“Just use Chrome”
-
Atrocious injustices against the English language aside, though five failings in not even twice as many words¹ is rather remarkable…
Yes obviously the choice of browser is the cause of any conceivable issue. Every problem in a complex web of interacting components always traces back to not using Chrome. Sites are never broken – other browsers are broken. Just Use Chrome!™
It’s worth noting that the person asking for help here said they only had trouble after updating the OS for their Mac. Evidently this update must have changed the default browser, secretly and unbeknownst to any except our noted intellectual here, to something other than Chrome. Or otherwise distorted the space-time manifold in such a way that only Chrome is impervious to.
The real and genuinely damaging problem is that this is genuinely the attitude of many of the actual web “developers” too – everyone uses Chrome, I use Chrome; I’ll only bother testing on Chrome, other browsers and standards be damned!
Seriously, look at this arsehole:²
Jerk doesn’t even know how to use a decent apostrophe!
Yes, let’s all have a return to the blissful days of “Best viewed with Netscape Navigator.” Standards are codified by the WebKit source code now.
¹ “not even twice as many words”:
since that sentence should contain “it is”, I think you’ll find that actually it is exactly twice as many words
² “look at this arsehole”: INB4 QOOC, “I’d rather not.”
-
-
@dkf said in “Just use Chrome”:
@kazitor said in “Just use Chrome”:
Atrocious injustices against the English language aside
YMBNTE1
-
@kazitor said in “Just use Chrome”:
Atrocious injustices against the English language aside,
I find the best English is typically found in the works of those apologising for their English because they are not native speakers.
-
@kazitor said in “Just use Chrome”:
they only had trouble after updating the OS for their Mac
I think I found the real problem.
-
@kazitor said in “Just use Chrome”:
Standards are codified by the WebKit source code now.
I am also pissed off by the Chrome-only mentality, but "Standards" are like Morals: being pissed off by people not following them, or making up their own ones, doesn't make the world better, only your mood worse.
-
-
@kazitor Thank the Church of DIV for that. If people would just shut the fuck up about tables for layout, we wouldn't have to endure the endless churn of almost-sort-of-not-quite DIV layout schemes brought to us by the hipsters at Google.
-
@Zenith said in “Just use Chrome”:
@kazitor Thank the Church of DIV for that. If people would just shut the fuck up about tables for layout, we wouldn't have to endure the endless churn of almost-sort-of-not-quite DIV layout schemes brought to us by the hipsters at Google.
I don't know why this is such a point of contention.
You must never use tables except to display tabular data!
Why not? If I want to put two things side-by-side, a table Just Works, and I don't have to go through float: right;ordisplay: inline;trial and error magic in hopes of stumbling on some correct combination.
Because... because it makes styling more difficult! What if you have to make a major design change or want to implement Responsive Design™?
Take a look at our flagship order processing system. How old is it again? It's old enough to be in seventh grade by now, right?
Yes, but... that's not the point.
How many massive design changes have we needed to implement in the application's lifecycle?
(sheepishly) Z...zero? But it's bad, I'm telling you! Baaaad!
-
@kazitor said in “Just use Chrome”:
Yes, let’s all have a return to the blissful days of “Best viewed with Netscape Navigator.” Standards are codified by the WebKit source code now.
It would be awesome if we went full circle back to "Best viewed in
1024x768at least 992px horizontal resolution."
-
@Groaner said in “Just use Chrome”:
@kazitor said in “Just use Chrome”:
Yes, let’s all have a return to the blissful days of “Best viewed with Netscape Navigator.” Standards are codified by the WebKit source code now.
It would be awesome if we went full circle back to "Best viewed in
1024x768at least 992px horizontal resolution."
-
@Zenith said in “Just use Chrome”:
@kazitor Thank the Church of DIV for that. If people would just shut the fuck up about tables for layout, we wouldn't have to endure the endless churn of almost-sort-of-not-quite DIV layout schemes brought to us by the hipsters at Google.
Welcome, time traveler! Much has changed in the last 18 years. There's this new thing called CSS that makes it possible to change styles without changing tens of thousands of lines of markup, and make simple changes without restructuring the entire document! Also, a reality TV star is president.
Srsly, I used to have a fucking spreadsheet that would calculate the width of, eg, 7 cells of n width, 2 with colspan, with 16 cellpadding and 2 cellspacing. If one fucking cell in your table based layout didn't sum to the right width, the browser would just fudge the numbers until it worked. Each browser had its own fudging algorithm.
Table based layouts are a fucking nightmare, WTF are you on about?
