Netscape for X?

Netscape 6 sucks. I only use netscape comm. 4.7 for email (will switch to Mail but it feels a little rough still).

I was using IE 5 in OS X and OmniWeb occasionally but thankfully IE somehow died. I tried deleting prefs etc. I was forced to use OmniWeb, now I love it. They are really trying to make it fit in with OS X. For example, the prefs panel in beta 9. I just wish apple would make a standard way to implement the panel in all apps, allow apps to incorporate that fluid motion when you move things in the dock, and in the top of the system prefs panel.

peter

P.S. OmniGroup are also being very helpful to the macosx developer community. There is a reason that apple's developer docs have a link to their site.
 
<rant>

(BTW you CSS DHTML JavaScript webmasters can go to hell. Thankfully those web sites with actual content don't use them.)
Click to expand...

You must be kidding right?

I learned the hard way that the only way to help ensure consistency with user experience is with CSS. It has saved my butt more that I can think of.

This forum uses CSS, btw...

</rant>

While I'm not a fan of DHTML, the internet would be a drastically different (read 'horrible and primitive, full of inconsistency and lack of control over the user experience') place to be without CSS and Javascript.

whoops -- seems I rabbit trailed.

Navigator sux. omni web doesn't work on my machine. for now, IE rox.
 
Originally posted by Hobeaux


(BTW you CSS DHTML JavaScript webmasters can go to hell. Thankfully those web sites with actual content don't use them.)
Click to expand...

You must be kidding right?

...

While I'm not a fan of DHTML, the internet would be a drastically different (read 'horrible and primitive, full of inconsistency and lack of control over the user experience') place to be without CSS and Javascript.
Click to expand...

I'm not a big fan of DHTML, but c'mon dissing javascript, and css?? I'm with Hob here in the feeling that CSS is one of the most important features of modern html. Strobe, you diss Netscape, and then you talk as though you would rather stick with html 3.2, the horrible compromised version of html, that was developed by the w3 strictly as a compromise to include Netscape's horrible proprietary tags.

Now, I'm not to big on Mozilla's interface either, but that's not what I consider the most important feature of a browser. What I care about is how the browser renders and supports w3 approved html. What makes Opera/iCab/Omni so great, is the few standards they support, they support very well (or at least plan to). This is why I like Mozilla. It renders pages fast, and correctly, and supports html 4/css. That's all I'm concerned with, because I'm tired of the hassles of designing webpages for html 3.2. It's been way too long, let's get past 3.2 and move on to a more modern specification.

Mozilla is open-source, why doesn't some one build a nice MacOS X/Cocoa App that works well and fits Apple's operating system, but uses Mozilla's rendering engine. If I remember correctly, wasn't the new Mozilla developed with the idea that other Apps could use it's html/xml rendering engine (gecko i think it's called)?? I haven't been paying too much attention so I could be outdated, but if this is the case, what's stopping someone from building a nice Cocoa app that uses Gecko? (what's stopping me is, I'm not a skilled oo-programmer)
 
Dude, web designers shouldn't give a crap what their clients are using.

As for html standards, 1 or 4 is fine by me. If you require JavaScript buh-bye. If you require Mozilla go to hell.

If you think I'm going to help AOL take over the world you're not only smoking crack.

Do I really give a crap how Mozilla renders pages? Do I care if it places the graphics exactly how you intended? Hell no. I want my info and then I want to leave. The best web experience is a brief one.

I can visit a web site and leave my room faster than it takes to launch Mozilla.

As for my html code, it even works in lynx although I make sure Netscape 2.02 can handle it.
 
The way this god awful world works, you kinda have to think about what the clients are using. Some IE stuff aint supported by netscape, and not supported bu icab and so on.

I bend over backwards to ensure that my pages look OK in both majot browsers, IE & netscape. Foreign language encodings give me a hard time. As for javascript, I try to make my page so if someone does not have JS they can at least get to the essentials of my page.

I like lynx, its fast, simple and to the point. Thats they way graphical browsers should be.

I tried mozilla, and netscape 6.. they suck.. Half the time they crash my system before they start up, the other half it takes an eon to start up and then after a little bit of use it crashes!

I dont like M$ politics, meaning "we make special tags and if you want to use em use em". This is big time BS in my mind. OF COURSE THEY ARE GONNA USE EM STUPID! (if they make life easier that is), and web content aint gonna show up ok in other browsers.

All browsers should be HTML 4.0 compliant, and web devs should also ONLY code with HTML approved tags, but most webmasters/devs/designers are f**en idiots and they cut corners making web pages impossible.

