Beta
×

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!

Web Designers Ignoring Standards and Support IE Only

CmdrTaco posted more than 12 years ago | from the doesn't-that-burn-your-bottom dept.

Microsoft 1279

An anonymous reader says "According to this story on news.com, it is becoming harder for users of Microsoft-free systems and browsers to view the web. This seems to be a new call to arms from the standards groups, and it is something we should be thinking about. Without help from web designers, using browsers like Mozilla and Opera will effectively cut off our ability to view web sites 'correctly.'" My pet peeve is when sites hype and announce new-and-improved sites, and then they come out and they are simply a gigantic flash application.

cancel ×

1279 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

1st gabber (-1, Offtopic)

Gabber Piet (587869) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841391)

lekker hakkeuh

Water is wet (-1)

anonymous cowfart (576665) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841396)

News at 11.

Re:Water is wet (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3841445)

But does it sink or float? I am confused about this. If I pour a glass of water, it sinks to the bottom of the glass but, at the same time, it FLOATS TO THE TOP! My head is spinning.

IE has the most uesrs (1, Insightful)

The Turd Report (527733) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841399)

And people design sites inorder to get the most users. That means having to code for IE. It sucks. But, all you can do is just not visit that site.

Re:IE has the most uesrs (1)

Frothy Walrus (534163) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841428)

And people design sites inorder to get the most users. That means having to code for IE.

Why not code for all browsers instead? Why immediately cut off part of your audience when you don't have to?

Re:IE has the most uesrs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3841480)

Who is gonna code for all the hundereds of little browsers that come with RedHat? There are not even as many people USING RedHat as the number of nonfunctional and nonstandard browsers that come with it. The "standard" is that which is, well, standard, and that would be IE. Used to be Netscape but Microsoft is a better browser.

Re:IE has the most uesrs (2, Interesting)

sandman935 (228586) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841541)

Because it's a pain in the ass.

It's much simpler to write to W3C recommended spec. If it validates, stop there and be confident in knowing that IE will display it properly.

Re:IE has the most uesrs (2, Flamebait)

Profane Motherfucker (564659) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841552)

Oh for fuck's sake, you can't argue that. Why should we have java? Why not code in ANSI C all the time? Why write programs for MacOS or Windows? Why not code straight commandline apps that eschew the GUIs -- which only fuck shit up by making shit platform fucking dependent?

Hell, why have USB? Why not just make PS/2? Why have IDE? Why not have SCSI? Why do we have to use HTML when clearly, XML is a better format?

It's a poor fucking argument. The real reason is that HTML is a shitty fucking file format that cares more about presentation than internal format. If people want to use IE -- so be it. They want more flexibility. For fucks sake: apply this bullshit fucking argument to printing: oh, woe! Why do people use CMYK? Why not use letterpress! It's a long established standard. Damn that proprietary postscript bullshit! Fucking assholes excluding black and white users.

Re:IE has the most uesrs (1)

The Turd Report (527733) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841553)

I think coding for ALL browsers would be rather hard. For whatever reason, web-designers have come to the conclusion that their sites have to have all the latest bells and whistles. They want to be sure that people get all the bells and whistles, so they code for the browser that most of the people use: IE.

has something changed about you? (-1)

Sexual Asspussy (453406) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841451)

your hairstyle maybe? or perhaps you lost some weight?

oh, i see! there's no minus sign before the '1' in your comment score!

how'd you do that?

Re:IE has the most uesrs (1)

netquake (157238) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841483)

I could choose not to visit an IE site but I can't because that site is my university web site!

Re:IE has the most uesrs (1)

aonaran (15651) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841542)

If you are designing a site for the most possible users then it should be designed to W3C standards, that's what they are there for.

Your arguement that designing specifically for IE (meaning throwing in IE-specific code or just writing it wrong and not caring because it displays ok on YOUR IE browser) doesn't get the most possible users.

Episode 4: Mist (-1)

Walmart Security (570281) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841400)

I

I'd always been incredulous of the rumors surrounding the metropolis. Surely it was no more a prodigious city than Jasper! In a matter of hours, I would determine the validity of the hyperbole that others had shared with me.

"Hey, Peter!" exclaimed Robert, pointing at a modernly painted car. "It's over here. Come check it out!" It was obvious that the luxurious pink car was a rental, for a label was affixed to its rear, near the words "Dodge Neon." I approached the passenger side door.

"It's unlocked. Get in!" Robert was certainly enthusiastic about his acquisition of such an immaculate automobile. Despite his enthusiasm, I was somewhat apprehensive about driving with him. After all, his patrol cart accident had resulted in a somewhat undesirable trip to the hospital for both of us! As I began to enter the car, I was startled by a sound that resembled a click. I hadn't a moment to lose. During my descent to the ground, the clicking noise was followed by an enormous roar. At that point I realized that my protege was merely starting the car.

"Listen to this bad boy," he said as he revved the Neon's engine, producing a recurring shrill that may have emanated from an engine belt. "Hah! Almost a sportscar!" Once again, I felt as though I was a simpleton instead of a sophisticated, elaborately trained guardsman. But I had been in the hospital, so perhaps my sense of danger wasn't as accurate as it had been prior to the accident. I felt it important to remember an axiom that had been shared with me on numerous occasions: Time heals everything.

According to my road map, we would encounter many different cities en route, including Livingston, Cleveland, and New Caney. Two of them were surrounded by hyperbole similar to that of Houston. "The nightlife in Cleveland is invigorating," was among intelligence shared with me by an accented, travelling man. "Lake Livingston is more beautiful than Aruba," a native had said. Aside from New Caney, I possessed valid intelligence about our primary route. If we weren't fulfilling a mission, I would have attempted to confirm it all personally.

"Robert, we may have to drive for hours," I said, settling into the fabric seat of the Neon and anticipating the exciting perils of the journey ahead. "Can you handle it?" I strongly considered fretting when my trainee responded with a smile reminiscent of the one he exhibited shortly before our collision with the SUV. However, I remained calm, for I hadn't yet observed the negative augury that was a reflective, silver star.

As we exited the parking lot, I observed that the blue sky overhead was entering a transition to darkness. Clouds were beginning to appear on the horizon. Robert drove expeditiously, occasionally nearing speeds of forty-five miles per hour. The precision with which he drove indicated his adeptness and experience. While I was genuinely impressed by my protege, I didn't understand why the other drivers insisted on inundating us with an unnerving blast of their horn as they passed. These occurances became more frequent after we entered a road that had been assigned the name US 190. It was here that our bizarre journey truly began.

II

"I've never driven in these conditions," said Robert, as light rain began to cover the windshield of our luxury car. "Um, uh... Oh, yeah, here's the wiper switch." Instead of the mundane sound of the wipers' rubber removing water from glass, we were greeted by a sound similar to that of fingernails being driven into a chalkboard. The temptation existed for me to cover my ears, but I realized that my protege required assistance.

"Turn them off!" I yelled frantically.

Robert pressed the switch almost instantaneously, disabling the malfunctioning wipers. "Maybe I turned on the windshield cleaning mode?"

"No, no," I informed him. "There aren't any wiper blades! We're being sabotaged!" Our ability to see was hampered by scratches that had appeared in the windshield. The rapidly degrading weather conditions outside weren't of any assistance, either. It was absolutely imperative that we exit the road. At that moment, I spotted a Dairy Queen sign on an adjacent street.

