Hello and welcome to our community! Is this your first visit?
Register
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 27
  1. #1
    Regular Coder
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Surrey, UK
    Posts
    119
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    ESPN allows only compliant browsers! Step in the right direction??

    Basically espn.com has dropped support for NS4.x and < IE5
    <!--
    if (navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase().indexOf('webtv') > -1) {
    top.location.replace('http://lite.espn.go.com');
    } else if (!document.getElementById) {
    top.location.replace('http://espn.go.com/browserupgrade.html');
    }

    Article here:
    http://devedge.netscape.com/viewsour...-interview/01/

    ESPN:
    http://www.espn.com

    They've taken the view that NS4.x/IE4 are obsolote, upgrading browsers is a free activity for web users, and that appeasing people who won't upgrade is an undesirable position when weighed up against the benefits of good content/presentation/coding methodology.
    Personally I applaud them. Any thoughts?

  • #2
    Regular Coder
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    185
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    I think it's a good move for several reasons:

    1. It significantly cuts down on their development and maintenance costs, including the time it takes to produce pages. So they can concentrate more on content rather than cross-browser issues.

    2. Band-width savings, that helps everyone.

    3. Based on web log statistics I've seen for major sites, only very small percentage of users are still on NS and IE 4 or earlier.

    4. Standards-compliant pages are still viewable on older browsers, it just loses presentation styling. The only exception is NS4 which fails because it tried to implement standards but did it incorrectly.

    5. Most of those older browsers are no longer supported by their vendor. Some of them have serious security issues which simply can't be fixed. Encouraging users to upgrade is actually doing them a favor.

    I never quite understood this perception that users don't want to upgrade their browsers. Upgrades are a normal part of life for any software professional. If you want new features and continued support, you have to keep upgrading.

    I suspect it's mostly web designers who are resistant to change, not end users.

  • #3
    Regular Coder
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Surrey, UK
    Posts
    119
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Yes, it's the "I have to support NS4.x because my marketing/bla-bla department says so, but can you give me a script to add elements dynamically, etc and do everything else IE5+/NS6 does" that always baffled me.
    Workarounds to cover slight incompatibilities/non-DOM effects, event handling etc I could understand, but the idea of continually appeasing the "I like my dinosaur browser" brigade to the extent of handicapping your development is just silly. A browser is not a piece of art, classic car or any such thing. Upgrading it is free(takes one long download once a year), so if someone wants to stick with an outdated software, that's their choice.
    What's particularly strinking about this move by ESPN however is the bold step of attempting to almost force people(educate is probably a better term) into upgrading.

  • #4
    Rockstar Coder
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    9,074
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 328 Times in 324 Posts
    I think this is a good move on their part. Like mentioned earlier there is no reason not to upgrade your browser, it isn't like it costs money. And there are many advantages like the afore mentioned security issues and why should we web developers be held back because a few stubborn users who refuse to do a free upgrade?
    OracleGuy

  • #5
    Regular Coder
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Flint, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    629
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 20 Times in 20 Posts
    > only very small percentage of
    > users are still on NS and IE 4
    > or earlier.

    True, but it's a small percentage of a VERY large number. Can you afford to loose that many customers?

    > ...a free upgrade.

    It's not free if I'm paying for connect time.

    > ...webtv...

    Many people are using WebTV; a number of them were in a single class being taught by a coworker of mine. They CAN'T upgrade to ANY computer-based browser because they don't have a computer.

    > It significantly cuts down
    > on their development and
    > maintenance costs.

    Now you've hit the reason! Money, time, and effort count more than your customers. Did you put your business on the web to better serve more customers, or to force people to follow current standards?

  • #6
    Senior Coder
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    near Oswestry
    Posts
    4,508
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    I agree with the principle - a table-less CSS layout which is rich content for modern browser but plain, semantic content for older browsers.

    But I won't complement what they've actually done, for three reasons

    1 - stop with this "please upgrade your browser" nonsense. Telling people that the site will look/work better if they upgrade is, at best, pointless and at worst offensive - what if they can't? It's a fact that many people can't upgrade software on their computer (eg work networks where they don't have admin priveleges). Many others have no idea what a "browser" is.

    I don't cater for these browsers anymore, for the very specific reason that meaningful semantic content is impossible if you do - and in fact I specifically discourage others from continuing with them - but at the same time, I would never dream of telling someone they're using the "wrong" browser. I pour scorn on "please upgrade .." pages for the self-congratulating sordid back-slapping nonsense they are.

    2 - If you look at the site with a text browser or other non-JS user agent, you get a static warning page offering you the "lite" version instead. I mean ... come on! This is 2003 - a lite version!?? One page can provide the fully-styled and lightweight versions; it's only CSS and object/feature detection.

