Just what has Microsoft been doing for IE 7? 354
Jeff Reifman writes "Last week, Windows columnist Paul Thurrott ripped into Microsoft for ignoring CSS standards with its upcoming Internet Explorer 7.0. "Microsoft has set back Web development by an immeasurable amount of time. My advice is simple: Boycott IE. It's a cancer on the Web that must be stopped. IE isn't secure and isn't standards-compliant, which makes it unworkable both for end users and Web content creators." With the redesign of my own site last month, I discovered just how non-compliant IE is with basic CSS: IE 52% vs. Firefox 93%. Is Microsoft purely incompetent and tone-deaf to customers — or simply counting on IE's non-compliance remaining a de-facto standard?"
I vote de-facto standard (Score:5, Insightful)
-Ed
Re:I vote de-facto standard (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I vote de-facto standard (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm glad the IE-bashing gets popular even amongst Win-supporters, we Mac- and Linux-users have been alone on that trip for too long.
Auto-boycot (Score:5, Insightful)
if IE --> Download Firefox Link [mozilla.com]
else --> Welcome visitor!
Re:Auto-boycot (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Auto-boycot (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Don't block your target audience.
2. Don't force them to do something they don't want to.
3. Don't try to fragment the web, it won't work anyway.
If they want to use a broken browser, have a popup window say 'your browser is broken, use firefox', and that's it, end of story.
Your end users DO NOT CARE about your personal crusade to rid the Internet of poorly designed browsers. Really, they don't.
Re:Auto-boycot (Score:3, Informative)
Uh, they do. Except they're EVEN MORE unobtrusive about it.
I was curious, so I decided to check it all out in IE myself. The page opened fine, just with a SMALL header at the top:
"Please consider upgrading your Web browser
Internet Explorer doesn't properly support CSS standards (IE 52% vs. Firefox 93%). If you visit our site with Firefox or Safari, it works perfectly. NewsCloud
Re:Auto-boycot (Score:4, Funny)
If they want to use a broken browser, have a popup window say 'your browser is broken, use firefox', and that's it, end of story.
And advertising Firefox in popups... that's soooo much better.
Re:Auto-boycot (Score:3, Insightful)
IE is just the latest crappiest browser that isn't up to today's standards and developers hate spending the time to 'tweak' or downgrade.
Re:Auto-boycot (Score:4, Interesting)
What you just said, in simpler terms is:
Microsoft's browser can't render CSS properly.
Don't complain about it or try to get it to change.
Don't try and get your userbase to upgrade.
Work around it, instead.
So, I write standards compliant code. You're telling me to break my code JUST so it looks good on some toolsack's browser who hasn't updated since IE5.5!? Further proof people should have to take an exam to be allowed on the internet.
PS - Spend the five minutes and get a *REAL* browser! http://www.opera.com/ [opera.com] or http://www.mozilla.com./ [www.mozilla.com] I have absolutely no pity for idiots who complain about how this site and that site don't look right on their browser and how they'll browse somewhere else. Tell you what, if you're too lazy to upgrade to a real browser, I don't *want* you to view my website. GTF on.
Karma be damned, people like you who can't spend 30 seconds to make sure their computer is actually running properly shouldn't be able to use them.
Re:Not quite... (Score:3, Funny)
Your sentiments are great, but I think we could recommend an even newer browser then that...
Re:I vote de-facto standard (Score:5, Insightful)
"Hoping" is the wrong word. They know that they're guaranteed 85% of the user base, and don't see any reason they should care about any standards except their own.
And before somebody says, "OK, IE is the de-facto standard, we can all just code our pages to use it." Ask yourself this: when you write code in C++ or Java or Perl, do you blindly guess what might work? No, you look up the language features and APIs that are documented to do what you need done, and you use them. But when it comes to coding web pages there is no documentation. Yeah, there's the Microsoft documentation, but it's badly written, and it reflects an implementation that nobody outside of Microsoft really understands, and that could change at any time.
Standard compliance is important. Not to make your web pages work on everybody's browser. But to make them work at all.