"Robert, turn left. Quick!" I commanded my protege, who complied without hesitation. As I watched him correct the car's direction, I realized that something was surely amiss. Our automobile was skidding!

"Peter, help me. I can't stop it!" My trainee had emitted a distress call. I was required to respond immediately and effectively! In a heroic manner, I seized control of the steering wheel and used all of my strength to turn the car in the direction of the skid. Miraculously, the car became motionless less than a moment later.

"Robert, are you okay?" I queried. He continued to the Dairy Queen's parking lot cautiously. Not once did he utter a word.

Emerging from the vehicle with a shirt shielding my head from the drizzle, my keen sense of smell observed that the road had become aromatic with the smells of rain, oil, and asphalt. The humid conditions and darkened sky overhead, illuminated occasionally by a strike of lightning, only heightened our sense of foreboding. We rushed quickly to the more pleasant confines of Woodville's Dairy Queen.

"Bad weather out there, huh friends?" the accented cashier greeted us with a chuckle. "Yeah, we had us a tornader out there just last week, huh. See that toppled tree right over there? Well, anyway, name's Thomas. What's yours?"

An elderly oak tree, possibly existent for a century, had been uprooted near the road. Neither Robert nor myself had been aware of its presence until Thomas had pointed it out. "My name is Peter," I replied, pointing a finger. "And that's Robert. Do you mind if we stay here until this storm is over?"

"Naw, naw. Not at all!" Thomas was around forty-five, perhaps as much as fifty years of age. Thin gray strands were becoming interspersed throughout his jet black hair. He was a relatively small man, only five feet and four inches in stature. My approximation was derived from the fact that he was somewhat shorter than myself, a man of five and a half feet.

I conversed casually with him, as I had the hospital nurse, about trivial matters such as ice cream and old trucks. As I glanced outside, I was aghast at the sight of a most frightening image: a car with the notoriously iconic silver star affixed to both its front and its rear passed by the Dairy Queen, apparently oblivious to or unaffected by the weather outside. I'd observed a most negative omen. As hail began to relentlessly pelt the tin roof of the restaurant, Robert, Thomas, and I realized silently that we would be at the mercy of whatever followed it...

III

"I saw it too," whispered Robert, noticing my face. It'd been rendered a shade or two more pale by the sighting.

"Saw what, man? What was I 'sposed to see?" It was evident that our newly discovered friend hadn't yet been informed of the dangers we faced as a result of our vision. I proceeded to enlighten him.

"Whenever you see a three-pointed star affixed to a vehicle, it's a bad omen. You see, Robert and I discovered this while patrolling."

"Patrollin'? What'chu patrol?" He'd grown more inquisitive, his eyes reduced to mere slits. Perhaps Thomas hadn't ever encountered two elite security guards before.

"Oh, we're security guards. We've saved the world numerous times. But you see, a man crashed into our security patrol vehicle during a routine mission to protect automobiles from rogue shopping carts. Attached to his car was a star that we've observed to be a negative omen on many occasions. Always avoid it. Always. It could save you the expense of your life."

"What a load of boohickey!" Thomas retorted. Apparently, he had decided not to heed our stern warning. He began laughing incessantly. "Good story, though. Huh! You both deserve a Blizzard for that!"

I'd once before sampled a "Blizzard" in a Jasper Dairy Queen. It was a ubiquitous fact that they most likely contained a depressant similar to alcohol. His attempt to serve me such a "frozen treat" led me to believe that he could be part of what I now call the Three Pointed Conspiracy. It was imperative that I not accept any of his offers and shield Robert from his evil.

I denied his offer with a simple "No, thank you."

"Fair 'nuff," he said. "Just thought I'd offer ya one." A member of the Three Pointed Conspiracy, it was certainly possible that he was attempting to lull me into a sense of complacency. I couldn't lower my guard.

Robert, however, was more susceptible to his attack. "Hey, I'll take one of those!" he exclaimed. As Robert glanced in my direction, I shook my head in a stern, horizontal manner. Upon consuming even a fraction of the Blizzard, he would grow more delusional and less aware of the conspiracy around him. Since my head shake had gone unacknowledged, the fact that we needed to vacate the Dairy Queen prematurely became more distinct. After a moment of consideration, I grabbed his arm and began to run for the door. Hopefully Thomas (if that wasn't a pseudonym assigned by the Conspiracy) wouldn't consider our departure abnormal.

"Oh, look, the sky. It's clearing. Robert, we must depart!" I shouted, attempting to confuse the cashier and delay his inevitable, hostile reaction.

"Where are we going, Peter?" Robert questioned me almost inaudibly as we ran to the Neon through the downpour of rain.

"We must leave here, Robert. That man is an agent of a conspiracy with a scale of which has never been seen!" I urgently informed him. He tossed me the keys to the Neon. As I unlocked my door, another bolt of lightning crackled overhead. It must have been nearing sunset, for the strike was more brilliant than any of the others that day.

After starting the engine, I unlocked Robert's door. "I'm cold," he said, shivering and eyeing the air conditioner vent as he fastened his seat belt. "Do you mind?"

"No, not at all," I replied. I'd become uncomfortably chilled as well. Thomas, apparently, wasn't making any effort to pursue us. We entered the rain covered US 190, once again bound for Houston.

IV

It'd been years since I'd last driven an automobile aside from our elite patrol vehicle. If it weren't possible that members of the Three Pointed Conspiracy were following us, I would've considered detouring once the storm was over, for no reason other than to enjoy the feeling.

After a few moments, the road around us became dark. The thick storm clouds overhead obscured any moonlight. If not for our luxury car's headlights, we would have been completely unable to see. US 190 was deserted; there wasn't another car in sight. Moderate rain continued to strike the roof of our car in a manner that was almost relaxing. I glanced quickly over at Robert, who'd been silent for the past few minutes. He had fallen asleep.

The moderate to heavy rain that we'd experienced since Woodville was replaced by a light mist as we entered Livingston. Although the weather here had improved noticeably, fallen trees and a power line lying close to the road indicated that the storm had recently passed through. I nudged Robert with my elbow, who responded with a groan.

After many fruitless attempts, he finally awoke, responding in a groggy voice. "Yeah, Peter?"

He would've been furious if I'd been his subordinate instead of his commander, but I was pleased by his lack of hostility. "Would you mind checking the roadmap for directions?"

"Uh, sure. Actually, can we stop here first?" He pointed at an Exxon gasoline station.

"Are you sick?" I asked with concern.

"Um, no," he replied. "I want a snack."

His request was reasonable, I decided. Besides, the car would soon require a fuel replinishment and I was becoming somewhat uncomfortable from driving. "Go inside and buy whatever you want," I instructed him as I handed him a fifty dollar bill. "But be sure to pay for twenty-five dollars worth of gas."

"Okay," he replied as I positioned the car alongside a gasoline pump.

"On second thought," I told him, "I'll go with you."

He handed the fifty dollar bill back to me. The store itself was ancient, but seemed to have been well maintained. I followed Robert as he selected a Sprite and a bag of potato chips, then to the cashier's register.

"You guys are the first customers I've had all night," the woman said. "You must be on pump four. Heh, you haven't pumped any gas yet. Prepayin'?"

I stepped up. "Yes, twenty-five dollars."

