Comments on: UK government draft browser guidance is daft browser guidance http://www.webstandards.org/2008/09/08/uk-government-draft-browser-guidance-is-daft-browser-guidance/ Working together for standards Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:19:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Flug http://www.webstandards.org/2008/09/08/uk-government-draft-browser-guidance-is-daft-browser-guidance/comment-page-1/#comment-72707 Flug Mon, 01 Dec 2008 12:08:07 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/?p=1156#comment-72707 @Textlinktausch: On the one hand I agree with you. Following the 80/20-principle it is just ineffektive to test your site on every single pee-browser. The problem here is, that the government has to ensure accessibility. So the question is where to draw the line. @Textlinktausch: On the one hand I agree with you. Following the 80/20-principle it is just ineffektive to test your site on every single pee-browser. The problem here is, that the government has to ensure accessibility. So the question is where to draw the line.

]]>
By: nui http://www.webstandards.org/2008/09/08/uk-government-draft-browser-guidance-is-daft-browser-guidance/comment-page-1/#comment-72674 nui Thu, 27 Nov 2008 07:56:45 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/?p=1156#comment-72674 I ask, should tax payers be asked waste their time upgrading browsers because government departments don’t do Yahoo-style graded browser support? When the government assess the cost of testing websites across multiple browers (and gov’t websites aren’t usually that complicated, more bloated) then how about they check how much tax they’re getting off the community to provide the services expected of them? I think that is the missing part of this conversation. Government aren’t just providing websites gratuitously I’ve only had a quick look at the document so far, but my first impressions are that it does a reasonable job of explaining why it’s important to test in browsers, and setting a standard for which browsers Government sites should be tested in. What seems to me to be missing is the “code to standards first” and “graceful degradation” philosophies, so that any (new or old) browsers that have sufficient standards support should get a usable website even if they haven’t been explicitly tested. I ask, should tax payers be asked waste their time upgrading browsers because government departments don’t do Yahoo-style graded browser support?

When the government assess the cost of testing websites across multiple browers (and gov’t websites aren’t usually that complicated, more bloated) then how about they check how much tax they’re getting off the community to provide the services expected of them? I think that is the missing part of this conversation. Government aren’t just providing websites gratuitously

I’ve only had a quick look at the document so far, but my first impressions are that it does a reasonable job of explaining why it’s important to test in browsers, and setting a standard for which browsers Government sites should be tested in. What seems to me to be missing is the “code to standards first” and “graceful degradation” philosophies, so that any (new or old) browsers that have sufficient standards support should get a usable website even if they haven’t been explicitly tested.

]]>
By: nui http://www.webstandards.org/2008/09/08/uk-government-draft-browser-guidance-is-daft-browser-guidance/comment-page-1/#comment-72672 nui Thu, 27 Nov 2008 07:52:44 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/?p=1156#comment-72672 I ask, should tax payers be asked waste their time upgrading browsers because government departments don’t do Yahoo-style graded browser support? When the government assess the cost of testing websites across multiple browers (and gov’t websites aren’t usually that complicated, more bloated) then how about they check how much tax they’re getting off the community to provide the services expected of them? I think that is the missing part of this conversation. Government aren’t just providing websites gratuitously I’ve only had a quick look at the document so far, but my first impressions are that it does a reasonable job of explaining why it’s important to test in browsers, and setting a standard for which browsers Government sites should be tested in. What seems to me to be missing is the “code to standards first” and “graceful degradation” philosophies, so that any (new or old) browsers that have sufficient standards support should get a usable website even if they haven’t been explicitly tested. I ask, should tax payers be asked waste their time upgrading browsers because government departments don’t do Yahoo-style graded browser support?

When the government assess the cost of testing websites across multiple browers (and gov’t websites aren’t usually that complicated, more bloated) then how about they check how much tax they’re getting off the community to provide the services expected of them? I think that is the missing part of this conversation. Government aren’t just providing websites gratuitously

I’ve only had a quick look at the document so far, but my first impressions are that it does a reasonable job of explaining why it’s important to test in browsers, and setting a standard for which browsers Government sites should be tested in. What seems to me to be missing is the “code to standards first” and “graceful degradation” philosophies, so that any (new or old) browsers that have sufficient standards support should get a usable website even if they haven’t been explicitly tested.

]]>
By: تعليم http://www.webstandards.org/2008/09/08/uk-government-draft-browser-guidance-is-daft-browser-guidance/comment-page-1/#comment-72578 تعليم Sun, 16 Nov 2008 18:54:38 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/?p=1156#comment-72578 For the topic it’s good to see goverments to take care of public sector websites.UK is doing great job. see u For the topic it’s good to see goverments to take care of public sector websites.UK is doing great job.

see u

]]>
By: herrenuhren http://www.webstandards.org/2008/09/08/uk-government-draft-browser-guidance-is-daft-browser-guidance/comment-page-1/#comment-72482 herrenuhren Sun, 09 Nov 2008 13:16:50 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/?p=1156#comment-72482 It is hard to believe that a government is not demanding from its suppliers that the websites should conform to open webstandards, to ensure that every citizen should be ablt to at least navigate through the content delivered by its government.It is seldom cost-efficient to make adaptations for these browsers or to supply special versions of content for them. It is hard to believe that a government is not demanding from its suppliers that the websites should conform to open webstandards, to ensure that every citizen should be ablt to at least navigate through the content delivered by its government.It is seldom cost-efficient to make adaptations for these browsers or to supply special versions of content for them.

