Topic: ESPN's redesign!

hey lookie, the tide's turning:
http://devedge.netscape.com/viewsource/2003/espn-interview/01/

and check the source, what a beast:
http://espn.go.com/main.html

They're not even allowing v4 browsers in the door, they go straight to an upgrade page. This should start the big ball rolling I reckon.

Jason

That's really cool. I think this is going to start to become the standard.

"You use v.4? Well, you can't enter!!! No Website for you!!!"

Later,

C:\


~Binary is best~

Much as I support standards, I strongly dislike *blocking* 4.x browser users. The point of standards is to make web sites accessable to *everyone*, and not to block out people using older browsers.

It's not too hard to make a page readable to a 4.x user, even if it doesn't look good to them.

The ESPN developer addressed the issue of blocking browsers and he had perfectly good, strike that, great, arguments. It always helps if you're one of the biggest sites on the internet (they get between 500 and 950 Billion hits per Month, more if you add in their satellite sites) when you feel the need to carry the torch like that. I'm glad they finally decided to do it, it should really be the start of things rolling over en masse.

Jason

Yep, I agree with Slime - it's great to move on from the idea of needing everything to look the same in all browsers, but there's no reason not to make things viewable in older browsers...

But it is definately nice to see a move in this direction all in all.



[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 03-26-2003).]

quote:

---

they get between 500 and 950 Billion hits per Month

---

Should be million, right?

Agree with Slime too. I personally think that WaSP's Browser Upgrade Campaign where they encourage people to redirect browsers that doesn't complie with new standards is bad. [edit] I mean, the campaign is good, but not the redirection [/edit]



[This message has been edited by HZR (edited 03-26-2003).]

Bill-e-un

Jason

Yaaaaaaaaaaaah... Hoooooooooooooo...

Nope, actually it's Mill-e-un.

[Edit: and for those who don't agree with blocking older browsers, read Mike's response to the question "You've chosen to block old browsers from accessing the site. Why is that?" in the above article. He makes some good points, I think.]

[This message has been edited by Suho1004 (edited 03-27-2003).]

ack! I had to read that about 5 times, my brain 'read' it one way the first time and wouldn't let it go. I went back and read it again after HZR's correction as well and smooth missed it. Funny thing the mind, or, my mind.

Jason

Hehe... yep, the mind does things like that sometimes. Grabs hold of something and just refuses to let go...

That said, even one billion is just a

01100110
01110101
01100011
01101011
01110100
01101111
01101110

of hits.

Of course, while they're going as far as blocking old browsers, they could have also actually gone the extra mile to make the site itself standards compliant, seing as standards compliant browsers are what they are bellyaching about.

I mean....html 4 transitional is *not* hard to get to validate

The amount of useless tables and inline style declarations is simply ludicrous in the light that they themselves have put this.

Simply blocking non-standards compliant browsers without making your code standards compliant is a pretty big oxymoron.

=)



[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 03-27-2003).]

I did notice some [pretty wicked inline style declarations on a quick skim but went right past any tables I guess (oooooh, those dogs, they did sneak a couple of tiny ones in there, to be fair, one belongs to MSN tho ).

DL, email em about this travesty, mail@espn.com I think, they'll get right back to you I'm sure

Jason