Comments on: The death of the mini-browsers http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2008/03/31/the-death-of-the-mini-browsers/ Sat, 11 Oct 2008 06:25:16 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.2 By: Eugenia http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2008/03/31/the-death-of-the-mini-browsers/#comment-6618 Eugenia Tue, 01 Apr 2008 20:03:53 +0000 http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2008/03/31/the-death-of-the-mini-browsers/#comment-6618 >If OSNews was properly designed rcsteiner, you don't know what you are talking about, sorry. When I am talking about micro/mini browsers above, I talk about browsers who can't even load sites over 16 KBs of overall data. There is no way, no matter how much "properly" you design a modern site to not be over 16 KBs. So as long you want to support these mini-browsers, like I want to, there should ALWAYS be a mobile site that's special. You can't expect to somehow "design properly" using HTML 4 any modern/full site and expect it to work with EVERY browser out there, like OSNews does today with its mobile site. This just shows me that you haven't really worked with mobile browsers, but only maybe 2-3 of them. I've worked and tested 95% of them, plus embedded browsers. >If OSNews was properly designed

rcsteiner, you don’t know what you are talking about, sorry. When I am talking about micro/mini browsers above, I talk about browsers who can’t even load sites over 16 KBs of overall data. There is no way, no matter how much “properly” you design a modern site to not be over 16 KBs. So as long you want to support these mini-browsers, like I want to, there should ALWAYS be a mobile site that’s special. You can’t expect to somehow “design properly” using HTML 4 any modern/full site and expect it to work with EVERY browser out there, like OSNews does today with its mobile site. This just shows me that you haven’t really worked with mobile browsers, but only maybe 2-3 of them. I’ve worked and tested 95% of them, plus embedded browsers.

]]> By: rcsteiner http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2008/03/31/the-death-of-the-mini-browsers/#comment-6616 rcsteiner Tue, 01 Apr 2008 18:45:30 +0000 http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2008/03/31/the-death-of-the-mini-browsers/#comment-6616 Then again, I'm admittedly old school (I started playing with web pages back in 1993) and I'm also focused on multiplatform support. That isn't always the case for "mainstream" sites. Then again, I’m admittedly old school (I started playing with web pages back in 1993) and I’m also focused on multiplatform support. That isn’t always the case for “mainstream” sites.

]]> By: rcsteiner http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2008/03/31/the-death-of-the-mini-browsers/#comment-6615 rcsteiner Tue, 01 Apr 2008 18:43:47 +0000 http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2008/03/31/the-death-of-the-mini-browsers/#comment-6615 I just stick to basic HTML (4.01 transitional, usually) even for the intranet pages I generate here at work, and I make sure that I keep things like image tags and such intact. If most of my content is text (which it generally is), it should work on most browsers regardless of age, screen resolution, or other factors. CSS and XHTML are a solution looking for a problem - if you want to do publishing, please use PDF or some other appropriate format. :-) If OSNews was properly designed (IMO), it would not have to detect browsers at all. I just stick to basic HTML (4.01 transitional, usually) even for the intranet pages I generate here at work, and I make sure that I keep things like image tags and such intact. If most of my content is text (which it generally is), it should work on most browsers regardless of age, screen resolution, or other factors.

CSS and XHTML are a solution looking for a problem - if you want to do publishing, please use PDF or some other appropriate format. :-) If OSNews was properly designed (IMO), it would not have to detect browsers at all.

]]>