Re: field validation (was Re: COBOL/DB2 Date edit question)



"Clark F Morris" <cfmpublic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:83q8c3l9p90900l4oe9lcjhuabmoa4o0ll@xxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 05:01:42 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



"Howard Brazee" <howard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1k26c3lntms024jrmj85omqui0ii5a1n91@xxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:45:45 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I would add that if you think the use of a web page is stupid, most Web
Masters would be pleased to have your input (I like it when people
complain
about my pages because I fix them and the complaints diminish... Then
the
next site I build, I have all that user experience :-))

I have complained to Web masters, and the evidence is overwhelming
that your attitude is rare.

I'm sorry to hear that, Howard. Obviously, I talk to people who are like
me... :-)

For instance, the way most common response to bugs found is that they
won't support anything except I.E.

Ah, now that's not quite the same thing.

I don't think people who don't build web sites realise how REALLY hard it
is
to make everything work across Browsers.

It is getting better with the advent of more server based code and dynamic
generation of pages (servers are getting smart enough to generate the
right
code for whatever the Client Browser (given some encouragement from web
developers)), but it is still a huge amount of work.

I'm currently working on a major site (although it's had to move to the
"pending" queue while I complete the database migration tools I'm doing
for
a client.)

I was pretty thrilled with it, as it is the most ambitious thing I've done
with web programming, so far. It is all ASP.NET and C# with themed headers
and footers, alternate dynamic master pages and almost no JavaScript
(everything is coded in C# on code-behind pages that run on the server. It
looks pretty cool (I'm biased, of course...:-)) but imagine my horror when
I
found it rendered completely differently, not just on different Browsers,
but on different versions of IE as well!

The "experience" on IE7 was a dream; on IE6, it was the occasional snore,
IE5 it was more like restless sleep, and on Firefox it was a nightmare
:-).
I never would have known if I hadn't got people to try testing it, and
they
sent me some screen shots that showed themes not rendered, pages
misaligned,
text fonts that were simply ugly, colors not rendering correctly, and some
minor logic bugs in processes for using the Web Service and various
downloads.

I resolved to fix it (it isn't live yet, so it was more the challenge of
it
than any particular desire to meet customer demand...:-)) I spent three
full
days just finding out what I COULD do and getting it is close as possible
across Browsers. I have tested it with FireFox, Netscape and IE5 thru IE7
and it is much better (although it is still definitely best when seen with
IE7). But this was several days of intensive work over long hours, and for
very little real gain. It still looks exactly the same in IE7 as it did
before; I might just as well have done nothing... :-)

Now, if someone was paying me to develop this site I simply couldn't spend
that amount of time on the "Cross Browser" problem.. Server stats showed
that for the brief time I let people access it, 93% were using IE.
(Previous
sites I've done have reported over 85%). It just isn't viable to develop
for
anything other than IE. It's a pity, and I wish it weren't so, but that is
the reality of it. As long as the page renders in other Browsers, that's
the
best I can do...(If you see flat, lifeless, buttons and scraggly fonts in
odd colours, and input fields that don't tab correctly, as long as the
page
is aligned correctly and is visible, that's all I can guarantee...)

Here the job would have been made simpler if your development tool had
the option to force compliance with the appropriate level of the W3
standards.

Yes, I agree. It's actually worse than that, because Dreamweaver can monitor
the standard and tell you where you've used non-standard tags, but it still
is non-compliant even after you've checked it. It seems there is a fair bit
of latitude in interpreting the standards.

I also agree with others who replied that your web-site
should not depend on ActiveX because of the integrity holes it opens
for the viewer and because Microsoft in their infinite LACK OF wisdom
refuse to have an option where I can enable it by web-site on first
visit either for the session or always.

My web site neither depends on nor uses ActiveX that would be downloaded to
a Client (I certainly use COM and ActiveX on the server). I'm pretty bored
with hearing about the "holes" it opens up. Been hearing this same old song
for years now, usually from people who don't know what COM even stands for,
have never written a COM component, ignore the fact that there have been 3
releases of COM+, each one steadily improving the product, plus a multitude
of security patches, but heard or read somewhere that it is a security
breach. Well, I've been implementing COM+ and DTS systems with RPCs on
networks (public and private) for nearly 10 years now and have never had a
machine infected because it had COM or ActiveX components on it. (I've had
them subjected to other attacks, none of which proved serious.) When I look
at COM, all I see is good. It lets me refactor OO COBOL code into new
environments and has saved me large amounts of time and money in the move
from COBOL to C#. HTML is more dangerous in my opinion, and you don't hear
people going on about that...

It is a ROYAL pain running
Windows Update for this reason. I also would count any web-site (like
Micro-focus at least used to be) that requires FLASH to even try to
use the site.

I don't like sites where they make me download documents in .PDF, with the
concomitant nagging from bloody Adobe and insistence I upgrade and get a
toolbar I neither need nor want. But I still go and get documents. Flash is
very nice for some effects, but I woudn't make a site depend on it.



While flash is useful for some things, most things on a
site should be available (like manuals) without any need for FLASH.
Unrequested pop-ups also are a royal pain. I am happy with my
subscription to the online Wall Street Journal but find their pop-ups
very aggravating.

Turn them off.

I never put pop-ups on web sites and agree wholeheartedly. They spoil the
experience rather than enhancing it, and most Browsers suppress them anyway.


They keep track, and people who
use their web page are overwhelming I.E. (Because nothing else works,
and many browsers lie anyway). Besides, more customers mean more
work.

Yes, IE has the market place pretty tied up. To be fair, it is much better
than it was, but it is also more resource hungry (I'm running a 2GB
notebook
and I've seen IE7 using over 250MB...sometimes it freezes, although it has
never crashed the system (so far...).

So, the bottom line is, Howard, that complaints about problems in other
Browsers are just relegated to the bottom of the heap, unless they are
really drastic; things like windows not floating properly, animations not
activating, sound files refusing, video timing out, are all not going to
get
fixed because it just isn't economic. In three days I could add new,
revenue
generating, functionality that at least 85% of the traffic can enjoy
without
problem... the people who would be paying me want maximum bang for their
buck.

I am using software and platforms that cost serious money and it STILL
isn't
easy to get Cross Browser compatibility. Between Visual Studio and
Dreamweaver it is possible to emulate every type of Browser and screen
size.
I've done it. It makes no difference. Looks fine in emulation, look at it
with the real thing, and it isn't...

So now I'm only guaranteeing support for IE...

That doesn't mean I won't try and get Cross Browser compliance, or that I
would never change site code because of different Browsers. It just means I
develop with IE, use MS oriented tools (for the most part) and so, will only
guarantee the site when viewed in an MS Browser.

I would've thought that people would appreciate that position even if they
don't agree with it.

Never mind. Web stuff is off topic here anyway...:-)

Pete.


And that was where we came in... :-)

Pete.


.

Quantcast