Please use one of these browsers



  • I think the image should be self explanatory...



  • There's still a "Netscape" browser?



  • On the plus side, they're actually giving you options for browsers made after 2001.

    I've never seen Opera offered in a browser detection test as a "Please Upgrade" choice :)



  • @Quietust said:

    There's still a "Netscape" browser?
    Why don't you follow the link provided and find out?

    But seriously, apparently not.

    Have any of you ever used this flock that they recommend?[quote user="wikipedia"]Flock is a web browser that specializes in providing social networking and other Web 2.0 features built into its interface.[/quote]Sounds pretty puke-inducing.



  •  Obviously it is because you are using Linux.  If your OS had a desktop market share larger than 1% it might be weird for them to not take you into account.  Otherwise, just change your UA string.



  • @Quietust said:

    There's still a "Netscape" browser?

    Well, there is if you haven't learned anything about web design in the past 10-something years.



  • And if you change the value after brwsrErr to (as it seems) to just about anything...



  •  @Quietust said:

    There's still a "Netscape" browser?

     

    I believe the same copy & paste javascript (perhaps a total 10 versions out there?) for browser dection has been passed around since '98. I ran into checks for "either IE or nutscrape" (just those 2 browsers) at my previous job. Then again it was just internal apps, and the only allowed browser there was IE. It's just funny how this copypasta replicates itself like virus... after all how dare anyone question browser compatibility.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

     Obviously it is because you are using Linux.  If your OS had a desktop market share larger than 1% it might be weird for them to not take you into account.  Otherwise, just change your UA string.

     

    Or they could just learn how the web works and not have this problem or anything like it...



  • @Vechni said:

    I believe the same copy & paste javascript (perhaps a total 10 versions out there?) for browser dection has been passed around since '98. I ran into checks for "either IE or nutscrape" (just those 2 browsers) at my previous job. Then again it was just internal apps, and the only allowed browser there was IE. It's just funny how this copypasta replicates itself like virus... after all how dare anyone question browser compatibility.

     

    One site I've worked on had some code that fell back to document.layers and document.all if document.getElementById wasn't there.  Now this is normally good if you expect your clients to use legacy browsers, but this same site also made heavy use of AJAX. (As in, unusable without it.)



  • @anthetos said:

    Or they could just learn how the web works and not have this problem or anything like it...

    How precisely would that be?  Hell, why even bother?  It's not worth the time or effort to take Linux into account for 99% of sites.  You might as well worry about Opera and Lynx while you're at it. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @anthetos said:

    Or they could just learn how the web works and not have this problem or anything like it...

    How precisely would that be?  Hell, why even bother?  It's not worth the time or effort to take Linux into account for 99% of sites.  You might as well worry about Opera and Lynx while you're at it. 

     

    Why would they need to take Linux into account? The point is that they wouldn't have to take anything into account by not resorting to (badly done) UA sniffing.



  • @anthetos said:

    The point is that they wouldn't have to take anything into account by not resorting to (badly done) UA sniffing.

    Which only works with the simplest of sites with no interactive content or complex styles.  Since this is a game of Scrabble, I'm going to guess it's a bit more complicated than a few divs and some standards-compliant CSS.  Hence, it needs workarounds for incompatibilites between browsers and platforms. When you get into the real world, you will find that the standards are poorly designed, mostly useless for any kind of real work and that working with IE is always the most important thing.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Since this is a game of Scrabble, I'm going to guess it's a bit more complicated than a few divs and some standards-compliant CSS.  Hence, it needs workarounds for incompatibilites between browsers and platforms.
     

    Going to the URI, it appears to be a Flash game, which does not require any UA sniffing. If it was a JavaScript game instead, they could check support of methods or properties and use whatever is appropriate, but they still should not completely give up if you use a UA that they aren't expecting, especially when it's a browser that they apparently support.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    When you get into the real world, you will find that the standards are poorly designed, mostly useless for any kind of real work and that working with IE is always the most important thing.

