Anyone got any idea why this wont work in netscape 4.7 ,

 

<a href="#" onMouseOut="MM_swapImgRestore(); document.getElementById('desctxt').firstChild.data = 'to navigate our site please use the buttons above and to the left'

return true" onMouseOver="MM_swapImage('home_off','','images/home_on.gif',1);document.getElementById('desctxt').firstChild.data = '<< Go back to our home page ';

return true;">home</a>

 

 

 

I have an idea its something to do with the getElementById , netscape uses name instead doesnt it? What other code can I use to make text swap on mouseover that works in netscape 4.7 and onwards?

I'm not sure but does NN4.7 support getElementById?

 

And is there any reason why you're developing for a browser that is dead and 0.02% of market share?

PS why don't you use CSS to do a background image change on hover?

I am just getting back into webdesign, I used to design for netscape 4.7 and still do because most other browsers work if netscape works. I know you cant have alot of new stuff ccs etc, but I do flash and do a flash version for bells and whistles. Am I totally living in the dark ages here, anyone else agree with me. Who else designs for netscape for other reason than its market share.

Do Ford still make spares for the Model T?

 

Edited November 17, 200916 yr by BlueDreamer

yeh I was waiting for all the sarky comments about netscape, no they dont but they do however still use various priciples of engineering that are the same in there rally cars today.

read my other post web guru you can have your full say on the matter there. what are the main browsers people design for these days, Im old school thats all. I remember when the net was just text bla bla bla, it was much better then, get me my walking stick.

what are the main browsers people design for these days, Im old school thats all. I remember when the net was just text bla bla bla, it was much better then, get me my walking stick.

My first browser was Netscape 3, and I paid for an upgrade to Netscape Communicator 3 - does that make me old skool as well?

 

The web has moved on a lot. If you think of Firefox as the successor to Netscape (it is virtually that), then we'd be on Netscape 12.5 - with the last major release of Netscape at version 9. That's quite some progress from v4.

 

Generally most people test for the latest browser versions, Firefox, Safari, Opera, IE7/8. Then make backward compatible as far as is viable, normally this means IE6, and possibly IE5.5 if you have a high numbers of users using it (pretty rare).

My first browser was Netscape 3, and I paid for an upgrade to Netscape Communicator 3 - does that make me old skool as well?

 

The web has moved on a lot. If you think of Firefox as the successor to Netscape (it is virtually that), then we'd be on Netscape 12.5 - with the last major release of Netscape at version 9. That's quite some progress from v4.

 

Generally most people test for the latest browser versions, Firefox, Safari, Opera, IE7/8. Then make backward compatible as far as is viable, normally this means IE6, and possibly IE5.5 if you have a high numbers of users using it (pretty rare).

 

thanks blue dreamer, very old school, I bet you still use the queens English and puctuation , init! if fact I'm suprised you're still with us. So basically what are the main changes regarding html css and javascript, does everyone use css for layouts now , what about rollovers etc or should I say what are the bugs you still need to fix? Whats now industry standard? or even what are the bbc , facebook etc. doing now? Does dreamweaver write good code now CS3? Should these questions all go on as separate posts?

So basically what are the main changes regarding html css and javascript, does everyone use css for layouts now , what about rollovers etc or should I say what are the bugs you still need to fix? Whats now industry standard?

The big movement right now is seperating everything into distinct layers: markup, style and functionality. Each layer is built on the assumption that the next won't work. Hyperlinks don't go to "#" or "javascript:..." anymore incase JavaScript isn't enabled and a user get's stuck with a broken link.

 

CSS is used for layouts, tables are out. Image maps and frames are stared at and scorned. Inline scripts are out too.

 

CSS is used for image rollovers with the :hover psuedo class -- beware that in Internet Explorer 6, :hover only works on links. The text change would be done using JavaScript. Your original example would now look like this:

 

The HTML is used to create and identify the link. It's a perfectly valid link and would go somewhere if needed.

<a href="index.html" id="homeLink">Return Home</a>

 

The CSS controls the style and effects the image swap.