Re:I vote de-facto standard (Score:4, Interesting)
And then you discover that no compiler on the planet actually meets the C++ standard and silly little things don't work on someone's current compiler, Java is frequently a write-once, debug-everywhere platform, and many Perl modules in CPAN aren't nearly as platform-agnostic as they claimed.
If you want things to work, de facto standards you can actually test against are worth more than theoretical, formal specifications any day. But of course, both are merely a means to an end, and useful exactly as far as they help you to achieve your objective at the time.
Re:I vote de-facto standard (Score:4, Insightful)
Rules are necessary for any game. The fact that you can't get 100% compliance is beside the point.
Re:I vote de-facto standard (Score:3, Insightful)
On the contrary; on my bookshelf sits a copy of the ISO C++ standard, amongst other things, and I last referred to it on Friday.
Re:I vote de-facto standard (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's stop quibbling about exactly how good C++ implementations are, and get back to the point I was trying to make. When you design an application, whether it's in C++ or HTML, you need a coherent framework on which to build. You can get that from the big percentage of C++ (or Java, despite your sneering at that platform
Last year, not last week (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I vote de-facto standard (Score:5, Interesting)
While some OEMs may choose to bundle IE7 anyway, I think that if Microsoft is barred from any reprisals, most OEMs are sick enough of Microsoft's pressure tactics over the years that they may choose to bundle something else, with the most obvious winner probably being Firefox (since it's the only other browser most people would have heard of).
Re:I vote de-facto standard (Score:5, Insightful)
Plus, I'd rather be able to download and install Firefox on a newly-built computer using IE, than have to download it from another computer and copy it across the network or burn it onto a CD. And what if I don't have access to another computer when build time arrives?
Not having a browser installed = pain in the ass to get one installed = bad idea.
Re:I vote de-facto standard (Score:4, Insightful)
Bundling IE doesn't prevent OEMs from doing their customers a favor by installing Firefox and making it the default browser. There's no good reason not to bundle it.
The following are incentives not to bundle Firefox:
Plus, I'd rather be able to download and install Firefox on a newly-built computer using IE, than have to download it from another computer and copy it across the network or burn it onto a CD.
To be in technical compliance with the law, MS would have allow OEMs to place Firefox or another browser on the install disk. Even if they don't OEMs can include an install disk for the browser. You can use the old version of the browser to download a newer copy of whatever you want.
Re:I vote de-facto standard (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I vote de-facto standard (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I vote de-facto standard (Score:5, Insightful)
There may or may not be good reasons to OEM firefox onto the machines, but this isn't one of them.
Re:I vote de-facto standard (Score:3, Informative)
When buying a system from Dell, etc. Dell provides the support, NOT Microsoft.
That is the whole reason why an OEM copy of Windows costs less than the full retail version, it comes without support from Microsoft. It is intended to be supported by the OEM that puts it on the machine.
Re:I vote de-facto standard (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I vote de-facto standard (Score:2)
Ah, this comment makes me feel old. Unbundling IE from Windows was the main issue in the United States v. Microsoft court case (1998-2000). Bundling IE had essentially knocked Netscape off the browser throne and Microsoft were being investigated for anti-competitive behaviour.
Microsoft argued (successfully) that IE is an integral part of Windows, hence cannot be unbundled. To an extent, they are correct and it wouldn't be a trivial a trivial matter for an OEM to remove IE and still retain a working s
Re:I vote de-facto standard (Score:2)
What part of losing the case do you consider successful? I suppose "successful" in the sense that they managed to avoid being slapped with perjury charges for faking the video that showed Windows running "worse" after IE was removed. Or successful in the sense that the penalties were reduced to the equivalent of a slap on the wrist.
Re:I vote de-facto standard (Score:3, Insightful)
IE developers use Firefox themselves (Score:5, Funny)
Re:IE developers use Firefox themselves (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:IE developers use Firefox themselves (Score:5, Informative)
It allows IE6 to render transparent PNGs (using ActiveX[?] hooks built-in to IE that allow it to render 8-bit transparency, but is mysteriously not enabled for PNGs by default) and programmatically alters the DOM and parsed CSS to enable complex subselectors and a smattering of CSS2/3 selectors as well (including fixed background positioning! [edwards.name]). It adds ~20K to pages using it, but it's a one-time cost as IE caches Javascript.
