_____/ On Thu 08 Dec 2005 09:02:06 GMT, [Mike Little] wrote : \_____
[SNIP Old Netscape versions]
Silly dog has a COMPLETE Netscape browser archive.
It goes all the way back to Mosaic 0.4 through Navigator 0.9 (the
first version I used) and on. http://sillydog.org/narchive/full123.php
There is a MASSIVE browser archive at http://browsers.evolt.org/ from
Tim Berners-Lee's original for the Next box onwards, many I had never
I can't even remember the name of the first Web browser I used. I recall quite
vaguely what it looked like. It fit on a single floppy disk.
Here's an article detailing how to run multiple versions of IE under
BUT, as later mails seem to be heading, I think a positive rather
negative approach it better. Automatically test whether it works and
enable it appropriately (still taking care to honour the user's
...and ensuring the applications is manageable 5 years down the line when new
ubiquitous browsers emerge.
Is there a fall-back for a non-ajax image upload and tag insert?
_____/ On Thu 08 Dec 2005 09:20:21 GMT, [Andy Skelton] wrote : \_____
The image uploading is not ajax, it uses an iframe. I am making it
work as uniformly as possible with JS. Consideration for non-JS users
is pretty slight at this point.
AJAXcat is what it is... turn off JS and see how it works.
_____/ On Thu 08 Dec 2005 09:46:13 GMT, [Mike Little] wrote : \_____
I'm more concerned about non-mouse users. Is there any way to insert
the image tag without having to drag with a mouse?
There are a not-inconsiderable number of users for whom mouse use in
general and drag and drop in particular are difficult if not
It is possible, albeit awkward, to use the current (1.5+) upload
system to upload an image and insert the tag into a post. The previous
version (< 1.5) was better, because it didn't interrupt the workflow
and could insert the tag into the post for you.
This new version allows the upload without the mouse, but it seems to
be IMPOSSIBLE to take that last step and get the code into the post.
This is a MASSIVE step backwards for usability, making WordPress
completely UNUSABLE for a whole class of people. This is not really
very good at all for an application which purports to be standards
It seems that the usability report published earlier this year has now
been completely forgotten in favour of sexy WYSIWYG interfaces.
I won't even get into the fact that the WYSIWYG interface still
insists on REMOVING code that I add to my post!
I had similar thoughts at the very start, but I like the new state of the
dashboard. When Matt announced the inclusion of TinyMCE I wrote critical
things about the dangers of abstraction. Don't get me wrong, Andy, WYSIWYG
will do wonderful things and appeal to so many. Like anything in life, it
is important to give users the opportunity to opt out. It was promised
that such an option would be available from the very beginning. That giv-
en, usability will not longer be an issue. There will be standard inter-
face and an enhanced one (default) rather than standard interface (de-
fault) and a depleted one (WP 1.x style). It's a punishment scenario
turned into a bonus scenario, so everyone's happy. The biggest danger is
in making decisions arrogantly on behalf of the user, often to 'protect'