She began scanning the products' barcodes. "Alright then, I'll ring this stuff up. Heh, bad storm here earlier. Was a twister that tore two houses down, news said. You boys didn't drive through it?"

"Yes, we did," I replied solemnly.

"Heh, brave. Well, your total's forty even." I relinquished the fifty. "Ten dollars change, then. Here ya go."

As I pumped the gasoline, I watched the gnats swarm the flourescent light overhead. Once I'd finished returning the pumping device to its holder, our trip resumed. "So, where do we go from here?" I asked Robert as I reassumed my seat behind the wheel.

"Interstate 59," he replied while chewing on a potato chip. "It should take us all the way into Houston."

"Right," I replied, the car's engine sputtering lightly as it started.

Is this the time (2, Funny)

Mr Guy (547690) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841401)

For Lynx references?

Lynx rules (5, Insightful)

Tune (17738) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841504)

Though Lynx may seem hopelessly outfashioned, don't forget that some search engines (like Ilse [www.ilse.nl] ) still use it as a prefilter. Experts say nothing beats its power to convert HTML into plain text, though it obviously cannot handle flash, pdf, or even frames properly.

Lynx is also a good test to experience what your site looks like on a cell phone (WAP-converted).

Last but not least, imagine what your site would "feel" like when "viewed" by blind people. Forgot that "ALT" text with you IMG tag? You're all alone in the dark with Lynx as well.

Pet Peeves.... (0)

phunhippy (86447) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841403)

Hey.. sometimes the gigantic flash apps are really cool and sometimes not... it can go both ways.. flash is fun..

Re:Pet Peeves.... (5, Insightful)

jandrese (485) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841461)

...flash is fun...

Until you hit your back button to see a previous page and get dumped clear out of the site. Flash sites are the worst at "Is that a control or a decoration?" syndrome. Sometimes I find myself aimlessly clicking to try to find the non-intuitive custom controls on some flash page, and worse you can't even expect the cursor to change when you hover over a link like you can on a web page.
Flash should not be used for your main page. It should be used for interactive demonstrations, small movie clips, or other highly interactive content. It should not be used for simple data retrieval (I don't want to fire up flash to find out what the stupid VCR codes for my remote control are), or your main website as it breaks the web UI model. It should also be used sparingly as some people will not be able to use it (blind people in particular).

Just my $0.02

Standards according to who? (-1, Flamebait)

NineNine (235196) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841410)

Who set these mythical "standards"? I do business online with my websites. Some arbitrary "standards" are irrelevant. What *is* relevant is making the best possible experience for the most possible users. The W3C has been irrelevant for several years now. IE is the de facto standard. If NS and Opera want to compete, they need to make *their* browsers compatible with the new de facto standard.

Hell, even when I tried making my stuff NS compatible, Mozilla is so full of rendering bugs that it was impossible.

Re:Standards according to who? (0, Offtopic)

News For Turds (580751) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841446)

You make a very good point. Unfortunately it will be modded down because it is somewhat pro-microsoft. :(

Re:Standards according to who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3841563)

Not really (a good point). You can easily make
sites that work in all browsers. Yes it sometimes
takes more effort, but less effort than using
some technology for the sake of it.

The point of the web is getting the information
accross. Not requiring proprietary plugin X.

If you were talking about a physical facility and a disabled person would you still think the point is
good? After all 90+% of people are not disabled
right?

Re:Standards according to who? (5, Insightful)

Mr Windows (91218) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841502)

Who set these mythical "standards"?
The w3c [w3.org] , of course. What makes you say that they are "arbitrary"? I suppose you could say that "HTML is arbitrary", which to some extent it is, but it's not very hard to produce standard-compliant HTML (and also to verify it [w3.org] ). It's all very well to talk about de facto standards, but you should remember that all the world isn't a Windows PC, and that's going to become increasingly true over time.

Re:Standards according to who? (5, Interesting)

joebp (528430) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841515)

Who set these mythical "standards"?
I would rather the W3C dictate the standards than Microsoft. At least the W3C has no vested economic interest in requiring Microsoft software to use the Web.

(If you hadn't noticed, the Web is meant to be an open medium, not controlled by a large, monopolistic and law-breaking American corporation)

Sir, I do believe you are a troll.

Re:Gnome or KDE? (2, Insightful)

FooBarWidget (556006) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841526)

Rediculous. W3c is far from irrelevent. If you comply to HTML 4.0 your website renders just fine in Internet Explorer!
"The best possible experience". Are you saying that you can't create a good website experience without Microsoft HTML? I know enough sites that display just fine in Mozilla and Opera but still have a good website experience (easy to navigate, pretty animated menus with JavaScript, etc.)

Let's face it, you don't need Microsoft HTML to create a good-looking website! W3C standards are good, dispite what all the Microsoft fanboys say. There's no excuse for not complying to W3C standards, except when you're creating a site like Windows Update.
I've been creating websites for years, and the fact that people refuse to comply to W3C standards is totally rediculous.

And there's one more thing: our rights. People have the right to choose whatever they want. If I don't want to use Windows or IE, then that's my choice. Standards are created to make sure that I can still view the Internet, no matter which OS/browser I choose. But people like you are effectively taking away our right to choose.

"Hell, even when I tried making my stuff NS compatible, Mozilla is so full of rendering bugs that it was impossible."

Then either you're using a Mozilla build from a year ago or you just don't know how to code HTML properly.

Re:Gnome or KDE? (2)

NineNine (235196) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841574)

Then either you're using a Mozilla build from a year ago or you just don't know how to code HTML properly.

Nice troll. My bugs have been languishing in Bugzilla for months. I was writing something that was in the W3C spec that IE supported and Netscape did not
. Jackass.

And there's one more thing: our rights. People have the right to choose whatever they want. If I don't want to use Windows or IE, then that's my choice. Standards are created to make sure that I can still view the Internet, no matter which OS/browser I choose. But people like you are effectively taking away our right to choose.

First off, I can *choose* to write my sites any way I'd like. Secondly, you can either choose to visit them, or not visit them. You can choose what browser to use. It sounds like you're trying to take away my right to *choose* how I code my own websites. Jackass.

Re:Gnome or KDE? (1)

krog (25663) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841585)

from this post, we can ascertain that the <B> tag is HTML 4.0 compliant.

Re:Standards according to who? (2, Insightful)

tapped_spine (590735) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841535)

Yeah, but what IS the new standard? If it's a STANDARD, why can't they publish it?

Re:Standards according to who? (1)

pipsqueak (536549) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841536)

Yes... but good websites back up their funky flash features via normal text links, which is a trivial process. Even though I have flash installed, I still use text links if they're there because they're faster to navigate and easier to understand.

If it's about getting the most users able to use your site and therefore getting more business, why not consider everyone not just the IE majority.

By continuing to focus on only one platform you continue to force yourself down the MS path. If you're OK with that as a designer, fine... but don't expect that decision to not come back and bite you in future. History of MS has taught us this.

Re:Standards according to who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3841537)

You sir, are a Fuckwad.

Re:Standards according to who? (1)

Brad Wilson (462844) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841540)

I found the opposite to be true if the page causes Mozilla to be in strict rendering mode. IE, on the other hand, has many CSS rendering problems (as does Opera, unfortunately).

You are using HTML for content and CSS for presentation, right? Or are you leaning on the old and crutches?

