Today's Posts Follow Us On Twitter! TFL Members on Twitter  
Forum search: Advanced Search  
Navigation
Marketplace
  Members Login:
Lost password?
  Forum Statistics:
Forum Members: 24,254
Total Threads: 80,792
Total Posts: 566,471
There are 1383 users currently browsing (tf).
 
  Our Partners:
 
  TalkFreelance     Design and Development     Programming     PHP and MySQL :

Test your website in multiple browsers/resolutions!

Thread title: Test your website in multiple browsers/resolutions!
Closed Thread  
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
    Thread tools Search this thread Display Modes  
02-06-2005, 01:30 PM
#1
DateinaDash is offline DateinaDash
Status: The BidMaster
Join date: Nov 2004
Location: England
Expertise:
Software:
 
Posts: 10,821
iTrader: 0 / 0%
 

DateinaDash is on a distinguished road

  Old  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
Hexation is offline Hexation
Status: Member
Join date: Jul 2004
Location: USA
Expertise:
Software:
 
Posts: 455
iTrader: 0 / 0%
 

Hexation is on a distinguished road

Send a message via AIM to Hexation Send a message via MSN to Hexation

  Old

Just what alot of people have been looking for, thanks!

02-07-2005, 03:58 AM
#3
ULTiMATE is offline ULTiMATE
Status: Member
Join date: Aug 2004
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
Expertise:
Software:
 
Posts: 241
iTrader: 0 / 0%
 

ULTiMATE is on a distinguished road

Send a message via ICQ to ULTiMATE Send a message via AIM to ULTiMATE Send a message via MSN to ULTiMATE

  Old

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
derek lapp is offline derek lapp
Status: design rockstar
Join date: Jan 2005
Location: guelph, ontario
Expertise:
Software:
 
Posts: 2,246
iTrader: 0 / 0%
 

derek lapp is on a distinguished road

  Old

. . .
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
Dave is offline Dave
Dave's Avatar
Status: Member
Join date: Jan 2005
Location: Warrington, England
Expertise:
Software:
 
Posts: 285
iTrader: 0 / 0%
 

Dave is on a distinguished road

Send a message via AIM to Dave Send a message via MSN to Dave

  Old

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
jamesyfx is offline jamesyfx
Status: Member
Join date: Jan 2005
Location: Manchester
Expertise: Design
Software: TextEdit
 
Posts: 1,009
iTrader: 0 / 0%
 

jamesyfx is on a distinguished road

Send a message via MSN to jamesyfx

  Old

Folowing Web Standards is essential.

02-07-2005, 06:44 PM
#7
aweblogs is offline aweblogs
aweblogs's Avatar
Status: Member
Join date: Jan 2005
Location: Malaysia
Expertise:
Software:
 
Posts: 373
iTrader: 0 / 0%
 

aweblogs is on a distinguished road

Send a message via MSN to aweblogs

  Old

good link...Thanx

02-08-2005, 01:15 AM
#8
ULTiMATE is offline ULTiMATE
Status: Member
Join date: Aug 2004
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
Expertise:
Software:
 
Posts: 241
iTrader: 0 / 0%
 

ULTiMATE is on a distinguished road

Send a message via ICQ to ULTiMATE Send a message via AIM to ULTiMATE Send a message via MSN to ULTiMATE

  Old

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
yni420 is offline yni420
Status: Member
Join date: Jan 2005
Location:
Expertise:
Software:
 
Posts: 251
iTrader: 1 / 100%
 

yni420 is on a distinguished road

  Old

thanks....
i was looking for something like this

02-08-2005, 07:19 AM
#10
kwl is offline kwl
kwl's Avatar
Status: I'm new around here
Join date: Nov 2004
Location: New York
Expertise:
Software:
 
Posts: 20
iTrader: 0 / 0%
 

kwl is on a distinguished road

Send a message via ICQ to kwl Send a message via AIM to kwl Send a message via MSN to kwl

  Old

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).

Closed Thread  
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

  Posting Rules  
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump:
 
  Contains New Posts Forum Contains New Posts   Contains No New Posts Forum Contains No New Posts   A Closed Forum Forum is Closed