-
@error said in “Just use Chrome”:
Table based layouts are a fucking nightmare, WTF are you on about?
Don't get him started, there's already an incoherent rant
. Which didn't stop him from posting it here again, where it's completely off-topic, because it's really hard to make a grid layout not work outside Webkit.But he just loves tables and hates modern CSS and accessibility and has to post it everywhere.
-
@dfdub said in “Just use Chrome”:
But he just loves tables and hates modern CSS and accessibility and has to post it everywhere.
He works for government.
-
@dkf said in “Just use Chrome”:
@dfdub said in “Just use Chrome”:
But he just loves tables and hates modern CSS and accessibility and has to post it everywhere.
He works for government.
That explains the time capsule phenomenon.
-
@error said in “Just use Chrome”:
@dkf said in “Just use Chrome”:
@dfdub said in “Just use Chrome”:
But he just loves tables and hates modern CSS and accessibility and has to post it everywhere.
He works for government.
That explains the time capsule phenomenon.
From what I hear, it's pretty lit, actually. Only have to support one version of one browser.
-
@dfdub said in “Just use Chrome”:
But he just loves tables and hates modern CSS and accessibility and has to post it everywhere.
Don't worry. One of my tasks is to recreate this little table, but somehow make it mobile friendly...
You see, on Mobile it turns into this:
And there's no freeze-column or header, so if you scroll into the table you'll be completely lost immediately unless you go all the way to an edge.
It's... not ideal.
-
@Groaner said in “Just use Chrome”:
@error said in “Just use Chrome”:
@dkf said in “Just use Chrome”:
@dfdub said in “Just use Chrome”:
But he just loves tables and hates modern CSS and accessibility and has to post it everywhere.
He works for government.
That explains the time capsule phenomenon.
From what I hear, it's pretty lit, actually.
Sounds like your heat shield is structurally damaged.
-
@Groaner said in “Just use Chrome”:
it's pretty lit
I'm going to give you a pass as I assume you've used that expression ironically.
-
@error said in “Just use Chrome”:
Table based layouts are a fucking nightmare, WTF are you on about?
Table based layouts work without an ever-changing dumpster fire of CSS hacks and being chained to Chrome's latest beta. You just have to be smarter about the sizes and positions of stuff instead dumping it into a pile for the browser to work out.
I wonder, does anybody here lay out their desktop windows entirely with FlowLayoutPanel?
@dfdub said in “Just use Chrome”:
incoherent
Just like my code is "unreadable" because I capitalize the first letter of names, AMIRITE?
-
@Zenith said in “Just use Chrome”:
Just like my code is "unreadable" because I capitalize the first letter of names, AMIRITE?
Which names....?
-
@MrL Variable names named after historical figures
-
@MrL said in “Just use Chrome”:
@Zenith said in “Just use Chrome”:
Just like my code is "unreadable" because I capitalize the first letter of names, AMIRITE?
Which names....?
Classes, structures, functions, procedures, variables, parameters, and constants. Pascal casing FTW. Except in the world of agile iterative web development where nothing's ever tested or optimized because "code review" is just a style inquisition.
If the Church of DIV had given even a microsecond of thought to the actual use cases of table based layout, they would've produced a replacement that worked instead of a littany of half-baked browser treadmill bait like the cabal of Jeffs they are.
-
@error said in “Just use Chrome”:
Much has changed in the last
183 yearsFTFY For the 15 years before that, the point was absolutely, perfectly valid.
Also, in my experience the rest of your post is still mostly wishful thinking. The only way to get any sort of consistent layout which can be changed without restructuring the entire document is by just throwing auto-layouting by the browser out of the window entirely and laying everything out manually with absolute positioning, which literally leads back to "best viewed at
600x4001920x720px." and anyone who'd like to increase the size of the tiny-ass light-gray-on-white font you chose for "pleasing esthetics" is just SOL
And for those that don't agree, I'd like to get in on your magical 18-year-old technology that doesn't crap itself on the blink of an eye, because up to now nobody has ever provided me with a satisfactory answer. I don't do web for work, just on various on-and-off hobby projects, so maybe I did miss some magic somewhere, but funnily enough all the people that loudly shout "don't use tables for layout" suddenly go eerily quiet whenever I ask for a viable alternative.
-
@ixvedeusi said in “Just use Chrome”:
all the people that loudly shout "don't use tables for layout" suddenly go eerily quiet whenever I ask for a viable alternative.
I shout "Don't use HTML as a UI", but nobody listens.
