<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss
version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
xmlns:series="http://unfoldingneurons.com/"
> <channel><title>Comments on: Confessions of a Web Developer&#160;V</title> <atom:link href="http://davidwalsh.name/confessions-v/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://davidwalsh.name/confessions-v</link> <description>Legendary scribbles about JavaScript, HTML5, AJAX, PHP, CSS, and ∞.</description> <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 05:31:04 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator> <item><title>By: rpflo</title><link>http://davidwalsh.name/confessions-v#comment-12601</link> <dc:creator>rpflo</dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:03:17 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://davidwalsh.name/?p=3824#comment-12601</guid> <description>&quot;If Chrome and Safari implement great developer tools…why would we use Firefox?&quot;Not sure what you&#039;re saying here but what does firebug have that the developer toolbar in Safari (webkit) doesn&#039;t?  I never touch firefox.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;If Chrome and Safari implement great developer tools…why would we use Firefox?&#8221;</p><p>Not sure what you&#8217;re saying here but what does firebug have that the developer toolbar in Safari (webkit) doesn&#8217;t?  I never touch firefox.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Robert Schultz</title><link>http://davidwalsh.name/confessions-v#comment-12488</link> <dc:creator>Robert Schultz</dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 06 Oct 2009 13:32:46 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://davidwalsh.name/?p=3824#comment-12488</guid> <description>Hiya DavidSo we all know your a big lover of Mootools. Have you looked at YUI 3? I&#039;d love to hear your thoughts about it.Love the blog by the way :)</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hiya David</p><p>So we all know your a big lover of Mootools. Have you looked at YUI 3? I&#8217;d love to hear your thoughts about it.</p><p>Love the blog by the way :)</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Nelson</title><link>http://davidwalsh.name/confessions-v#comment-12434</link> <dc:creator>Nelson</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sun, 04 Oct 2009 18:14:29 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://davidwalsh.name/?p=3824#comment-12434</guid> <description>I agree with David that web developers can&#039;t ignore the impact that not supporting IE6 could have on our clients. As I wrote a few months ago in a post on my oft-neglected blog (http://vancouverwebconsultants.com/is-ie6-dead-yet/), I think it&#039;s key to be honest with a client, if they are requesting fancy features that are harder to implement on IE6, that there could be an increased cost associated with ensuring compatibility (which in itself could put the issue to rest), or that a particular feature might not be compatible at all. When a &quot;feature&quot;, whatever that might be, requires hacks/overrides alternate code/stylesheets for IE6, it&#039;s usually because of that browser&#039;s non-adherence to some standards, and we know that the best practice is to code for standards compliant browsers first. If you write standards oriented code, adding IE6 compatibility at the end is inherently an &quot;extra&quot;.Let&#039;s face it though, we all know that IE6 compatibility is usually a trivial matter and we should do it automatically. Still, I sometimes like to remind my site users that they are not seeing the web in all its splendour if they&#039;re using IE6, and that they should upgrade or switch their browser. There&#039;s nothing wrong with educating our users, and leading them in the direction of open standards as a counterweight to some corporations that have historically led them in the opposite direction. We are stewards of our medium and should use our influence to support the health of the web&#039;s ecosystem.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with David that web developers can&#8217;t ignore the impact that not supporting IE6 could have on our clients. As I wrote a few months ago in a post on my oft-neglected blog (<a
href="http://vancouverwebconsultants.com/is-ie6-dead-yet/" rel="nofollow">http://vancouverwebconsultants.com/is-ie6-dead-yet/</a>), I think it&#8217;s key to be honest with a client, if they are requesting fancy features that are harder to implement on IE6, that there could be an increased cost associated with ensuring compatibility (which in itself could put the issue to rest), or that a particular feature might not be compatible at all. When a &#8220;feature&#8221;, whatever that might be, requires hacks/overrides alternate code/stylesheets for IE6, it&#8217;s usually because of that browser&#8217;s non-adherence to some standards, and we know that the best practice is to code for standards compliant browsers first. If you write standards oriented code, adding IE6 compatibility at the end is inherently an &#8220;extra&#8221;.</p><p>Let&#8217;s face it though, we all know that IE6 compatibility is usually a trivial matter and we should do it automatically. Still, I sometimes like to remind my site users that they are not seeing the web in all its splendour if they&#8217;re using IE6, and that they should upgrade or switch their browser. There&#8217;s nothing wrong with educating our users, and leading them in the direction of open standards as a counterweight to some corporations that have historically led them in the opposite direction. We are stewards of our medium and should use our influence to support the health of the web&#8217;s ecosystem.