Re:Standards according to who? (2)

Neil Watson (60859) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841562)

Are Microsoft's "changes" intentional or are they errors? If they are intentional then they should be submitted to the W3C for acceptance. If they are mistakes then they should fixed.

Re:Standards according to who? (1)

lfourrier (209630) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841565)

if IE were the standard, it'll be at least compatible with itself, from version to version.

Re:Standards according to who? (3, Insightful)

qengho (54305) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841566)

Who set these mythical "standards"?

Volunteers from academia and industry, just like the people who set up the "mythical standards" for the Internet.

The W3C has been irrelevant for several years now.

Then why are the browser manufacturers working so hard [webstandards.org] to make their products standards-compliant?

Of course (1, Interesting)

Fucky the troll (528068) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841413)

As a web designer, it's in my job description to make sure the site is designed for "the majority of our audience". This means IE. I could go ahead and design everthing so that it's compatible with Mozilla, Opera, or any browser that begins with the letter K, but as I'm constantly trying to hit a tight deadline, it's easier to just go for the majority. As long as I *know* the site looks like it's supposed to in IE, I'm happy with it.

And so are the people that pay my salary.

Why blame MS? (-1)

Big Dogs Cock (539391) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841437)

Until Opera etc. get full wide-page support, they will never be competetive.

Re:Why blame MS? (-1)

Fucky the troll (528068) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841564)

Indeed. Where's the fun in slashdot if you can't see the trolls in all their glory?!

Sad, very sad.... (2, Insightful)

stevenbee (227371) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841417)

The irony is, that I'm running IE6 and it's identified as follows:

You are using: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1)

But I guess that MSFT has succeeded in polluting the standards to the point where
IE can totally ignore IEEE compliance.

Not a troll, just a lament

:-(

Re:Sad, very sad.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3841465)

Back around Netscape 2.0, it was Netscape ignoring and polluting the standards (blink).

Why do you think IE identifies itself as Mozilla? Because poor web designers once required for netscape.

The shoe's on the other foot now.

That Really Bites (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3841419)

That really sucks. Guess I'll have to switch back to Windows. Ho hum...

flash... (1, Interesting)

B00yah (213676) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841420)

I personally enjoy using flash, and feel that it could easily replace html, if the world could all be broadband. However, that not being the case, I feel that major sites should stop using designs that are fitted towards the broadband user only, and instead make it accessible to everyone.

Re:flash... (1, Insightful)

krog (25663) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841485)

Flash is the bane of search engines. If the web all moved to Flash, we could kiss the harvesting of useful information from the web goodbye.

Also consider that 98% of the time, Flash is the wrong solution and only gets in the users' way.

Please don't! (1)

af_robot (553885) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841512)

Do you know what flash-page is looks like on Pentium 233?!

film at 11 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3841423)

When he co-founded Netscape Communications in 1994, Jim Clark introduced a Web browser that promised computer users a way around the Microsoft juggernaut.

Now online photo print shop Shutterfly, another Clark-founded venture, has a succinct warning for visitors who come to the site using the latest versions of Netscape: Beware. Versions 6 and higher of the browser are "unsupported," meaning people who use them cannot take advantage of several site features and may run into glitches not found with Microsoft's Internet Explorer, according to a browser error message being published on the site as of last Wednesday.

Shutterfly's browser preference page is more than ironic; it reflects an ongoing bias among some Web sites to write and test their pages for the browser most people use--Internet Explorer. The trend lives on despite the support Web standards receive from several new browsers, including Netscape's latest, its open-source cousin Mozilla and others such as Opera and iCab.

Non-agnostic Web sites "are saying, 'We're only interested in people if they use this browser,'" said Janet Daly, a representative for standards group the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). "That's a mistake on their part. The browser is a basic utility for people, and it's about having access to information regardless of who made that information or what authoring tool they used."

The call for Web authors to comply with standards comes as a new wave of competitors seeks to dislodge Microsoft from its perch as the No. 1 browser maker. IE is used by more than 85 percent of all Web surfers by many counts, and may go even higher. One recent study showed it with 95 percent share.

AOL Time Warner, which purchased Netscape in 1999 for some $4.2 billion, is throwing more support behind the company's products after years of neglect. For the first time, the company is testing Netscape as the default browser in its CompuServe and America Online service software, having used IE for years as part of a complex cross-marketing agreement. AOL Time Warner has also filed a civil suit on behalf of Netscape that alleges Microsoft engaged in illegal practices.

Mozilla, meanwhile, recently released its first public version, Mozilla 1.0, capping four years of development. Other IE alternatives from companies such as Opera Software are also winning fans and giving Web surfers more choice than ever before.

Waiting on Web authors
While competition appears to be piling up, would-be IE rivals must overcome industry inertia that runs deep within the fabric of how Web pages are put together. Not least, they rely on the cooperation of skeptical Web authors who see little reward in supporting technology that is used by just a small fraction of their customers.

Shutterfly is hardly alone among mainstream Web sites discriminating against browsers. Safeway.com, for example, warns visitors that "the Safeway.com site works best with the Internet Explorer Web browser. Other browsers, such as Netscape, may not function properly."

Critics call these browser warning pages reminiscent of the bad old days of the Web, when sites routinely sported the tag "best viewed in Navigator" or "best viewed in IE."

Microsoft in November revived those memories and earned widespread wrath when it locked out competing browsers from its MSNBC news site. The incident provoked accusations that Microsoft was taking advantage of its near-total dominance of the browser market to further marginalize competitors.

Microsoft declined to comment for this story.

The state of affairs with browser-site compatibility highlights a lingering gap between reality and the lofty goals of Web standards. Even as standards advocates acknowledge that the browsers are largely in compliance with W3C recommendations, plenty of sites remain, practically speaking, Internet Explorer-only zones.

Now that browsers are mostly standards-compliant, the roles of accused and accuser largely have been reversed.

A few years ago, it was Web developers who organized and ranted against the browser makers, specifically Microsoft and Netscape, demanding standards-compliant software. Now, the browser makers and even the Web's premier standards organization are attributing many of the glitches to Web authors who write non-compliant code or tailor their code to work with market-leading browsers, specifically IE.

This phenomenon traps smaller browsers in a vicious circle: Because they have a limited following, Web authors don't write or test for them. When, as a result, Web sites don't work with the browser--or explicitly rule it out--surfers have a repeated incentive to give up and use Internet Explorer.

Beyond the basics
The person browsing with the latest Opera, Mozilla or Netscape browser will be able to access just about any site on the Web. But non-IE users are likely to start running into trouble once they start delving into a site's complex features and functionality.

And those complex features tend to be crucial when it comes to executing transactions on e-commerce sites.

"The Web is a chaotic place, and you will find no browser that can view all sites," said Hakon Lie, chief technology officer for Oslo, Norway-based Opera. "All browsers have this problem to some extent."

Some browsers have it more than others. Opera, for example, runs into trouble on several mainstream Web sites, including Salon.com and Apple Computer's Mac.com, that render perfectly in IE or Netscape.

Netscape has been taking an aggressive approach to the problem, monitoring sites where its "Gecko" rendering engine is running into trouble and prevailing on site administrators to fix the problem.

A joint Netscape-Mozilla team, formed two years ago, examined the 1,700 Web sites with the highest traffic to see how well they worked when viewed by Gecko. When the evangelism effort launched, only 60 percent of these pages worked properly, but Netscape claims to have boosted that number to 98 percent.

