Slashdot Mirror
How Do You Test Your Web Pages?
Pieroxy asks: "As a web developer, both professionally and personally, I try to always make sure what I write works in every browser at my disposal. When the choice came for me to choose a platform for my PC, I went the Windows route, because I cannot afford not to test IE on all those websites/applications. But now I am facing a problem with all browsers that don't have a native Windows port, such as IE5/Mac, Safari/Konqueror. kde-cygwin helped very little because the version of Konqueror shipped doesn't display most JPEG, making any testing worthless. IE5 for Mac should die soon, but is still widely used as being the default browser for so long. How do you test your web pages? Have you noticed discrepancies on how a specific engine (Gecko, Opera, KHTML) renders content on different Platforms? Do I need a Mac and a Linux machine to make sure it is working on these platforms?"
But even "standard" code can render differently in different browsers on different platforms. Depending on the complexity of the website/application, small differences can be a big problem.
At my last job I kept a log of browsers/platforms that hit the webserver. From the vast majority (at the time, IE5 on Win9x) down through the percentages, I would run what I could for testing. For example, using whatever tool of choice (VMWare on my home network was what I used), I tested my sites in IE5 on Win9x, IE5 on Win2K, Netscape, Mozilla, etc, etc. I think I was regularly testing on maybe the top 6 percentages in the log, capturing about 99.5% of the hits.
There will always be a percentage of browsers in the world you can't test, be they either little-used browsers on little-used platforms or widely-used browsers with some strange configuration that messes things up. But if you can identify the majority of the variations that are hitting your site(s), then just test as many of those as you can before you feel confident that it's "as compliant as it's going to get."
http://publicvoidlife.blogspot.com
If you don't want to buy a mac, you could always use browsercam
Of course you messed up in the first place not getting a mac. You can test in PC/IE from the mac, but not the other way around.
I'm sorry, but that's simply not good enough. Writing valid code is only a very small part of making a robust website. You can write perfectly valid code that fails to display properly in any major browser. For example, not testing in Internet Explorer 6 will leave you prone to a couple of very nasty bugs that cause large sections of the page to simply not get shown.
That's a self fulfilling statistic: people with an unsupported browser (in which the page won't render correctly or at all) won't return. Thus, the supported browsers will always be top in the logs, unsupported browsers will stay at accidental hits.
the pun is mightier than the sword
Nope, doesn't work. It'd be wonderful if it did, but .. well, just look at XHTML 1.1/CSS2 and tell me how many browsers you think will handle pages written in them correctly. The site I'm building can only be valid XHTML1.1/CSS2 when delivered to Mozilla or Firefox (although I've got to test it with Knoq/Safari yet). Opera doesn't (or didn't inthe last version I grabbed) support id attributes in object elements and IE... <shudder> Even if you code to older standards support is patchy at best, especially in IE which in places expects practically prehistoric versions of some standards.
And even when browser do all support the standards you're using, they are somewhat liberal in their interpretation of them, especially when it omes to margins, padding, border sizes and whitespace in general.
In short: coding to the standards is a bit like navigating a minefield in the dark with a map of the mine locations drawn by a guy with amnesia. If that is all you rely on, you are going to end up doing the biggest splits you'll ever do in your life.
When over 80% of your clients use one browser, you either alienate 80% of your clients or you code to their browser, however sucky it may be. "Coding to standards" sounds good on paper, but we live in the real world. BTW, the gorilla thinks it is the standard, and with it's market share it really has become one, like it or not.
P.S., in the read world the Mac doesn't even exist -- I've tested web pages for some Fortune 500 companies and while mostly they said to test on MSIE and Netscape, none of them required me to test on Mac.
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
The point of standards is to aid interoperability. They aren't a get-out clause to expect everybody else to write bug-free code. That is an unreasonable expectation, especially as validators themselves are only a tool to catch errors you've made yourself. So you make errors but nobody else is allowed to, is that it?
You are aware that XHTML 1.1, per standards, will not work in Internet Explorer?
Which particular browsers? There is no browser that gets XHTML or CSS completely right. It's quite obvious to anybody who has spent more than five minutes developing websites that standard-compliant XHTML and CSS does not guarantee your website will work in any particular browser. Browsers have bugs. You can deal with that by testing, or you can stick your head in the sand.
Your website violates RFC 2616 (HTTP 1.1) and RFC 2854 (the text/html media type), as XHTML 1.1 is not permissable to send as text/html. Also, by including an XML PI, you are screwing up rendering on Pocket IE and one other user-agent that I can't quite recall. If you want to comply with the specifications and also be accessible to the majority of the web, you'll have to drop back to XHTML 1.0 and follow Appendix C.
Or you could take your own advice, use the application/xhtml+xml media type, and say goodbye to Internet Explorer users, Lynx users, Links users and most search engines. After all, you just have to write to standards, and your job is done, right?