-
@Zenith said in “Just use Chrome”:
@MrL said in “Just use Chrome”:
@Zenith said in “Just use Chrome”:
Just like my code is "unreadable" because I capitalize the first letter of names, AMIRITE?
Which names....?
Classes, structures, functions, procedures, variables, parameters, and constants. Pascal casing FTW.
Which means everything looks the same. This is not a naming convention, but no convention.
-
@Zenith said in “Just use Chrome”:
I wonder, does anybody here lay out their desktop windows entirely with FlowLayoutPanel?
Not currently, no, but then I also don't use my desktop windows to lay out a document or lay out a consistent, convenient GUI, so I don't really get what point you're trying to make. I'm sure you have noticed that, for example, the task bar is not a normal window which you have to manually put into the right place every time you log in, right?
-
@ixvedeusi They've usually resorted to fragile client-side hacks because fixing the browser layout engine was too hard. That's why you see all sorts of DIV-based controls and flaky JavaScript shims instead of native control fixes. It's perfectly possible to derive a selectbox that respects padding and fonts and images. It's perfectly possible to fix the header and footer of a table. It's perfectly possible to color a button without dropping to Windows 95 styling. And so on and so on.
They just don't. Because as long as people are willing to layer JS scrollbars inside of nested DIVs with increasingly weird CSS, they'll keep plugging away at taking away configuration options, or deprecating plugins/extensions, or bouncing the UI around every six weeks.
@ixvedeusi said in “Just use Chrome”:
@Zenith said in “Just use Chrome”:
I wonder, does anybody here lay out their desktop windows entirely with FlowLayoutPanel?
Not currently, no, but then I also don't use my desktop windows to lay out a document or lay out a consistent, convenient GUI, so I don't really get what point you're trying to make. I'm sure you have noticed that, for example, the task bar is not a normal window which you have to manually put into the right place every time you log in, right?
Not a precise wording now that I think of it. I mean windows in a desktop application. There are instances a FlowLayoutPanel works but the majority of the time you're using absolute pixels or a TableLayoutPanel.
-
@ixvedeusi said in “Just use Chrome”:
the task bar is not a normal window which you have to manually put into the right place every time you log in, right?
Not since Windows 3, at least! Oh wait...
Didn't BeOS have a movable task-window thing?
-
@Zenith said in “Just use Chrome”:
It's perfectly possible to fix the header and footer of a table.
Demonstration please! I need this (see above).
-
@MrL said in “Just use Chrome”:
@Zenith said in “Just use Chrome”:
@MrL said in “Just use Chrome”:
@Zenith said in “Just use Chrome”:
Just like my code is "unreadable" because I capitalize the first letter of names, AMIRITE?
Which names....?
Classes, structures, functions, procedures, variables, parameters, and constants. Pascal casing FTW.
Which means everything looks the same. This is not a naming convention, but no convention.
Technically, the rest of the letters in a constant are capitalized as well.
But I still don't see your point. In camel casing, everything looks the same too. The words just start, bizarrely, with lowercase instead of uppercase. Many sects of that religion outlaw capitalization in constants which only increases the sameness. And there's more to naming than capitalization. Like names. That's completely absent from every style guide I've ever seen. And it shows. As just one example, acronyms are lost in translation because of boneheaded capitalization rules.
Camel casing is bizarre on its own but it's really just a sideshow to style rules that fixate on typography because it's easy to dictate and ignore everything else because it requires actual thinking. A rule on exception handling requires you to think about how exceptions are handled while a rule on capitalizing 2-letter acronyms but not 3-letter acronyms ends at "because I said so."
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in “Just use Chrome”:
@Zenith said in “Just use Chrome”:
It's perfectly possible to fix the header and footer of a table.
Demonstration please! I need this (see above).
Not in HTML but in a native table.
People try to emulate it with DIVs by fixing DIVs to the top and bottom of a parent DIV and setting the top and bottom padding in the parent to some arbitrary number so you can't scroll content underneath them. That's how you get all of these "tables" with column headers that are off a few pixels and lag during horizontal scrolling.