"Our evangelism efforts have garnished quite a bit of momentum in their outreach to Web developers," a Netscape representative said in an e-mail interview. But the "team continues to work with both corporate and individual sites to ensure Gecko compliance."

Opera's Lie estimated that he ran into trouble surfing with Opera on about one in 30 sites.

He also claimed that IE has seen its share of sites that it can't view properly. But because of IE's ubiquity, those glitches are likely to be fixed in a matter of days or hours, while problems with Opera or Mozilla languish on bug fix to-do lists.

The situation is reflected in the policies at Shutterfly, which makes no bones about its market-oriented approach to browser support.

"From the beginning, the situation has been that we listen to our customers and deliver what they ask for," said Whitney Brown, a representative for Shutterfly. "We have had very few requests for Opera--most of our users are on a PC using IE, and the next largest group is on a PC using Netscape. We have a pretty mainstream user base, which has moved away from the early adopters who may be aware of other browsers out there."

The site's browser preference page, which launched Wednesday during a visit using Netscape 6.2, notes that the company supports older versions of Netscape, including Netscape Navigator 4.7. Brown on Tuesday said the site's browser warning is out of date and that the site supports newer versions of Netscape--although it still does not support Opera and other less popular browsers.

Other troubles
Standards proponents point to several stumbling blocks beyond Web authors, including nonstandard extras included as part of IE and widespread use of nonstandard automated authoring tools from companies such as Adobe Systems.

Even though all the major browsers are considered to be up to snuff on standards compliance, some Web authors still find it easier to code directly to IE--and test only with IE--rather than to open standards.

In many cases, that means using nonstandard extras that Microsoft offers.

Mozilla.org, the open-source group that Netscape formed in 1998 to develop its browser, called those proprietary extras the legacy of Microsoft's maneuvers to become the leader in the browser market.

"The market power of IE, gained through illegal use of Microsoft's monopoly, means that Web developers find it convenient to use IE's proprietary extensions," said Mitchell Baker, who carries the whimsical title of chief lizard wrangler at Mozilla.org. "We do encourage Web developers to look to Web standards and to move away from proprietary extensions."

Opera took a similar tack, laying blame at the feet of both Microsoft and Web developers.

"I'm not going to put all the blame on Microsoft, though they do deserve some," Lie said. "The focus should really be on authors. They really need to test their pages. And maybe some of them have to adjust their ambitions slightly. If you try to do the very advanced, flashy stuff, you typically will get a page that will not operate with all browsers."

Now that so many of the Web's pages are coded by automated authoring tools, rather than by hand, much of the onus of standards-compliance has fallen to the vendors of authoring tools: Macromedia, Adobe and Microsoft.

The push to make authoring tools produce standards-compliant code runs up against the formidable obstacle that many Web surfers are using outdated, non-compliant browsers. If the authoring tool codes strictly to standards, it will lock out those legacy browsers.

Blame it on the browsers
And while Web authors may be more defensive than they used to be, some Web sites are still claiming that buggy browsers--even new ones--are preventing them from welcoming all comers.

"What we want to do is write once and have it work with everything," said Russ Sanon, senior manager for quality-assurance engineering at Shutterfly. "But it falls onto the lap of the individual browser manufacturer. There's nothing that we do that's proprietary. Everything that we write should work with W3C-complaint specs."

Some warn that while coding to IE may pay off in the short term, it could cost sites if the long-predicted shift to non-PC Web browsers transpires.

New W3C recommendations, particularly the HTML successor XHTML, are written to help Web authors accommodate the limited rendering capabilities of cell phones or PDAs (personal digital assistants). In many cases, this involves creating relatively automated ways of serving slimmed-down pages to small devices while showing full-featured pages in desktop browsers.

"If things are not built according to standards, you run the risk of having to do that content engineering all over again if you move to other devices," said W3C's Daly. "If you use a black-box proprietary format that doesn't port over to a handheld, then what? That's a strong business case for standards compliance."

But others continue to sound a more community-minded alarm, calling the persistent gap between standards and practice a threat to the Web's open character.

"What we're seeing with Web sites that are viewable only with IE is the privatization of the Web," said Mozilla's Baker. "And that's a dangerous setting. We're moving toward a world where all the capabilities of the Internet are reprocessed through a single filter, with Microsoft's business plan behind it."

...yes... (4, Informative)

jonathan_atkinson (90571) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841424)

This is, er, total rubbish. While a lot of smaller web designers may be MS focused, most large sites will try very hard to make their sites work across platforms. Just check out most of the discussion on alistapart [alistapart.com] , which primarily deals with new web technologies, and how to implement them in a cross-platform manner. While a lot of the 'amature' web may be strewn with proprietary tags, a lot of the larger sites really do care about users who use different browsers; from Netscape 4 to WebTV.

--jon

No problem (5, Insightful)

AirLace (86148) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841427)

I see this as an advantage. Ever noticed how the "Flash" sites are the very ones which tend to be filled to the brim with adverts and little else, or otherwise "arty" sites by self-important 'blogging nuts who think their combination of morphing pastel colours needs to be seen by the whole world? Sorry, but that's not what the Web is to me -- I use it for information, and that's why I use Mozilla.

I sit next to our web developer (5, Interesting)

Lxy (80823) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841430)

And I always hear him say stuff like "Well, *I* run IE, so I assume most everyone does". For awhile I had just assumed that Microsoft was sleeping with W3C, until I met a few web programmers. As I see it, there are really two types of prgrammers. Those who learned HTML in the beginning, and those who learned Frontpage so they could be 133t and have their own website. Since the latter outweighs the former, there you see the problem.

In their defense, from the user's point of view, the easiest tools out there are made by Microsoft. Click, click, click, oh look! I have a website. Sure, it's 8 MB in size without graphics, but it's all mine! Sadly only the geeks care about standards anymore.

Maybe if the designers learned to program... (2)

st0rmshad0w (412661) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841431)

...instead of just using Frontpage for everything, we wouldn't necessarily have this problem.

Oh, and what's the point really, of a Standards Body, if they can't to an extent enforce the standards? Just a thought.

Maybe if the programmers learned to design... (1)

pjdoland (99640) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841544)

...instead of just turning out unbelievably ugly crap.

Ever wonder why most open-source project websites look completely unprofessional? Maybe we'd make better inroads to businesses if the marketing materials we used looked halfway decent.

There has to be a balance.

Re:Maybe if the designers learned to program... (1)

queh (538682) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841549)

Because people have a mutual interest to follow their standards? Wait under these "IE only" pages using strange quirks become unusable in the next version of IE. Not everything has to be done by enforcing laws.

Re:Maybe if the designers learned to program... (2)

Quila (201335) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841554)

Maybe if the designers learned to program ... instead of just using Frontpage for everything, we wouldn't necessarily have this problem.

Web designers do not use Frontpage.

However, home-brewed amateur sites ("Oooh, quilting circle will love this site.") and sites made by worker bees ("Jones, make a department web site.") may be done with FP.

Program? (2)

autopr0n (534291) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841555)

Why should designers need to program? Programming is for programmers. Designers design. There are lots of people who are both, but you can't expect good design from someone just because they are a good programmer.

