|
|
|
|
Thread title: Test your website in multiple browsers/resolutions! |
|
|
|
|
|
Thread tools
Search this thread
Display Modes
|
|
02-06-2005, 01:30 PM
|
#1
|
Status: The BidMaster
Join date: Nov 2004
Location: England
Expertise:
Software:
Posts: 10,821
|
Test your website in multiple browsers/resolutions!
This is a great resources for testing your latest website across multiple browsers/resolutions at once.
http://www.browsercam.com
|
|
02-07-2005, 01:39 AM
|
#2
|
Status: Member
Join date: Jul 2004
Location: USA
Expertise:
Software:
Posts: 455
|
Just what alot of people have been looking for, thanks!
|
|
02-07-2005, 03:58 AM
|
#3
|
Status: Member
Join date: Aug 2004
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
Expertise:
Software:
Posts: 241
|
Not that I'm picking at the whole "compliancy in all browsers" thing, but I don't see why so many people go on about coding in full-standards and so that their web page works in every browser known to man. Sure I guess it's all good practice, but when has a real client ever really cared about how valid your code is or how many unknown browsers your page can be viewed in? All clients really care about is how their web page will make them money. If you reduce the loading time, that's great. If you reduce the page file size, that's even better because it's saving them money on hosting bills. I like making things look valid, but there's valid, and then there's "valid".
As far as the resource goes, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it, but since people who want to be "validation freaks" will more than likely view this other than an actual thread on this, it's a good point to make.
|
|
02-07-2005, 04:54 AM
|
#4
|
Status: design rockstar
Join date: Jan 2005
Location: guelph, ontario
Expertise:
Software:
Posts: 2,246
|
. . .
Originally Posted by ULTiMATE
Not that I'm picking at the whole "compliancy in all browsers" thing, but I don't see why so many people go on about coding in full-standards and so that their web page works in every browser known to man.
|
this has nothing to do with standards comlient coding methods, it's a way yo test the functioning of your code. image rady can code to valid xhtml standards.. that doesn't make it ayn good. this resource is to get a visual of its performance. it can be unvalid and still work correcty and vice versa.
the w3 validator is just a penis enlarger coders like to use ( i do it all the time ), but i don't blame them, if you're going to do something, do it right. this however is a completely seperate issue from the topic at hand.
Originally Posted by ULTiMATE
but when has a real client ever really cared about how valid your code is or how many unknown browsers your page can be viewed in? All clients really care about is how their web page will make them money.
|
if it doesn't work, no one can buy the product thus no profit is had. that means NO MONEY.. you should be able to do the math here.
|
|
02-07-2005, 05:20 PM
|
#5
|
Status: Member
Join date: Jan 2005
Location: Warrington, England
Expertise:
Software:
Posts: 285
|
Originally Posted by ULTiMATE
Not that I'm picking at the whole "compliancy in all browsers" thing, but I don't see why so many people go on about coding in full-standards and so that their web page works in every browser known to man. Sure I guess it's all good practice, but when has a real client ever really cared about how valid your code is or how many unknown browsers your page can be viewed in? All clients really care about is how their web page will make them money. If you reduce the loading time, that's great. If you reduce the page file size, that's even better because it's saving them money on hosting bills. I like making things look valid, but there's valid, and then there's "valid".
As far as the resource goes, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it, but since people who want to be "validation freaks" will more than likely view this other than an actual thread on this, it's a good point to make.
|
People want their web page to look good in every browser and every resolution so that EVERYONE can enjoy the site. Not just people with 1024x768 who use IE, but EVERYONE.
THAT is why people try to code to standard, THAT is why people check in other browsers to get it perfect, and frankly, I find the attitude you seem to have plain daft.
People don't go for standards just so they can shove a tiny button on their page and have a huge smile while going around saying 'my page is valid', they do it to make sure it works in every browser, for everyone.