It's not a magic bullet, and sometimes causes issues itself, but definitely worth a look. Cause no one likes hacking their carefully-constructed divs back to tables, just to support a broken POS browser. (I also enjoy the irony that third-party Javscript hackers seem to be able to make more progress with IE's CSS compatibility than the actual IE team.)
The Percentages (Score:5, Informative)
IE 6: 52%
IE 7: 54%
Firefox 1.5: 93%
Opera 8.5: 93%
Opera 9: 96%
Ok, so I agree that the numbers seem to be good estimates, about right. But how on earth do they actually come up with these percentages? Is is a simple cumulative count of all css tags and attributes that work vs. don't work? Or do some have more weight than others? Seriously, they seem like fabricated numbers
Re:The Percentages (Score:5, Funny)
These numbers are based on web developer usage.
52% use IE 6
54% use IE 7
93% use firefox 1.5
93% use opera 8.5
96% use opera 9
As a result, most web sites (96%) look good in opera 9, making it the most compliant browser. Unfortunately, the other 292% of web sites look pretty bad in it.
Re:The Percentages (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The Percentages (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The Percentages (Score:5, Funny)
Boycott (Score:5, Insightful)
Boycott I.E.? How are people supposed to do that? Just code to the standards and screw the users?
Most users don't care about your ideology or standards. Some of them aren't even aware that there are other browsers, much less why they would want one. If your site doesn't work, they'll just move on to one that does, not complain to Microsoft that xyz.com doesn't render properly.
Re:Boycott (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes.
Maybe you weren't around then, but it didn't bother people one bit to put "Best viewed in Netscape" or "Best viewer in IE" on their site.
"Best viewed in any W3C compliant browser" is even less burdonsome for end users, and is not some incomprehensible thing, it has tons of precedent.
I've never had a user have any serious problems with the sites I design, once I explain to them that it's their browser that is broken, not the site.
Re:Boycott (Score:5, Insightful)
You're referring to the golden era known as HTML 3.2?
Thats the problem, none of the browsers fully implement any of the standards. Some are just better than others.
Re:Boycott (Score:5, Insightful)
I would vote for people recommending FireFox or Opera on every website. Maybe adding functionality for standards compliant browser that IE lacks.
The main thing is NO IE ONLY WEBSITES.
Don't make them and don't use them.
Yes sites need to support IE but they better support browsers that support standards just as well if not better.
Re:Boycott (Score:3)
Re:Boycott (Score:2, Insightful)
There are plenty of ways to crash IE with malformed HTML. I seem to recall that a number of them haven't been fixed yet, and even if they have been, not everyone is using the latest version.
No better way to convince someone that IE is broken than to break it right in front of them...
Re:Boycott (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Boycott (Score:2)
Like I say, I'm not out the change *the* world, just out to make *my* world work for me.
Google is your friend (maybe) (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Google is your friend (maybe) (Score:2)
Re:Google is your friend (maybe) (Score:3, Interesting)
For this to work, google needs to incorporate this into their main search engine, so that websites MUST be standards compliant or probably never make it to the first page of results. I don't think google would do this, unfortunately, must it'd be cool if they did. And if they can make one for the blind, they can surely make one for overall stand
Re:Google is your friend (maybe) (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Boycott (Score:2)
Re:Boycott (Score:2)
Re:Boycott (Score:2)
Re:Boycott (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Boycott (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're lucky, they'll complain to someone at your company that the site doesn't work...
As a web developer, I can't afford to ignore IE. It is what 95% of my clients use to review their sites. "But it works in every other browser!" won't encourage them to keep their business with us.
As a website visitor, though, I use Firefox and Safari. And I complain to the webmaster@blah of any site I that tries to force me to use IE.
De-facto standard not difficult for them (Score:4, Insightful)
Hopefully this will change soon.
Re:De-facto standard not difficult for them (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:De-facto standard not difficult for them (Score:2)
I've not seen a page that's done this in years. Companies these days are far more aware of the use of non-IE browsers.