Also, designing a web page hardly ever involves anything that could be called "programming". (since back-end stuff has nothing to do with how it's rendered in different browsers)

Indifference (1)

WildsideTX (60902) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841440)

I especially hate it when web designers don't even consider other browsers. I brought a small page error to the attention of a friend of mine that I saw on Mozilla. It would have been a simple fix to make it work for all browsers, including IE, and I tested to be sure that it would still work in IE, Netscape, Opera, and Mozilla. But when I brought all of this to my friend's attention, they just said that nobody uses Mozilla and blew me off.

What's wrong with standards? (1)

OneStepFromElysium (549625) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841444)

If one uses standardized HTML, it displays well in IE, Mozilla, and even (mostly) in Netscape 4. I guess most web developers are too lazy to bother to standardize their code, even though the W3C helps you [w3.org] .

Complain to webdesigners (5, Insightful)

brejc8 (223089) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841447)

When I find that a website doesnt work with Linux or my browser then I send them an email.
Often they just ignore them but for examle the inquirer [theinquirer.net] just this morning corrected their site after I emailed to the webmaster on friday with the bug.

Re:Complain to webdesigners (1)

PenguinLord (555013) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841506)

Absolutely, complaining is your best (and only recourse). The designers may choose to ignore you, but many don't.

self correcting? (1)

davejenkins (99111) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841449)

Reasons to stop worrying and love the bomb:

1. 'additional features' will not really amount to that much, and websites will back off of using them (witness the standardization and stipping-down of websites in general compared to two years ago)

2. M$ might just pull something heinous in it's usage licenses, which will become much worse that what the market is currently tollerating

3a. Linux may make some headway on the desktop (hey-- 10% by the next year?)

3b. Apache will not be able to keep up with the features, which will cause managers to question #1 above

4. Lynx will return with a vengeance!

I for one... (2, Interesting)

sirgoran (221190) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841452)

Speaking only for myself, As a Web Developer, I code first for NS/Mozilla products first and IE last. My only complaint about NS is the lack of standards support in the 4x versions. However, as folks around the internet upgrade my job becomes better and better. The latest versions of Mozilla are very easy to build sites for, while M$ still gives me and some of my co-workers headaches.

Goran

Please stop. (5, Insightful)

autopr0n (534291) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841513)

Stop supporting netscape 4. Netscape four is a bane on the internet. It is black death.

The sooner users get a browser that dosn't suck, the better.

Harder and harder? (5, Interesting)

saintlupus (227599) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841454)

According to this story on news.com, it is becoming harder for users of Microsoft-free systems and browsers to view the web.

That's odd... I've been using Mozilla as my sole browser for a few months now, and I haven't had any problems at all. That's compared to a year and a half ago, when M18(?) was completely stymied by a lot of sites.

Seems to me that things are getting better, not worse. Then again, stories about things improving don't get the ad impressions.

--saint

Heres a thought... (1)

geesus (545118) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841455)

If you can tell what browser the user is using at runtime, via GET headers, why not send them code specific for that browser? sure, you might have to re-write the code a few times for each major browser (IE, mozilla and its wannabe's, opera, lynx\links) but that way, everybody is happy

Re:Heres a thought... (1)

danheskett (178529) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841547)

Well, its just a matter of diminishing returns, for what you describe its like:

$X to create site that hits 90% of the market. (IE only).
3 x $X to create a site that hits 98% of the market (IE + NS 4x + Moz)

4 x $X to create a site that hits 100% of the market (IE + NS 4x + Moz + Opera + Links)

Most business types will recognize that getting that last ten percent isn't worth spending 3 times the initial cost (by recoding for Moz/NS and text-only like Links).

The sad truth. (4, Insightful)

swagr (244747) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841457)

The boss tells the web designer what to do. (I wan't Flash, dynamic animated menus, this, that, etc.)
The boss uses IE.
The boss doesn't care if some small percent isn't using IE.

Re:The sad truth. (2)

Uttles (324447) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841490)

I see your point, but at the same time, I'm sure the percentage not using IE is not "small". I don't know the exact numbers, but even if it were as low as 10%, that's still a lot of people, a lot of which will be pissed off that your site doesn't work when they see it.

Personaly... (4, Insightful)

autopr0n (534291) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841464)

I usually design web pages using w3c documentation, but Microsoft's MSDN documentation is a lot easier to sift through for a some of dynamic things. I'll usually design using IE and then tweak it until it looks good in IE and Moz. (even when using 'cross platform' code, it still never works right in both, in my experience)

Netscape 4 users can go fuck themselves, though. Seriously.

make them feel stupid (2)

bigpat (158134) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841466)

I have put together a few well used sites and have forgotten to check something new on IE and I feel stupid when somone tells me that it don't work on the browser they are using... Nothing works like shame.

Unfortunately, Microsoft and Macromedia have used the embrace and extend model successfully and if you want to add something fancier to a web site you are starting down the path towards platform dependency.

Any news on standards based vector animation?

The problem is: (1)

eyegor (148503) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841469)

#1 Microsoft is the dominant browser
#2 Most web "developers" are right-brained types that don't have a clue about how to acomodate multiple browsers.
#3 Many of the aforementioned people are too lazy to even TRY supporting non-IE browsers.

It would be an interesting exercise to build a IE-content detection function into Mozilla and emulate the "fee-churs" of IE (except for the security holes).

NS (1)

AlgUSF (238240) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841470)

I personally use Netscape, and if a site is designed for IE, and isn't compatible with NS, I just go somewhere else. Microsoft thinks that their trash^H^H^H^H^H software IS the standard. Don't you just love monopolies?

Re:NS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3841570)

I really hope you mean Netscape 6.2. Anything before that was incredibly bad, especially the 4.x's.

Something's missing... (5, Insightful)

Masem (1171) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841473)

They've covered 3 of 4 (or 4 of 5) participants in web standards: the browser makers, the web designers, the end users, and possibly the web standards setters. However, they're missing the biggest reason why a chunk of web pages are incompatiable: poor web page authoring programs.

Even if you ignore Frontpage's effects, a lot of the more recent authoring programs don't put out the cleanest code. Not necessarily as bad as tag soup of the past, but still putting out code that works with no problem in IE, but not good in Netscape/etc. And unfortunately, if you consider the cycle of web advancements, they are typically late to the game (that is, they won't add support for a standard until a browser with majority support includes it). So we're only now seeing these WYSIWYG editors including support for XHTML and CSS level 2 stylesheets, despite all the major browsers supporting these (to a good extent).

Of course, there are some that say "the best HTML editor is Notepad" (or vi, or EMACS, or...), and those are the people that I expect to have no problem with any browser on their sites. Unfortunately, that group is the minority, the majority seem to want to ignore HTML and just get it right in the WYSIWYG. And right now, that approach can easily lead you to the IE-only site.

Going overboard to keep other browsers OUT (1, Informative)

mitchkeller (208117) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841477)

A while back I wrote to my credit card provider about their worthless website, which I can only use in Netscrape 4.7?. Even with the Mozilla UserAgent string changed to something more "standard," they won't let me past the homepage. They claim that my browser doesn't support proper encryption or something. Additionally, their damn menus don't work in Mozilla or Opera. Below is the oh so friendly and helpful email they sent back. It sounds so canned that I can't help but assume that they get a lot of these complaints. Why on earth don't they change their ways if they get so many complaints? There are fewer security problems with Mozilla than IE. I really should take my business elsewhere, but the interest rate is keeping me with them for now.

