×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Adding CSS3 Support To IE 6, 7 and 8 With CSS3 Pie

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the bringing-civilization-to-the-savages dept.

Internet Explorer 142

rsk writes "Internet Explorer 6, 7 and to some extent 8 have been the bane of every CSS-loving web developer for years. With the spreading adoption of CSS3's fancier rendering effects, like rounded edges, drop shadows and linear gradients, the frustration of needing to deal with IE compatibility is growing. 327 Creative's Jason Johnston has created the CSS3 Pie library to address this. CSS3 Pie adds support for CSS3's most popular rendering techniques to Internet Explorer 6, 7 and 8 by way of the IE-only CSS property 'behavior.' CSS3 Pie is open sourced under the Apache 2 license and can be accessed from its github repository."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

142 comments

IE? Seriously? (4, Insightful)

jon42689 (1098973) | more than 2 years ago | (#32937836)

Honestly, while I realize that there are some people out there using IE, I almost never make it a priority in development. "Oh, it doesn't work? What browser are you using? Internet explorer? Oh, that's the issue then." Why are we trying to fix something that is broken by design and is about as closed as a nun's c**t?

some people? (0)

ArchieBunker (132337) | more than 2 years ago | (#32937866)

If by "some people" you mean a majority.

Re:some people? (3, Insightful)

bunratty (545641) | more than 2 years ago | (#32937876)

It depends on the site. Some sites have 95% of users using IE. Others have 30% of users using IE.

i dont want my site to work with ie (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32937954)

tehn the morons wont show up as much as they do

Re:i dont want my site to work with ie (3, Funny)

zim2411 (700459) | more than 2 years ago | (#32938196)

tehn the morons wont show up as much as they do

Oh the irony.

Re:some people? (1)

nmg196 (184961) | more than 2 years ago | (#32938160)

I'm willing to bet my life that less than 2% of sites have only 30% of users using IE. None of mine have IE at less than 50%.. even ones aimed at people in the creative industry where Mac usage is disproportionately large.

Re:some people? (1)

howdotheydothat (1359627) | more than 2 years ago | (#32938278)

I'm updating a site right now that has 18% of visitors using IE6. Keep hoping I'm going to wake up and it'll all be a bad dream.

Re:some people? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32938348)

quit moaning. it is what it is. html is for text & images and that's it. fark orf with the rounded corners already!!!!!

Re:some people? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32938326)

ever wonder why this css crap doesn't get anywhere? because outside of your clueless little circles, no one really wants this stuff.

stay out of web design - please.

Re:some people? (1)

Xtifr (1323) | more than 2 years ago | (#32938406)

Yeah, even W3Schools [w3schools.com], which is aimed at web developers, and thus is notorious for having high non-IE users, still has 33% IE. Of course, their IE6 numbers are down to 7%, still more than Safari and Opera combined, but only half the size of Chrome.

I could see a strong case for dropping IE6 support, as its numbers are steadily dropping, and it's not supported upstream, and it is disproportionately difficult to support (to put it mildly), but no IE support in general is an idea for hobbyists and the most niche of sites only.

Almost never make it a priority in development (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32937870)

Me either. But on those rare occasions when I'm not developing for unicorns, I have to consider the real world.

Re:Almost never make it a priority in development (1)

jon42689 (1098973) | more than 2 years ago | (#32937896)

Me either. But on those rare occasions when I'm not developing for unicorns, I have to consider the real world.

I get that... I just hate having to intentionally break things to make it appear to work.

Re:Almost never make it a priority in development (4, Insightful)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | more than 2 years ago | (#32938490)

Web developers have this really weird reality perception filter. It's almost like 1984 "doublethink". We have always been at war with Flash, CSS 3 is our friend.

In Web developerland, whatever the current standard is, has always been the standard, and thus anything that doesn't conform to it is "broken". This ignores the fact that other standards existed before the current standard, and that the meaning of the standards have even changed (CSS2.1 for instance, redefines a great deal of CSS2).

Granted, IE6 is broken, but not in the way most developers seem to think, or want to claim. It had bugs, and when it was designed, the W3C had not clarified how the box model was supposed to work, and IE6's assumptions were were wrong.

However, IE6's major failing is simply that it did not evolve. People like to claim IE6 today was intentionally designed to violate standards that didn't even exist when IE6 was created (or were at best ill defined). Mozilla was likewise broken in many such ways, but they evolved and fixed their problems over time. It's like calling a car that requires leaded gasoline "broken" because all you can find is unleaded gas today. It's not broken, it's just out of date.

Yes, it's frustrating that there is this huge legacy burden on web developers, but please people, stop rewriting history. Stop forming the perception filter that turns you into conspiracy theory spouting retards with no concept of how the web actually was created. (appologies to any real conspiracy theory spouting handi-capable people reading this message, i'm an insensitive clod).

Re:Almost never make it a priority in development (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32938744)

Sorry, that isn't the reality - its revisionist and misleading. At launch, IE6 did not support the standards in place then. Not close to completely, not correctly (even in places where no interpretation was needed), and where they could interpret - they did so poorly (as you acknowledge).

Since then, plenty of standards have finalized that were in draft, in wide use, and easily adopted by dozens (yes, dozens) of other browsers. IE did not.

I was there before IE4. Back when Microsoft was actually trying to keep up. They took a decade off, and IE6 was near the beginning of it.

Re:Almost never make it a priority in development (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 2 years ago | (#32938750)

IE6 wasn't very good even right when it came out. At the time, Mozilla was at version 0.9.x and had far better standards support. Remember the issue with alpha transparency in PNGs, for example? Or not handling documents served with Content-Type application/xhtml+xml properly?

The difference was that Netscape 4 (virtually no CSS support) and Opera 6 (no dynamic reflow) sucked even worse than IE6. Even Mozilla 0.9.x had quite a few problems. Today, Firefox, Chrome, Safari and Opera are all strong browsers, so IE looks even worse in comparison.

Re:Almost never make it a priority in development (3, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 2 years ago | (#32939136)

People like to claim IE6 today was intentionally designed to violate standards that didn't even exist when IE6 was created (or were at best ill defined).

Seeing as Microsoft went to court and lost over intentionally plotting to break compatibility with both published standards and other browsers... I don't think it's really too big of a stretch to believe. It's the "extend, extinguish" part in it's original sense from the e-mail evidence.

Re:Almost never make it a priority in development (1)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | more than 3 years ago | (#32940618)

Uhh... what?

What universe do you live in? That never happened. MS originally lost the DOJ case in regards to browser tying, but that had nothing to do with standards compliance. Especially if you consider there was no other standards conformant browser out there (Mozilla had just started development)

The tying argument was overturned on appeal, though and that had nothing to do with jackson's behavior, the appeals court found no evidence to support the claim.

Re:Almost never make it a priority in development (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 3 years ago | (#32940374)

Web developers have this really weird reality perception filter. It's almost like 1984 "doublethink". We have always been at war with Flash, CSS 3 is our friend.

You must hang out with some really unusual web developers. Most web developers I know are almost slavishly devoted to testing on IE6 and not adopting new standards unless they can be tweaked to work in IE6. Most also really like Flash. While some of the more progressive developers are into things like HTML5, they are the minority.

I think you have a distorted perception. There are vast numbers of people out there doing HTML who have barely progressed beyond Microsoft FrontPage, and struggle with things like CSS.

Re:Almost never make it a priority in development (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 2 years ago | (#32938184)

But on those rare occasions when I'm not developing for unicorns, I have to consider the real world.

I hate developing for unicorns - they always prefer Opera.

Re:IE? Seriously? (1)

JazzyMusicMan (1012801) | more than 2 years ago | (#32937886)

Unfortunately that can't always be your answer, especially when your site is an enterprise application, and the bread and butter of your system. As much as we would like to shun users of old or crummy software, sometimes, they're the ones keeping the lights on. Any help with allowing us to support them is help worth taking advantage of, in my opinion.

Re:IE? Seriously? (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 2 years ago | (#32937888)

"are the wheel nuts tight?"

"tight as a nun's cunt."

"you'd better give them another turn then."

As for IE, some people would just rather not have to deal with third party crap. However, IE6? There really is no reason to run that anymore. Won't IE7 or 8 run on Windows 98?

Re:IE? Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32937918)

My department *just* dropped support for IE6 this week and we serve hundreds of websites, at least.

Re:IE? Seriously? (2, Informative)

Mad Merlin (837387) | more than 2 years ago | (#32937924)

As for IE, some people would just rather not have to deal with third party crap. However, IE6? There really is no reason to run that anymore. Won't IE7 or 8 run on Windows 98?

No, IE7 and IE8 aren't supported on 98, ME or even 2000, XP and newer only.

Re:IE? Seriously? (1)

thetoastman (747937) | more than 2 years ago | (#32938374)

Windows 2000 is now completely unsupported. There will be no hot fixes, no security updates, and no paid support. The support expired with the last monthly patch.

Also, Windows 2000 seems to be less than 0.5 percent of all Windows machines connected to the Internet, according to this Ars Technica article [arstechnica.com].

While supporting IE 6 may have some residual value for those XP users who have not gone to IE 7 or IE 8, even Microsoft is encouraging people to move to the latest Internet Explorer.

In short, it may actually be an opportune time to drop support of IE 6 (and all of its attendant rendering bugs) when developing new web sites.

Note, your stakeholders may have a different take on this. I'm just mentioning that from a technical viewpoint it's becoming harder and harder to justify spending the effort to hack in IE 6 support.

Re:IE? Seriously? (1)

Xtifr (1323) | more than 2 years ago | (#32938492)

But plenty of other browsers are supported on those systems. I don't know of any system that's forced to use IE6 for technical reasons. Usually, it's political (i.e. management doesn't want to replace in-house apps that are IE6-only). I think IE6 can definitely be considered on-the-bubble on the open Internet. The cost of supporting it is steadily increasing and the potential benefits shrinking.

Re:IE? Seriously? (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 2 years ago | (#32939382)

But plenty of other browsers are supported on those systems.

Which ones and how old are they?

Of their Windows versions:
Firefox 3.6.6 requires [mozilla.com] Windows 2000 or newer.
Chrome (all versions) requires [google.com] Windows XP or newer.
Opera 10.60 requires [opera.com] Windows XP or newer.
Safari 5 requires [apple.com] Windows XP SP2 or newer.

Re:IE? Seriously? (1)

FredMenace (835698) | more than 3 years ago | (#32940208)

In fact you need XP SP2 or higher to install IE7.

IE6 was actually a great browser when it came out - the best browser in existence, hands down (its main competition was Netscape 4), and became something like 90% of the total browsers in use. But that was nearly 10 years ago... Nobody should be using it today, yet it's still 5-15% of the browsers in use.

The situation isn't IE6's fault, but it is Microsoft's fault for not making IE7 backward compatible with Win2K and early XP at the least. Actually, nobody should be using IE7 any more either...FireFox and Chrome users (and probably Safari, for the most part) manage to upgrade to pretty recent versions without any difficulty, so what is it about Internet Explorer that more than half its users are using versions at least 5 years old?

But still, even IE8 has zero support for CSS3 or HTML5, so even it needs massive help if developers want to move the web forward... We can all hope IE9 lives up to its promises, but how many years will it take before even half the IE users have switched over to it??

Re:IE? Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32937890)

Man your catholic school experience must have been a lot worse than mine.

My aopologies (-1, Offtopic)

gringofrijolero (1489395) | more than 2 years ago | (#32937916)

There was a young monk from Dundee
Who hung a nun's cunt on a tree.
He grabbed her fair ass
And performed a high mass
That even the Pope came to see.

Re:IE? Seriously? (1)

yoyhed (651244) | more than 2 years ago | (#32937920)

I want to do web development for whoever pays you to do it. Not having to code for IE would be heaven, but 95% of my clients want their shit to work well in IE because, unfortunately, most people still use it. This is the terrible world we live in.

Google Chrome Frame (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#32938998)

95% of my clients want their shit to work well in IE because, unfortunately, most people still use it.

First make your clients' shit look good in Google Chrome and IE 8, which is far less broken than 6 or 7. Then set your site to use Chrome Frame, a plug-in that uses Chrome's engine on pages that opt in.

Re:Google Chrome Frame (1)

yoyhed (651244) | more than 2 years ago | (#32939728)

You don't seem to understand - this requires the viewer to install Chrome Frame. As sweet as CF is, the reason these people are running IE6 or IE7 is because they're too ignorant/apathetic/incapable to upgrade their browser. You really think they'll install a plugin if even Windows Update's prompts for IE8 haven't gotten through yet?

Re:Google Chrome Frame (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#32939790)

You really think they'll install a plugin if even Windows Update's prompts for IE8 haven't gotten through yet?

For users on Windows XP, put up a video walkthrough of Windows Update in both Flash and Windows Media Player formats. For users on Windows 2000, put up a link to getfirefox.com.

Re:IE? Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32937984)

Agreed.
I make a basic-as-basic-can-get site that IE will display, then forget about it completely and do all the fun stuff with standards.
I'm not going to waste my time because they're too stupid / scared to use another browser, and i don't give a damn about people who work in companies who are forced to use IE due to ActiveX since most of the time, most of them are wasting work time... posting on here...
And if people still use ActiveX for banking, screw them, they're too stupid to change bank, too stupid for me to care about them.

All IE users are going to get from me is a nice message at the top of every page saying "Look, your browser sucks, click here to see why" with a page showing them why they NEED to upgrade their browser, that is the only help i will give them.
In fact, i just had an idea, i should emulate the silly IE messages that pop up at the top telling the users that IE is being cancelled, and if they don't upgrade they won't be able to access the web (facebook, Myspace, other examples). That'll make them switch!

Re:IE? Seriously? (1)

twocows (1216842) | more than 2 years ago | (#32938000)

Internet Explorer still has about 60% market share (http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=0). You can't really just ignore that, especially if you're developing for a business.

Re:IE? Seriously? (2, Interesting)

znu (31198) | more than 2 years ago | (#32938100)

Our approach for public sites is to make them look not broken in IE, because a broken looking site reflects poorly on us. (The kind of user who's still using IE is not going to understand it's their browser.) But we often make things look "not broken" by just removing design features that IE can't quite handle. In other words, IE gets a site that's functional, but not necessarily pretty.

Also, we no longer bother with IE6.

Of course we're in a Mac-heavy creative field; I think we get more hits from iPads than from IE. So we can afford to ignore it a little more than most, perhaps.

Re:IE? Seriously? (2, Insightful)

JansenVT (1235638) | more than 2 years ago | (#32938024)

Because it's our job to make the website look nice for everyone.

Re:IE? Seriously? (1)

Neon Aardvark (967388) | more than 2 years ago | (#32938474)

Because it's our job to make the website look nice for everyone.

No it's not, because that would involve supporting every single browser, however old and however non-compliant.

You draw the line somewhere (or the client does). If that line is the wrong side of IE6 you have my pity. Mine is elsewhere (not involving any version of IE whatsoever).

Re:IE? Seriously? (1)

Xtifr (1323) | more than 2 years ago | (#32938500)

Because it's our job to make the website look nice for everyone.

Really? And just how much effort do you put into testing with Mozaic and Lynx? :)

The fact is that there's almost always a point of diminishing returns. IE5 and Netscape4 are both past it, and IE6 is rapidly approaching it.

Accessibility (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#32939024)

Testing in Lynx is fairly important if your client is subject to section 508 of the US Rehabilitation Act (or foreign counterparts) because a lot of web browsers designed for blind people act like Lynx.

Re:Accessibility (1)

PRMan (959735) | more than 2 years ago | (#32939268)

OK, I always find this funny. Of all the sites I go to, the only ones that don't work in Firefox are government sites.

Re:IE? Seriously? (1)

CiarnOS (1325141) | more than 2 years ago | (#32938062)

I use IE7 within Citrix to browse Slashdot because I cannot do so on the desktop with Opera.

I have a manager who is afraid of technology.
I'm assuming that's a shocking amount of IT Managers which means old browsers are going to be used indefinitely
with something like this the standards can already be be in place for future browser upgrades.

Re:IE? Seriously? (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 2 years ago | (#32938080)

Question would be "why". Being essentially an add-on, this really won't solve anything for those that IE as a browser is designed for - the average mom and pop crowd that won't even know what CSS stands for.

This sounds like a technical solution to a social problem of people generally not understanding the tools they're using and not caring about them.

Re:IE? Seriously? (1)

XanC (644172) | more than 2 years ago | (#32938186)

Why wouldn't it? It doesn't require them to actually do anything. This is for developers.

Re:IE? Seriously? (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 2 years ago | (#32939994)

Well, it still won't work on IE installation without it, so you would probably want to test it on IE without the library rather then with it.

And for proper testing, there are much better alternatives then IE. IMHO.

Re:IE? Seriously? (1)

yoyhed (651244) | more than 2 years ago | (#32938360)

This is a method for developers to get sites to look nice in IE easily, this has nothing to do with end users. Coding for all the good browsers -and- IE usually just means a terrible headache where you spend 2/3 of your time fixing shit that won't work in IE. This seeks to eliminate that nightmare situation, as far as the making-websites-pretty side of development goes.

Re:IE? Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32938124)

There's a huge difference between some pointless public site and a business one with paying clients. IE is a pain and shouldn't get preferential treatment, but when a client that is basically paying your salary says their access doesn't work properly, even if it's an IE bug, you fix it or get fired.

Re:IE? Seriously? (1)

nmg196 (184961) | more than 2 years ago | (#32938130)

> I realize that there are some people out there using IE,

What do you mean "some" - the majority of people use IE. It has by far the biggest market share. I'm sure you realise that. And you're talking about IE like all versions are the same. IE 8 renders almost identically to Firefox/Chrome etc. It's only IE6 and 7 which were the problem.

If you're not making it a priority in development, then I hope your business fails because you obviously don't care about the majority of your customers.

Re:IE? Seriously? (1)

MyDixieWrecked (548719) | more than 2 years ago | (#32938140)

Although I still feel that way, I've been forced on several occasions to make things look and function in IE (8 or newer only, luckily). One customer hounded us to get their site working in 6, and after we spent a week building a system to detect the browser and output different HTML and were only 1/2 done, they changed their minds.

It's sometimes difficult for non-technical customers to understand that each version of IE is a different beast and requires you do do much of the front-end work over again for each version.

If it was up to me, I'd just say that we don't support IE, but a good chunk of windows users on the public internet have not installed an alternate browser. I just don't get it.

Re:IE? Seriously? (1)

narcc (412956) | more than 2 years ago | (#32939262)

a good chunk of windows users on the public internet have not installed an alternate browser. I just don't get it.

That's easy. The majority of internet users are completely computer illiterate. They don't know what a browser is, don't distinguish the terms 'the internet' and 'the web', don't know what a web address is, they don't even know what files are (even the ones that "do a lot of pictures").

The vast majority of internet users will say things like 'I have yahoo as my internet' -- and be completely confident in that answer!

If you think I'm only talking about the over-50 crowd, kids aren't any better. I had a kid the other day (about 11) in the computer lab who asked me if I had I calculator. I said "you're sitting in front of one" -- Before I could show him how to access the calculator app, he exclaimed "I didn't know computer were that powerful!"

That's why the majority of internet users don't upgrade their browser. They don't know what a broswer is, let alone that they'd need to upgrade it.

Re:IE? Seriously? (2, Insightful)

MyDixieWrecked (548719) | more than 2 years ago | (#32939462)

The worst thing is that, when it comes to upgrading their browser, their assumption IS valid. They shouldn't HAVE to install a 3rd party browser. I'm not saying that there shouldn't BE 3rd party browsers, but the browser that comes with your OS should at least work properly.

One of my semi-techie friends saw those Chrome commercials and said to me "you told me that google was NOT a browser, but look, it is! You don't know what you're talking about!" I seriously think that it's a conspiracy to confuse consumers lately. Between confusing branding (Motorola Droid vs HTC Droid Incredible vs Android OS vs "Droid Does" and this whole 4G thing) and confusing metrics that are difficult (if not impossible) to explain to non-technical users (4MP vs 8MP camera, it's possible that the 4MP takes better pictures... and the difference between 4" and 5" display, when the 4" has higher pixel dimensions). And don't get me started on the difference between a fast internet connection, fast network connection, fast computer and fast browser.

So now you have uninformed users throwing terms around that they think they understand, you've got companies leveraging these misunderstandings to sell overpriced, sub-par electronics, and all these inexpensive electronics that you buy every year that are incompatible with each other (chargers, data cables, etc).

Keep consumers in the dark and confused so you can sell them whatever you want.

Re:IE? Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32938142)

In the last 5 years i've developed numerous sites and applications and at no point have i tested ANY of them for comparability in IE.

The fact is that at this point in time IE is a minority browser. Today, it's simply not worth the time or worry bothering to develop for IE.

Re:IE? Seriously? (4, Insightful)

SashaMan (263632) | more than 2 years ago | (#32938162)

The fact that this was modded insightful is even more proof of why most tech people should never run a business. "Oh, the majority of users on the internet can't use your site? Tell 'em it's their problem."

Re:IE? Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32938168)

I love how Slashtards live in a fantasy land where they can make these decisions just because they have a stick up their ass. It is easy to tell who develops to put food on the table and those that know a little HTML and think they're in the same category.

Re:IE? Seriously? (1)

nmg196 (184961) | more than 2 years ago | (#32938172)

Any chance of posting your company name, so I know who to avoid when I want my website to render properly for the vast majority of my users?

Re:IE? Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32939564)

Fucking business droid. There's no indication that the OP designs web sites for a company, but you just assume he does because money is the only thing your tiny mind can contemplate. Go die in a fire.

Re:IE? Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32940566)

Yeah that's right! He develops web sites for all of GNU/Linux buddies only. Who cares about fucking business when you're in your mom's basement. When GNU/Linux finally becomes cool they'll all be popular and getting laid while you're sitting there with your piles of money.

Re:IE? Seriously? (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 2 years ago | (#32938550)

Honestly, while I realize that there are some people out there using IE, I almost never make it a priority in development.

I would be interested in knowing who your clients are.

IE's global market share is 60%. IE 8's share alone is 25%. Browser Version Market Share [hitslink.com]

The mobile platforms remain quite insignificant in terms of web browsing. Operating System Market Share [hitslink.com]

Re:IE? Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32938558)

You are lucky that you can do that. I develop custom web apps for companies and IE support is always a requirement. It is only recently that we have been able to drop IE6 support. All the other browsers are much faster and render the site better but no one uses them. The areas that depend on cutting-edge (at least to Microsoft) web technologies are the most likely to use IE.

IT is full of people who use and love Firefox but have to standardize on IE because of important web apps that are IE only.

Re:IE? Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32939864)

Don't be thick.

Pointless. (0, Offtopic)

newtown1100 (1415771) | more than 2 years ago | (#32937856)

If you were intelligent enough to know how to install CSS3 Pie*, you wouldn't even use IE.

*not exactly "install" per se seeing as it's a library, not an application but you know what I mean. Hopefully.

Re:Pointless. (5, Insightful)

yoyhed (651244) | more than 2 years ago | (#32937902)

This isn't pointless - do you understand what this is? This isn't for people that use IE, it's for people that develop websites for IE. This is a Godsend for me.

Developing nice-looking websites in Chrome/Firefox/Safari/Opera is easy as PIE (pun intended), but when you want that same site to look good in IE it's a fucking nightmare. This provides some easy ways of making a site look nice in all the major browsers without a huge coding headache.

Finally!! (1)

WebManWalking (1225366) | more than 2 years ago | (#32938178)

Totally agree. It's for us developers. I'm going to use just about everything it supports, maybe even later today. My buttons are gonna look SO GOOD.

Re:Pointless. (1)

Jorl17 (1716772) | more than 2 years ago | (#32938412)

It so just happens that people develop for platform X because of reasons Y. In this case, there is one reason: popularity and third-party support / enforcing. So, a logical diagram shows that for one to stop having to develop for platform X, then reason Y has to stop existing. This means that for us to stop developing for IE, it has to stop being supported, used and enforced.

So, the next question is: How do we do it? One of the possible (and probably *smartest*) answers is: let it die, or don't allow your websites to use it.
Nevertheless, saying that "This isn't for people that use IE, it's for people that develop websites for I" ends up being redundant and, IMO, silly, as I just logically demonstrated.

Re:Pointless. (1)

Jorl17 (1716772) | more than 2 years ago | (#32938878)

Doing the silly thing of answering to myself, I should add that I get what you said (parent misunderstood the library), but I still disagree with it being an atomsend.

Re:Pointless. (1)

yoyhed (651244) | more than 2 years ago | (#32939766)

Well obviously letting IE die is the way to fix the REAL problem. This isn't about the real problem - this is about a really nice bandaid.

I'm not so idealistic that I'm going to refuse to make sites work in IE and thus put myself starving on the streets - because I don't write sites for myself. I write them for clients who have ignorant customers, who are probably using IE.

It may not seem like a big deal, but these CSS3 properties can instantly make a site look nicer to a client that doesn't know much about design. These are things they demand anyway. Now it's a lot easier to do them.

Re:Pointless. (1)

rsk (119464) | more than 2 years ago | (#32937914)

newtown, I think that's probably a fair statement... but the library is intended for developers that have to target a luddite crowd that either cannot change or doesn't know any better.

Imagine, for example, the requirements BofA.com or Wellsfargo.com has... they probably have to target IE 6 for another 5 years given their user base and that rules out a lot of nice looking CSS... this library addresses that for those devs that have to target crowds that aren't up to date.

It's pretty damn slick actually... technologically speaking, that it can even *do* this stuff in the first place.

I didn't even know IE 6 could render text correctly let alone run JavaScript effectively enough to mock this stuff up in it.

Re:Pointless. (5, Informative)

A Friendly Troll (1017492) | more than 2 years ago | (#32937926)

If you were intelligent enough to know how to install CSS3 Pie*, you wouldn't even use IE.
*not exactly "install" per se seeing as it's a library, not an application but you know what I mean. Hopefully.

You seem to have misunderstood what this is about... The end-user doesn't install anything. The .htc resides on the server and it's the developer who includes the library and makes it work.

To be fair, however, CSS3 Pie isn't something that you should actually use, considering that it slows down the browser massively and it just adds the ability to display useless visual cruft.

This library, on the other hand, is several orders of magnitude more useful (and I'm dead serious about it): http://code.google.com/p/ie7-js/ [google.com]

Re:Pointless. (1)

yoyhed (651244) | more than 2 years ago | (#32937970)

I know CSS3 Pie basically only lets you display eye candy, but you have to understand some web developers' clients WANT this shit. They don't understand good minimalist design, they want things to be shiny and flashy.

That JS library looks pretty awesome. The PNG transparency in IE6 is nice, but it also says it fixes CSS issues - does it just fix bugs in the way IE renders CSS, or does it implement JS equivalents of modern CSS eye candy like CSS3 Pie too? If so, I'd use it.

Re:Pointless. (1)

A Friendly Troll (1017492) | more than 2 years ago | (#32938390)

That JS library looks pretty awesome. The PNG transparency in IE6 is nice, but it also says it fixes CSS issues - does it just fix bugs in the way IE renders CSS, or does it implement JS equivalents of modern CSS eye candy like CSS3 Pie too? If so, I'd use it.

