(originally published in The Jerusalem Post, August 2003
updated April 2004 )

The Internet is not a Glossy Magazine:

Key Differences Between Print and Internet Publishing

One of the best things about the Internet is that pages display differently in various browsers and on various computers. One of the worst things about the Internet is that pages display differently in various browsers and on various computers.

Well, maybe variations in display shouldn't be considered a "worst thing" – but they can certainly be a source of frustration for those who would like to ensure that their sites appear identical to every visitor, just as a print publication is identical no matter where you read it. Today's edition of City Lights will look exactly the same in Tel Aviv, Netanya, and Beer Sheba, whether it arrives by post, is bought in Steimatzky's, or is borrowed from a neighbor.

The latest update of my Web site, on the other hand, will appear differently on PCs, on Macs, on Web TV, in handheld PDAs, and in various browsers (including audio browsers available for vision-impaired users). Even if you consider web browsers only, there are many, each with multiple version releases that are still in use. Apart from the well-known Microsoft Internet Explorer (IE) and Netscape, other popular browsers include Mozilla, Opera, and Safari.

Furthermore, even with the same browser running on the same operating system, a site's colors and layout can vary from monitor to monitor, depending on make, size, the graphics card installed, and whether or not users have modified their systems’ configuration defaults. Some of these differences are minor; others can drastically change appearance or even make a site unusable.

So how do Web designers deal with these rendering issues?

One approach is to place a disclaimer on the Home page. You've seen them: "This site best viewed in [the most recent version of] Microsoft Internet Explorer," or words to that effect. This notifies users that they may not be seeing the site as it was intended to be viewed. Depending on what arrangements the designer has made, a visitor with a different or older browser may:

• see a broken or illegible page,
• be redirected to a no-frills version of the page, or
• be advised that his software is passé, and that unless he upgrades he will not be privileged to use the site .

This is an exclusionary approach, used sometimes by designers wishing to promote Web standards -- but more often by site builders who are uninformed about cross-browser issues, or unwilling to take the time to ensure accessibility. Before you adopt this method, be aware that visitors whose software doesn't’t make the grade may consider it rather hostile, and, rather than upgrade, will simply opt to visit a friendlier site. (A colleague uses this tongue-in-cheek footer on some of her personal sites: “This site will look best if you come to my office and look at it on my monitor.")

Other Web site developers take a more inclusive approach. While writing standards-compliant code that displays optimally in current browsers, they also employ workarounds that enable the sites to be usable, and even attractive, in older browsers as well. This is more time-consuming (and therefore adds somewhat to development costs) but it ensures that your content will be accessible to the maximum number of users. This can be particularly important if your target audience includes people accessing the Web from:

• large networks whose system administrators don’t always enable frequent software upgrades (e.g. academia, libraries);
• old computers that can’t support the newer browsers;
• computers with dial-up modems rather than broadband. (A two-hour download of a new browser can be a nonstarter for someone who pays by the minute for Internet access. In Israel, most users are still using dial-ups.)

Furthermore, many people get comfortable with a familiar browser and see no reason to upgrade. For most Internet users, “web standards” are a non-issue. If a site displays weirdly on their browsers of choice, they’re unlikely to think, “Omigosh, I must upgrade immediately!” Rather, they’ll click to a different site that does display well.

When making a site as compatible as possible across a wide variety of browsers, platforms and monitors, the designer devotes considerable time to testing, testing, and retesting.

Producing a compliant Hebrew-language site presents additional challenges. There are two options for presenting Hebrew on the Web: visual and logical. Logical, as its name implies, is a sensible, easy-to-use method. With logical encoding, the browser simply inverts all its left-to-right functions. The designer is free to format just as he would in English and the browser displays the text correctly, including bulleted lists and numbered lists. It’s perfect – if you’re viewing the site in one of the most current browsers.

Other browsers, including not-old versions of the not-unpopular Netscape, display text backwards – not a good thing.

The workaround is to use visual Hebrew encoding, which displays properly in both major browsers. The downside is that coding is much more time-consuming, and also more difficult to edit in the future. Depending on the amount of text in your site, this can affect the price of site development.

In an informal survey of good-quality Hebrew sites conducted in 2003, I found them to be divided nearly fifty-fifty between visual and logical encoding. At that point I advised the following:

If you’re reasonably sure that most of your target audience uses IE, choose logical. Likewise, if you’ll be maintaining the site yourself, logical encoding may be easier for you to deal with. But if widest accessibility is important, opt for visual encoding. (It's also worth noting that for true accessibility, an English-text version of the site may be necessary; on a Mac, IE can't render logical or visual Hebrew.)

As of April 2004, however, a similar survey indicated that the vast majority of new Hebrew sites, even those intended for the widest possible audience, have migrated to logical encoding. This makes site creation simpler; it makes site maintenance much simpler. Furthermore, pages can be presented with enhanced formatting options, such as word-wrap, true bulleted lists, etc. So my current recommendation is to use logical encoding.

With a bit of forethought, you and your designer will be able to choose the approach most suitable for your target audience.
_____________________

Resources:

• The Web Standards Project (WaSP) promotes standards that “reduce the cost and complexity of development while increasing the accessibility and long-term viability of any site published on the Web.”
• Gabi Danon offers a comprehensive explanation of Hebrew on the Web, Hebrew in HTML Documents: Doing it Right. His article will help you make a more informed choice for your own site.

Do you have any questions? Contact me and I'll try to answer them in upcoming articles. Also, you may subscribe for free to the AtarTec newsletter, which consists of new articles as well as notifications of critical Windows updates and relevant virus information.

Request a free estimate for your web site project.

to top