Re:De-facto standard not difficult for them (Score:2)
Then you obviously have never worked in the automotive business, as I have. I'll speak about Toyota, since that is where I'm most knowledgable. Toyota dealerships have to access a website called Toyota Dealer Daily to order parts, put in warranty claims, and other things. This site uses so much proprietary IE javascript that Firefox can't even load the login page (and you have to login to do ANYTHING on Dealer Daily). I worked at a dealer where we had Toyota, Chevy, Dodge, Kia, and Hyundai, and all of those
Re:De-facto standard not difficult for them (Score:2)
Re:De-facto standard not difficult for them (Score:2)
Let me introduce you to one more IE commercial site....
ADP is another IE only site (to actually do anything). I had one client looking at them for a time clock program. BUT, it was IE only. They asked me about it. I told them it would be a great idea to give everyone easy access to IE again (they use Firefox and Mozilla). It would keep me busy cleaning up the malware, and they would have fun with pop-ups all the time. Oh, and you might want to have a few extra workstations on hand for when I have to wip
I meant to add this to my other post. (Score:2)
I meant to add this to my post above, but here:
If you go here [everdream.com] you will notice they disable the login box if you visit that page using anything but IE. That page is the login for the "Everdream Control Center", which is where you manage everything. Service requests/help desk, remote control clients, asset management, etc.
OK, I wasn't paying attention... (Score:2)
Don't ask (Score:5, Insightful)
200...5 article? (Score:5, Informative)
Now on the topic of better CSS, I think IE7b3 is better than what is advertised in that article. It's still far from perfect though.
Mod parent up (Score:2)
Old news, half-retracted (Score:2)
It's funny... this is the second place I've seen today where someone linked to that idealog article and seemed to think that Thurrott's "Boycott IE" post was new. I seem to recall something similar happening a few months ago, where someone posted a link to some article that had been posted a year and a week earlier, and people reacted as if it were only a week old.
Seriously, how hard is it to look at the date and notice the year is different?
It's worth noting that Thurrott backed off [windowsitpro.com] somewhat on his "b
Re:200...5 article? (Score:2)
"Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft's business model is heavily dependent, not on actually giving customers what they want, but on tricks like "embrace, extend, extinguish". Microsoft will make more money if everyone follows Microsoft's non-standard way of doing things, because then everyone will need Microsoft software to see web sites.
If it weren't for the fact that it is temporarily possible to trick users who have little technical knowledge, Microsoft might be only barely profitable.
--
Will the violence of the U.S. government will end the 3,000 years of violence in the Middle East, or increase it?
Why don't boycott Vista all together (Score:5, Interesting)
IE7 still not W3C compliant or anywhere near there, still giant loopholes in the OS. Still using NTFS instead of the promised WinFS.
I was really (as an MS hater) looking forward to maybe a change within Microsoft since WGates left (and we all know a lot of work goes before the actual announcement) and Vista coming out and having promising features announced, but I can't see anything of that in their new OS.
As for a change, Stevie is announcing stuff at some convention and I am astounded. I mean, I didn't know they could do a lot more improvements in 10.4, but look at the Leopard Sneak Preview and a versioning file system and all kinds of other neat stuff... and that's right after a devving freeze in Vista which was supposed to copy some neat features out of OS X 10.3, maybe even 10.4, heck they could even copy stuff out of KDE for all I care, it still look better.
Microsoft (Gates or Ballmer, whoever has the power): I am very disappointed in you guys. I work in a mixed environment (Linux, Windows, Mac) and I have heard things in that my company (which has a bigass license with you) moving to Mac's for some non-critical users (that only need Office and to surf the intranet). If Apple pulls it off and actually builds in Win32 support in their OS, you are going to become just another SCO within a few years.
What are they doing for IE7? (Score:4, Funny)
Hopefully nothing like what is said here [hastypastry.net]. Warning: there there be crappiness.
Paul Thurrott? (Score:4, Insightful)
In the linked article, he describes CSS as "an HTML-like technology that Web developers use to create Web sites." That's really a stretch, especially on a site like Windows IT Pro. (Couldn't he have said, for example, that it's used to style pages?) But I digress.
