<<We are dug in so deep that, to remove us, you must remove your spline. >>

Should that be spleen or spine?

It actually goes deeper. 3rd party developers often require IE even if they don't use any MS code. It becomes a vicious cycle. You have to use IE because critical systems require it. Critical systems are programmed to require it because everyone has it. There is one local TV station around here that requires IE to view video clips on their web site even though the clips are in Quicktime. Insanity.

You CAN make web sites that are compatible with just about any browser with Microsoft tools. I have made few sites here at work, and I make sure they are standards-based and don't use any MS proprietary extensions at the client end (testing with my PowerBook is one way!). It's actually pretty easy to do with .Net for the most part. It's more a matter of taking the time to do so than anything else.

The only websites that require IE are sites that use activex or vb client side scripts. All the server side scripting can be viewed from any browser. The only site I know of that I can't get to from other browsers I have tried is the windows update site.

One thing of interest, we have a .aspx page at work that doesn't display correctly on the OS X IE, but safari can display it just fine.

Computers will still require the most recent version of internet explorer, because many current features and components are embedded in .dlls that are only updated when IE is updated.

Even Flash has a bunch of bugs on IE that don't exist on other browsers. Because of that, I refuse to code for IE anymore. It's junk. If a site requires IE, I just won't use it... i.e., if my bank required it, I would get a new bank.

That is really the way to get change!! Do what I do -- if a site requires IE, DON'T USE IT. Better yet, contact the webmsater and say 'I am not using your site because it requires IE, which is too risky.'

its great, M$ says IE is the only option, then cuts production for the Mac end of things

i guess we mac suers arent good enough to have this thing called the internet, especially after the hostile M$ takeover

we mac users should band together and get those scripts that detect browser then have an auto redirect for all IE users saying this website is not compatible with crappy proprietary redmond code-- i would love to do that, so if someone can tell me how to script it, then that would be awesome

TRO

Yeah, it was suppose to be 'spine'. Darn fat fingers!

Thanks for catching it.


Also, it isn't so much the websites but the backend apps that support them is what causes most of the problems with site created with MS apps. But there are several corporate sites I go to where IE, and now Firefox, will work, Safari and other won't. Things like pull-down menus, radio buttons, and stuff I would think should be standards based work only, or correctly in IE.

Of course, there are those sites which some brilliant, but lazy designer just won't even attempt to render, they put up a page stating that you MUST have IE to veiw site contents. Some of these sites are businesses. How can they justify throwing away even 1% of the possible business just because a site designer was lazy?

Amazing!

Vern Seward

How can they justify throwing away even 1% of the possible business just because a site designer was lazy? Simple. The designer says, i can make work on anything, it will take longer to complete and cost you more money in terms of hours and time. Then some suit with an agenda says we aren't paying extra. Not lazy. Artists need to charge for their time and services. We have families to feed, bills to pay.

Quote

Guest wrote:
How can they justify throwing away even 1% of the possible business just because a site designer was lazy? Simple. The designer says, i can make work on anything, it will take longer to complete and cost you more money in terms of hours and time. Then some suit with an agenda says we aren't paying extra. Not lazy. Artists need to charge for their time and services. We have families to feed, bills to pay.

Nope! I don't buy that answer. A well designed site that takes into account all browsers and uses standards instead of proprietary tools is no harder to make than the same site using MS tools. And even if it did cost more to be inclusive, you make up the money spent in satisfied customers.

Money is the reason NOT to be exclusive.

Vern Seward

Spline...spleen. The typo has been fixed. I missed it in editing, and appreciate the note!

Bryan
Editor
TMO

Quote

VSeward wrote:

Quote

Guest wrote:
Then some suit with an agenda says we aren't paying extra.

Nope! I don't buy that answer.

Why not? How many designers are in charge of these kinds of choices? You think the designer puts up a page that says "You must have IE" and management doesn't care about that? Not where I work!

Here, designers design and management decides what the project is going to do and what's going to be on it.

I'm not even going to try and guess what managers are thinking, but I do think "lazy designers" is a pretty thin theory.

Then it's lazy management Small White Car. I mean, c'mon, it's laziness SOMEWHERE in the line where someone says, "no, compatibility doesn't matter", or "the minor dont matter like the major groups matter".

It would be like printing a book and saying, NO, no braille version, no audio version and no large print version. Granted, there are a lot of books out there like that, but the difference is, digitally, we can do a lot more in less time.

And if you're afraid to charge more for a quality product, then you obviously don't understand Apple's core.

