<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.techrepublic.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on Be open-minded about users' browser choices ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347695]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347695/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-05-23T23:39:50-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[thanks  for  sharing]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347695-3504678]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Great!!! thanks for sharing this information to  us! sesli chat   sesli sohbet]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347695-3504678]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[birumut]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 30 Sep 2011 12:53:25 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Yup, the IE numbers are definitely sliding...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347695-3493161]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[... but the W3CSchools numbers are skewed because of their audience. I wouldn't trust Bing's numbers either, for a similar reason, I bet they show 95% IE use. J.Ja]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347695-3493161]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Justin James]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 07 Sep 2011 12:46:25 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[W3Schools stats are dicey - Really?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347695-3492286]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[That wasnt simply a blind comment regarding MSIE loosing market share. When I analyze my own website statistics (Fortune 500 Company) I see a huge downward slide in the past 24 months with MSIE. Hovering in the 30% area.What would be interesting is to know is if the users age makes a difference. I suspect it does based on casual observation. I have noticed in  my work place that users in the 35 and under group gravitate to the Firefox/Chrome side of the house while the over 40 group tend to be using MSIE. Again, thats just casual obeservation.Thx,JCrowe]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347695-3492286]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[jlcrowe]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2011 07:39:22 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Browser high-mindedness]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347695-3492103]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Oh, I totally agree. I have IE, FF and Chrome on two of my three machines, but I use Chrome most often. But my employer's employee intranet site doesn't display properly on anything but IE; so if I want to check it, I have to use IE (or, oddly, my Android phone. Why it works on mobile but not FF or Chrome is beyond my skill base.)I do believe it comes from a holier-than-thou &quot;I don't use (insert browser name here) so therefore nobody does&quot; attitude as well. I see that same thing on tech-related forums, where someone who's more knowledgeable will belittle those who know less - forgetting, apparently, that they were once newbies, as well.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347695-3492103]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[deja_voodoo@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 05 Sep 2011 19:58:14 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Actually...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347695-3491855]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I test for Firefox, Opera, Chrome, Safari and IE8 - that's it!Most of the sites I develop are written in a way that older versions of IE will still work acceptably. But I don't test for them.While all of my development is done on the Linux platform, I'm not about to check every obscure Linux browser as well. I reckon I've covered mainstream use and that's all I can hope to do. As yet, I haven't received any complaints.  There has to be a compromise between ultimate usage and commercial reality, but I do agree with you J.Ja, even though I hate IE with a vengeance, you shouldn't try and force people to use a certain browser. I am guilty however, of making a recommendation to use one of the more compliant browsers and I don't see anything wrong in that. If you can educate people to make a better choice, surely that can only be good.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347695-3491855]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[lastchip]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 05 Sep 2011 07:38:40 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Basic, flexible cross-browser layout can support IE6, mobile, new browsers]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347695-3490927]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I think that edbrandon's approach is basically sound, having been involved in an educational institute's website design that supported IE6 and every subsequent browser and XHTML mobile device we tested it with over the following five years or more, through two or three reskinnings. We used no browser detection; every device was served the same (we did have a simple mobile and print-only CSS). We were using CSS table-less layouts, at a time when they were still very uncommon.I would say that about 90% of our work was testing. Reskinning was really easy, the code was almost if not totally valid, and we got good accessibility feedback. No doubt if we used more interactive or transactional features, we would have needed more development and testing time.Here's a snapshot from 2004 which looks typical: http://web.archive.org/web/20040831073658/http://www.fife.ac.uk/]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347695-3490927]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Tavis]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 2011 05:52:53 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Too bad . . .]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347695-3490585]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I'm not generally in a good position to outsource testing.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347695-3490585]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[apotheon]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 01 Sep 2011 13:11:39 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[It's actually not as hard as all of that]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347695-3490106]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[There's a company out there called Sauce Labs, and they have a whole set up just for this kind of testing, using VMs. It's reasonably priced compared to the cost of owning/maintaining machines for this, but I don't know how it does with screen readers.J.Ja]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347695-3490106]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Justin James]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 01 Sep 2011 07:15:31 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Even aside from that . . .]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347695-3489784]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[It seems to me there is a big difference between &quot;testing on several browsers&quot; and the kind of comprehensive, deep and broad testing discussed by  edbrandon .  Of course we should all try to test on several browsers.  In fact, I think we should all test on at least IE, Firefox, Chrome, a browser using a less modified WebKit rendering engine, and something like Lynx, for general purpose Websites.  That doesn't mean I expect everyone to be able to afford to do things like invest in multiple screen readers, buy devices of several different tablet architectures, keep Macs on-hand if the *only* reason to have them is testing, and keep the last half-dozen releases of every browser with at least half a percentage of market share available -- which is more what I get the impression  edbrandon does.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347695-3489784]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[apotheon]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2011 15:23:49 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[True...