At 02:07 AM 12/1/2007, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: >No typo, but rather a reaction to the "lowest common denominator" >design-approach I responded to. I rarely ever see sites the way they are >designed - "stable" or not. I don't expect them to, and the mentioned >approach doesn't help one bit on the end-result.
Your advice is _generally_ true, since browsers _generally_ ignore stuff they don't understand, but extreme examples like the Acid Stress Test show that your advice doesn't _always_ hold. If you get fancy enough with standards-compliant code, some browsers won't simply "miss features," they'll see something that's broken and unusable. Or they'll miss something that's important to understanding the page (e.g. a key animation that uses APNG). Two systems won't show a page in exactly the same manner for various reasons (viewport size, browser version, user preferences, etc), but that's not what designing to the "lowest common denominator" means. It's about designing so that the page looks acceptable on the "lowest common denominator" (which, depending on your site's audience, may be IE6, IE5, Lynx, or something else). Erik Harris http://www.eHarrisHome.com - AIM: KngFuJoe - Yahoo IM: kungfujoe7 - ICQ: 2610172 - Chinese-Indonesian Martial Arts Club http://www.kungfu-silat.com ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
