(05.1) As already mentioned, different web browsers can render the same website/content in different ways, which results from the design of the web browser itself. Web content developers cannot change this fact. In order to overcome this problem, website developers have resorted to all sorts of tricks and work-arounds. The need for these 'tricks' is largely due to a lack of Web Standards Compliance in the web content development process.

(05.2) A consequence of these 'tricks' is a need to add code to a web page that interrogates the user's browser and device, to enable the web page to know which 'tricks' to use, to ensure the content renders as expected. It gets very complicated very quickly, as you can probably imagine, when considering the combinations of browser and device that need to be accommodated.

(05.3) To give you an idea how the design of a web browser can affect the appearance of a web page, the two images below show this website's Home page as rendered on my mobile (cell) phone by the Firefox web browser and the web browser designed by the manufacturer of my phone.

 

(05.4) As can be seen, the web page content appears in the same order, and is fully functional, on both browsers. However, the image on the right shows the browser rendering the standard body text in a (relatively) larger font-size. This results in a longer web page, and the need to scroll to see the full content of the page.

(05.5) This difference, between these two browsers, is relatively minor, however, differences can be far more significant to the web content developer and the website owner. The reason the difference is so minor, in this case, is my website is Standards Compliant (use the links in the 'footer' to confirm). It does not interrogate your computer or browser to determine which version of a web page to use, there is no need, and that is the point of this article.

(06.1) When I started building websites (in the 1990s) there were very few web browsers, in fact, the most popular browsers were Internet Explorer (now Microsoft Edge) and Mozilla (now Firefox). The only variation in access device was which brand of desk-top computer people were using. Having 'said' that, this, historical, much simpler web-world still caused headaches for web content developers and designers, because browser designers were poor at implementing the standards set by the W3C.

(06.2) Today, if a device has a screen it can probably access the web. This can be anything from a Smart-TV large enough to cover the wall of a building, to a mobile (cell) phone small enough to fit in a trouser pocket.

(06.3) Whatever the device/screen size, whatever the browser, whatever the screen resolution (oh, that's another significant factor in how web-based content is displayed, but I'm not going into detail. I'll leave it at that.) the web-based content still needs to look the same, and function.

(08.1) Website design is a vast topic in itself, and far too large to cover in-depth with this blog. Therefore, I will simply mention my considerations, when I last re-designed this website, which resulted in its current form.

(08.2) My goals were, to achieve a design that would be easy to interact with, predictably logical (order of content), and provide cues, for the user, to aid both non-visual and visual navigation and locational awareness on any size of screen.

(08.3) Most web content can be used on large format devices, such as desk-top computers, laptops, and tablets. The difficulties arise with small formats, such as mobile (cell) phones.
We all know how much swiping and scrolling can be involved, when using websites on small format devices, not to mention how easy it is to 'get lost'. This is another reason many organisations have multiple versions of their websites.

(08.4) Without going into long explanations, remember my design goals, then look at the image below. I hope it will be obvious why I chose this design. You will also note, this Accordion has additional vertical lines at its sides, which are to aid visual navigation and locational awareness on small screens used in Landscape mode.

 

(09.1) I believe the evidence I have presented supports my argument, a single website/content development and design, which actively considers Standards Compliance, as specified by W3C, can be achieved and will render and function, as needed, on any access device.

(09.2) I am aware of the challenges, and costs, involved for many companies in the development and design of their on-line assets. However, what costs more, developing, designing, maintaining and ensuring consistency across multiple website versions, or having just one website?

(09.3) It can be argued, for example, "Do we really want our users to be accessing their e-learning course on a mobile (cell) phone?".
With respect, I beg to differ, that is not the point.

(09.4) I agree, accessing e-learning on a mobile (cell) phone is not ideal. However, it is not the place of web content developers and designers to dictate how information on the web should be accessed, and by association, how it cannot be accessed. One of the major principles of the web, and rightly so, is all information should be available to everyone. Implicit in this ideal is, the means of access is irrelevant.

(09.5) It does not cost any more to develop and design web-based content that is standards compliant. It simply requires web content developers and designers are knowledgeable of the standards that should govern their practice.
Additionally, developers and designers are in a position to inform their clients of the commercial and financial benefits of only needing to fund one web asset, with the associated maintenance savings. Not to mention the benefits to you and I, the users of the web.