A rant

Ladforce · 24 Oct 2008 at 13:04

likwid said:
Erm, the ability to increase font size is for people with sight deficiency, or just those who don't have their glasses. Pretty much one of the standard accessibility considerations.

no one is losing traffic for suggesting that users try another browser.

So people with sight deficiency dont need images increasing in size? The zoom method in ff3 is how its always been in IE7 where it increases the zoom of everything on the page.

Depends how the message is presented - if it requires a click through (like hotmail does if you have an out of date browser) then they would lose traffic.

Ladforce · 24 Oct 2008 at 13:06

likwid said:
Oh, and why can't developers wish that MS would start producing a standard compliant browser? Or for that matter inform their users of a better browser?

I didnt say they couldnt wish it, its wasted effort though as Microsoft does whatever it wants. Developers should just get on with it as thats what they are paid to do.

Shoseki · 24 Oct 2008 at 13:07

The entire internet only exists because of standards. URLs? Standards driven. HTTP? Standards driven. Image types? Proprietry originally, then standards driven.

If you aren't working towards standards, then you are working away from them.

likwid · 24 Oct 2008 at 13:08

Ladforce said:
I didnt say they couldnt wish it, its wasted effort though as Microsoft does whatever it wants. Developers should just get on with it as thats what they are paid to do.

did you really just say that?

Ladforce · 24 Oct 2008 at 13:08

Shoseki said:
The entire internet only exists because of standards. URLs? Standards driven. HTTP? Standards driven. Image types? Proprietry originally, then standards driven.

If you aren't working towards standards, then you are working away from them.

Microsoft have their own standards

likwid · 24 Oct 2008 at 13:09

I'm working away from this thread...

Shoseki · 24 Oct 2008 at 13:13

Ladforce said:
Microsoft have their own standards

Please, please tell me that was ironic. Standards actually come from someone significant, such as the International Organization for Standards.

Ladforce · 24 Oct 2008 at 13:14

Shoseki said:
Please, please tell me that was ironic. Standards actually come from someone significant, such as the International Organization for Standards.

Yea it was a joke.

likwid · 24 Oct 2008 at 13:17

Please tell me everything you wrote in this thread was ironic?

ladforce said:
Yea it was a joke.

Ladforce · 24 Oct 2008 at 13:18

likwid said:
Please tell me everything you wrote in this thread was ironic?

Helium_Junkie · 24 Oct 2008 at 14:27

It's just advertising, using a statement that in many cases is true - the site will work better in FF.
The fact that this irritates you enough to rant makes me laugh

tolien · 24 Oct 2008 at 14:55

Ladforce said:
The zoom method in ff3 is how its always been in IE7 where it increases the zoom of everything on the page.

And the zoom in Fx2 is how IE6, and pretty much every browser for years did it (IIRC Opera did full zoom for a while before anyone else).

Bear in mind that 2 was only really an incremental update to 1.5, rather than having any major changes - patches would likely have been accepted though...

zinc · 24 Oct 2008 at 22:08

I just have to say I've been creating websites in CSS for more than 4 years and never once have I found IE to display my websites correctly during development. FF, Opera, Safari, and now chrome all identical, open IE6 or 7, ohh! it's just ridiculous...

I probably spend 1/3 of the time tweaking to get websites to display in IE.

and don't get me started on Microsoft and their ActiveXObject.

adamph · 25 Oct 2008 at 00:05

Ladforce said:
Im not an IE fanboy, in fact I only use firefox 3. I agree ff3 is better than ie7 but then again it is a lot newer. IE7 was better than ff2 as it should be as again, it was a lot newer.

I dont know how you can tell me to start coding properly when you have no idea what i've worked on or produced. I always produce valid code which works on ie7 and ff3..its true sometimes a few tweaks are needed but nothing like for ie6.

I called you an IE fan boy for one simple reason, the statement you made. Personally I don't subscribe to the whole idea of fanboys. However if you are blatant enough to call someone else (nay an entire forum post of users) over their browser choice you may fall under the same ilk.

IE7 is not a bad browser in the long run, it is a lot more compliant than IE6 which is an abomination. I believe I may have misread your post for which I apologise for. Despite my error it still doesn't stop the fact that every version of IE up till 8 is not standards compliant. Firefox 2 has always been in my opinion and the majority of the development community far superior to IE7 so I am curious to your support of it...

reflux · 25 Oct 2008 at 01:35

This thread made me grin with sympathy....I work for a web design company, and we promise 100% compatibility with every browser that has more than 0.8% of the market share. Probably 60% of the construction time is taken testing the websites across the browsers, and writing lines and lines of hacks to make them work properly in the horrendous attempt at a web browser that is Internet Explorer.

There really needs to be much more standardization on the internet.

probedb · 25 Oct 2008 at 20:05

There's no reason not to make a site work in all browsers. It's called progressive enhancement.

The thing people seem to expect is all sites to be pixel perfect across everything which just won't happen. That amount of hassle isn't worth it.

But back to the original poster...if a site tells you to use one particular browser before letting you in it's crap. Maybe a footnote saying what browser(s) it's going to look best in but no need to force it down the user's throat, they'll just get ****ed off and leave the site anyways.

likwid · 27 Oct 2008 at 08:35

I'm pretty sure that the original poster didn't have to click through a firefox prompt but noticed a small image somewhere fairly inconspicuous.