About Web Browsers....
- Thread starter WhateverJoe
- Start date
googolplex
jeff.hume.ca
cough... cough... chimera...cough cough
Do you remember when the first iMac made its splash?
iMac (internetMAC) was a superbly appropriate name.
Look back at the commercials (and yes, those commercials reflected real life experiences - my sister's included) from the time. NO pc box at that time allowed users to do what they could with a computer in just a few seconds and with half a brain.
iMac (internetMAC) was a superbly appropriate name.
Look back at the commercials (and yes, those commercials reflected real life experiences - my sister's included) from the time. NO pc box at that time allowed users to do what they could with a computer in just a few seconds and with half a brain.
Koelling
I Think Different
Why can't we blame them? Sloppy code is just that, sloppy. I'll forgive Jonney 7th grader and his geocities account for having sloppy coding but anything.com should be professional. People fail to realize that anything they put on the web is published and reflects directly on the person. If you write HTML (for crying out loud, it isn't that hard) and it's a corporate page it should look like a finished book or magazine. You don't pick up People Mag at the news stand and the pages fall out, that is the same thing for the web.
There is a fair amount of sabotaging going on too. I laughed when I saw in Omni the feature that changes what sites it is compatible with. I cried when I had to use it. I think it was shockwave.com or something and it said "Sorry, you must use Internet Explorer for viewing this page." So I opened preferences, switched from Omniweb to IE 5.5 (windows) and it worked fine.
There is a fair amount of sabotaging going on too. I laughed when I saw in Omni the feature that changes what sites it is compatible with. I cried when I had to use it. I think it was shockwave.com or something and it said "Sorry, you must use Internet Explorer for viewing this page." So I opened preferences, switched from Omniweb to IE 5.5 (windows) and it worked fine.
I agree completely. But it's even worse than that: Apple's own iTools page only lets you sign in with IE and Netscape. When you set OmniWeb to identify itself as one of these, it works. Apple's iTools page is actually the only reason I have OmniWeb set to identify itself as Netscape. And Apple and OmniGroup are supposedly working very closely together, so WHY doesn't Apple's own iTools page work with it? I want to be able to have OmniWeb identify itself as OmniWeb, and Apple's iTools page is the only page that's keeping me from doing that.
Also, if I'm not mistaken, Apple and Microsoft's deal is ending this summer. I think it was on AtAT a while back with a link to an article saying that the two companies trusted each other enough so that they wouldn't have to renew the contract, meaning Apple COULD make it's own browser.
If an Apple browser was ever released, I would definitely use that instead of OmniWeb, but until then, OW is my browser of choice.Adam
googolplex
jeff.hume.ca
I don't know if I'd be considered a professional web-coder, but I do have a lot of experience. I don't see what you want comments on. CSS? Javascript? I'm confused
PowermacG4_450
OS X Jaguar
Odd, explorer NEVER quits on me... several things to try... just in case you have not yet.
1. keep your macos version current. 10.1.3 is latest, but run software update for any upgrades, patches, etc.
2. upgrade explorer. 5.1.3 latest last time I checked. There are a few security updates for IE you should install... software update should find em.
see if this helps... regarding your 2 and 3, I dont have this problem. never have. ?? so, im lost there.
I have a cable connection, and pages load, fast. NO problem. when I had dialup, they were often slow.
what connection type do you have for accessing the net?
googolplex
jeff.hume.ca
The standards set out by w3c are way ahead of what anyone is doing now. So there would be way more progress if people followed standards
Just take a look at some of the stuff w3c has. Its 'pushing the borders of the web' a lot.
So things would move on much faster if people did follow the standards. Standards aren't boring, standards are very cool and powerful.
Just take a look at some of the stuff w3c has. Its 'pushing the borders of the web' a lot.
So things would move on much faster if people did follow the standards. Standards aren't boring, standards are very cool and powerful.
and...
standards evolve. I am not talking about stagnation. like 'plex said. take a look at w3c.
Having standards IN NO WAY implies any lack of creativity or innovation. Push borders all you want. If it's cool it will be a standard and people should code using that standard.
The bleeding edge will always have kinks in it. That's how standards evolve. But we're not talking about bleeding edge here. We're talking about run of the mill corporate or government sites - whatever - that are just plain SLOPPY. This isn't the browsers' fault. The fault lies with the page coders.
When I go to sites with "new" "pushing the borders" code, I EXPEct issues. Then we figure out the problems and hopefully fix them and --- Tada, a new standard...
standards evolve. I am not talking about stagnation. like 'plex said. take a look at w3c.
Having standards IN NO WAY implies any lack of creativity or innovation. Push borders all you want. If it's cool it will be a standard and people should code using that standard.
The bleeding edge will always have kinks in it. That's how standards evolve. But we're not talking about bleeding edge here. We're talking about run of the mill corporate or government sites - whatever - that are just plain SLOPPY. This isn't the browsers' fault. The fault lies with the page coders.
When I go to sites with "new" "pushing the borders" code, I EXPEct issues. Then we figure out the problems and hopefully fix them and --- Tada, a new standard...
nkuvu
Gone
The other problem with going beyond the standards is that you may break your page for all of the browsers which do not support that extension. Heck, there are a bunch of tags that are IE exclusive. For a lot of the older browsers, this means that the page is displayed incorrectly or not at all. Are you really willing to isolate anyone who doesn't use IE? Yes, IE has the majority as far as the browser market is concerned. But it's very similar to discrimination in any other area.