]]>
By: Clerkendweller http://www.webstandards.org/2008/09/08/uk-government-draft-browser-guidance-is-daft-browser-guidance/comment-page-1/#comment-72280 Clerkendweller Tue, 14 Oct 2008 08:32:50 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/?p=1156#comment-72280 User security should be tested at the same time as "functionality". Not whether particular browsers are more secure than another - but whether the browsers used by the public (whatever they may be) can be used to damage the user, their privacy, their system or their data when accessing a particular public sector web site. Older is not necessarily less, or more, secure - just different. User security should be tested at the same time as “functionality”. Not whether particular browsers are more secure than another – but whether the browsers used by the public (whatever they may be) can be used to damage the user, their privacy, their system or their data when accessing a particular public sector web site. Older is not necessarily less, or more, secure – just different.

]]>
By: Βρετανικές web οδηγίες. Τι λάθος έκαναν; | Tsevdos.com http://www.webstandards.org/2008/09/08/uk-government-draft-browser-guidance-is-daft-browser-guidance/comment-page-1/#comment-72264 Βρετανικές web οδηγίες. Τι λάθος έκαναν; | Tsevdos.com Thu, 09 Oct 2008 13:41:22 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/?p=1156#comment-72264 [...] Από μια γρήγορη ματιά που τους έριξα, οι οδηγίες προσβασημότητας (accessibility) δεν διαφέρουν και πολύ από τα διεθνή standards, έχουν γράψει με άλλα λόγια τα ίδια πράγματα σε κάπως πιο επιχειρηματική γλώσσα (έτσι μου φάνηκε τουλάχιστον). Προσωπικά δεν θα έμπαινα καν στην διαδικασία να διαβάσω οδηγίες που έχουν να κάνουν με το web, εάν αυτές προερχόντουσαν από κάποια άλλη χώρα, ωστόσο το Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο έχει μεγάλη επιρροή στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και τις ευρωπαϊκές αποφάσεις, ιδιαίτερα σε θέματα τεχνολογίας και καινοτομίας. Μέσα λοιπόν σε όλον αυτό τον όγκο των πληροφοριών, το Web Standards Project παρατήρησε ένα τραγικό λάθος και αμέσως ξέσπασε μια μεγάλη διαμάχη ανάμεσα σε αυτό και …. [...]

]]>
By: blawson http://www.webstandards.org/2008/09/08/uk-government-draft-browser-guidance-is-daft-browser-guidance/comment-page-1/#comment-72235 blawson Tue, 07 Oct 2008 10:15:16 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/?p=1156#comment-72235 Bruce Lawson here, with my Opera hat on rather than my WaSP hat. I've published the formal <a href="http://my.opera.com/ODIN/blog/response-browser-standards-consultation" rel="nofollow">Opera response to the guidelines</a>, which argue that they <ul> <li>are anti-competitive, as they perpetuate dominance in the browser market by giving the impression that alternative browser products are inferior, and those who choose to use them are not worthy of consideration,</li> <li>inconvenience users unnecessarily by asking them to install new software,</li> <li>do not promote best practice development and may lead to more expensive development and testing,</li> <li>are too fragmented,</li> <li>insufficiently “future-proof” Web sites, by ignoring methodologies which would ensure compatibility with mobile phones and other devices,</li> <li>ignore plug-ins which have capabilities independent of browsers, and</li> <li>do not sufficiently ensure accessibility by disabled users.</li> </ul> Bruce Lawson here, with my Opera hat on rather than my WaSP hat.

I’ve published the formal Opera response to the guidelines, which argue that they

  • are anti-competitive, as they perpetuate dominance in the browser market by giving the impression that alternative browser products are inferior, and those who choose to use them are not worthy of consideration,
  • inconvenience users unnecessarily by asking them to install new software,
  • do not promote best practice development and may lead to more expensive development and testing,
  • are too fragmented,
  • insufficiently “future-proof” Web sites, by ignoring methodologies which would ensure compatibility with mobile phones and other devices,
  • ignore plug-ins which have capabilities independent of browsers, and
  • do not sufficiently ensure accessibility by disabled users.
]]>
By: games http://www.webstandards.org/2008/09/08/uk-government-draft-browser-guidance-is-daft-browser-guidance/comment-page-1/#comment-72225 games Sun, 05 Oct 2008 04:03:09 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/?p=1156#comment-72225 @msn adresleri Which company do you mean?I didn't understand your post in fact. For the topic it's good to see goverments to take care of public sector websites.UK is doing great job. @msn adresleri
Which company do you mean?I didn’t understand your post in fact.

For the topic it’s good to see goverments to take care of public sector websites.UK is doing great job.

]]>
By: Newsletter: September — a blog entry for the Multipack - A Community of Web Developers & Designers in Birmingham http://www.webstandards.org/2008/09/08/uk-government-draft-browser-guidance-is-daft-browser-guidance/comment-page-1/#comment-72207 Newsletter: September — a blog entry for the Multipack - A Community of Web Developers & Designers in Birmingham Fri, 03 Oct 2008 12:56:54 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/?p=1156#comment-72207 [...] They’re a bit shit. Fortunately they’ve asked for feedback, which ‘pack member Bruce Lawson responded and has written on the Web Standards [...] [...] They’re a bit shit. Fortunately they’ve asked for feedback, which ‘pack member Bruce Lawson responded and has written on the Web Standards [...]

]]>