Look here:

http://ie7-js.googlecode.com/svn/test/index.html [googlecode.com]

No, it doesn't include the fancy shadows and rounded borders, but you get extremely helpful CSS selectors and even some really basic HTML5 functionality when it comes to IE7/8. The fixes for IE6 are incredible if you are unfortunate enough to be forced to develop for it; this makes things a lot better.

This is huge progress for Internet Standards (1)

CiarnOS (1325141) | more than 2 years ago | (#32937906)

If CSS3 Pie can gain traction among developers this will push the benefits of a unified Code Standard massively.

A site can be written in CSS3 now and work almost everywhere. If IE9 can get it all right the transition to an open
playing field for any group creating a browser will make life easier for developers and i hate to say it but users too.

LET IT DIE (3, Insightful)

v1 (525388) | more than 2 years ago | (#32937996)

the last thing we need is more people coming up with hacks to give PHBs another excuse not to leave the dark ages.

If anything, we need more of the web dev tools to make pages that are outright guaranteed not to work with IE6-7.

Re:LET IT DIE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32938198)

let it die? er... if you can't make a website that is compatible with the most popular browsers then you shouldn't be working as a web developer. its that simple. seriously - go do something else.

no one wants or needs the css crap anyhow, it makes the pages heavy and you guys don't have the foggiest notion of what constitutes decent or attractive design anyhow. just keep it to yourselves.

Re:LET IT DIE (1)

physicsphairy (720718) | more than 2 years ago | (#32938244)

If anything, we need more of the web dev tools to make pages that are outright guaranteed not to work with IE6-7.

That's a fine philosophy when you're sitting in your armchair, but do you think that people who use websites to generate revenue are really going to say, "Well, the extra profit would sure be nice, but instead we're going to take a moral stand and let the IE6 users slip away to our competitors"?

The main concern is for your visitors to see what you want them to see, not to propagate software evangelism. Hopefully hacks like this will ease the burden on developers, and end-users can migrate as their old systems die off and because the browsers that don't require hacks manage the rendering much faster. It's a slower victory... but still a victory.

Re:LET IT DIE (1)

v1 (525388) | more than 2 years ago | (#32938656)

That's a fine philosophy when you're sitting in your armchair,

No, that's "thinking of US instead of thinking of ME". Too many people thinking of ME is why things like IE6, that are just plain bad for the public as a whole, are still so prevalent.

Please try to start thinking about US instead of ME ME ME.

Re:LET IT DIE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32939606)

Too many people thinking of ME is why things like IE6, that are just plain bad for the public as a whole, are still so prevalent.

To be fair, IE6 runs on other versions of Windows too.

Re:LET IT DIE (1)

zuperduperman (1206922) | more than 3 years ago | (#32940262)

Do you and everyone else bitching about IE6 / IE7 understand that this adds a bunch of features even to IE8 that web developers waste a huge amount of time implementing IE-only cruft for? (Eg: border-radius).

You can spend your years focusing on ideology and waging a war to rid the world of a browser you don't like if you want. I'll be back here in reality making beautiful web sites quickly and efficiently and accomplishing things in my life. For people like me, this kind of solution is a god send.

Forget CSS3, work on CSS2 (4, Informative)

Zarel (900479) | more than 2 years ago | (#32938222)

A lot of CSS2 features don't even work correctly in IE6 and IE7: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_(Cascading_Style_Sheets) [wikipedia.org]

A lot of the really useful selectors, for instance, aren't available in IE6. Not to mention min-width/max-width, and white-space:pre. And using left and right in the same rule makes IE6/IE7 ignore right. In IE6/IE7, there's plenty that goes unimplemented, like :active and :before and outline and display:table; and border-style:dotted; and vertical-align:middle; and background-position:fixed;.

These aren't obscure features no one uses, these are all features I've wanted to use while designing my webpages that are supported by every other browser that IE6 and IE7 don't support.

We should really be looking to fix those, first.

Re:Forget CSS3, work on CSS2 (1)

MemoryDragon (544441) | more than 2 years ago | (#32938462)

The only solution is to flush IE down the toilet, seriously...
It is either, designing webpages the proper way or doing gruntwork for IE and trying to guess how it behaves, trying to fix flaws by javascript and CSS hacking and hoping for the best.

CSS (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 2 years ago | (#32938296)

"CSS has been the bane of every information-loving web user for years."

Just give us the content! You're not an 'artist' and you're certainly not a 'programmer.'

Re:CSS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32938384)

"CSS has been the bane of every information-loving web user for years."

Just give us the content! You're not an 'artist' and you're certainly not a 'programmer.'

Yes, because separating the page layout and style markup from the actual content makes it much harder to just get said content.

Re:CSS (2, Informative)

AntiDragon (930097) | more than 2 years ago | (#32938564)

One of the key points of CSS is the ability to override/disable styles on the client side.

You want that site in plain text? Turn off CSS altogether. Instead of embedding fonts tags, italics, background images and so on in the HTML, it's all removed to the CSS file. Makes the HTML more useful as raw information. Makes it easier to make seepintg changes to the layout of a whole site (change one shared CSS file and voila!) and allows users to override the sites style and layout anyway they choose.

CSS makes it easier to get at the raw information and makes it easier to manage the style and layout of entire websites. If IE played nicely with the spec, then I'd be happy as pie.

Re:CSS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32938772)

I agree wholeheartedly with you but... we've been there before. And even if your document language doesn't provide for control over styling on the content-provider side, that doesn't stop them from thinking they know better what design the viewer likes best than said viewer. So they start to muck about with tables to position things, images to separate things, headings-that-aren't to up font-size, em-tags over the entire text because they like cursive better, and so on and so forth. Now we've coaxed them into using cascading style sheets, we can at least turn them off. Then you have to wade through a few pages of menus and other crap to get at the actual content, but hey, there's always Readability, which would probably have been very hard to implement in the days of yore.

This is the best way to get people off of IE6! (3, Interesting)

iamsure (66666) | more than 2 years ago | (#32938808)

Designers win, because they use one design (compliant, too!), for all browsers. Users win, because everyone sees the same design/version/look.

Best yet, when you pile on a library that fixes CSS3 (this article), and one to fix the CSS box model ( http://webdesign.about.com/od/css/a/aaboxmodelhack.htm [about.com] ), and then another to fix the png transparency issue ( http://code.google.com/p/ie7-js/ [google.com] ), and another to add canvas support ( http://excanvas.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net] ), and another ...

Then you explain that everyone will see the same design (yay!), and people using older browsers will experience a VERY SLOW page load. That is why they should upgrade to a more up to date browser.

Re:This is the best way to get people off of IE6! (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 2 years ago | (#32939662)

No it is the absolute worst way. Since it is an enabler. It supports people’s lazy asses and weak spines. The lazy asses of those who prefer complaining to taking about 2 minutes to update their piece of shit browser, and the weak spines of the so-called web developers who prefer to spend 80% of their time working around IE bugs, because they fear they might lose a tiny bit of the dumbest of their users, because they would not want to upgrade. While at the same time those same idiot users update their Flash player about once a month without any complaint. (Why? Because the site does not work without it.)

I solved it long time ago. By directing IE users (ALL. No matter what version.) to a error page that looks exactly as if it were IE-internal. That page shows the actual facts of the problem. In that it tells the user that the browser is extremely outdated and can’t render modern sites like these. So they should update their browser.

Then, in Microsoft style, it lists a couple of solutions. Browsers that support current standards. And if that does not help, they can contact Microsoft, and demand to implement those standards in IE. The contact link goes straight to the right e-mail address for these inquiries.

It’s 100% believable that it’s a MS IE error, and it makes it clear, that not the site, but the user/MS is at fault.

But I guess it’s easier when you’re not a greedy bastard and therefore don’t count every last retard as your target group.

Users are impatient (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 2 years ago | (#32939688)

Then you explain that everyone will see the same design (yay!), and people using older browsers will experience a VERY SLOW page load. That is why they should upgrade to a more up to date browser.

Users are impatient.

Users don't give a damn why your page loads slowly and they won't take the time to hear you out. They will be gone before you can put up your Chrome or Firefox logo.

The one website that has defeated every browser I've tried is Slashdot. There is no more quirky and unresponsive a front page on the web.

--

Very Cool..... but laggy (2, Informative)

mike.rimov (1148959) | more than 2 years ago | (#32938830)

Launched IE-8 on my laptop for the first time in months and pointed it at the site's homepage.

While it displays fine, you can feel the lag when scrolling/resizing the window. I cannot imagine what it would be like on an older machine running IE-6.

That said.... the library is unique, inventive, and solves a serious issue with cross-browser compatibility... kudos for thinking outside the box!

Frame (0, Offtopic)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 2 years ago | (#32938890)

Won't be a better solution to use instead Google Chrome Frame [google.com]? (IF you still have to run IE, at least)

No administrative privileges required (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#32939150)

Can one install Google Chrome Frame without being a member of the Administrators group? A lot of people who need to visit web sites and cannot use anything but IE 6 or 7 are limited users who do not know the password to any administrative account on the computer. This is the case in the office (where the web sites are those of suppliers or clients), in the break room at work, at school, and at the public library. Because this workaround is CSS and JavaScript, it will work without administrative privileges.

Not New (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32939316)

This isn't new... see also: http://fetchak.com/ie-css3

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...