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, I've found
them to be divided nearly fifty-fifty between visual and logical encoding.
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.)
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 about the design, maintenance or promotion
of Web sites? Contact
me and I'll try to answer them in upcoming articles.
Critical windows updates are just that: critical. Neglecting to install
the patches that Microsoft releases makes your computer easy prey.
This month's release, the Blaster worm, was especially troublesome
since it didn't need to be triggered from e-mail. Just being online
was enough to activate it on computers running XP or Windows 2000.
If you use a PC, make sure to schedule regular visits to Microsoft's
Windows Update site. If you're informed that a particular patch
or upgrade is critical -- believe it! Download accordingly.
For more info on this worm, and the cure, see the well-written Tech
TV article.
And, of course, do purchase and regularly update a good anti-virus
program. The nominal cost can save you a lot of grief. My personal
choice is Norton
Anti-Virus, available by download or at Office Depot.
P.S. As this is being written, yet another e-mail worm has hit, this
one a reissue of the Sobig worm. Please note that the address in the "From" field
is spoofed: it is not the actual sender. The subject line of the e-mails
it generates can contain any of the following:
- Re: Details
- Re: Approved
- Re: Re: My details
- Re: Thank you!
- Re: That movie
- Re: Wicked screensaver
- Re: Your application
- Thank you!
- Your details
For more info and removal instructions, please read the Symantac
article.