    3 - The site has multiple coding errors and doesn't validate - missing ALT attributes, unlabelled form elements, missing type attributes, unclosed elements - it's not even well-formed.


    It does load fast, and that's pretty good; but by and large I'm not impressed.
    Last edited by brothercake; 05-06-2003 at 07:38 PM.
    "Why bother with accessibility? ... Because deep down you know that the web is attractive to people who aren't exactly like you." - Joe Clark

  • #7
    Senior Coder
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Nashua, NH
    Posts
    1,724
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Originally posted by jalarie
    ...Money, time, and effort count more than your customers. Did you put your business on the web to better serve more customers, or to force people to follow current standards?
    The purpose of business is to make money.
    If I want to support all my website features in old and incompliant browsers my development cost will increase by 50% - 100%.
    This will allow another 5% - 10% of visitors to have the same experience as 90% - 95% have. The percent of added customers will be even less, since those who can not afford a decent PC to run modern browser are less likely to spend money on my product. Therefore "better serving more customers" does not necesserily result in a higher PROFIT.
    ROI comes first, making everyone happy last.
    Vladdy | KL
    "Working web site is not the one that looks the same on common graphical browsers running on desktop computers, but the one that adequately delivers information regardless of device accessing it"

  • #8
    Regular Coder
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Kansas, USA
    Posts
    487
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 54 Times in 53 Posts
    An interesting idea "... to better serve more customers ...".
    In many cases, the "better" outweighs the "more".

    My shop went to a no-NN4 stance with its last redesign. We spent a week (out of a month, about 25%) of development time trying to get the new/improved features to work in NN4. At the end of that week, after fixing one problem, another appeared, too many things remained broken with no end in sight. We decided at that time to drop NN4 support, though if we'd decided ahead of time, we would have saved time and frustration and would have had more time for testing other aspects of the site.

    With four million page views in a month that 1.5% of NN4 users represents a large chunk of people. However the site is paid for by advertising. One of the features that was broken for NN4 was a very expensive advertising position so we had to have it working. Many of our visitors come from state/school offices where NN4 is the only option. Well, we're sorry your IT staff can't/won't install a newer browser.

    If you're interested www.cjonline.com is the new design. Go to the archives and find any story before 1/1/2003 to see the old design. If you have any comments you should post them to the message board on that site. The people who have the power to get things done read that daily.

  • #9
    Regular Coder
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Surrey, UK
    Posts
    119
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    jalarie
    1) At what point do you stop catering for tiny majorities?? Software firms don't develop much for Win95/MacOS8.x anymore - I have a MacOS8.6
    2) WebTV - the ESPN script I showed means they have a version for WebTV
    3) It IS free. A CD can be ordered, and in any case, I don't think a 20 minute download once a year(for per minute connection charged users) can be seriously considered an expense against the enhanced experience the USER will have in surfing the web.
    4) Money, and time in particular are things which determine whether it's worth undertaking a project from a BUSINESS' point of view. Asking a business to spend much extra resources to support an obsolete piece of software which has small user-base is unreasonable.
    5) Encouraging standards will help them to better serve more customers. Forward compatibility is the key. Any serious browser-maker now has specs that they know they need to strive to support to be considered usable. The days of 'hack' code to support the different browsers' quirks are numbered. A spin-off is that now that standards are being agreed on by and large, this problem will be less painful in the future. It will probably be 5 years before most people will need to worry about upgrading from Netscape 7/IE6 - Netscape 4 was first released about 5-6 years ago.
    UPGRADE!!
    6) Like the ESPN spokesman said, the decision is well-thought out and the ramifications considered. No-one's human rights are being abused. There are other sites which the Netscape 4.x user can go to if they refuse to upgrade.

  • #10
    Senior Coder
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    A 4D universe
    Posts
    1,337
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Great for ESPN, good for them, and I may incorporate it into Mudsplat too.

    <edit>Pity the sub-menus are impossible to click on in Opera 7.10... </edit>
    Last edited by ionsurge; 05-06-2003 at 05:32 PM.
    http://www.mudsplat.com - Web design, print, and marketing solutions.

  • #11
    Regular Coder
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Flint, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    629
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 20 Times in 20 Posts
    > ahosang:
    > ...I have a MacOS8.6...

    Why? Why don't you scrap it and get a newer model? Whatever your answer, that's probably also a reason not to update other things as well.

    > the ESPN script I showed means
    > they have a version for WebTV

    Check it out. WebTV claims, "Unrecognized attribute in <body TOPMARGIN and LEFTMARGIN, and Unrecognized tag <INLINEREPLACE>." Yes, they have the page, but it doesn't work. And that's where you wind up if your browser doesn't have Flash.