Further more UNICODE should be the standard for international fonts... keep it simple, keep it uniform!


Admiral
 
I code HTML 4 except for <center> which is missing from the spec. Older browsers don't know <align>.

Why <center> isn't in the spec is pure BS politics.

Oh well, no way am I doing to use NS 4 or NS6, they both blow chunks. They won't get any better that's for sure.

I always have JavaScript off and I'm doing fine. When a web site requires it I usually skip it or send the webmastur a flame.


(no, nooo, not my beloved CSS tables! You can't see my masterful creation! Damn you JavaScript disable button!)
 
hrm, the damned cgi removed all my tags. WTF man, I thought this was plain old text

Well the CENTER tag isn't in HTML 4 and old browsers don't know the ALIGN tag so I hope the above post makes sense
 
Which is better?

(P)(font face="arial, verdana, helvetica, sans-serif")This is an example of a generic paragraph. It contains the deprecated 'font' tag which won't be supported by future browsers.(/font )(/p)

(ul)
(li) (font face="arial, verdana, helvetica, sans-serif")( b)This is a list item(/b)(/font)(/li)
(li) (font face="arial, verdana, helvetica, sans-serif"( b)This is a list item(/b)(/font)(/li)
(li) (font face="arial, verdana, helvetica, sans-serif"( b)This is yet another list item(/b)(/font)(/li)
(/ul)


OR

(p class="someclass") This is an example of a generic paragraph. It contains the deprecated 'font' tag which won't be supported by future browsers. (/p)
(ul class="someboldclass">
(li) This is a list item (/li)
(li) This is a list item (/li)
(li) This is yet another list item (/li)
(/ul)

Personally, I only know one person that doesn't hate Navigator -- but she hasn't tried any other browsers besides IE 3 (which sux too) so I'm willing to forgive her.

As for Javascript, any image rollover effect that you see (or perhaps you don't see them as you are busy ignoring them) is via javascript.

with JS you are able to perform many uber cool features (not just rollovers)... it's time to jump into the 21st century strobe ;)

BTW: Web designers shouldn't have worry about what their clients are using, but the sad truth is that we have too. If browser developers would just make the browsers the way that spec is, all would be well.

but then, if a browser had 100% spec compatibility, there would be no need to upgrade...




[Edited by Hobeaux on 03-03-2001 at 06:31 PM]
 
JavaScript is just plain annoying.

mouseovers don't cause non-JS browsers to bork so I don't mind them, but JavaScript links do cause non-JS browsers to bork so I really hate them.

I hate 99% of JavaScripts. My web browsing is a lot more pleasant with it off.
 
Yeah,

javascript in the wrong hands is a dangerous thing :eek:

one of the things i hate (though i've seen fewer and fewer examples of late) is the gratuitous use of Java applets. some of those things just bring a computer to its knees.

ick.


 
Applets are easier to selectively open. In fact I always use a seperate AppleViewer instead of the browser. Also I haven't seen a web site BREAK when you turn off Java.
 
APPLETS :-O
Oh my GOD!
Dont even get me started on those!
I like to browse music sites, and they have applets.... its a STUPID applet
(in Xmas time) that makes the logo look like snow is falling on it...
My browser/computer CROAKS with it.... and there are countless examples
out there.... makes you have headaches.... (or just want to strangle the guy that
made the applet)....

I just get the direct link to a particular page and hope that the link does not change.


What do you guys think of flash animations used for menus ?
I had one one my site a while back but it took forever to load on 56k
since I did not optimize it.... it was a scrooball so I removed it.


Admiral
 
I've come across flash swf files which only work in IE 5 windows and nothing else. The site doesn't even use embed tags, just links to the swf file.
 
Originally posted by strobe
If you think I'm going to help AOL take over the world you're not only smoking crack.
Click to expand...

Mozilla is open-source now man. Doesn't that mean anything to you?? AOL doesn't even bundle Netscape (or Mozilla) with it's software, they bundle IE. AOL didn't buy netscape for the browser, they bought it for the domain name/website.

As for my html code, it even works in lynx although I make sure Netscape 2.02 can handle it.
Click to expand...

Your missing the point of HTML 4/CSS. This lets you design webpages that look really nice in browsers like IE, Mozilla, and Opera (not the current iCab, or OmniWeb) but still look just fine (although bland) in every browser (including lynx). I consider a webpage broken if it can't be viewed in lynx nicely, but my boss wants me to code websites that his graphic design students send me. CSS gives me the ability/power to keep the content there for all browsers while making them look super nice in new browsers and it loads faster. It keeps you, me, and my boss (plus these 'design' students) all happy.

