Browsers

Congratulations on a useful looking Forum.
Does anybody know which browsers (including versions) that a site must be compliant with to be successfully reviewed for ODP.
Secondly, I am in the UK and would like to know if the criteria applied are consistent throughout the regional ODPs.
Thanks in advance

In my experience, if a site can't be viewed by XYZ browser, it will get reviewed, but have a tag added to the description saying "Requires Internet Explorer" or similar; a similar tag will be added if it requires Flash, ActiveX, and so on.

However, while it will still be reviewed, it might take longer. If the usual editor for a category can't view a submitted site because it requires XYZ, then he or she will have to pass it off to another editor who is capable of viewing it.

As for the UK, from my experience the criterea are the same - most editors in the UK portions of the directory are based in the UK (like myself) so expect a UK editor to be using the same equipment as other UK web users.

Bear in mind, this is a Netscape project, so there are above-average numbers of Netscape and Mozilla users here.

In general, if an editor can't view a site, it will be kept in the review queue with a note attached so that another editor can check it. This will of course take longer, but it is against our policies to simply reject sites if they don't work on specific browsers.

I try my utmost to design for IE 5+, NN4.7+ and Opera 5+.
I am finding this more and more restrictive. I would like to be able to use some CSS that is not supported by some of these older browsers,but I did not want to risk a revue penalty if for instance the site degraded (but still functional) in NN4.7
Comments so far seem to imply that even if a site is only viewable on IE, it will still be reviewed and included on merit. Is this so?

Yes, this is so. However, not all editors will have a current version of IE installed and/or working on their computer (I myself use Netscape 6+ and Mozilla). Personally, I'll leave such a site in the unreviewed queue with a note for someone else who is able to to review it. I guess what I'm trying to say is this: sites that only work with a particular browser (or require a specific plug-in) will get listed, but it may take longer depending on what software the most active editor in that area uses. Sites that are compatible with many different browsers may get listed sooner -- Foe

>>I did not want to risk a revue penalty if for instance the site degraded (but still functional) in NN4.7

I think it's safe to say there is no review penalty for "degraded" but functional sites in (whatever the editor is using.) The editor probably won't know about the missing functionality (whatever it is) -- and will just review based on what works.

But -- the same will often be true about "crippled" sites. A non-technically-astute editor may see the site not work, and suppose that it is (like so many submissions) just another example of brain-death raising its ugly head on the internet. So your so-spiffy-on-IE-versions-6.14159265345-6.14159265346-but-broken-on-HTML-standard-3.0-and-HTML-standard-4.2 site may well get deleted. Don't expect editors to go looking for a browser that renders your stuff. If they need a particular product, you'd best put that in the description yourself.

I have IE6, Netscape6, and Opera5

If I can't view a site in my default browser, I try the others. /images/icons/smile.gif