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347695-3489744]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[... I ignored the off-topic comments about taxes. J.Ja]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347695-3489744]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Justin James]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2011 13:27:35 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[To be fair . . .]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347695-3489717]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I don't think you're arguing against exactly what  bobp said.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347695-3489717]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[apotheon]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2011 13:13:21 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Got me...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347695-3489711]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[No I haven't.Maybe it's just that I interpreted the terse &quot;This page supports IE7 and later only&quot; message to mean that there's no hope. It does sound rather curmudgeonly, doesn't it? On the other hand, just letting it be appeals to the bone lazy side of me.Of course I know it's a problem to have multiple browsers, but I do find having a browser that's only used for that stuff is somehow reassuring - I don't use IE for anything else. Definitely a kluge on my side.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347695-3489711]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[AnsuGisalas]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2011 12:02:38 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I have to agree with Justin here]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347695-3489693]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[All too often, stakeholders perceive web development as easy and quick.  This is true for simple static web pages, but not the data-driven, UI-feature-rich site that they usually desire.  It is then up to the project manager and/or the developer/team to make them understand that developing for only 1 browser is in effect excluding 70% of their users from viewing their site and that is just bad business, non-profit or otherwise.  Cross-browser compatibility and cross-device compatibility for that matter, simply must be taken into account when budgeting for a web project.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347695-3489693]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[DotWhat]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2011 11:09:23 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I have to disagree]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347695-3489594]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[If you are doing things that are complicated enough that you'll see significant differences in browsers (to the point where it's GOT to be changed) then it means that the work outlined is well within the technical and budgetary means too. Also, it should be expected. Anyone walking into a Web app project thinking that they can write the code once, test in one browser, and call it a day is making a big mistake.J.Ja]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347695-3489594]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Justin James]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2011 08:04:27 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[question]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347695-3489591]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Have you tried contacting someone there about the cross-browser incompatibility?]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347695-3489591]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[apotheon]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2011 07:46:26 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Is your &amp;quot;public health association&amp;quot; goverment (taxpayer) funded?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347695-3489572]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Most small businesses do not have the money to pay for what you describe. They are paying taxes to fund bloated government.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347695-3489572]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[bobp@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2011 07:32:03 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Browsers and Testing]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347695-3489557]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I test on IE8, Firefox, Opera, Chrome, and Safari - all in Windows. I agree with others that IE6 compatibility is not worth the effort. Since the default in Windows is automatic updates, most people will have a newer version of IE. In addition, am priced very competitively. I can't afford to take the time for that nor could my clients afford to pay for my time to do it. Most of them are self employed and just getting by.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347695-3489557]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[bobp@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2011 07:16:23 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Supporting multiple browsers is not that difficult]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347695-3489510]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[As webmaster in a public health association, it is key that information on our website be made as widely available as possible.  So I test with IE6 and up.But really, this isn't that hard.  Here are things that make it relatively easy:1.  Use a content management system, taking care to build templates and style definitions that work as widely as possible.  This is a job that always takes a bit of time and care, but it's the only way to go.  Make sure that you define style rules for all things that you will be using (e.g., floated sidebars, callout boxes, etc.)  Use these consistently.2.  Limit the number of templates to a barebones set.3.  Build a few pages, using the features you have incorporated in the templates and style rules.4.  Test, test, test.After this, there will be little need to make changes or test pages in the future.  But repeat the tests when a new major release of a browser is announced.Avoid relying on the latest and greatest.  Their time will come.Keep the site simple!  The idea is to get the message out in a meaningful, understandable and attractive manner.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347695-3489510]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[edbrandon@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2011 05:32:34 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Lucky you.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347695-3489476]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I need to use the procurement and job-posting sites of a large company, and those pages do not display correctly outside of IE7+You're lucky if you can simply choose another, it's not always possible for me.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347695-3489476]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[AnsuGisalas]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2011 04:24:01 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I agree]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347695-3489402]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The least enjoyable part of my job is dealing with problems like browser incompatibilities that have nothing to do with actually solving my users' problems. Likewise for dealing with working with poorly documented RESTful services (sorry, but WSDL's make way too much sense if you have tooling to consume them and turn them into code) where you are mindlessly doing copy/paste to map XML paths to your code.That's why I've come to value certain systems, because they minimize the time I spend on that kind of junk, so I can maximize the time I spend actually solving real problems.J.Ja]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-347695-3489402]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Justin James]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 30 Aug 2011 19:41:54 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

