Netscape 4.61

Explorer 4.5

Post a reply to this message

Twyst wrote:

> Well, as the overwhelming response is 'No Flash', I won't be using it.
>
> Here's a new question: What browsers are people running? I do try to keep my
> site text-friendly, but I need to know how high a level I should be using.
>  should I restrict myself to IE 3.0 and netscape 2? (god, I hope not!) )
>
> Personally, I'm going to shoot for html 4.0 compliant.

Well, HTML 4.0 might be a good target. Biggest thing I'd recommend is try to
keep things designed so as to degrade gracefully. Use nice markup to enhance
things, but if the extras aren't support, the information should still be
functional. One big thing is that there are still a lot of people out there on
MSIE 3.02. Good thing is that 3.02 had support for most of CSS.

When designing, I'd suggest to use MSIE 4.0 (gag! agh! ack!) and NN 4.5/6 as
base browsers, but check things on older stuff too. Unfortunately, you can't
easily have MSIE 3 and MSIE 4 on the same machine. I try to keep a system
around with MSIE 3.x (only have MSIE 4.0 at home because the new 98 computer
came loaded with it). Also try other browsers to see how the site holds up. I
usually run things through the current version of Lynx and also the WebTV
emulator. Sometimes nice design holds up well under these, sometimes things
only need minor tweaks. Also, a good thing about using Lynx to check your pages
is that it lets you see how web-indexing bots see your site.

Hmmmm. And using point sizes for fonts.... Hmmmm. Well if I have problems with
my hi-res linux setup here, I guess it's probably just that I don't have my
system configured to report the correct DPI (at least I hope that's all).


--
"My new computer's got the clocks, it rocks
But it was obsolete before I opened the box" - W.A.Y.

Post a reply to this message

Chris Huff wrote:
> 
> As for writing the page...try for 4.0 compliance, avoid Javascript, and
> use Java, but sparingly, and not in something necessary to use the page.

Javascript is OK (to handle things like mouseover and popup windows).  But
I agree not to use java with anything necessary.  I almost always have java
disabled.  Java VMs (in my experience) are too unstable.  Why should I
risk crashing Netscape or IE just so I can see some animated banner (which
I have to wait forever to load over my slow phone connection anyway)?

-Nathan

Post a reply to this message

Twyst wrote:
> 
> Steve <ste### [at] puzzlecraftcom> wrote in message
> news:37A312E0.F4662062@puzzlecraft.com...
> > The main, and only reason I visited your site so many times was
> INFORMATION.
> >
> > The tutorials, examples, source code, includes, objects, textures.....all
> > wonderful!
> >
> > I thought the tiny fonts you used stunk. I could not read them on either
> of my
> > browsers. Give up on the typography and stick with what you do so very,
> very
> > well.
> 
> Hrm. what platform? (Solaris?)

Yip, solaris, for example. Windows browser just like to add a 10% to the
font size. So this is general to every non-windows box. That way you can
adjust for that. Though in general I am very comfortable with 12 to
14pt. It's just easier to read.
I personally was very glad, that I knew most of the site by heart. So I
could browse without being able to read.

> I set the fonts by point size (10 point), as opposed to relative size. I
> know of problems with the Mac for that one - point sizes aren't the same
> across platforms. I know it's somewhat bad for some people, but I have this
> love of CSS.

Oh, I do as well, hardly any page without it in the last time. But I
generally let the fonts alone. That way it's also better to read for
people with eye-problems.
(Hey, I am mean, putting policial correctness on my side. That's rude)
> 
> Also, the new twysted.net site is quite possibly NOT going to be 640x480x256
> friendly. Sorry, but that's no longer a net standard. 800x600x256
> (preferably more bpp, imho) is almost a minimum, and that's what I'll design
> for now.
> 
> Twyst

Relying on a given resolution always brings you down to 'pixel-correct'
design. I read some articles, and decided to stay away from that. Your
milage may vary. And probably does.

Axel

(It feels good just to chat about the site, how good must browsing be)

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 31 Jul 1999 22:47:34 -0600, "Twyst" <twy### [at] twystednet> wrote:

>Here's a new question: What browsers are people running? I do try to keep my
>site text-friendly, but I need to know how high a level I should be using.
> should I restrict myself to IE 3.0 and netscape 2? (god, I hope not!) )

  Hi, Twyst. I use Netscape Communicator v4.6 here. Please consider making
pages that look decent (doesn't have to be award-winning), are logically
arranged, and load fast on a typical modem connection. Thanks for listening.

-- 
Alan
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.povray.org - Home of the Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer
news.povray.org - where POV-Ray enthusiasts around the world can get
together to exchange ideas, information, and experiences with others
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Post a reply to this message

I'm currently using N3.0 under Win 3.1, but hope to have SuSE Linux 6.1
up soon on a plug in drive. At work I'm using N2.0, which locks up on
Java scripts. We have Red Hat 6.0 loaded on a $00 mhz K6, but are having
problems getting the modem to work.

Ken Matassa

Post a reply to this message

Twyst wrote in message <37a3d388@news.povray.org>...
>Well, as the overwhelming response is 'No Flash', I won't be using it.
>
>Here's a new question: What browsers are people running? I do try to
keep my
>site text-friendly, but I need to know how high a level I should be
using.
> should I restrict myself to IE 3.0 and netscape 2? (god, I hope
not!) )

CyberDog 2.0 (at home, Netscrape 4.5 if needs be)
IE 4 at work

>Personally, I'm going to shoot for html 4.0 compliant.

CyberDog isn't... it chokes on:
nested tables
javascript (simply ignores it)
some plug-ins

Have Fun
Martin
--
<Spa### [at] tesseractcomau> is a valid address
If you prefer mnemonic addresses you can use:
<Martin 'at' tesseract.com.au> or <Martin.Crisp 'at' Tourism.tas.gov.au>

My opinions should not be taken as indicative of Tourism Tasmania's
opinions

Post a reply to this message

> Javascript is OK (to handle things like mouseover and popup windows).  But
> I agree not to use java with anything necessary.  I almost always have
java
> disabled.  Java VMs (in my experience) are too unstable.  Why should I
> risk crashing Netscape or IE just so I can see some animated banner (which
> I have to wait forever to load over my slow phone connection anyway)?

I agree. I personally HATE java with a passion. In my opinion, it's a total
waste of time. After all, it's touted as 'write once, work everywhere', but
in my experience, it's 'write once, test everywhere'. If you're worried
about portability, try ANSI compliant C.

Javascript, imho, is ok, since often a browser will simply ignore it if it
doesn't understand it.

Twyst

Post a reply to this message

>
> >Personally, I'm going to shoot for html 4.0 compliant.
>
> CyberDog isn't... it chokes on:
> nested tables
> javascript (simply ignores it)
> some plug-ins


Well, since I do a LOT of my layout with nested tables, there's not much I
can do.
Plugins: well, I've already decided that I don't want to use any (flash was
an idea... but that's been vetoed.) I've never heard of this browser... Is
it anything like Opera?

Twyst

Post a reply to this message

In article <37a5632b@news.povray.org> , "Twyst" <twy### [at] twystednet> wrote:

>> CyberDog isn't... it chokes on:
>> nested tables
>> javascript (simply ignores it)
>> some plug-ins
>
>
> Well, since I do a LOT of my layout with nested tables, there's not much I
> can do.
> Plugins: well, I've already decided that I don't want to use any (flash was
> an idea... but that's been vetoed.) I've never heard of this browser... Is
> it anything like Opera?

It is a browser developed by Apple years ago and officially discontinued for
at least two years.  It won't run on future Macs anyway.


     Thorsten


____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde

Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message