However, Netscape 4 (not 3) tries to half ass display my CSS code, and ends up breaking everything. That goes against the very idea of CSS (to be universally degradable accross all browsers).

HTML was created by Berners-Lee to be simple, using font tags and table tags to display content is not simple. CSS was created by the w3 to display this simple html in a nice graphical way, without messing up the simplicity of html code. Unfortunately, if you want to make money in the business of coding html, you usually need to make your shit look nice. Until we have browsers that support CSS, we will have to rely on hacking html (going agaisnt it's purpose) with proprietary tags. CSS support is our way out of this mess.

Strobe, why do you fear CSS so much?
 
As the web becomes more complex, or just wants to do more, people will piggyback stuff on top of HTML because HTML can't do all the stuff that people want to do.

Sooo... they got their CSS (which I like since it works well on all newer broswers, conserining fonts)
they got their javascript ( jury's out on that one(
they got their java applets ( thumbs down)
they got their shockwave ( hung jury )
they got their real, windows media and quicktime streaming....
and a whole bunch of other plugins.

HTML has become like an OS. The core (HTML) changes ever so slightly, then
you have all these other plug ins that can cause problems if not made correctly.

The problem is that people want to make their stuff extravangant, giving out info
is not longer an integral part of the net. YOu have to get someones attention
in order to give him the info. You also have (pardon the expression) *idiots*
that use dreamweaver and other point and click web page makers and they have no
idea what in gods name HTML is.
They would not have the faintest idea of how to code in HTML if you gave them a piece of paper and a pencil and told them to white an HTML page where you say "The big bullfrog went to the market" in geneva, 10 point, and bold.



Admiral
on a personal note I sitll use the "center" tag, even though it is not in HTML 4, it is useful and it was part of HTML in years past.

 
Well, I don't mind the use of flash for things link navigation as long as:

1. the movies are small
2. there is an optional page for those that don't have flash. this can be achieved with a simple detection script

There is a new vector standard being developed that is like flash but will be integrated into future html spec.

i'm no luddite, but i haven't embraced flash entirely yet.
 
Originally posted by AdmiralAK
The problem is that people want to make their stuff extravangant, giving out info is not longer an integral part of the net. YOu have to get someones attention in order to give him the info. You also have (pardon the expression) *idiots* that use dreamweaver and other point and click web page makers and they have no idea what in gods name HTML is.
Click to expand...

You forgot, you also have a boss who's hired several photoshop artists. He sends you massive PSD files and says turn this into a webpage..."don't you love this design". To be honest, we've got some amazing graphic designers in my group, but they just don't design html pages. At least that's what I say, but my boss tells me that this is what webpages are, that Tim Berners-Lee (or any of my other heroes) doesn't know what he's talking about.

What he says though kind of freaks me out. The web got more and more popular as people starting building more and more graphical webpages (using proprietary NS tags). It got too popular before CSS was well supported and now most users want to see flashy websites. Most businesses that hire groups, like mine, want flashy websites that will attract customers. They don't care how it gets done, or if some user with a minority browser can't see their website. And I'm stuck with the task of trying to code clean html that I'm proud of, and making it look attractive to please the clients/boss. Right now the majority of my work relies on hacks or compromises to the html I would rather code. CSS solves so much of this.

What I need is good CSS support in popular browsers, and I need my photoshop team to learn CSS and what it can do.
 
Right now the most annoying use of JS is to pop open a new window from an ad-banner. I have gone to several sites ( Macast ocasionally and once on resex.) that have ad-banners on them and I ignore or block them w/ omniweb when in X. But lately I have gone to some sites and the ad-banner opened a new window for its product while the page was loading. If I wanted to see more info about the product in the ad I would click on it (though I probably never will). Has anyone else seen this?

Personally I feel that this is invasive. Any one else agree with me? Maybe I should start a new post on the topic.
 
I have, unfortunately, had this happen on my website. The Network that hosts my site gets its ad banners through some company or another that has (on rare occasions) slipped those into the ad script. When that happens, I run screaming to the Network to have them removed (the ad company isn't 'supposed' to serve that crap, but they do on occasion.)

currently on my site I have a small 'Unreal Top 100' link that does some stats against other Unreal-based sites. that button does use a JS that, if you don't have JS enabled, will force a window on your screen. I'm probably going to dump it soon anyway..

blantant plug: <a href="http://www.unrealengine.com">UnrealEngine.com</a> -- I use CSS fairly well, but there are still some things that are legacy. ah, well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top