    > It IS free. A CD can be ordered,...

    for a fee.

    > ... and in any case, I don't think
    > a 20 minute download once a year can
    > be seriously considered an expense
    > against the enhanced experience the
    > USER will have in surfing the web.

    A 56k modem makes that "20 minute download" take about 2.5 hours.



    At this moment, I happen to be using NS 4.8, but I also test my work in NS 6 and 7, IE 5.5 and 6, Mozilla, Opera, WebTV, and Lynx. I'm sure that we could get into a long, drawn out discussion about whether I need more cutesy things on the pages that I design, and about how gracefully they degrade, but I still put forth the extra effort to make it work for as many people as possible.

  • #12
    Regular Coder
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    545
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    I am glad espn did this. It is good design because it doesnt just give NN4 a jumbled page. If someone really wants to visit the site they will be redirected and told to upgrade. Their integration of flash with their site is the best use I have seen on the web.

  • #13
    Rockstar Coder
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    9,074
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 328 Times in 324 Posts
    Originally posted by jalarie
    > ahosang:

    > It IS free. A CD can be ordered,...

    for a fee.
    They usually only charge a couple bucks for shipping. And if you can't spend time online to download it, I'm sure you'd know someone who could or has broadband that could download it for you.

    > ... and in any case, I don't think
    > a 20 minute download once a year can
    > be seriously considered an expense
    > against the enhanced experience the
    > USER will have in surfing the web.

    A 56k modem makes that "20 minute download" take about 2.5 hours.
    I know from personal experience that on a 56k you can download IE6 in a half hour to an hour. (It depending how far you are upgrading it from). Plus, how many people are paying for internet access by the minute?

    It basically boils down to, the needs of many out weight the needs of the few.
    OracleGuy

  • #14
    Senior Coder
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    near Oswestry
    Posts
    4,508
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    When is this browser-centricity going to stop?? Pages which say "please upgrade ..." for whatever the reason are harking back to the browser-wars days, or worse, the bad-old-days when you were lucky to view a file made on a different computer, let alone a different OS.

    As a web author - you do not need to know which browser people are using - except in specific circumstances (to compensate for known quirks or to take advantage of known features).

    I think a webpage has two layouts:

    1 - the beautiful design, applied through CSS
    2 - the plain semantic layout, which is nonetheless perfectly accessible and useable

    Modern graphical browsers belong in the former group; everything else belongs in the latter group. It's that simple - no upgrade messages, no redirects, no multiple versions or lite/text-only pages - one single page can fulfil all those needs.


    So I'm sorry - but I don't believe this ESPN site is a step in the right direction; it's more like a semi-step; a toe-wiggle. It's semantically meaningless and badly formed tag soup - the only difference is that most of the noodles are DIVs instead of TABLEs (notice I said 'most' - there are still layout tables in use on that page).
    Last edited by brothercake; 05-06-2003 at 07:55 PM.
    "Why bother with accessibility? ... Because deep down you know that the web is attractive to people who aren't exactly like you." - Joe Clark

  • #15
    Regular Coder
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Surrey, UK
    Posts
    119
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    I fully respect the views of the people who disagree with my viewpoint, but in ESPN's case it's not just a simple site with some textual content. Like the bloke says:"Heavy Flash/javascript".
    This is due to what they feel they need to display - the ad banners, the Flash Gamecast(which is essential for any NFL nut who can't see the game live) etc.
    By the way, apart from visiting the site and critisizing the mark-up which may indeed be a little wobbly, did you read the article(I gave the link) where he outlines their thinking?
    They are slightly cocky(he says so) but are ATTEMPTING to encourage users to upgrade. Forward compatibility - it could backfire, but at worse ESPN lose some users - means that all newer browsers see the site they wish it to be seen(not looking like some garble in NS4.x), and later browsers(until of course the browsers get REALLY strict) will as well.
    I wouldn't expect everyone else to do this blocking yet, but if bigger sites can do the nasty work for us, then we're all better off in the long run, no?
    Three things
    1) Netscape 4.x is obsolete software
    2) Read the article at least
    3) Do you have IE5+/NS6.2+/Opera 6+/Safari/etc on your machine?? If the site works for you in those browsers, the site works. If NOT, then complain to them by all means!!(Not being rude there - I mean complain!!). If you want to visit it on your copy of Lynx/Netscape 4.x, then maybe ESPN is not the site for you. You can use another sports site that provides all the free info/fixtures/articles/Live Flash Gamecasts etc. that ESPN does for free.


  •  
    Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •