E-mail List Archives
Re: Build for the bugs?
From: Cliff Tyllick
Date: Feb 21, 2015 10:42PM
- Next message: Asa Baylus: "Re: Build for the bugs?"
- Previous message: Léonie Watson: "Re: Build for the bugs?"
- Next message in Thread: Asa Baylus: "Re: Build for the bugs?"
- Previous message in Thread: Léonie Watson: "Re: Build for the bugs?"
- View all messages in this Thread
The real answer? Neither.
We're coding for the people who will use our site, our app, our software, or whatever.
So we start by coding to the specs to ensure that our code is robust. And then we look at the tools available and code to ensure that they can, in spite of their deviation from the spec, be used to access the content and interactions we have built.
Finally, we look to the direction in which the spec is headed. If possible, from that toolset we add enhancements that further improve the experience for at least some of the people who will use what we have built.
And if we only ever created one thing, we would continuously improve it as the changing world makes those improvements possible.
So, yes. Both. Neither. And then some. ð
Austin, Texas, USA
Sent from my iPad
> On Feb 21, 2015, at 4:40 AM, LÃ©onie Watson < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> " My question is... Should we be coding for the browser / AT or for the
> In a perfect world, UA would conform to specs, developers would code to
> specs, and users would know how to use things in the one built by the other.
> In reality we have to cope with circumstances that are less than perfect in
> all three cases.
> The decision whether to code for one or another comes down to what you're
> building, who you're building it for, and what it needs to be supported by.
> There isn't a simple answer to that unfortunately, although JF's "yes" does
> sort of sum up the situation!
> @LeonieWatson Tink.UK Carpe diem
> > >