#homeLink {background-image: url('images/home_off.jpg');}
#homeLink:hover {background-image: url('images/home_on.jpg');}

 

The JavaScript adds extra functionality. I'm not sure what ".firstChild.data" was supposed to refer to, so assuming that there is an element within desctxt and you wish to replace the text within that element I have updated your code. Also, we try to avoid using triangular brackets if we can because they can be rendered as the start or end of tags. URL codes are used instead since hey are visually the same and don't cause this problem (< = <, > = >)

document.getElementById('homeLink').onmouseover = function() {
      document.getElementById('desctxt').firstChild.innerHTML = 'to navigate our site please use the buttons above and to the left';
};

document.getElementById('homeLink').onmouseout = function() {
      document.getElementById('desctxt').firstChild.innerHTML = '<< Go back to our home page';
};

 

If your version of Netscape doesn't understand document.getElementById(), there is a helper function:

function el(elem) {
       return (document.getElementById) ? document.getElementById(elem) : (document.layers) ? document[elem] : document.all[elem];
}

I've never looked at NN because I started my web design career in the era of Firefox 2, but I'd imagine that NN4.7 would have more difficulty with DOM scripting (firstChild) than document.getElementById()

 

...what are the bbc , facebook etc. doing now?

Facebook relies on a JavaScript library caled jQuery. The BBC relies on its own version called "Glow".

 

Does dreamweaver write good code now CS3?

WYSISYG editors never write good code; Dreamweaver is a very useful editor and FTP with some very handy code highlighting and a code auto-formater for tidying other people's code -- I'd recommend using that program if you have it, but if you don't, there are other coding programs out there that are much cheeper with similar functionality.

somehow this has put my developing for IE6 woes into perspective

so with css and html, the html would basically be a list of items that go on that page, loading in order you list them, everything else , position, colours etc. would be in the css file. So html tables are gone and html is now really only used to list css elements. Am I on the right track?

so with css and html, the html would basically be a list of items that go on that page, loading in order you list them, everything else , position, colours etc. would be in the css file. So html tables are gone and html is now really only used to list css elements. Am I on the right track?

Going on from what Skateside said, a web document is essentially 3 things:

 

1. Structure

ie the HTML markup to give structure to the document

 

<div class="article">
<h1>This is my page heading</h1>
<p>Blah blah blah</p>
</div>

 

2. Style (CSS)

This is where you style and format the Structure

 

div.article {width: 480px; margin: 0 0 1em 0;}
h1 {font-family: Georgia; font-size: 1.8em; color: #FF6600; margin: 0 0 1em 0;}
p {font-size: 1.0em; color: #000000; margin: 0 0 1em 0;}

 

3. Presentation

Add the gloss, ie graphical "design" elements, normally using CSS

I don't think that this was properly answered, but Netscape 4.7 definately doesnt support document.getElementById.

 

I had to develop things for netscape 4.7 in work. A large protion of the staff had to use it because their machines ran OS2(!) with NS4.7 (we probably account for most of that 0.02% market share!). Not had to since early this year as those old machines had to be replaced (with XP machines running IE6! )

 

There really is practically nothing that you can do with that clunky old browser other than plain old text and images. There are hardly any interactive features like rollovers and show/hide functions. The web just wasn't all that dynamic back then.

actually you can have quite alot of dynamic stuff with 4.7 , dropdown menus , image rollovers, and loads of other dynamic stuff. But it had to be coded properly. 0.02% of 1700000000 is still 340000 users by the way, but if you cant code properly , I supose its a good enough excuse. Only joking!

also the 340000 using netscape4.7 will only be able to view few sites that actually work, yours will be one of them if its designed properly, so there would be less competition to stand out against, so being infront of 340000, people who can only see a small selection of sites clearly could be better than being infront of millions with more of your competition sites to choose from. Its all theory I know. I challenge someone to come up with the figures for:

 

number of sites netscape friendly / no. of netscape users

 

then tottal number of sites avalaible to all but 0.02% of the market / total numebr of users - 0.02%

 

oh god i,m getting boring now.

340,000 people may sound a lot, but that is worldwide. Depending on the size of your site, then it's very unlikely that any of them will actually use you site.

 

I agree that the site should 'work' in an old browser, but it really isn't worth the hassle and time to try to get your site to look as good as or close to a modern browser.

 

As has been mentioned, the best way to go is to design you're site to modern standards, but make sure it still works in older browsers. This usually means that your page will have 2 or more style sheets depending on the browser, e.g. one for firefox, chrome, safari, IE7+ and another for all others. The other one may just have some basica format and possitioning.