In any case, he can complain about IE being stuck in the 90's all he wants--I get as frustrated with it as the next Web developer--but has anyone looked at his site (or Windows IT Pro, for that matter, except I doubt he has much control over that one)? It's a mess of tables, inline Javascript and CSS, and it doesn't even have a DOCTYPE. And he's complaining about standards? IE's buggy rendering and the compatibility mode in Firefox and other browsers is probably the only thing holding that site together.
The article reads like just another attempt to bash Microsoft. It's even a bit hypocritical (see my last paragraph)...
ACID2 - Whoopdeedoo! (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously!?
IE7 fixes the Holly Hack, the box model, PNGs, the pixel jog, the double margin float, child selectors, position:fixed, the XMLHttpRequest object, XML degradation, the phantom box, percentage vs. auto, the PEEKABOO bug (Oh My God - line-height bug, too!), EMACScript degradation
IE7 is waaaaaaaaaaaaay closer to Firefox and Opera than IE6. And because they have a new product, they're going to work harder on CSS2.1 for the next year while they claw their way back into their 90+% market share.
I could honestly care less about ACID2 compliance, and the people who do are impractical pedants. ESPECIALLY when IE6 fails so many more basic standards tests than ACID2, all of which IE7 is fixing.
It is like complaining that you passed calculus without knowing how to use a slide rule. Ridiculous.
Re:ACID2 - Whoopdeedoo! (Score:4, Informative)
jf
Re:ACID2 - Whoopdeedoo! (Score:3)
And besides those fixes, IE7's CSS support is much improved over IE6's. Those of you that are truly interested in how IE7 has improved on IE6's CSS support (as the submitter of this article *purports* to by asking what the IE7 team has been doing), watch this channel 9 video IE7 - CSS Support? [msdn.com].
No, it doesn't pass ACID2 yet, but it blo
Re:ACID2 - Whoopdeedoo! (Score:2)
- Tash
Hybrids [tashcorp.net]
P.S.: Behold, thy name is sarcasm.
Re:ACID2 - Whoopdeedoo! (Score:5, Insightful)
All of these are bugfixes, not additional support for CSS.
Yes, these are improvements to CSS support.
This is only part of draft specifications at this stage.
This is a workaround for proprietary behaviour that gives false positives in Internet Explorer 6. Doctype switching isn't part of any specification, it's intentional misrendering. Not to mention the fact that it wouldn't even be a problem if Internet Explorer supported XHTML in the first place.
More bugfixes, not additional support.
What are you referring to? They haven't made any changes to their JScript engine, which is their implementation of ECMAScript.
All in all, I see a lot of bugfixes, but hardly anything in the way of adding missing support for parts of CSS. Sure, they added selectors, but they missed out tables and generated content, which are huge parts of the specification. Sure, they added a workaround for people using faux XHTML, but they didn't actually add XHTML support. And I don't know what you mean by "ECMAScript degradation", but they still have a non-standard event model instead of the DOM event model.
Come off it. Bugfixes are not a great leap in functionality. Sure, it's great that we finally have them, but to characterise this as closing the gap between the browsers in any meaningful way is exaggeration beyond belief.
Er, some of the things that Acid2 tests for are things you are describing as fixed in Internet Explorer 7, so obviously some of the things in Acid2 are important to you.
And, wearing my impractical pedant hat, I have to point out that you are saying that people who care about Acid2 less than you are impractical pedants, which makes no sense.
Re:ACID2 - Whoopdeedoo! (Score:2)
-- from Position is Everything [positioniseverything.net], the authors of the Holly Hack.
Re:ACID2 - Whoopdeedoo! (Score:3, Insightful)
First of all, a correction to the article itself. IE hasn't set back web development, it has held back web development, since IE6 was released
The ACID2 test may seem irrelevant based on its content (the smiley face), but it is actually a very intense yet concise test of CSS2 box model and selectors support. IE7 fails ACID2, so your claim that IE7 fixes box model support is false.
