16 Aug
2004
16 Aug
'04
1:27 p.m.
Jerome H. Fine wrote, in part:
Last week, the web site that I usually access in a
very standard
manner using Windows 98 SE / Netscape 4.78 no longer provides
the information I used to obtain. The reason is that the company
which controls access to the web site decided to add additional
features which require the use of at least Netscape 7.0 by the user.
[...]
Based on the information on the error page, would a
normal user
be ALSO expected to look at the "required browsers" link when
the specific naming of Netscape 4.x was (and still was when this
post was made) displayed as an acceptable browser when I
forgot to turn cookies ON?
Hard to say without seeing the web-site in question, but at the least
(from your description) it sound like they haven't got their various
"what-browsers-are-acceptable" pages in sync. I'd be annoyed if I were
you. :)
Could the company have continued to allow users access
to the
web site under Netscape 4.78 by the expedient of NOT
providing those users the additional features that users of
Netscape 7.0 and later are provided? NAMELY, do the
fellows setting up the program have the ability to check as to
which version of Netscape is being used and could the program
have retained the old code for those users who stayed with
Netscape 4.78 and used to new code for those users who
shifted to Netscape 7.0 and later?
We're moving our library around, so my relevant books are hiding; but
from memory, yes, it's possible. HTTP requests are
sent with a handful of
environmental variables, including brand and version of the
browser
making the request. A server can read the $ENV info when the page request
is made, and reply appropriately (or, in your case, reply annoyingly). It
could, therefore, give you a version of the content laid out for older
browsers.
The problem, though, is that doing so is labor-intensive: it means more
of a workload on the server if it has to select or transform content based
on what version of browser is making the request; and more, it's a
significantly greater workload on the site maintainers if they have to
update, maintain and test differing versions of the same website.
<rant>
O'course, I've long held the opinion that - except in the cases of
multimedia-bells-and-whistles websites, which are by their nature heavily
dependent on what the receiving browser can handle - designing a site
that requires "Browser X" to be readable is both counterproductive and
against the site's own interest. Why put together a web presence at all
if you're going to bar a bunch of potential readers from seeing it at
the outset? Why make an effort to communicate your message to the world if
you're simultaneously going to put up a technology barrier to make sure
half the people you're trying to reach can't access it? If you're going to
write something, don't you want people to _read_ it?
</rant>
...Whew. I feel better now. Sorry, the fever will pass. :)
Anyway, it may be simplest to just bite the damnable lead bullet and get
a browser upgrade. Mozilla's Firefox may be the way to go:
http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/
I've developed a great fondness for Phoenix, one of Firefox's recent
ancestors (http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/releases/0.5.html).
I agree that changing browsers so you can receive content is irritating,
but it's probably less irritating than trying to convince some site
manager to change their technology-drunk method of thinking. (O'course, it
may be most morally satisfying to just send them a hostile e-mail telling
them you'll nevber view their stupid site ever again until they change
their heinous ways. <g>)
-O.-
(...whose site is viewable with everything from Lynx
onward, thank you very much)