If someone wants to make a web page that uses exclusive (IE or otherwise) tags, they should have a version which doesn't use the tags. It's that whole "everyone should be able to access your page" kind of thing.
Like putting alt tags for your images. Most people load images, but there are some that don't or even can't. Discriminating against those non-image users is stupid, even though there are very few web pages that are designed to work without images.
There is nothing wrong with experimentation, in fact I encourage it. And I agree that the only way to find new ways to do things is to experiment outside the current boundaries. But you can do that without making people try to deal with those experiments. That's what beta software (or beta anything, for that matter) is all about. You want cutting edge? Fine, try the beta. You want a stable version? Use the latest release version.
I think I should stop now -- too much repetition.
If someone wants to make a web page that uses exclusive (IE or otherwise) tags, they should have a version which doesn't use the tags. It's that whole "everyone should be able to access your page" kind of thing.
Like putting alt tags for your images. Most people load images, but there are some that don't or even can't. Discriminating against those non-image users is stupid, even though there are very few web pages that are designed to work without images.
There is nothing wrong with experimentation, in fact I encourage it. And I agree that the only way to find new ways to do things is to experiment outside the current boundaries. But you can do that without making people try to deal with those experiments. That's what beta software (or beta anything, for that matter) is all about. You want cutting edge? Fine, try the beta. You want a stable version? Use the latest release version.
I think I should stop now -- too much repetition.
MS is notorious for the "embrace and extend" methodology that marginalizes non-Windows OSes. The use of FrontPage extensions, IE proprietary tags, and the somewhat intentional handicapping of the Mac version of IE are only a few examples. Those who have championed standards here are correct.
Those of us who use Mac OS X are in many ways more fortunate than those who use Windows, because we can choose from an enormous variety of browsers, each one of which has its own specific strengths and weaknesses. OmniWeb renders pages beautifully but needs more work on its Javascript and CSS 2 implementations. Mozilla renders really fast but doesn't adhere to Mac's UI guidelines.
If Microsoft decides to let IE linger any longer it's going to fall further and further behind. OmniWeb in particular is repidly catching up to IE, and with the next version it has almost reached parity. My recent testing of OmniWeb 4.1 beta 2 has shown that it renders pages slightly faster than IE and its Javascript is really beginning to take shape. By the end of the year I believe it will be the best browser available for Mac OS X.
Frankly I don't care for Microsoft's browser deal with Apple. It's made them appear lazy. It would be total folly if they honestly think at this point that they don't need to stay competitive. Given their resources they could easily have created a browser with decent page rendering/caching speed and complete CSS2 support. Unless they have a secret IE6 in the works they're going to lose out to Mozilla, OmniWeb, and Opera in 2002.
As a side note, I work as a web developer. I refuse to use any tag, CSS property, or javascript method that isn't supported on Mac IE, Win IE, and Netscape. Often times this means I have to do a little extra works, but it's worth it to make my sites behave consistently for the widest variety of users. At present I'm trying to push our development group towards stronger adherence to XHTML, which is the purest hybrid of HTML 4 and XML. There are some voices of reason on the subject of standards, and here are my two faves:
Jeffrey Zeldman http://www.zeldman.com
Jakob Nielsen http://www.useit.com/alertbox/
Those of us who use Mac OS X are in many ways more fortunate than those who use Windows, because we can choose from an enormous variety of browsers, each one of which has its own specific strengths and weaknesses. OmniWeb renders pages beautifully but needs more work on its Javascript and CSS 2 implementations. Mozilla renders really fast but doesn't adhere to Mac's UI guidelines.
If Microsoft decides to let IE linger any longer it's going to fall further and further behind. OmniWeb in particular is repidly catching up to IE, and with the next version it has almost reached parity. My recent testing of OmniWeb 4.1 beta 2 has shown that it renders pages slightly faster than IE and its Javascript is really beginning to take shape. By the end of the year I believe it will be the best browser available for Mac OS X.
Frankly I don't care for Microsoft's browser deal with Apple. It's made them appear lazy. It would be total folly if they honestly think at this point that they don't need to stay competitive. Given their resources they could easily have created a browser with decent page rendering/caching speed and complete CSS2 support. Unless they have a secret IE6 in the works they're going to lose out to Mozilla, OmniWeb, and Opera in 2002.
As a side note, I work as a web developer. I refuse to use any tag, CSS property, or javascript method that isn't supported on Mac IE, Win IE, and Netscape. Often times this means I have to do a little extra works, but it's worth it to make my sites behave consistently for the widest variety of users. At present I'm trying to push our development group towards stronger adherence to XHTML, which is the purest hybrid of HTML 4 and XML. There are some voices of reason on the subject of standards, and here are my two faves:
Jeffrey Zeldman http://www.zeldman.com
Jakob Nielsen http://www.useit.com/alertbox/
nkuvu
Gone
I was able to find a page that OW couldn't load. It was my credit card company website, and they said I couldn't use anything other than Netscape or IE. So I set the prefs in OW to say "I'm IE 5.something for Mac!". No go. I tried all the IE and Netscape settings available. Nope. Tried to go through IE. No problem.
phatsharpie
Futuristic Robotic Cat
It's possible that the site was checking via JavaScript functionality (document.layer, document.getElementById, document.all) instead of broswer identifier string. I know I usually check for browsers that way.
-B
-B