MS has only taken the occasion of IE7 to fix the specific issues that developers have been shouting the loudest about for mo
Re:ACID2 - Whoopdeedoo! (Score:5, Insightful)
Backwards compatibility with all the crappy proprietary behaviours of older versions of Internet Explorer is pretty important to Microsoft, which is why they are still using their older rendering engine instead of replacing it with something better. They can't make big changes because they are afraid they'll break things.
Internet Explorer 8 is where you're likely to see a change like this. From what they've been saying, I think it's likely that they'll not add a further doctype switch, but implement a new rendering engine for XHTML only. Everybody using text/html will be stuck with Internet Explorer 7-level support for CSS, and everybody using application/xhtml+xml will get the new rendering engine. This has the added advantage of zero regressions - so Microsoft won't have to worry about backwards bug-for-bug compatibility.
Unfortunately, to do this, they actually need to implement XHTML...
No, it's not. I know it looks quite similar when you are writing it, but supporting XHTML isn't just a case of adding "application/xhtml+xml" to the list of media types that get chucked through the HTML rendering engine. Apart from the obvious fatal-error-on-malformed-documents behaviour, there are changes to the DOM, changes to CSS, changes to page structure, and so on. For instance, the following code means different things in HTML and XHTML:
In HTML, this code creates four elements. In XHTML, it creates three elements.
There's all kinds of subtle ways in which XHTML differs from HTML, and if Microsoft don't get it right, it's going to cause a whole load of problems further down the line. XHTML is a golden opportunity to leave cruft like doctype switching and stupid CSS bugs behind once and for all, and if Internet Explorer 7 includes premature broken support for XHTML, it will be a squandered opportunity, and it will cause all kinds of problems further down the line.
Re:ACID2 - Whoopdeedoo! (Score:2)
It's "irrelevant" only for IE7, because IE6 was so far behind that Microsoft still hasn't been able to catch up. For browsers that are already quite good at CSS, and web developers who are targeting those browsers, it helps to provide a valuable step up in standards compliance.
The Acid2 test is using real specified features that have some value to web developers, else they wouldn't even be in the CSS spec. It's certainly not the best test case to
Re:ACID2 - Whoopdeedoo! (Score:2)
Seriously, they're complaining about the Acid2? The most irrelevant web standards test ever devised?
Acid2 is a bunch of random CSS and other standards tests to see if certain often broken parts of the standard actually work right. It is a reasonable torture test, but certainly nothing IE is ready to try for. It is like entering a Yugo in a monster truck contest.
IE7 is waaaaaaaaaaaaay closer to Firefox and Opera than IE6.
Well, for my own personal test the standards compliant markup I maintain looks pr
Re:ACID2 - Whoopdeedoo! (Score:4, Insightful)
It is like complaining that you passed calculus without knowing how to use a slide rule. Ridiculous.
Not to be pedantic, but isn't it more like complaining that someone passed calculous when they have shown an inability to pass a calculus test?
ACID2 is not the end-all and be-all of web standards compliance, but it does give an indication of how well a browser is rendering certain kinds of CSS with reference to the W3C standards. It was devised on feedback from web developers to be a collection of common rendering inconsistencies between the major browsers. It's not completely meaningless.
This article is a year old (Score:5, Informative)
Rhetorical questions & /. (Score:2)
I didn't think rhetorical questions had any place on a public discussion board.
Extra Speculation. (Score:2)
For the best browser experience... (Score:5, Funny)
(Seriously. The best browser is there.)
The Answer (Score:2)
Yes.
Woof woof (Score:4, Interesting)
Microsoft fights while everyone whimpers (Score:2)
The internet cosortium should fight back. But they won't. Because they're soft.
Make sites only available to browsers that aren't IE.
Microsoft fans can give their excuses.
What we need is a Gecko ActiveX control (Score:5, Interesting)
I would love to see an automatically self-updating Gecko ActiveX control. Any IE user who visits my sites (or dozens of other sites that mandate it), would simply have to click "Yes" once (ever), and then the user would be using the newest version of Gecko to render the pages automatically.
IE could be effectively marginalized that way.
Do we all know what year it is? (Score:3, Informative)
Let's be fair here and not criticize IE7 based on a year-old article that's talking about beta 1. If you've got gripes with beta 3's problems (which it does indeed have), then by all means, gripe away.