Edit: more or less below
<div style="width:200px;height:200px;padding-top:20px;padding-bottom:20px;overflow:scroll;"> <div style="position:absolute;top:0px;height:20px;">fake headers</div> <table style="margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:20px;"></table> <div style="position:absolute;bottom:0px;height:20px;">fake footers</div> </div> <div style="width:200px;height:200px;"> <div style="width:100%;height:20px;">fake headers</div> <div style="width:100%;height:160px;overflow:scroll;"> <table></table> </div> <div style="width:100%;height:20px;">fake footers</div> </div>One of the biggest sins of DIV-based layouts is that they don't have a good "fill in the rest of the space" option. In tables, it's simple. You define the widths and heights of your columns or rows and leave the rest to percentages of what remains. DIVs, though, misinterpret those percentages differently depending on the tag. Sometimes they take 100% as ignoring other relatively positioned siblings and sometimes they think it references their own desired size and sometimes they decide it means 0px (I'm well aware of why this happens BTW). Worse still, workarounds require knowing the fixed sizes of other elements which defeats the point. Had the HTML committee added a "relative-to" attribute, it would've solved the first two and, I believe, cascaded into solving much of the third by accident.
But they didn't. So now we have all kinds of DIV messes that force a Google update treadmill and let developers just throw their hands up and say "works on my machine, update Chrome you idiot!"
Edit: The only feature of a DIV layout that's missing from tables is variable rows/columns. Yes, there are times I can't translate a landscape desktop page to a vertical phone screen without reworking both. As invested in JavaScript for layout as most frameworks are these days anyway, it makes more sense to have a flag or event for screen orientation that could trigger different rendering. Because 9 times out of 10, horizontal vs vertical is the root issue that responsive layout is trying to address.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in “Just use Chrome”:
Demonstration please! I need this (see above).
Applying position:sticky to a <thead> should work, but my experience is that it doesn't. We needed this in our product and I ended up having to do a horrible hack.
You might be able to use it on mobile though as the browsers might be more fixed.
-
@bobjanova welcome to the forum!
-
@ixvedeusi said in “Just use Chrome”:
For the 15 years before that, the point was absolutely, perfectly valid.
For me the moment came when flexbox could be guaranteed on all our supported browsers - I guess this is a very similar time to grid. Until then it was very difficult to get a CSS layout to actually work, at least without having to put hacks in and write your markup in a specific order, which tbh is no better than putting it in a table anyway.
@Zenith said in “Just use Chrome”:
If the Church of DIV had given even a microsecond of thought to the actual use cases of table based layout, they would've produced a replacement that worked
They've finally caught up with flexbox (which covers all the N-column type table layouts), but yes, for years CSS layouts didn't replicate the most common use cases for layout, never mind all the edge cases.
-
@ixvedeusi said in “Just use Chrome”:
@error said in “Just use Chrome”:
Much has changed in the last
183 yearsFTFY For the 15 years before that, the point was absolutely, perfectly valid.
No, you really didn't.
I could go on a front-page-scale rant about how terrible table-based layouts are, but
. There have been acceptable CSS alternatives for much, much longer.I haven't had to trot this link out for a decade now, but see http://www.csszengarden.com/
Basically, it's a bunch of themes for one site that don't involve changing the markup at all. Try something like that with tables, I dare you.
-
@Zenith said in “Just use Chrome”:
Thank the Church of DIV for that. If people would just shut the fuck up about tables for layout, we wouldn't have to endure the endless churn of almost-sort-of-not-quite DIV layout schemes brought to us by the hipsters at Google.
No, it is about using screen-readers [which is a USA requirement under the ADA].
-
@Zenith said in “Just use Chrome”:
But I still don't see your point. In camel casing, everything looks the same too.
The trick is to not capitalize everything the same way.
And there's more to naming than capitalization. Like names. That's completely absent from every style guide I've ever seen.
Maybe you read capitalization guides, not style guides.
As just one example, acronyms are lost in translation because of boneheaded capitalization rules.
Acronyms are lost, because you may know what an acronym means, but other developers may not. It adds to confusion. Plus same acronyms for different things.
a rule on capitalizing 2-letter acronyms but not 3-letter acronyms ends at "because I said so."
Yeah, I find this rule weird too. My take is 'no acronyms'.
There are three rules behind any good style guide
- Same things should look the same
- Different things should look different
- Decide what characteristics are important enough to make things different
The third one is the hard part of course. Is something being a constant important enough to introduce capitalization rule just for constants? Not for me. Should static things be always pascal case, even when they are private? Maybe. Should private and public things look differently? They should.
-
@Zenith said in “Just use Chrome”:
One of the biggest sins of DIV-based layouts is that they don't have a good "fill in the rest of the space" option.
You're either trolling or stupid; either way, I'm done with this thread.
Filed under: And that's without calc, which gives you even more ways to do exactly that.
-
@error said in “Just use Chrome”:
They sure don't.
You forgot
calc(), using floats for layout (yeah, I know, it's ugly) and probably hundreds of even more ugly tricks from the CSS2 era.It's been possible to fill the rest of the page without specifying a fixed width for a long, long time - even when the old IEs were still around.