    Ah, ad hominem, I see. I'm sure ignoring the standards and denying any user agent that you don't expect is much better than following documented standards and letting the UA do most of the work.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Which only works with the simplest of sites with no interactive content or complex styles.  Since this is a game of Scrabble, I'm going to guess it's a bit more complicated than a few divs and some standards-compliant CSS.

     

    TRWTF is that it isn't Flash.

     

    Edit: Oh shit, anthetos got here before me.



  •  @morbiuswilters said:

    the standards are poorly designed, mostly useless for any kind of real work

     The standards are just fine thank you very much.  It's IE that is at fault for not using them.

     Also, IE is hardly the most used browser anymore. Even for non techy sites.



  • @anthetos said:

    Ah, ad hominem, I see.
    Do you understand what ad hominem is?  It's "you're stupid therefore your argument is stupid."

    Morbius said "Your argument is stupid therefore you're stupid"

    lern2argue



  •  @morbiuswilters said:

    Which only works with the simplest of sites with no interactive content or complex styles.  Since this is a game of Scrabble, I'm going to guess it's a bit more complicated than a few divs and some standards-compliant CSS.  Hence, it needs workarounds for incompatibilites between browsers and platforms. When you get into the real world, you will find that the standards are poorly designed, mostly useless for any kind of real work and that working with IE is always the most important thing.

    I don't know, I know a very large amount of windows users that choose Firefox over IE. Matter of fact, the greater majority of people I know use Firefox. So honestly I'd probably rank both browsers equally in importance.



  • @anthetos said:

    it appears to be a Flash game, which does not require any UA sniffing.
     

    However it does require a specific plugin and a specific version of Flash.  So if you don't have Flash or you have the wrong version, I guess it's now their fault.  If they made it in Flash 9 and all you had available for Linux was Flash 7 and strictly speaking they didn't need any features of Flash 9 but required it anyway, I suppose you think this would be reason enough to whine.  Meanwhile, nobody in the real world cares. 

     

    @anthetos said:

    If it was a JavaScript game instead, they could check support of methods or properties and use whatever is appropriate...

    As I said, this is my preferred method, but to each his own.

     

    @anthetos said:

    but they still should not completely give up if you use a UA that they aren't expecting

    It's their site, they can do whatever they want.  Personally, I'd do it now just to piss off people who use obscure platforms and then complain about it.  There are plenty of UA-switching utilities for Firefox.  If you can't figure out how to use them or are too stubborn, that is nobody's fault but your own.  I'm sure they will miss your tmie 

     

    @anthetos said:

    ad hominem

    Learn what this means before you use it, otherwise you look ignorant.

     

    @anthetos said:

    following documented standards

    Which are rarely paralleled in real life.

     

    @anthetos said:

    letting the UA do most of the work.

    WTF does that mean?  The UA is still doing the work.

     

    I tire of this argument.  It's as bad as the CSS/HTML Nazi stuff, but with the added tedium of a OS/browser debate.  This is not Slashdot and I'm so far above your head on this it's pretty ridiculous for me to waste my time trying to explain things like this. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Learn what this means before you use it, otherwise you look ignorant.
     

    Allow me to defend myself: I assumed "you" was referring to me specifically.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    I tire of this argument.

    As do I.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    I'm so far above your head on this it's pretty ridiculous for me to waste my time trying to explain things like this. 

    Disappointing. The atmosphere you gave me already made it hard to reply nicely, but there's no point if you have to resort to this.

    Well, enjoy your pissing contests here.



  • @Bigcheese said:

    The standards are just fine thank you very much.

    Wrong.

     

    @Bigcheese said:

    It's IE that is at fault for not using them.

    All browsers have problems, not just IE.  However, IE is a defacto standard.

     

    @Bigcheese said:

    Also, IE is hardly the most used browser anymore. Even for non techy sites.

    [citation needed]  Also, this is just a ridiculous lie and you know it.  Stop being stupid.



  • @Kermos said:

    I don't know, I know a very large amount of windows users that choose Firefox over IE. Matter of fact, the greater majority of people I know use Firefox. So honestly I'd probably rank both browsers equally in importance.

     

     I don't know but all the stats of around 25 sites I have to maintain daily say that more than 80% still use IE. So honestly I won't rank both browser, because stats are doing it for me. I still do my shit right, and try to make everything work even on Opera.

     



  • @Kermos said:

    I don't know, I know a very large amount of windows users that choose Firefox over IE. Matter of fact, the greater majority of people I know use Firefox. So honestly I'd probably rank both browsers equally in importance.

    You fail basic web statistics.  IE is still easily 90% of the market.  Your information is called "anecdotal" which is French for "fucking worthless and not scientific in the least". 



  • @Me said:

    There's still a "Netscape" browser?

    @belgariontheking said:

    Why don't you follow the link provided and find out?


    Because there wasn't actually a link, just a screenshot, and I couldn't be bothered to retype the URL in another browser window and have some Javascript screw up my window positions.

    @MiffTheFox said:

    Well, there is if you haven't learned anything about web design in the past 10-something years.


    Sorry, I must've forgotten to include the nonstandard <sarcasm> tag in my post.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @Kermos said:

    I don't know, I know a very large amount of windows users that choose Firefox over IE. Matter of fact, the greater majority of people I know use Firefox. So honestly I'd probably rank both browsers equally in importance.

    You fail basic web statistics.  IE is still easily 90% of the market.  Your information is called "anecdotal" which is French for "fucking worthless and not scientific in the least". 

     

    Actually you do.

    Depending on which completely irrelevant website one wants to believe Firefox ranks anywhere between 19% to 42%.

    http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=0

    http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

    Pick your stats....

    Personally I consider either site's statitics meaningless on a global scheme but regardless, both of those show a larger firefox userbase than your claims.

    I think pretty much the only unbiased relevant source for any kind of browser / os statistics would be google and they don't make that publically available.



  • @anthetos said:

    Disappointing. The atmosphere you gave me already made it hard to reply nicely, but there's no point if you have to resort to this.

    Well, enjoy your pissing contests here.

    There's just no point in arguing this.  I have never met a skilled software developer who worked on large-scale web apps with hundreds of thousands or even millions of users who didn't come to realize how horrible the W3C standards were.  You come to realize that every browser has major bugs, even bugs between different versions of the same browser (Safari, I fucking hate you).  You also realize that IE is the vast, vast majority of your market and that catering to IE is the single most important thing you can do.  IE is a defacto standard and making sure your site works flawlessly with IE is priority #1.  After that it's usually Safari and then Firefox (which holds a much smaller share of the market than most people seem to think).  Opera is always less than 0.1% so it is not worth ever thinking about.



  • @Kermos said:

    Personally I consider either site's statitics meaningless on a global scheme but regardless, both of those show a larger firefox userbase than your claims.

    I think pretty much the only unbiased relevant source for any kind of browser / os statistics would be google and they don't make that publically available.

     

    Well, google analytics is what I use for most of my sites.. and I "my" stats are around 80% for IE in every site . Unless analytics is lying, I consider those numbers real.

    FF gets around 12-15% which it's large enough for me to cater to them.. but budgetwise, if it comes to that, it is still a distant second.

    There has been an impressive increase in Safari user lately, from almost 0% to almost 5% in some sites. 



  • @Quietust said:

    @Me said:
    There's still a "Netscape" browser?

    @belgariontheking said:

    Why don't you follow the link provided and find out?


    Because there wasn't actually a link, just a screenshot, and I couldn't be bothered to retype the URL in another browser window and have some Javascript screw up my window positions.
    Sorry, I was joking.  I thought about putting sarcasm tags around it, but I figured the "but seriously" on the next line would have the same effect.



  • @fatdog said:

    Well, google analytics is what I use for most of my sites.. and I "my" stats are around 80% for IE in every site . Unless analytics is lying, I consider those numbers real.

    FF gets around 12-15% which it's large enough for me to cater to them.. but budgetwise, if it comes to that, it is still a distant second.

    There has been an impressive increase in Safari user lately, from almost 0% to almost 5% in some sites. 

     

    And those are probably the best statitiscs to go by for any website: Their own. 

    Different content attracts different users and can easily enough influence the browsers / platforms encountered.



  •  @MiffTheFox said:

    @Quietust said:

    There's still a "Netscape" browser?

    Well, there is if you haven't learned anything about web design in the past 10-something years.

    Huh?  Netscape wasn't end-of-lifed until earlier this year.

    The last release was less than six months ago.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @anthetos said:

    Or they could just learn how the web works and not have this problem or anything like it...

    How precisely would that be?  Hell, why even bother?  It's not worth the time or effort to take Linux into account for 99% of sites.  You might as well worry about Opera and Lynx while you're at it. 

    Maybe because a month ago over 8% of home computers use Ubuntu  and OS X and other Linux-based OSs. :P



  • @Kermos said:

    Actually you do.

    Depending on which completely irrelevant website one wants to believe Firefox ranks anywhere between 19% to 42%.

    http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=0

    http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

    Pick your stats....

    Personally I consider either site's statitics meaningless on a global scheme but regardless, both of those show a larger firefox userbase than your claims.

    I think pretty much the only unbiased relevant source for any kind of browser / os statistics would be google and they don't make that publically available.

    W3Schools is a website for people with an interest for web technologies.
    These people are more interested in using alternative browsers than the average
    user. The average user tends to use Internet Explorer, since it comes
    preinstalled with Windows. Most do not seek out other browsers

    The site you link basically says the information on it is useless to your point :P The other site I don't know where it gathered it's information, and don't really feel like bothering to investigate, but it does seem to be fairly accurate. IE with about a 70% share is very much believable in my experience. Developers need to consider that the people they hang out with typically aren't the average user of sites they build (Unless it's a tech-oriented site). A biased sample does not make useful statistics :P

    That said, my approach is typically to aim for an approach that doesn't have to be browser-specific, or if I have to do browser-specific hacks rely on the the little tricks that make things not apply to other browsers. Typically if I get a site working in IE 6 and FF3 it works on FF2, Safari and IE7 the first time I look. Though there is of cause some exceptions, in fact I've managed to get severe differences just from firefox 2 and 3, but typically that's cause you've been too creative for your own good trying to get around some non-standard behaviour from one of the browsers. In this situation there's no reason that the swfobject javascript library couldn't have done the job way better than useragents.



  • @Arctic_Panda said:

    Maybe because a month ago over 8% of home computers use Ubuntu  and OS X and other Linux-based OSs. :P
    This Just In:  OSX is based on Linux



  • I trust that IE8 with its brand new CSS/HTML engine will allow us to sensibly use more cool stuff.

     

    I'm still amazed at how people still desperately cling to IE6, which is nothing more than the new NS4.7. I grudgingly test in IE6 because many a company's IT dept won't %$#@! upgrade already.



  • @Arctic_Panda said:

    Maybe because a month ago over 8% of home computers use Ubuntu  and OS X and other Linux-based OSs. :P

    WTF?  OS X is about 7% of the market.  Linux (including Ubuntu) is less than 1%. 



  • Maybe it's best to work with this kind of error-tolerance rather than against it. So what if sites can get away with not ‘supporting’ 1% of the market? It indicates that there's a tolerance for me to develop in my favourite browser and fix bugs in IE as they're reported, helping to give the impression that my preferred browser is superior.

    People putting up with bugs got the web like it is, so people putting up with bugs can also make it easier for me to develop stuff.



  • @ComputerForumUser said:

    develop in my favourite browser and fix bugs in IE as they're reported, helping to give the impression that my preferred browser is superior.
    Sounds like a great idea.  Are you always this cocky?  See also:  Unemployed.

    Wait, nvm.  You're all over the place.  Are you suggesting that your users tell you that your site doesn't work in IE?  If so, you belong on the front page.  "But it works in Opera!  Opera is great so all sites should work in it first." 



  • @ComputerForumUser said:

    Maybe it's best to work with this kind of error-tolerance rather than against it. So what if sites can get away with not ‘supporting’ 1% of the market? It indicates that there's a tolerance for me to develop in my favourite browser and fix bugs in IE as they're reported, helping to give the impression that my preferred browser is superior.

    People putting up with bugs got the web like it is, so people putting up with bugs can also make it easier for me to develop stuff.

    It has nothing to do with a favored browser, it has to do with market share and what is relevent to the people who pay me jewgoldz.  I don't care much for IE, but it is so overwhelmingly my target market that treating it as anything less than a defacto standard is suicide.  I do my best to work with the runners-up, but the more browsers I have to support, the more time I have to invest and the returns do not justify it.  Supporting IE, Safari and FF in that order takes care of over 99% of potential clients and is reasonably easy.  For all the whining about it, working with IE is not that difficult and FF, Safari, Opera and the rest all have their own annoying bugs.  If you have not reached a point where you detest the quirks of every single browser out there -- and not just IE -- then I do not buy that you are doing large-scale web development.

     

    All browsers have their quirks and this irrational belief that "following the standards" will somehow eliminate compatibility problems is just nonsense.  There is no way that separate applications written for separate platforms by completely different teams will be able to produce the exact same behavior given any application of non-arbitrary complexity.  The best thing that ever happened to the web was the collapse of Netscape, the defacto standardization around IE and the documenting of web standards off of the behavior of IE.  IE definitely has room for improvement -- all the browsers do -- but the attitude that IE with its ridiculous market share should conform to standards that aren't particularly better than the one established by IE is silly.  Just because a "standards body" dictated a particular way for the web to function does not mean that it is sensible for this mandate to take precedence over reality.  What's more, I do not believe that any innovation of significance will come from a standards body like the W3C.  The best the W3C can do is come in after the hard work has been done and document the whole thing and maybe whine a bit when the actually innovator is unwilling to expend the resources to conform to this new, documented standard.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    You fail basic web statistics.  IE is still easily 90% of the market.

    FWIW On my company's corporate site IE accounted for around 40%, with IE7 edging out IE6. Firefox has 44%, Safari 2% and the rest bots. This is stats from the last couple of weeks.



  • Oh dear, this is all so very, very wrong and backwards.

    You may think standards suck (and granted, some of them are a pain) but they're there for a reason. Almost every modern browser out there tries to follow them, also for a reason. There may be quirks, there may be omissions, there may be small variances in interpretation (which isn't necessarily an issue, some things are deliberately left to interpretation by the UA - that's not a bug, it's a feature), but if you use e.g. FF to develop (and know which "features" of FF not to use, which comes down to experience I guess) you can be pretty sure your handiwork will work correctly in all the others (Opera, Safari).

    Phase two: fix it for IE7. This usually requires a relatively small amount of work, usually to do with the fact that IE /still/ doesn't understand positioning like it should.

    Phase three: fix it for IE6. This is the grunt of your work as IE6, well, doesn't really support anything (and if it does it does so wrongly). Extend to even older versions of IE as needs be.

    Why this way around? Simple: IE supports the Microsoft-proprietary Conditional Comments, meaning you can safely hide any kind of fix from the browsers that don't need it (and that's something I'd like to actually see in the standard, since it would be great to be able to fix those few annoyances in all the other browsers). Also, IE is the odd one out here. It may be the biggest, but if you start out in IE and have to fix for FF etc., believe me, you'll be off a lot worse.

    Of course one should support IE6&7. Because I can tell you right now, IE8 isn't going to be /less/ conforming than its ancestors. So building for IE6 is going to leave you in real trouble in a year or two from now. Like the poor sods who built the scrabble-site in this post. Stating that IE is the only thing that matters is just stupid IMNSHO, and it /will/ come back to bite you.

    PS what about NS4? Eh, well, if you really want to support it (which IMHO seems a bit silly these days, but whatever) you can either make sure your product gracefully degrades (which is always a good idea, even supporting Lynx isn't that hard ;-)) /or/ actually do some browser sniffing just for NS4. I personally wouldn't bother with the last option though, unless there's some very specific situation in which a significant percentage of your viewers use it.



  • @belgariontheking said:

    Are you suggesting that your users tell you that your site doesn't work in IE?

    I'm not cocky, it's just how I avoid feeling stressed working in WTFland. I don't mean the site not working at all, but troubles with alignment or clever effects that my boss wants. Mostly I work on the server side things though - my boss tends to mess up any frontend designs I do anyway. 



  • @ComputerForumUser said:

    @belgariontheking said:

    Are you suggesting that your users tell you that your site doesn't work in IE?

    I'm not cocky, it's just how I avoid feeling stressed working in WTFland. I don't mean the site not working at all, but troubles with alignment or clever effects that my boss wants. Mostly I work on the server side things though - my boss tends to mess up any frontend designs I do anyway. 

    K, I was afraid you were releasing things with a "report browser issues here" as opposed to using QA.



  • @Quietust said:

    Because there wasn't actually a link, just a screenshot, and I couldn't be bothered to retype the URL in another browser window and have some Javascript screw up my window positions.

    I use a Firefox extension called Controle de Scripts to obtain better control over what JavaScript can do. This includes resizing windows when I don't want it, and stopping me from resizing windows when I do.



  • @Monomelodies said:

    which isn't necessarily an issue, some things are deliberately left to interpretation by the UA - that's not a bug, it's a feature

    Try explaining this to design and marketing people who want things to behave the same.  This is a large part of the problem with HTML/CSS, because HTML essentially dictates light markup that can he displayed many different ways and then CSS tries to add pixel-perfect layout and styling on top of it.

     

    @Monomelodies said:

    if you use e.g. FF to develop (and know which "features" of FF not to use, which comes down to experience I guess) you can be pretty sure your handiwork will work correctly in all the others (Opera, Safari).

    I actually do use FF to develop, but in my experience the differences between IE and FF are about the same as the differences between FF and Safari.  Opera is just way out there in terms of what works and what doesn't.

     

    @Monomelodies said:

    Phase two: fix it for IE7. This usually requires a relatively small amount of work, usually to do with the fact that IE /still/ doesn't understand positioning like it should.

    I never usually have to do much for IE7.  Then again, I am very familiar with the various browser limitations so I guess I'm working around all the various limitations of the different browsers as I go.  Still, IE7 is not that big of a deal.

     

    @Monomelodies said:

    This is the grunt of your work as IE6, well, doesn't really support anything (and if it does it does so wrongly).

    Eh?  IE6 is a bit more quirky than new versions of FF, but it's also 7 years old.  Your "doesn't really support anything" comment is complete bullshit.  IE6 isn't beautiful, but it's hardly the worst browser I've worked with.

     

    @Monomelodies said:

    Simple: IE supports the Microsoft-proprietary Conditional Comments, meaning you can safely hide any kind of fix from the browsers that don't need it (and that's something I'd like to actually see in the standard, since it would be great to be able to fix those few annoyances in all the other browsers).

    Conditional comments would be good, but then people would modify the conditions that their browser recognizes and whine when behavior changes.  UA sniffing achieves approximately the same thing, but to each his own.

     

    @Monomelodies said:

    It may be the biggest, but if you start out in IE and have to fix for FF etc., believe me, you'll be off a lot worse.

    The only reason I start with FF is because it has all of my development tools which makes the bulk of new development easy.  When it comes to tweaking, I bust out the other browsers, but I don't think I would have much more trouble from a tweaking standpoint if I started with IE and then used the others.

     

    @Monomelodies said:

    Of course one should support IE6&7. Because I can tell you right now, IE8 isn't going to be /less/ conforming than its ancestors. So building for IE6 is going to leave you in real trouble in a year or two from now. Like the poor sods who built the scrabble-site in this post. Stating that IE is the only thing that matters is just stupid IMNSHO, and it /will/ come back to bite you.

    Where did I ever say you should only build for IE6??  If it came down to one browser I would develop for IE 6/7/8.  I know IE8 will be different, which is why I do extensive testing with beta versions of IE, FF and Safari.  My software is compatible with a new browser months before that browser is released.  It seems you just sort of took your whole anti-IE thing and projected an argument on to me that I didn't even make.

     

    @Monomelodies said:

    you can either make sure your product gracefully degrades (which is always a good idea, even supporting Lynx isn't that hard ;-))

    Are you serious?  We aren't talking about viewing a blog here, we're talking about complex web apps.  There is no way in hell that stuff will degrade gracefully in Lynx and there is no reason for anyone to be using Lynx in the first place.



  • @Daniel Beardsmore said:

    I use a Firefox extension called Controle de Scripts to obtain better control over what JavaScript can do. This includes resizing windows when I don't want it, and stopping me from resizing windows when I do.

    It doesn't let you bypass my right-click disabling copyright protection, does it??  That would make it illegal under German law as a hacking tool and US law as a violation of the DMCA. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Try explaining this to design and marketing people who want things to behave the same.  This is a large part of the problem with HTML/CSS, because HTML essentially dictates light markup that can he displayed many different ways and then CSS tries to add pixel-perfect layout and styling on top of it.

    You just sort-of described my day job. The answer is always simple; pixel-perfect simply does not exist in HTML/CSS. Get used to it, or go back to DTP of Flash or whatever. Describing CSS as "trying to add pixel-perfect layout" is a fallacy in itself; there's a reason you can use percentages. Once you let go of the idea of pixel-perfection, things start to get much clearer.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    I actually do use FF to develop, but in my experience the differences between IE and FF are about the same as the differences between FF and Safari.  Opera is just way out there in terms of what works and what doesn't.

    I'd genuinely be interested to see some of the sites you've worked on. I don't mean this as a flame; they really sound like they could be insightful! Personally, I VERY rarely have beef with Opera, Safari or Konqueror once FF works.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    I never usually have to do much for IE7.  Then again, I am very familiar with the various browser limitations so I guess I'm working around all the various limitations of the different browsers as I go.  Still, IE7 is not that big of a deal.

    Well, like I said, it's less of a deal than IE6, but it's still a deal. And some rendering bugs just still exist. I worked around a few today. Unless you consider otherwise-perfectly-fitting floats needing 10px of extra space not a bug, of course.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Eh?  IE6 is a bit more quirky than new versions of FF, but it's also 7 years old.  Your "doesn't really support anything" comment is complete bullshit.  IE6 isn't beautiful, but it's hardly the worst browser I've worked with.

    "7 years old" is IMHO no excuse for "screwing up". Do you use floats at all? Aren't your hairs grey from IE6's seemingly random interpretation of them? Do you think hasLayout is something to be coveted rather than despised? Think the double-margin bug actually makes sense? C'mon.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Conditional comments would be good, but then people would modify the conditions that their browser recognizes and whine when behavior changes.  UA sniffing achieves approximately the same thing, but to each his own.

    No, it doesn't. The word "sniffing" implies as much. CC's /could/ be a way to reliably achieve this. Of course, in a perfect world they wouldn't be needed, but that's another matter. As long as UA behaviour doesn't change between versions they'd be great. Of course, a problem ensues when, I don't know, IE for Mac shows different behaviour then IE/Win. But that's really a vendor problem.

    Oh well. In a perfect world they'd be perfect but not needed. In a less than perfect world - wait, you've convinced me. They shouldn't be necessary!

    @morbiuswilters said:

    The only reason I start with FF is because it has all of my development tools which makes the bulk of new development easy.  When it comes to tweaking, I bust out the other browsers, but I don't think I would have much more trouble from a tweaking standpoint if I started with IE and then used the others.

