation
offers any more than aesthetic improvement over plain HTML and images,
and it holds a lot of compatibility issues. Flash is overused, but I
agree that it is necessary if you are going to play online games.
In short, standards are there to be used, not abused, and there is fault
on both sides. Websites need to conform to internationally agreed
standards in order to ensure the widest possible audience, but RISC OS
also needs to support said standards in order to ensure the best
possible web access. Only when there is effort on both parties' parts
will the WWW be the free-for-all information source it was originally
designed to be.
Jess (Imhotep)
> OTOH, I agree that there are limits. There is, for example, no reason
> why websites should be made to work properly with non-graphical browsers
> - it complicates things no end. The 'alt' image text is mainly useful
Apart from the disability discrimination act for one thing. Also the
search engines are effectively blind users, and what about users on
mobile phones.
> where the image is, for some reason, unavailable, although highly
> graphical websites should probably provide simpler versions for printing
> purposes. CSS is also an internationally agreed standard, and websites
> should not bother with browsers which cannot cope with it;
Agreed, but the site should be fully functional, but plain without.
Those without CSS probably don't have it with good reason, visual
disability or preference for plain displays.
> Javascript is
> also common enough to be declared a standard, and I agree with Peter on
> this point - instead of complaining, we really should get to work on
> supporting it properly.
Javascript has the potential to be a security hole. I normally use the
noscript plugin with firefox on a mac or pc. The core functionality of
a website should not depend on javascript (or any plug-ins for that
matter.)