[theme-reviewers] Newbie theme reviewer question - Browser compatability

Fri Feb 1 20:28:52 UTC 2013

@Kirk thanks, I was not aware of the modern.ie :)

Emil

On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 7:49 AM, Kirk Wight <kwight at kwight.ca> wrote:

> Repeated, completely off-topic but entirely related, Microsoft has
> produced a site at http://modern.ie that makes testing IE as simple as
> possible (providing VHDs for Mac and Linux as well). Just in case anyone
> missed it :)
>
>
> On 1 February 2013 08:42, Edward Caissie <edward.caissie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> As long as the reviewer is using a "modern" browser in their process I am
>> not overly concerned they review the theme in multiple browsers. For the
>> most part, what we as reviewers are looking at will be apparent no matter
>> which browser the theme is being viewed with; and, also, visual issues with
>> the theme tend to fall mostly to aesthetics which also (for the most part)
>> are not requirements that need to be met for approval.
>>
>> Now, all that being written, if a reviewer finds that in a specific
>> browser something doesn't *look* right (but does *work* correctly) it is
>> strongly recommended the reviewer let the theme author know so they can
>> address that issue if they choose to.
>>
>> Edward Caissie
>> aka Cais.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 3:08 AM, Paul Appleyard <paul at spacecat.com> wrote:
>>
>>>  On 1/02/2013 5:53 PM, Alex Watson wrote:
>>>
>>>  I think we should recommend that the theme works in all modern
>>> browsers. Microsoft have just launched http://www.modern.ie making it a
>>> lot easier to test in IE. Being a web developer I have a Browserstack
>>> account, as making sure my work is cross browser compatible is essential to
>>> me. Besides, nowadays its a lot easier to make sure sites work in IE,
>>> compared to the days of IE6!
>>>
>>> *
>>> *
>>> *Agreed; but once again it comes down to the reviewer testing it in all
>>> modern browsers.*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  Btw the guy who built the theme has got back to me and says that the
>>> theme does not support IE9+. (odd, as i notice he does include the
>>> html5shiv.js, so he must be thinking about IE at least. Anyway I am yet to
>>> actually test his site in IE) As a theme reviewer, regardless of the
>>> guidelines I will be testing in all modern browsers anyway. If a site
>>> totally breaks in IE9+ (perhaps even in IE8) then I'd have concerns.
>>>
>>>
>>> *So 'does not support IE9+' would mean all IE versions - unless for
>>> some weird reason it works in, say, IE8 .. but I guess what he's saying is
>>> that he doesn't expect it to work properly in IE. Out of curiosity, what
>>> are these features that IE can't handle?*
>>>
>>>
>>>  Alex
>>>
>>>
>>> *Paul*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  On Friday, 1 February 2013 at 07:13, Paul Appleyard wrote:
>>>
>>>   Any new browser-centric requirements would hit a limitation on what
>>> browser the reviewer uses, or can use. So there's a built-in restriction on
>>> browser support, in that it must support the reviewer's browser, which is
>>> very likely a recent Chrome or Firefox iteration.
>>>
>>> I guess it (theme-specified browser requirements) would also come in to
>>> play as an issue if the theme author is implementing some pretty specific
>>> Javascript or HTML5 (some advanced canvas manipulation stuff for example,
>>> although Excanvas helps there too with IE7/8) And that's bleeding in to
>>> plugin territory, really.
>>>
>>> To sum up: If it doesn't break in a way to fail on existing guidelines,
>>> let it be. Therefore, the only amendment to review guidelines would be that
>>> testing be done in an up-to-date browser; is that requirement in there
>>> already?
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> On 1/02/2013 2:43 PM, Justin Tadlock wrote:
>>>
>>>  I'm pretty much in agreement with Chip.
>>>
>>> My personal rule in regards to IE is to support the 2 latest versions,
>>> which are currently 9 and 10.
>>>
>>> On 1/31/2013 7:03 PM, Chip Bennett wrote:
>>>
>>>  I have no problem with it. A properly developed and designed Theme
>>> should have minimal IE issues anymore, anyway.
>>>
>>>  I don't "support" IE with my Theme, either. I can't; I use Linux, and
>>> thus have no way of even *running* IE.
>>>
>>>  Doing something that actively *excludes* IE (or any other browser)
>>> would certainly not be acceptable; but developing a standards-compliant
>>> Theme, and opting not to jump through hoops for IE? Meh; doesn't bother me
>>> all that much.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Edward Caissie <
>>> edward.caissie at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>   Flatly not supporting one of the most commonly found browsers (not
>>> necessarily used but it does come with Windows) is not a very good idea;
>>> and although we do not have any specific guidelines in place I think if a
>>> Theme Author is going that route something that significant should be in
>>> the Theme description.
>>>
>>>  As it is, you would be better served by asking the Theme author to
>>> explain that statement before making any assumptions. As noted, it may only
>>> be that they are supporting current versions of IE and simply left off the
>>> version number in their readme file.
>>>
>>>  Myself, for general distribution themes, I only support current (or one
>>> version back at the most) browsers. I don't state the actual version only
>>> making reference to the browser being current. Of course, client work is
>>> generally different but those "rules" do not necessarily apply here.
>>>
>>> Edward Caissie
>>> aka Cais.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 7:12 PM, John Heimkes IV <john at heimk.es> wrote:
>>>
>>>  That's a great question, actually. I'd like to know what the general
>>> consensus is on this matter. Don't worry about being fussy. I've been doing
>>> front-end for many years. So, I totally get it.
>>>
>>>  My personal opinion is if they're not going to support certain
>>> browsers (aka, the browsers most of us web developers have to support on a
>>> daily basis), the author *should* make it known up front - especially
>>> in the CSS file for good documentation purposes. Some sort of clarification
>>> from the author would be nice in this case. Maybe they're just not
>>> supporting older versions of IE and it looks fine in IE10, and maybe even
>>> IE9.
>>>
>>>  Anyway, I hope someone else has a better answer!
>>>
>>>  Thanks,
>>> John Heimkes IV
>>>
>>>  On Jan 31, 2013, at 6:03 PM, Srikanth Koneru <tskk79 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>  Since IE has at least 30% browser share, I think theme has to support
>>> it.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 5:31 AM, Alex Watson <alex at alexwatson.co.uk>wrote:
>>>
>>>  Hi everyone!
>>>
>>>  So I'm reviewing my first theme, and a few mins into it I find this in
>>> the readme.txt:
>>>
>>>  * NOT SUPPORTED on Internet Explore *
>>>
>>>  Is that okay? Are themes allowed to be built and not work in IE at
>>> all? It's probably the fussy web developer side of me coming out here, as
>>> everything I do has to work in IE8+ :) I've not got so far as to have
>>> tested it in IE yet, but are we even required to do cross browser testing?
>>> I think we should, but I can't see that in the review guidelines anywhere.
>>>
>>>  Anyway, please let me know if I'm just being too fussy here! (and
>>> sorry if this has been asked before but I just joined this mailing list a
>>> couple of days ago)
>>>
>>>  Many thanks
>>>
>>>  Alex
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>>
>>>
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> theme-reviewers mailing listtheme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.orghttp://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> theme-reviewers mailing listtheme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.orghttp://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>>
>>>
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> theme-reviewers mailing listtheme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.orghttp://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20130201/f13e7236/attachment-0001.htm>