Thank you for contacting Capital One regarding your inability to access your account information with the browser version of your choice.

We regret any inconvenience you may have experienced from not being able to access our website with your preferred browser versions. However, currently the secured portions of our website cannot be accessed by these browser versions because of their inability to consistently encrypt and decode the information that is displayed on the secured pages.

Though we hope to be able to soon offer access to users of the browser versions you mentioned in your message, we are currently unable to provide a timeframe when our web site will be accessible through these browsers. In the meantime, though, you can access your account using Netscape Version 4.76 or Internet Explorer 5.5 or greater.

If we can be of assistance to you, please reply to this message or contact our Online Account Service Department at 1-800-___-____. Our associates are available 24 hours every day.

We look forward to assisting you.

Sincerely,

___________
eCorrespondence
Capital One Services

assimilation (1)

electrick (579755) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841486)

Netscape becomes more and more like IE every time a new version is realeased. However, I mainly use mozzila and I am finding more and more sites just don't show up (I just get a white page). It's disturbing, but 'tis the way of the MS empire.

Flash on the web (1)

keller999 (589112) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841487)

At least with Flash, you know that any old browser than can install it will be able to view the "improved" site. From what I understand, it's pretty universal. --

This is exactly why... (5, Interesting)

Havokmon (89874) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841497)

I used IEradicator [98lite.net] to remove IE from the company presidents desktop, and replaced IE with Opera.

"Wow. Now I see what you mean about web sites not being compliant." She told me. "Our site looks ok, why don't others?"
"They don't properly test them, or think some flair is really necessary that's only supported in IE 5.X. They forget Web Browsing is like window shopping in a Ferrari. You move on to the next one REAL quick."

Though I have to say Opera's pop-up management sucks compared to Mozilla's. Since I've installed Mozilla for her, I havn't heard a peep. Before it was "Some links just don't work anymore" - which was due to Opera not opening REQUESTED Javascript URLs.

BTW, I just didn't think it was a 'grand' idea to replace the presidents browser, but IE kept storing/retrieving some virus in it's cache (maybe from Eudora's preview?), and the calls from the president about viruses on her PC were getting annoying. Not to mention the reboot required to delete the IE Cache file that's ALWAYS open due to the wonderful Win98 integration! ;)

(*sigh* No, once the file is detected by NAV as having a virus, you can't do anything with it.. But it's open so it can't be quarrantined... get it? :P)

Complete Agreement (0, Flamebait)

Brightest Light (552357) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841498)

I gotta say, i agree with some of the other posters here. There really is no standard for html anymore. W3C has been irrevalant for quite some time now, and , well, most people use IE to browse the internet. Now, if you run a business website, your objective is to whore to the highest common denominator (in this case; ie users). So, you gotta give the majority what they want. In this case, that being pages that look nice in Internet Explorer I mean, you can try and be noble and W3C compliant, but if your site looks like crap in most people's browsers, they won't do business with you. Its as simple as that. And while flash may be a pain in the ass to most *nix users, well....it looks just fine to The Average Computer User(tm)

Flash (0, Flamebait)

LT4Ryan (178006) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841503)

Flash is a crutch used by the design impaired to essentially dress up a turd. Swish makes it even easier for Joe-Bob-Billy-Webmaster to "dress up" their sites.

Flash is the bane of web design.

Adopt the standards. Gain customers (5, Insightful)

Neil Watson (60859) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841507)

I was in a meeting lately when following web standards was debated. These was some resistance as it was going to take some people longer to design their web pages. My boss hit the nail on the head:

Don't think of it as having to change your design for 5% of the people. Think of it a designing to gain 5% more customers.

Even worse... (2)

toupsie (88295) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841509)

Not only are these web sites supporting IE only, they are supporting IE for Windows only. As a Mac OS X user, I have encountered many web sites, using IE for Mac, only to be told that my browser will not work with their site, because I didn't make the "smart choice" of using Windows.

So not only is this a problem with web designers targeting IE, but IE on Windows.

Other Browsers Don't Support Standards!!! (0, Troll)

smack.addict (116174) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841511)

Yeah, ignore the fact that, for the longest time, IE was the only browser even close to compliant with Web standards. Even today, OmniWeb sucks with JavaScript, Opera is a buggy piece of shit, and Netscape/Mozilla barfs on complex CSS positioning.

Really? (2)

aallan (68633) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841514)

...it is becoming harder for users of Microsoft-free systems and browsers to view the web.

Not any bits of the web I actually want to use, I haven't come across anything I want to see that isn't still Netscape 4.x compatible, let alone compatible with Mozilla 1.0. As far as I'm concerned the web is still working just fine...

Al.

my experience (2)

drDugan (219551) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841519)

in the past, this has not really bothered me. I've come across several sites that really only worked with IE, but they were sites that I could ignore, or limp by with poor rendering.

on more than one occasion, I've sent letters to the company sale people (not the IT people) saying that they just lost a customer because of their stupid IT / Web people.

I agree the problem has gotten worse. Just yesterday, a site simply did not ALLOW access unless there was an IE tag. It was the AC2 game website. Thankkfully, Opera's "Identify as..." feature got around the server block, but it just as well may not have.

Standards? (1)

lukegalea1234 (250067) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841520)

Maybe I am missing something.. But if IE is the STANDARD isn't the problem that nothing else conforms to it? If nothing conforms to the W3C standard, it's not much of a standard.. is it?

I thought even netscape 6/mozzilla doesn't conform.. Years ago their were compatiblity studies published that showed the only fully compliant browser was netscape 4.7 running on a MAC. Given that less than .1% of the population is running that configuration it only makes sense that developers would target the mass of people running IE.

Which version of IE? (2)

(H)elix1 (231155) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841521)

Even though all the major browsers are considered to be up to snuff on standards compliance, some Web authors still find it easier to code directly to IE--and test only with IE--rather than to open standards.

Ah, but what version of IE? IMHO, just because is works in 5.0 and 5.5 does not mean it will work in 6.0. Service packs have a huge impact as well. From a testing standpoint, this is STILL a huge pain.

I find if it works in Mozilla, it will probably work in most everything. IE tends to be too forgiving, rendering bad or malformed HTML too well. For that reason alone, I prefer to test with Mozilla first -- then a cut or two of IE...

I go through this every day... (1)

graphicartist82 (462767) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841525)

I work for a college doing web-based database programming (all of our apps are in-housed created)

I received an e-mail a few weeks ago from my boss saying that he wanted a few volunteers to run IE on their machines instead of netscape (right now we only "support" netscape)...

Supposedly we won't be required to start writing apps for IE only, but it makes me kinda worry..

Too bad i couldn't volunteer! I don't think they have a version of IE for linux yet...

Slightly OT: How to block flash animation ads? (2, Interesting)

jaunty (56283) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841529)

If you're reading this, thanks -- I've got a question about a topic that has been bothering me for a while. With Mozilla, if you see adbanners on a page, you can right-click on them, and then scroll down to "Block Images from this Server" and presto, no more ads. While this is simple with clickable imagemaps, its not possible with flash adbanners (at least with mozilla's builtins....).

Does anyone have any commnets/opinions or hints on how to "disappear" the flash adbanners?