-
@dfdub said in “Just use Chrome”:
You forgot calc(),
I did forget, but I
d in a tag before you replied.
-
This post is deleted!
-
@error said in “Just use Chrome”:
You're either trolling or stupid; either way, I'm done with this thread.
Have you asked him about his opinion on using IDs in CSS?
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in “Just use Chrome”:
@dfdub said in “Just use Chrome”:
But he just loves tables and hates modern CSS and accessibility and has to post it everywhere.
Don't worry. One of my tasks is to recreate this little table, but somehow make it mobile friendly...
You see, on Mobile it turns into this:
And there's no freeze-column or header, so if you scroll into the table you'll be completely lost immediately unless you go all the way to an edge.
It's... not ideal.
Does zooming out not work?
-
@MrL said in “Just use Chrome”:
@Zenith said in “Just use Chrome”:
@MrL said in “Just use Chrome”:
@Zenith said in “Just use Chrome”:
Just like my code is "unreadable" because I capitalize the first letter of names, AMIRITE?
Which names....?
Classes, structures, functions, procedures, variables, parameters, and constants. Pascal casing FTW.
Which means everything looks the same. This is not a naming convention, but no convention.
Does your IDE not have syntax highlighting/coloration?
-
@error said in “Just use Chrome”:
I haven't had to trot this link out for a decade now, but see http://www.csszengarden.com/
That is pretty cool, but at least a few of them have text that runs off the side of the viewport or that overlaps other text.
-
@djls45 said in “Just use Chrome”:
@error said in “Just use Chrome”:
I haven't had to trot this link out for a decade now, but see http://www.csszengarden.com/
That is pretty cool, but at least a few of them have text that runs off the side of the viewport or that overlaps other text.
On my phone all those look exactly the same.
E: apparently not, the
button at the top just didn’t load a different theme.
-
@error said in “Just use Chrome”:
Basically, it's a bunch of themes for one site that don't involve changing the markup at all. Try something like that with tables, I dare you.
No, you just spend that time fiddling with the CSS (and attributes linked to it) instead. And in practice almost nobody really does theming anyway. Forums provide maybe three sets of colors and storefronts like Shopify so severely limit customization that it doesn't matter. Big fat deal.
Did you know you can use CSS on elements that aren't DIVs? It's true! Fonts, colors, backgrounds, borders, padding, the works! And the same way as the DIV folks do, by using the class, id, and, because not even the most pious of followers put everything in a separate CSS file, style attributes. It's just that we often don't because our aim was more of a general arrangement than strict control over pixels or client browsing.
Again, this wouldn't even be an argument if DIV layouts didn't have so many holes that "just download this morning's Chrome beta" has become the new "lol idunno, reboot Windows."
@TheCPUWizard said in “Just use Chrome”:
@Zenith said in “Just use Chrome”:
Thank the Church of DIV for that. If people would just shut the fuck up about tables for layout, we wouldn't have to endure the endless churn of almost-sort-of-not-quite DIV layout schemes brought to us by the hipsters at Google.
No, it is about using screen-readers [which is a USA requirement under the ADA].
That can't be done with tables? Why? Isn't it ultimately pulling text out from between tags?
Besides, ADA compliance never stopped anybody from using mountains of JS to cram in the entire DOM at runtime (or not, if the JS had an error and just stopped executing).
-
@Groaner said in “Just use Chrome”:
@error said in “Just use Chrome”:
@dkf said in “Just use Chrome”:
@dfdub said in “Just use Chrome”:
But he just loves tables and hates modern CSS and accessibility and has to post it everywhere.
He works for government.
That explains the time capsule phenomenon.
From what I hear, it's pretty lit, actually. Only have to support one version of one browser.
The government project I'm working on is the other way around, we have to support safari, ie, chrome, Firefox, edge and across iOS, macOS, android, windows and Linux. But we're only allowed to run chrome and ie on windows. And the first year of the project, it was only ie on windows.
-
@djls45 said in “Just use Chrome”:
@Tsaukpaetra said in “Just use Chrome”:
@dfdub said in “Just use Chrome”:
But he just loves tables and hates modern CSS and accessibility and has to post it everywhere.
Don't worry. One of my tasks is to recreate this little table, but somehow make it mobile friendly...
You see, on Mobile it turns into this:
And there's no freeze-column or header, so if you scroll into the table you'll be completely lost immediately unless you go all the way to an edge.
It's... not ideal.
Does zooming out not work?
Such that you can't read it unless you're me? Sure.
