Webmaster forum - Compatibility browser

Author

Compatibility browser

unodivoi

2005-12-27, 7:03 pm

Can you tell me a free software (or a short trial time) for testing my
site with lot of type of browsers?
I have seen that www.netmechanic.com but it's not free.
Thank you.

Matt Probert

2005-12-27, 7:03 pm

On 27 Dec 2005 07:32:17 -0800, "unodivoi" <midisordino@XXXXXXXXXX>
wrote:

> Can you tell me a free software (or a short trial time) for testing my
> site with lot of type of browsers?
> I have seen that www.netmechanic.com but it's not free.
> Thank you.
>

You don't need to.

Just post the URL here, and ask for a crtique. People using all manner
of browsers will be queuing up to flame you and point out every tiny
error that occurs in the most unlikely and obscure combinations of
browser, screen reolution, window size, colour combination, default
font size, and unlikely browser settings imaginable.

They'll even validate it for you, and gleefully tell you how many
errors it has! (though they will often confuse warnings for errors).

Matt

--
The Probert Encyclopaedia - Beyond Britannica
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com

David Dorward

2005-12-27, 7:05 pm

unodivoi wrote:

> Can you tell me a free software (or a short trial time) for testing my
> site with lot of type of browsers?

Installing a lot of browsers.

Internet Explorer comes with Windows.

Firefox is a free download.

Opera is a free download.

Konqueror is a free download, it runs on Linux, but Knoppix will run from CD
and ... is a free download.

Lynx is a free download.

Links is a free download.

W3M is a free download.

Amaya is a free download.

etc.

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is

Paul Ding

2005-12-29, 6:49 pm

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 18:04:10 GMT, comments@probertencyclopaedia.com
(Matt Probert) posted something that included:

>On 27 Dec 2005 07:32:17 -0800, "unodivoi" <midisordino@XXXXXXXXXX>
>wrote:

>You don't need to.
>Just post the URL here, and ask for a crtique.

While Matt's suggestion is good, you know the story about the pitcher
that made one too many trips to the well. It makes sense to put your
site in decent shape first, so that the folks here are able to
concentrate on the quibbles instead of basics.

Testing experts will tell you to test *boundary* conditions to get the
most effective results. If an appliance works well at the temperature
extremes of -40F and 190F, and it works well right above and right
below 32F, the freezing point of water, chances are pretty good that
it will be reliable over the entire range of -40F to 190F.

So first run your code through html-tidy. While I don't like the way
it formats code, it really doesn't matter much. What you're looking
for is coding errors and warnings. Errors are a problem. Warnings may
errors that it didn't catch, or else they may be things you're
deliberately doing in another manner.

Second make sure your page looks good to you in a gecko-based browser
(FireFox, Mozilla, Netscape, etc.) on a 1600x1200 screen. Many pages
fall to pieces at extreme width.

Third, make sure your page is usable (not necessarily attractive) in
the MSNTV Viewer. This not only stresses your page from the narrow
width (about 560 pixels wide) but it's a rather old browser with some
compatiblity issues. People with compatibility issues know that pages
are going to look lousy; can they use your site anyway? If your links
are somewhere to the right of the screen, and cannot be clicked on,
they need to go elsewhere.

If your site is compatible with 90% of all users, you lose 10% of your
*gross* income - but if your costs are 80%, that means your profit is
cut in *half*, compared to a site that's compatible with 100% of all
browsers. Most of the time, it's silly to build a site that isn't
"best viewed in ANY browser".

--
If we're losing 40-130 species a day,
How come nobody can itemize them?
And why can't fruitflies be one of them?