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Patrick</title><link>http://davidwalsh.name/confessions-v#comment-12360</link> <dc:creator>Patrick</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 02 Oct 2009 15:05:51 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://davidwalsh.name/?p=3824#comment-12360</guid> <description>If you write really lean and clean markup, supporting IE6 isn&#039;t much of a problem - problems do occur, if you&#039;re creating much too complicated markup and use &quot;dirty&quot; CSS-hacks to achieve your goals - hacks which only work because we got lucky with Chrome or Firefox.In all my past professional projects for a big gaming/internet company, I never had much of an issue with IE6 - the occasional double margin bug occured, yes, but nevertheless most things where fixed by half a page of CSS included via a conditional comment.Concerning 24bit PNGs - where it&#039;s not essential, use 8bit-gifs instead (again, &quot;overwriting&quot; the same background-definitions via a conditional comment and extra CSS), especially on clickable elements, as the htc-fix doesn&#039;t like those. For background and their like, the htc-fix does the work as intended.Nevertheless, there are still things that can&#039;t really be fixed, like the IE not being able to give input-values a negative text-indent, so image replacement for buttons doesn&#039;t really work - either use image-inputs or use JS to remove the value-property. I&#039;m using a FancyForm-Class which does form checking, noticing the user about unfilled or invalid input contents and if the browser is in fact using the Trident-engine, removing certain problems with IE in this case.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you write really lean and clean markup, supporting IE6 isn&#8217;t much of a problem &#8211; problems do occur, if you&#8217;re creating much too complicated markup and use &#8220;dirty&#8221; CSS-hacks to achieve your goals &#8211; hacks which only work because we got lucky with Chrome or Firefox.</p><p>In all my past professional projects for a big gaming/internet company, I never had much of an issue with IE6 &#8211; the occasional double margin bug occured, yes, but nevertheless most things where fixed by half a page of CSS included via a conditional comment.</p><p>Concerning 24bit PNGs &#8211; where it&#8217;s not essential, use 8bit-gifs instead (again, &#8220;overwriting&#8221; the same background-definitions via a conditional comment and extra CSS), especially on clickable elements, as the htc-fix doesn&#8217;t like those. For background and their like, the htc-fix does the work as intended.</p><p>Nevertheless, there are still things that can&#8217;t really be fixed, like the IE not being able to give input-values a negative text-indent, so image replacement for buttons doesn&#8217;t really work &#8211; either use image-inputs or use JS to remove the value-property. I&#8217;m using a FancyForm-Class which does form checking, noticing the user about unfilled or invalid input contents and if the browser is in fact using the Trident-engine, removing certain problems with IE in this case.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Marcus</title><link>http://davidwalsh.name/confessions-v#comment-12307</link> <dc:creator>Marcus</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2009 07:09:10 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://davidwalsh.name/?p=3824#comment-12307</guid> <description>I agree with Derrick. I do not consider IE6 anymore in my designs, meaning I won&#039;t spend more than a few minutes making compromises. IE6 users shouldn&#039;t get comfortable with that browser, us supporting it so that sites work perfectly on them doesn&#039;t help and in a strong way adds to the problem of (ridiculously) late upgrades.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with Derrick. I do not consider IE6 anymore in my designs, meaning I won&#8217;t spend more than a few minutes making compromises. IE6 users shouldn&#8217;t get comfortable with that browser, us supporting it so that sites work perfectly on them doesn&#8217;t help and in a strong way adds to the problem of (ridiculously) late upgrades.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Derrick Nelson</title><link>http://davidwalsh.name/confessions-v#comment-12302</link> <dc:creator>Derrick Nelson</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2009 01:42:37 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://davidwalsh.name/?p=3824#comment-12302</guid> <description>Let&#039;s be real here, guys.&quot;Not supporting IE6&quot; does not mean every IE6 user out there is going to come to your client&#039;s site, see some overflowing divs, non-transparent images, etc. and freak out and hit the eject button.While it will definitely make for a less appealing experience for them, if you design your site well structurally, it should not be unusable in IE6, and should not cost your client much (if any) business.  Ugly maybe, but not unusable.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Let&#8217;s be real here, guys.</p><p>&#8220;Not supporting IE6&#8243; does not mean every IE6 user out there is going to come to your client&#8217;s site, see some overflowing divs, non-transparent images, etc. and freak out and hit the eject button.</p><p>While it will definitely make for a less appealing experience for them, if you design your site well structurally, it should not be unusable in IE6, and should not cost your client much (if any) business.  Ugly maybe, but not unusable.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Jeremy Edmiston</title><link>http://davidwalsh.name/confessions-v#comment-12243</link> <dc:creator>Jeremy Edmiston</dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2009 10:41:43 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://davidwalsh.name/?p=3824#comment-12243</guid> <description>@Varun:  Unfortunately, in the corporate world, IE6 is still prevalent, due to it&#039;s continued support by Microsoft.  This is typical in large-scale deployments.  While I agree for smaller companies that are selling goods/services it is good to provide a lo-fi solution for IE6, in companies where business units may need to access the site, or even a portal application, corporate policy dictates support.Some current clients I am working, GE and Toyota, corporate policy is still set on IE6, but the portal applications are targeted for &#039;modern&#039; browsers, yet still degrade nicely for IE6.  This is also true of some education clients I support, where one cannot eliminate access to constituents simply because of a design preference, laziness or arrogance (take your pick)Based on your logic, if applied to vehicles, we should not have any cars that are out of warranty on the road.  While that may be a little bit of a stretch, it just goes to show that we cannot always be on the edge of technology, and even if we are, we need to make the best decisions for our clients.As professionals it is our duty to provide the best support to our clients, guide them, educate them, and work with them - after all, they are writing the checks...