ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: New datatracker UI

2015-04-19 03:40:18
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hector Santos" <hsantos(_at_)isdg(_dot_)net>
To: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2015 5:10 PM
On 4/18/2015 3:59 AM, t.p. wrote:
I find it worse than that.  Just over a year ago, Martin Rex said,
about
an upgrade to a different IETF server,

"Using IE6 to test a web page is perfectly reasonable.

If it doesn't work in IE6, it uses more complex/esoteric features
than what is necessary and should be used in the first place.

I understand, and once upon a time that was very true, but I think by
this point in browser history time, its closer to IE9 as a minimum for
the windows world of end user support. That is why I go by for our
intranet Web products (we supplied canned dynamic web pages) and I
have to test all the browser out there.  Its was a difficult job.

I think a good way to lay this out is to have some web-support level
terms such as:

   Web 1.0   Pure HTML/CSS, no Javascript, no client side offloading.
   Web 2.0   with Javascript, Ajax, Client side offloading, etc.
   Web 3.0   with HTML5, "Web Sockets"

The trend is to offload mode of the client side work to the end-user
devices.  Well, trend has always been cyclic; centralized,
decentralized, we are in a hybrid mode now, of centralization with
smart offloaded fatter devices aka apps.  Most of the top browsers
support HTML5, but javascript should be a given.   It would be nice
(not as fancy) to keep Web 1.0 web site, but the IETF decision should
be made if WEB 2.0 is the minimum device expectation for the IETF.

The server obviously fails the golden IETF rule "be conservative
in what you send out" (as HTML) and the server ought to be fixed"

Its hard to support all the browsers, especially all the devices. But
its all possible of course.  It is expensive.  We made that move
ourselves around 2006 from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 before requiring
Javascript where it was needed, otherwise it was optional.  I expect
within a  year or so, more Web 3.0 technology to be used for our
intranet package and expecting MOST of the interested end users
(targeted customers) to be ready.  Testing will tell us. :)

I have performed the test.  It fails, comprehensively.

Well, when simple Javascript-disabled testing is obviously missed, it
says people working on it probably have all the latest gadgets, more
current/modern hardware, speeds, etc, and they don't do full end-user
testing and/or they presumed the interested end users will be ready
for it as well with latest hardware and browsers, etc.   Its just a
matter of testing.

So the question is, does IETF want to continue with WEB 1.0 or at
least WEB 2.0 for now?  If WEB 1.0, then perhaps IE6 browsers should
be included in the test suite.   IE6 does have some major issues with
Javascript so, I would expect a IE9 level of support.

Hector

Your analysis is much more professional than mine.  I was struck by the
comment in your initial post about Javascript.  I do enable it but
notice the impact on scrolling in return for which I see little or no
improvemeent in function.  Even IE8 is noticeably slower in paging down
and as to why someone thought it a good idea to put all the links to the
other bits of the IETF nexus (IANA, IAB, IRTF, ...) that I use so often,
20 page downs away (at least on
http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/
which used to be my home page) well, I am clearly on a different
planet:-(  Ditto whoever thought it a good idea to take a away the
search function for I-Ds from that page.

What I often do is disable images since there are so many of them on
websites and they take so long to download, so another bugbear of mine
is when the replacement text is meaningless.  In the worst case, you get
the same text in place of forward, back, cancel and submit icons!. So
meaningful text for anchors is something I would regard as a
requirement.

In passing, the TLS list regularly carries figures, which I can never
find when I want to,  for the prevalence of such as XP, with its latest
level of IE8, and I seem to recall providers there saying that XP still
had to be supported, it had too many users to be discarded.  So I would
suggest IE8 still needs to be supported.

Tom Petch

--
HLS

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>