    If you're experienced enough, I bet you wouldn't. But only because your head would be rendering what all the other browsers do, which makes this a bit of a moot argument.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Where did I ever say you should only build for IE6??  If it came down to one browser I would develop for IE 6/7/8.  I know IE8 will be different, which is why I do extensive testing with beta versions of IE, FF and Safari.  My software is compatible with a new browser months before that browser is released.  It seems you just sort of took your whole anti-IE thing and projected an argument on to me that I didn't even make.

    The words "one browser" and "IE 6/7/8" in one sentence sort of made me laugh. Cheers. FWIW, my sites(sic) are also compatible with any software released between now and 200 years. As long as the standards don't change, or stay backwards compatible...

     @morbiuswilters said:

    Are you serious?  We aren't talking about viewing a blog here, we're talking about complex web apps.

    Orly? So your apps only work client-side? No server-side fallback? No concerns at all what happens when some script-kiddie with greasemonkey comes by?

    Really, it's almost always better to write out your stuff in plain HTML and make sure the server handles whatever's thrown at it correctly, and then /maybe/ tart it up for JS/AJAX-enabled users. You'll have the best of both worlds.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    There is no way in hell that stuff will degrade gracefully in Lynx and there is no reason for anyone to be using Lynx in the first place

    GoogleBot says he disagrees. Actually, I disagree whenever I'm in the datacentre and am stuck to a terminal. Ok, there's a difference between internet and intranet, and sure, you can bend the rules if you know the right parameters. But as a rule of thumb, sir, I must vehemently disagree with you.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    It doesn't let you bypass my right-click disabling copyright protection, does it??  That would make it illegal under German law as a hacking tool and US law as a violation of the DMCA. 

    Oh pur-lease don't get me started on the idiosyncracies of the law. I'm sincerely hoping I don't have to explain to you that the fact that these laws (actually, it's mostly juris-prudence) imply that you can only surf the web with javascript enabled are total and utter nonsense and wouldn't stand up in any serious court?



  • @Monomelodies said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    It doesn't let you bypass my right-click disabling copyright protection, does it??  That would make it illegal under German law as a hacking tool and US law as a violation of the DMCA. 

    Oh pur-lease don't get me started on the idiosyncracies of the law. I'm sincerely hoping I don't have to explain to you that the fact that these laws (actually, it's mostly juris-prudence) imply that you can only surf the web with javascript enabled are total and utter nonsense and wouldn't stand up in any serious court?

     

    You do realize that was a joke, right?   Also, why do you put slashes around words that you want to emphasize.  Why not italicize them or something.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @Daniel Beardsmore said:

    I use a Firefox extension called Controle de Scripts to obtain better control over what JavaScript can do. This includes resizing windows when I don't want it, and stopping me from resizing windows when I do.

    It doesn't let you bypass my right-click disabling copyright protection, does it??  That would make it illegal under German law as a hacking tool and US law as a violation of the DMCA. 

    I've written my own Web testing tool with its own UA identifier, and, given that you can get handed over to the law by BT for using merely Lynx (oo that horrid hacker used a program we don't recognise) I've actually wondered if one day I'll get fined for using my own tool. As for bypassing anti right-click, I think Firefox does that all by itself, and besides, Save Complete takes care of all that nonsense anyway. Last time I checked, though, it didn't work on Flickr -- there's been a new version since so maybe that's fixed now. I wish Flickr allowed middle-click on the All Sizes button.

    @Monomelodies said:

    But as a rule of thumb, sir, I must vehemently disagree with you.

    I bite my rule of thumb at you, sir.



  • @Monomelodies said:

    otherwise-perfectly-fitting floats needing 10px of extra space
     

    What situation is that? I've not had an issue in IE7 with that sort of thing. After IE6 double-margin-bug and 3px-hard-space-bug were fixed, it's all been hunkydory in IE7.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.