 

You may be able to do a few dynamic things in 4.7, but nothing like what a modern browser can do. Try going on the BBC website for example, where you can move around sectiosn of the site, or facebook where it automatically updates the page with peoples status updates. These are the kind of things that makes websites like this so popular. If the developers of such sites coded the site to the limitations of an archaic browser, they wouldn't be so successful.

340,000 people may sound a lot, but that is worldwide. Depending on the size of your site, then it's very unlikely that any of them will actually use you site.

 

I agree that the site should 'work' in an old browser, but it really isn't worth the hassle and time to try to get your site to look as good as or close to a modern browser.

 

As has been mentioned, the best way to go is to design you're site to modern standards, but make sure it still works in older browsers. This usually means that your page will have 2 or more style sheets depending on the browser, e.g. one for firefox, chrome, safari, IE7+ and another for all others. The other one may just have some basica format and possitioning.

 

You may be able to do a few dynamic things in 4.7, but nothing like what a modern browser can do. Try going on the BBC website for example, where you can move around sectiosn of the site, or facebook where it automatically updates the page with peoples status updates. These are the kind of things that makes websites like this so popular. If the developers of such sites coded the site to the limitations of an archaic browser, they wouldn't be so successful.

 

What I'm saying is if only 1 in 5000 websites is netscape 4.7 compatable then netscape user/netscape friendly website ratio is the same as that of moden browser user/total nuber of websites, meaning the hit ratio from netscape is theoretically be the same number as that from the rest of the web and so doubling the viewing users by having a netscape 4.7 compatable site, I know the user would be having to trawl through the 5000 to get to your site by which time he would probably downloaded a copy of firefox anyway, but its something to consider before just talking about percentages as if they mean anything on there own. When 340,000 users can only see yours and few other sites your hit rate chances are vastly increased. Its still probably not worth it, but not a subject you can just throw away with, oh! only 0.002% of the market use netscape, not a good enough answer. The debate continues! I wonder how much money those 340,000 users spend everyday online, I bet if your customers knew that they may not be taken in by the "dont bother about netscape only 0.02% of the people online use it, have some changing background colours instead!".

Like I said, I agreee that the site should work in an older browser, but it's not worth the effort trying to make it look great with all the nice interactive features. Just have a simple style sheet for these users that makes it viewable and usable.

 

A good example of this is to use an unordered list to create your menus. You can use CSS to manipulate the list to make a really good looking tabbed menu, that is accessable and can be re-sized and still keep it's design intact, then have a separte stylesheet for older browsers that will make them render it as a list. It will still be a functional menu for them, it jsut won't be as good looking as it does in a modern browser.

 

You also need to consider accessability. By coding a site to cater for an old browser, you may be making the site inaccessable to others. For example, people who have poor eyesite and need to have enlarged text, or blind people who use screen readers. If you create a menu using images to make it look good in NS4.7, this will make it harder for these people to view the site, as they will not be able to re-size the text or the screen reader may not pick up the alt image tags. I'll bet that these users take up alot more than the 0.002% market share of netscape users.

Like I said, I agreee that the site should work in an older browser, but it's not worth the effort trying to make it look great with all the nice interactive features. Just have a simple style sheet for these users that makes it viewable and usable.

 

A good example of this is to use an unordered list to create your menus. You can use CSS to manipulate the list to make a really good looking tabbed menu, that is accessable and can be re-sized and still keep it's design intact, then have a separte stylesheet for older browsers that will make them render it as a list. It will still be a functional menu for them, it jsut won't be as good looking as it does in a modern browser.

 

You also need to consider accessability. By coding a site to cater for an old browser, you may be making the site inaccessable to others. For example, people who have poor eyesite and need to have enlarged text, or blind people who use screen readers. If you create a menu using images to make it look good in NS4.7, this will make it harder for these people to view the site, as they will not be able to re-size the text or the screen reader may not pick up the alt image tags. I'll bet that these users take up alot more than the 0.002% market share of netscape users.

 

Very good point, about accesability, cheers for the replys, sound like you know what your on about. What should I do now to get my skills more current, I am thinking I need to know css in depth now for a start, what else XML? allthough I am well into flash 3d using c4d and flash?