On Jun 5, 2011, at 12:23 PM, Richard Riley wrote:
Geoff Shang writes:
On Sun, 5 Jun 2011, Richard Riley wrote:
I don't. I just don't want them to lock out my browser just
because they don't
support it. Many pages which don't work optimally under Lynx can
still be read,
which is all I
At 10:18 AM +0100 6/6/11, Richard Quadling wrote:
If you were to start with a full bells and whistles HTML5/CSS3 site,
then you would already have an issue with very very old and / or non
visual browsers I think.
If they don't have JS, then the level of FOOBAR is going to be even greater.
So. I
At 8:36 AM -0400 6/6/11, Robert Cummings wrote:
On 11-06-06 05:18 AM, Richard Quadling wrote:
On 6 June 2011 01:44, Robert Cummings wrote:
On 11-06-05 07:28 PM, Richard Quadling wrote:
There is another approach. Regressive Enhancement.
Essentially, create your site with all the bells and whi
On 11-06-06 05:18 AM, Richard Quadling wrote:
On 6 June 2011 01:44, Robert Cummings wrote:
On 11-06-05 07:28 PM, Richard Quadling wrote:
There is another approach. Regressive Enhancement.
Essentially, create your site with all the bells and whistles enabled.
Make full use of all / any standar
On 6 June 2011 01:44, Robert Cummings wrote:
> On 11-06-05 07:28 PM, Richard Quadling wrote:
>> There is another approach. Regressive Enhancement.
>>
>> Essentially, create your site with all the bells and whistles enabled.
>> Make full use of all / any standards compliant feature.
>>
>> For brows
On 11-06-05 07:28 PM, Richard Quadling wrote:
On 5 June 2011 19:15, Robert Cummings wrote:
2 words... progressive enhancement. If your browser doesn't support a
feature then it should degrade gracefully. Accessible web philosophy 101. I
hate going on to some website, especially government, and
On 11-06-05 07:28 PM, tedd wrote:
At 2:15 PM -0400 6/5/11, Robert Cummings wrote:
2 words... progressive enhancement. If your browser doesn't support
a feature then it should degrade gracefully. Accessible web
philosophy 101. I hate going on to some website, especially
government, and finding th
On 5 June 2011 19:15, Robert Cummings wrote:
> 2 words... progressive enhancement. If your browser doesn't support a
> feature then it should degrade gracefully. Accessible web philosophy 101. I
> hate going on to some website, especially government, and finding that it
> sniffs my browser and the
At 2:15 PM -0400 6/5/11, Robert Cummings wrote:
On 11-06-05 09:33 AM, Richard Riley wrote:
Geoff Shang writes:
On Sun, 5 Jun 2011, Tim Streater wrote:
Anyone whose site says that sort of crap needs a good smack.
Don't get me started on Facebook. If they don't like your browser, they
redi
At 6:29 PM +0100 6/5/11, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
I think his point is that a lot of websites ignorantly stop browsers not
on their list of compatible ones, and end up blocking browsers that
would work perfectly well, just the original developer either wasn't
aware or didn't care. This used to be
On 05 Jun 2011 at 21:28, Geoff Shang wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Jun 2011, Richard Riley wrote:
>
>> If they allowed incompatible browsers that caused havoc then before you
>> know it the great unwashed would be demanding more and better support or
>> complaining about lack of functionality. Doing what t
On Sun, 5 Jun 2011, Richard Riley wrote:
If they allowed incompatible browsers that caused havoc then before you
know it the great unwashed would be demanding more and better support or
complaining about lack of functionality. Doing what they do they make it
very clear from day one.
This would
On 11-06-05 02:25 PM, Richard Riley wrote:
Ashley Sheridan writes:
>
I think his point is that a lot of websites ignorantly stop browsers not
on their list of compatible ones, and end up blocking browsers that
would work perfectly well, just the original developer either wasn't
aware or didn't
Ashley Sheridan writes:
> On Sun, 2011-06-05 at 19:23 +0200, Richard Riley wrote:
>
>> Geoff Shang writes:
>>
>> > On Sun, 5 Jun 2011, Richard Riley wrote:
>> >
>> >>> I don't. I just don't want them to lock out my browser just because
>> >>> they don't
>> >>> support it. Many pages which do
On 11-06-05 01:23 PM, Richard Riley wrote:
Geoff Shang writes:
On Sun, 5 Jun 2011, Richard Riley wrote:
I don't. I just don't want them to lock out my browser just because they don't
support it. Many pages which don't work optimally under Lynx can still be read,
which is all I'm wanting
On 11-06-05 09:33 AM, Richard Riley wrote:
Geoff Shang writes:
On Sun, 5 Jun 2011, Tim Streater wrote:
Anyone whose site says that sort of crap needs a good smack.
Don't get me started on Facebook. If they don't like your browser, they
redirect you to their"We don't support your browser p
On Sun, 2011-06-05 at 19:23 +0200, Richard Riley wrote:
> Geoff Shang writes:
>
> > On Sun, 5 Jun 2011, Richard Riley wrote:
> >
> >>> I don't. I just don't want them to lock out my browser just because they
> >>> don't
> >>> support it. Many pages which don't work optimally under Lynx can st
Geoff Shang writes:
> On Sun, 5 Jun 2011, Richard Riley wrote:
>
>>> I don't. I just don't want them to lock out my browser just because they
>>> don't
>>> support it. Many pages which don't work optimally under Lynx can still be
>>> read,
>>> which is all I'm wanting to do anyway.
>>
>> They
On 05 Jun 2011 at 16:23, Geoff Shang wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Jun 2011, Richard Riley wrote:
>
>>> I don't. I just don't want them to lock out my browser just because they
>>> don't
>>> support it. Many pages which don't work optimally under Lynx can still be
>>> read,
>>> which is all I'm wanting
On Sun, 5 Jun 2011, Richard Riley wrote:
I don't. I just don't want them to lock out my browser just because they don't
support it. Many pages which don't work optimally under Lynx can still be read,
which is all I'm wanting to do anyway.
They need to or there can be unintentional side affec
Geoff Shang writes:
> On Sun, 5 Jun 2011, Richard Riley wrote:
>
>> Why do you feel FB should support some antiquated browser that doesnt
>> support any of the newer technoogies which enable security and more
>> advanced client side rendering?
>
> I don't. I just don't want them to lock out my b
On Sun, 5 Jun 2011, Richard Riley wrote:
Why do you feel FB should support some antiquated browser that doesnt
support any of the newer technoogies which enable security and more
advanced client side rendering?
I don't. I just don't want them to lock out my browser just because they
don't su
Geoff Shang writes:
> On Sun, 5 Jun 2011, Tim Streater wrote:
>
>> Anyone whose site says that sort of crap needs a good smack.
>
> Don't get me started on Facebook. If they don't like your browser, they
> redirect you to their"We don't support your browser page". They don't even
> let
> you t
23 matches
Mail list logo