How to defeat IE (Score:4, Insightful)
The crucial argument against IE is its terrible CSS support but it's very difficult to get this across to ordinary users. Here's my suggestion. Create your site with as many features as possible which fail in IE but render perfectly in Firefox, Safari etc. Next insert Javascript or CSS IE browser detection into your home page which inserts into the IE rendered page something along these lines:
This site will display better in a browser which supports web standards [webstandards.org]. Here's an example [homepagescreenshot.com] to show you the difference.
The example is a link to a screenshot of the home page rendered in Firefox and a link to the Firefox download page should also be added. This way we don't lock out IE users but make IE's shortcomings as obvious as possible thus dispelling the pernicious M$-cultivated illusion that sites with IE workarounds are the standard. For this to work it needs to be a standard response developed by the web standards project so that it becomes familiar when users see it on different sites. The only way to defeat M$ is to play them at their own game.
Insert Headache Ascii Here (Score:3, Interesting)
Believe it or not, but I still get people complaining when things don't work right for Mac I.E. 4.0X. And the sad thing is one of the people who requested Mac I.E. 4.0X compliance was running OSX on a PowerMac G5. I tried to get him to switch to Safari, but alas it was to no avail.
When you can't get a Mac user running OSX to switch to something other than Internet Explorer, you have a problem. But more importantly it tells you something about the desktop/consumer market and why open source software hasn't really been that successful. Firefox is argubly the most successful open source software, but even it has limited marketshare.
The problem doesn't exist with Microsoft, the problem exists between the computer and keyboard.
Article is a Year Old! Are Claims Still Accurate? (Score:3, Interesting)
IE7 CSS Job Interview (Score:4, Interesting)
One of the team leads (sorry don't know how high up of a team lead he was) actually said that often when people say IE is rendering something incorrectly it is actually IE that is doing it correctly while all of the other browsers are rendering it incorrectly. I could tell he was looking at how I would respond to that statement. I just sat there and didn't move. While in some cases that may be true, I knew that was an arrogant lie, and was just enough for me to stop caring about the interview. Needless to say, I didn't get the job. Fortunately, I had already interviewed for another job, which I've since been hired at, which is much better.
Two points here:
1- With team leads holding that kind of attitude (and touting it during interviews), no wonder IE is the quagmire it is. They're more used to making standards, not adhering to them.
2- Yes, recent college CS grads can find a job! I actually had 2 1/2 offers after only 4 interviews. Just develop your skill set (more than what they teach you in class) and learn how to communicate in *English* not just C, C++, Perl, etc.
IE's most egregious offense (Score:5, Interesting)
This bad behavior:
--exists in IE6 and earlier
--violates RFC 793 sections 3.4 and 3.5
--ties up LOTS of memory in zillions of stateful devices (firewalls, VPN gateways, L4 and L7 load balancers, and on and on)
--does not belong to the MS TCP/IP stack, since other applications (eg, telnet) close connections properly
I haven't played with IE7 yet. Someone please tell me MS has finally addressed this abomination.
Re:What is their motivation? (Score:2)
WTF? (Score:2)
Ok, Microsoft doesn't get any money from IE, as far as I can tell.
Okay, just WTF?
Do you believe that you really get a FREE toy with your box of cereal? That you get free gifts if you pump gas at station X?
Offcourse not, anyone who is not a complete slave to advertising knows that these free items are paid for by you!
Same with IE. It comes with the OS wich you paid for. IE could only be free if you could somehow still use it without having paid for the OS wich it needs to run on. Since you can't (the ol
Re:WTF? (Score:2)
People are buying a new computer. It makes no difference to the masses that vista is on it.
Re:What is their motivation? (Score:2)
The web browser has become a standard part of any OS distribution. It tends to take on the look and feel of the OS experience as a whole. This is generally considered a plus by the non-technical end-users. who are Microso
Re:Persistently nag users until they switch (Score:2)
Your client's competitor's are never more than one click away.
You do whatever is necessary to reach and hold his target audience or you find employment elsewhere.