GOOD coders and GOOD designers make their sites for everyone, not just the people who use a certain browser at a certain resolution.
|
|
02-07-2005, 05:26 PM
|
#6
|
Status: Member
Join date: Jan 2005
Location: Manchester
Expertise: Design
Software: TextEdit
Posts: 1,009
|
Folowing Web Standards is essential.
|
|
02-07-2005, 06:44 PM
|
#7
|
Status: Member
Join date: Jan 2005
Location: Malaysia
Expertise:
Software:
Posts: 373
|
|
|
02-08-2005, 01:15 AM
|
#8
|
Status: Member
Join date: Aug 2004
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
Expertise:
Software:
Posts: 241
|
Originally Posted by derek.l
. . .
this has nothing to do with standards comlient coding methods, it's a way yo test the functioning of your code. image rady can code to valid xhtml standards.. that doesn't make it ayn good. this resource is to get a visual of its performance. it can be unvalid and still work correcty and vice versa.
|
I know what you're saying, but you can't honestly say this isn't going to turn into one of those things where people are going to say "Yes! Now the 0.00006% of people using [insert crap browser] can view my page!".
Originally Posted by derek.l
the w3 validator is just a penis enlarger coders like to use ( i do it all the time ), but i don't blame them, if you're going to do something, do it right. this however is a completely seperate issue from the topic at hand.
if it doesn't work, no one can buy the product thus no profit is had. that means NO MONEY.. you should be able to do the math here.
|
I think they're related, because it's this reason which leads to standards-whorism. Who honestly cares if someone can view your web page in the earliest form of Netscape possible? Take note that many people who code for large websites don't actually cover all browsers known to man, and don't validate code just for the hell of it. Look at Google for example, their code isn't valid by any means, but it's viewable by everyone, and if not (in most cases, i dunno about Google) if the user is using a crap browser, they will be directed to an update of their browser or will be allowed to see a "lite-version" of the users webpage, therefore job done. Personally, if people can view my page in Firefox, IE and Opera, then I'm sorted.
I realise that it's kinda off-topic, but as I said before, it'd make less sense to make a large thread on such a trivial subject, unless it actually starts to get bigger, then the Admins/Mods could just split this thread up and stick the other posts in a new thread, or something.
Originally Posted by Dave
People want their web page to look good in every browser and every resolution so that EVERYONE can enjoy the site. Not just people with 1024x768 who use IE, but EVERYONE.
THAT is why people try to code to standard, THAT is why people check in other browsers to get it perfect, and frankly, I find the attitude you seem to have plain daft.
People don't go for standards just so they can shove a tiny button on their page and have a huge smile while going around saying 'my page is valid', they do it to make sure it works in every browser, for everyone.
GOOD coders and GOOD designers make their sites for everyone, not just the people who use a certain browser at a certain resolution.
|
Perhaps some people want that, but it's fairly obvious that no business is going to turn around and say "Oh yeah?! Well our web page can be viewed in Lynx! We're sure to beat our competitors now!". Remember why a lot of people use the internet, as a new medium of promoting and running their business. What matters most to these people? Money. Pure, hard cash.
Onto the standards make pages work comment. Have you ever coded a website, checked that it's completely valid, then looked at the actual web page, and seen that it looks nothing like it should, and layers are all over the place. There's no need for a question mark because I know you have. Standards do NOT make web pages work. It's like writing a report for school. You can use proper grammar (standards compliancy) as much as you can, but if your report is crap to start off with, how much is it going to help? Whereas if you write a great report, and make just a few grammatical errors, it's not going to be played down. Standards coding is essential, but not if you take it to an unhealthy level.
Also yes, good designers/developers create their sites for everyone, but that doesn't mean that Cleatus McGee should be able to view your shopping basket script properly with Mac-IE if it's going to cut out some of the best DHTML features you've added into your script. If someone has a poor browser, then direct them to an update, or just simply a better browser, whilst still letting them view your site.
Also, sadly enough, people DO go for standards just so they can stick a fancy button on their page.
|
|
02-08-2005, 07:07 AM
|
#9
|
Status: Member
Join date: Jan 2005
Location:
Expertise:
Software:
Posts: 251
|
thanks....
i was looking for something like this
|
|
02-08-2005, 07:19 AM
|
#10
|
Status: I'm new around here
Join date: Nov 2004
Location: New York
Expertise:
Software:
Posts: 20
|
I would better test things myself than pay 20$/day or 500$/year for such services, it's ridiculous how people make money nowadays. I know it's useful and stuff, but if you truly want to get your site designed friendly for every browser, you could test it yourself (+ there are always free utilities that help you to do so).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
|
|