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

Alex Watson alex at alexwatson.co.uk
Fri Feb 1 14:21:26 UTC 2013 

Great stuff - I'm really pleased to see this happening :) 

Alex 

On Friday, 1 February 2013 at 14:18, Edward Caissie wrote:

> Great! We'll see about getting it added to "Make" as well
> 
> Edward Caissie
> aka Cais. 
> 
> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Kirk Wight <kwight at kwight.ca (mailto:kwight at kwight.ca)> wrote:
> > My creds don't allow me to edit Make, but I added it to the Codex here: http://codex.wordpress.org/Theme_Development#Testing_and_QA
> > 
> > 
> > On 1 February 2013 08:54, Edward Caissie <edward.caissie at gmail.com (mailto:edward.caissie at gmail.com)> wrote:
> > > @Kirk - That should actually get onto the Make site as a reference / resource / tool
> > > 
> > > Edward Caissie
> > > aka Cais.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Kirk Wight <kwight at kwight.ca (mailto: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 (mailto: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 (mailto: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 (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 (mailto: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 (mailto: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 (mailto: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 (mailto: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 (mailto:theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > > > theme-reviewers mailing list
> > > > > > > > > > > > > theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org (mailto:theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > > theme-reviewers mailing list
> > > > > > > > > > > > theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org (mailto:theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org)
> > > > > > > > > > > > http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > theme-reviewers mailing list
> > > > > > > > > > > theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org (mailto:theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org)
> > > > > > > > > > > http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ theme-reviewers mailing list theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org (mailto:theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org) http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ theme-reviewers mailing list theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org (mailto:theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org) http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers 
> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ 
> > > > > > > > theme-reviewers mailing list
> > > > > > > > theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org (mailto:theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org)
> > > > > > > > http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ theme-reviewers mailing list theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org (mailto:theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org) http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > theme-reviewers mailing list
> > > > > > theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org (mailto:theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org)
> > > > > > http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > theme-reviewers mailing list
> > > > > theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org (mailto:theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org)
> > > > > http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > theme-reviewers mailing list
> > > > theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org (mailto:theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org)
> > > > http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > theme-reviewers mailing list
> > > theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org (mailto:theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org)
> > > http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > theme-reviewers mailing list
> > theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org (mailto:theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org)
> > http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org (mailto: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/20130201/30454ec0/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the theme-reviewers mailing list