And in other news... (2, Funny)

SSJ2 Labsuit (513035) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841530)


The Pope is Catholic

There's a war in Afghanistan

CmdrTaco's grammar and spelling leave something to be desired

Your cat only loves you because you feed it

That girl would go out with you, if you'd only ask

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition

Let's meet our next contestant, Sybil Fawlty. Special subject: The Bleeding Obvious.

IE==De facto standard (2, Redundant)

Your_Mom (94238) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841532)

I hate to tell everyone, but IE has become to the de facto standard for web sites.

I hate it too, but the sad truth is, there are not enough users of other web browsers to justify $BIGCORP investing $BIGNUM bucks to make their website 'standards compliant' when someone can hire a monkey that knows how to point and drool in Frontpage to make a pretty website. This isn't a call for more standards commitees, its a call to make your neighbor/friend/guy on the street use something other then IE. Only then will we see a standard compliant web.

Full Circle (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3841533)

Back in the days of Netscape, the exact same argument was given. Netscape blatantly ignored the standards, polluting HTML with all kinds of garbage.

That Microsofties are doing it is nothing new, and no surprise. The standardized web has been dead since the days of Netscape.

One thing I (slightly) disagree with W3C about (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3841534)

I don't see why it should be invalid HTML, to mix HTML revisions in the same document.

Also, why is it necessary to have a DOCTYPE that refers to their server? I don't want my content influenced that directly by them.

Apart from that, the W3C rocks :-).

Bah (4, Insightful)

autechre (121980) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841538)


I'm sure that there will be plenty of poorly designed Web sites that only allow proper functionality with IE. For that matter, there will be poorly designed Web sites that are not really helpful at all to the person who wants to buy something, due to their (lack of) organization and structure. I deal with these sites in the same way: I buy from someone else.

I can't remember having run into an IE-only problem on a commerce site; the second type of problem is much more common. I've been able to use my bank's Web interface with Mozilla for months (and before then, I only had to use NS4, not IE).

That said, I was pleased to read about the push by the people in Netscape/Mozilla to get Web designers to create compliant sites. Sure, I'm never going to visit most of the sites on the Web, and if I have a problem with one, there will likely be an alternate. But it's nice that one browser maker is pushing for people to have as much choice as possible (it's likely that their efforts will also help users of Konqueror and Opera).

Why AOL is so important (5, Interesting)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841545)

Pretty soon AOL is going to be using gecko [com.com] for its HTML renderer.

In short order, developers taking this tack loose about 30 million customers. Do you want to be the one to explain to your boss why the company site doesn't work on his wife's computer?

What about VisualStudio.NET? (5, Informative)

Schnapple (262314) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841548)

Well if anyone out there has fooled around with VisualStudio.NET and its GridLayout mode then on a web server with the .NET extensions loaded (yeah yeah I know it's a Windows-only technology thus far) when the .aspx page is loaded the proper page is given to the client based on what browser they're using. Whatever trick you want is passed over as whatever the client will understand, be it VBScript, JavaScript or simple HTML links - whataver works. Whatever graphic layout you specify will come across as the correct DHTML specification based on the browser.

I took a DHTML page I made in Visual InterDev that would simply not work in non-IE browsers and re-did it in VisualStudio.NET - it worked 100% perfect in all browsers (well, except Konqueror). Sure, not everything works or looks 100% right (some tricks I tried didn't have as good results but they did the job) but for all the fuss that Microsoft is trying to shut out non-IE users, .NET sure does seem to be doing a lot to try and keep all the browsers happy.

Site designers (2, Informative)

mr_z_beeblebrox (591077) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841550)


Some website designers are not aware of the difficulties of non windows users. A couple months ago I went to www.mancow.com and it was flash only. I e mailed a note to the webmaster and a few days later received the following:

An apology and explanation that no attempt was being made to alienate users

A request to view his NEW page the front page was graphically cool enough and then it linked to "Flash version or HTML version"

So, not everyone does this deliberately.

BTW As a courtesy (if his servers can take it) this was also a plug for www.mancow.com.

Karl

McMaster is doing the same thing... (2, Insightful)

2nesser (538763) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841560)

My school [www.mcmaster.ca] is re-designing it's page. It's about time for a new web page since it's currently old and bulky. But the company that has been hired to do it worries me a bit. Their site is built on flash mostly.[www.cossetteinteractive.com]

Mac's site will not be a flash based application, because the content is the most important but I have a feeling we are looking at IE & Netscape > 5.0 browsers for CSS and java code (my mozilla doesn't have a java plugin!).

Anyway, it's going to be interesting to see how the university reacts to this change.
It's nice when things look pretty, but if it doesn't say anything, or not everyone can read it, then you've just spoiled your "target market" and your "branding" doesn't matter any more?

Chris

It's just poor hygene. (2)

Matey-O (518004) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841568)

I maintain several sites that do lots of nice things using CSS and HTML...they work on and have been tested with multiple versions of Netscape, IE, and Opera (at the very least). As a Government entity, we've also got to consider ADA accessiblity and have accounted for that.

Making a site so that it works on only one browser demonstrates a lack of talent.

Argos aaargh (1)

danrees (557289) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841572)

I don't mind so much if there are a few bugs on a website because the designer hasn't tested it in Netscape/Mozilla/Opera etc - what annoys me is when a website will probably work fine but just blocks you out anyway.

Argos [argos.co.uk] is a case in point. If you fake the UserAgent string, you can access the website fine. But why should I have do do that?! They're just losing customers...

Slashdot Bug - Anorexic pages on Linux (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3841576)

I use Linux/Mozilla as my OS/Browser choice and have enjoyed reading slashdot up to now. However I went round to a friends house and saw slashdot on Windows XP/IE 6 - imaging my jealousy when I saw the sumptuous wideness with which IE6 rendered the slashdot pages! In contrast my Linux experience now seems somehow inferior. It surprised me that slashdot of all places would serve pages that are 'best viewed with IE 6'! Why can't users of other browser/OS combinations enjoy wide pages? Please, please, please allow all users to share in the wide page joy - even the ones that insist on using LYNX.

Slashdot displays incorrectly in IE! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3841577)

Its true, a lot of trolls recently have been exploiting IE bugs on slashdot. Most famously the PWP (Page widening post)! So on slashdot it is the other way round.

Decent Linux graphical browser (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3841579)

Most people seem to think that there is just a choice of Netscape(tm), Mozilla(tm), Opera(tm), or Lynx(tm)...

Not so! This browser is the best I've ever seen:

http://dillo.cipsga.org.br/ [cipsga.org.br]

Opera Vs. IE (1)

dj*doc (590530) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841583)

It's about time that this gets some attention! More than once a day, I have to copy an URL from my Opera (6.0) browser to IE (5.5) just to view some website that doesn't care about anyone but Microsoft. The day I don't need IE to view web pages will be a great day!

Now this gives me an idea... (4, Interesting)

llamalicious (448215) | more than 12 years ago | (#3841584)

Make a repository of sites which break on non-IE browsers.. Basically, a net-wide site-bug watch. Launch it as a universal database, and submit the reports to each webmaster in turn (as well as publishing the information on worst-offenders)

Anyone know of something like this? If not, I'll take the initiative and build it damnit.

Oh, and how many of you complaining wussies are posting via IE on windows anyway? Go sit in a corner.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>