forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Miles Elam <mi...@geekspeak.org>
Subject Re: [RT] Getting rid of the table-based layout
Date Mon, 11 Nov 2002 09:30:52 GMT
From: "Nicola Ken Barozzi" <nicolaken@apache.org>
>
>Yes, my compliments :-)

Thanks!

>It look worse in Netscape 4 though...

Ahem...In a manner of speaking, it's supposed to.  Or rather, it's meant
to be accessible but not necessarily "pretty" in legacy browsers.

>Can someone please also check it in "links" with images turned on?

How do you do this?  I have links installed, but I always assumed that
it was a text-only browser.

>Better, why not put up screanshots of what it looks like in all 
>browsers, so we can all see it and vote knowing more of it?

Great!  This would help me find where certain CSS properties are
destructively interfering with layout on certain browsers. 

>>Any volunteers to skinify this?  Otherwise I'll have a go after some
>>other work..

What's involved?  I know XSLT so if I know the source schema/DTD, I
could give it a shot.  But then again, the last time I said that, it
took me two weeks to get back to you.  :-/

>We have a PDF-printable link on every page, IMHO it would be cool if we
>had a "legacy" link that showed the site with the current table based
>skin, so that older browsers have a nice viewing experience too...

That should be easy.  Add some text saying "Click here if you are using
Netscape 4, IE 4, etc."  This takes them to a page with the following
links.

http://www.mozilla.org/
http://www.microsoft.com/ie/
http://www.netscape.com/download/
etc.

Kidding aside, with a limited amount of developer time, will you be
making the bug fixes and stylesheets changes when schemas change and
features are added?  If older browsers can't get the content, I would be
the first to say that there needs to be more work done.  As far as I'm
aware, the content is completely available to all browsers; They simply
don't get the pretty blues, and they get navigation on the bottom
instead of on the left.  Qué malo suerte...  Older computers can still
run the newest versions of Opera.  Did Blizzard hold back release on
Warcraft III because it didn't run on Windows 95-era computers?  Of
course the difference here is that we *are* making a version available.
It's just that while the gameplay is just as good, the graphics are
lower resolution.

It makes me think of a 70s vintage car owner complaining that leaded
gasoline isn't readily available anymore.

>From personal experience I can say that stylesheets for XHTML+CSS is
much easier than for HTML+tables.  Myself, I have no particular love for
the mental gymnastics necessary to keep the stylesheet well-formed while
filling in table cells.  It's sad, but a big reason why I learned CSS
was so that the XSLT would be simpler and more efficient.  Tables make
me sleepy.

Speaking of accessibility, I forgot to mention that I removed all
JavaScript from my mockup.  It wasn't needed at all for the Google
search.  And rather than rehash a discussion I'm sure took place long
before I got here, could someone send me a link as to why the breadcrumbs
were used instead of server-side inclusion?  I'm not saying it was a
bad decision, I probably just don't know the history.  It just worries
me that if someone doesn't have scripting enabled, they lose part of the
page navigation.  That and document.write() sidesteps the DOM...

- Miles

P.S.  I hope I haven't completely alienated everyone with my politics.




Mime
View raw message