Andy's right. Expecting the site to look the same in all browsers is rarely the client's perspective. Too often we introduce that requirement internally. It's beyond time to move on.

«Before we send over our design files to the chaps at CannyBill, first a run through of the browsers that we have tested in the new design and some musings about what browser testing actually means today, in the face of an ever more diversified browser and device landscape.»

«Over the last few months, as I've learned more about HTML5, I've wondered about the advantages that I might gain by using it. Recently I realised that the question shouldn't be why use HTML5 but why not? From what I've learned from reading and by talking to people, the only reason that I can find not to use it is that without JavaScript, HTML5's added elements (section, article, aside, figure etc.) cannot be styled in Internet Explorer.» # A look at what's possible now with CSS and HTML5.

«On top of this, I have found that developing my own package of conventions and library items makes designing in a browser as easy, I would argue easier, than plugging in a third-party framework like 960gs or Baseline. So what is stuffed into my package?»

"The licensing aspect of using images from The Commons is particularly important, at least for me. I'm aware that often my clients does not own the copyright of the images that they supply to me (whether they know that or not)."

"That is why I'm now advocating to my clients (and to you), that where feasible, not to waste hours in time and a client's money on lengthy workarounds in an unnecessary attempt at cross-browser perfection. Instead, you and I should provide simple but effectively designed HTML elements. This means just great typography for headings, paragraphs, quotations, lists, tables and forms and no styling of layout."