(MS Lifecycle info: http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifesupsps/#Internet_Explorer)</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Varun:  Unfortunately, in the corporate world, IE6 is still prevalent, due to it&#8217;s continued support by Microsoft.  This is typical in large-scale deployments.  While I agree for smaller companies that are selling goods/services it is good to provide a lo-fi solution for IE6, in companies where business units may need to access the site, or even a portal application, corporate policy dictates support.</p><p>Some current clients I am working, GE and Toyota, corporate policy is still set on IE6, but the portal applications are targeted for &#8216;modern&#8217; browsers, yet still degrade nicely for IE6.  This is also true of some education clients I support, where one cannot eliminate access to constituents simply because of a design preference, laziness or arrogance (take your pick)</p><p>Based on your logic, if applied to vehicles, we should not have any cars that are out of warranty on the road.  While that may be a little bit of a stretch, it just goes to show that we cannot always be on the edge of technology, and even if we are, we need to make the best decisions for our clients.</p><p>As professionals it is our duty to provide the best support to our clients, guide them, educate them, and work with them &#8211; after all, they are writing the checks&#8230;</p><p>(MS Lifecycle info: <a
href="http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifesupsps/#Internet_Explorer" rel="nofollow">http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifesupsps/#Internet_Explorer</a>)</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Varun</title><link>http://davidwalsh.name/confessions-v#comment-12242</link> <dc:creator>Varun</dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2009 10:24:39 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://davidwalsh.name/?p=3824#comment-12242</guid> <description>IE6 is still with you because of this logic that we have to support it.
Grow some balls and tell clients No.Only then will it be gone for good.
Whatever the arguments its not enough to convince me that IE6 should be supported in any way form or circumstances,even if the world depended on it being supported.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>IE6 is still with you because of this logic that we have to support it.<br
/> Grow some balls and tell clients No.Only then will it be gone for good.<br
/> Whatever the arguments its not enough to convince me that IE6 should be supported in any way form or circumstances,even if the world depended on it being supported.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Daron Robinson</title><link>http://davidwalsh.name/confessions-v#comment-12241</link> <dc:creator>Daron Robinson</dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:20:44 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://davidwalsh.name/?p=3824#comment-12241</guid> <description>A website is a means to an end for most clients, a vehicle for promoting their actual service or product, but as developers it&#039;s easy to become focussed on the website as if it were the product.Supporting IE6 is a drain on developers chargeable time, so we usually end up billing more for that work. Some developers might argue that if a client asks for it, and is prepared to pay for that extra work, then that&#039;s just fine for everyone, but if we are honest we know that the client is going to see very little return on the substantial investment of time spent polishing the turd that is IE6.That cost and effort would almost certainly be better spent on developing improved features that add value for the overwhelming majority of their paying customers.It&#039;s part of our job as developers to inform and advise our clients about all aspects of the investment they are making when developing a website, including helping them to see when the numbers don&#039;t actually stack up.We are their to share our expertise and domain knowledge to help them achieve their ultimate goals, not just to maximise our profits by executing work of dubious value to both them and their users.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A website is a means to an end for most clients, a vehicle for promoting their actual service or product, but as developers it&#8217;s easy to become focussed on the website as if it were the product.</p><p>Supporting IE6 is a drain on developers chargeable time, so we usually end up billing more for that work. Some developers might argue that if a client asks for it, and is prepared to pay for that extra work, then that&#8217;s just fine for everyone, but if we are honest we know that the client is going to see very little return on the substantial investment of time spent polishing the turd that is IE6.</p><p>That cost and effort would almost certainly be better spent on developing improved features that add value for the overwhelming majority of their paying customers.</p><p>It&#8217;s part of our job as developers to inform and advise our clients about all aspects of the investment they are making when developing a website, including helping them to see when the numbers don&#8217;t actually stack up.</p><p>We are their to share our expertise and domain knowledge to help them achieve their ultimate goals, not just to maximise our profits by executing work of dubious value to both them and their users.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Ylodi</title><link>http://davidwalsh.name/confessions-v#comment-12239</link> <dc:creator>Ylodi</dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2009 07:25:36 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://davidwalsh.name/?p=3824#comment-12239</guid> <description>Developer tools? Look at Opera and Tools - Advanced - Developer Tools (Dragonfly). It&#039;s my first choice.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Developer tools? Look at Opera and Tools &#8211; Advanced &#8211; Developer Tools (Dragonfly). It&#8217;s my first choice.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk: basic
Page Caching using disk: enhanced (User agent is rejected)
Database Caching 3/7 queries in 0.008 seconds using disk: basic
Object Caching 805/805 objects using disk: basic

Served from: davidwalsh.name @ 2012-05-22 02:54:14 -->