Want laziness? Go Microshit. Want quality? Go Apple.

How clear does it have to be? Again, SOMEWHERE, be it the lowly part-time IT guy, be it the upper-crust management, has to be lazy to make the decision to NOT check for compatiblity issues.

And NO - IE does NOT follow standards. So the people that allow sites out there that aren't compabitible with Mozilla engines aren't even following standards.

Quote

Small White Car wrote:
[
Why not? How many designers are in charge of these kinds of choices? You think the designer puts up a page that says "You must have IE" and management doesn't care about that? Not where I work!

Here, designers design and management decides what the project is going to do and what's going to be on it.

I'm not even going to try and guess what managers are thinking, but I do think "lazy designers" is a pretty thin theory.

Because that's not the way it works, at least not from my limited experience. Most folks who hire web designers have no idea what they want when it comes to the technical end of it, they just want a site out there so they can earn money. Designers usually suggest things that might make the site more enticing. As a matter of course, a designer SHOULD design a site that open to all, by not doing so he short changes his customer.

When I say "lazy" I don't mean that designers aren't working hard for their living, I mean that those who don't know how to set up a page to be accessible by all did not do his homework, and that's the lazy part.


Vern Seward

Quote

Bryan wrote:
Spline...spleen. The typo has been fixed. I missed it in editing, and appreciate the note!

Bryan
Editor
TMO

Spleen works.

IE simply doesn't conform to established standards. For the past few months, my boss has been giving me specs requiring me to use CSS for layout instead of tables. Let me tell you, it is easy to code CSS to spec. But when that page is rendered in IE, it's a disaster! Firefox, Safari, and Netscape are all fine. IE distorts the layout, sometimes marginally, sometimes drastically. IE doesn't show some pics if they are aligned 'right.' (Hack: add 'img {position:relative;} to your CSS file). I have to spend HOURS researching layout quirks in IE, such as margin and padding deviations that IE has made from CSS specs. Getting a 3-column variable-width layout to render correctly in IE 6 is like me managing the laying of a foundation for a mini-mall. In fact, I have been told that I should stop designing for the pixel-perfect layouts that I could achieve with tables, because IE makes it so difficult in CSS. ABSOLUTELY NO tool that I know of makes this easy. Mainstream GUIs like GoLive or Dreamweaver certainly don't. This is because it doesn't simply require a specific coding format, but HACKS that need to be ADDED to the code in order to accommodate browsers like IE.

Quote

metavurt wrote:
Then it's lazy management Small White Car. I mean, c'mon, it's laziness SOMEWHERE in the line where someone says, "no, compatibility doesn't matter", or "the minor dont matter like the major groups matter".

Right. Thanks for repeating what I said.

Quote

mahuti wrote:
... If a site requires IE, I just won't use it... i.e., if my bank required it, I would get a new bank.

That's exactly what I did.

OT: What do SJ means by the next wave of internet is driven by client applications that exploit internet but do not necessarily run within an internet browser. Do he just mean iTMS or he has more in his sleeves?

Quote

geoduck wrote:
There is one local TV station around here that requires IE to view video clips on their web site even though the clips are in Quicktime. Insanity.

Often, all that is required is for the browser to tell the site that it is MSIE. iCab can do that as is--it can say that it's IE, Netscape, etc. Safari can do this if you get a hack that enables the Debug menu. The developers of Mozilla, Camino and Firefox could easily put in such an option if requested. I did this to use a site that sells DVDs at reasonably low prices (www.dvdlegacy.com--they are not always the lowest--the best I've found is www.digitaleyes.net). Their site says that it only works with IE, but it works just fine with iCab and Safari as long as they tell the site that they are IE. (This is under the Identity pane in iCab's preferences--iCab is probably the most easily customized browser. Its major drawbacks are an out-of-date javascript engine and poor implementation of CSS, both of which will supposedly be fixed in iCab 3.)

In your article, you mention that:

"(...) the Swiss to say that IE is holier than their cheese, and that students and faculty should try another browser, any browser, tout suite, lest they find themselves (...)"

If you mean to say "immediately" by using the French expression, "tout suite", it should be "tout de suite".

Otherwise, great article! I also think IE is a sorry excuse for a browser.

Quote

Guest wrote:
In your article, you mention that:

"(...) the Swiss to say that IE is holier than their cheese, and that students and faculty should try another browser, any browser, tout suite, lest they find themselves (...)"

If you mean to say "immediately" by using the French expression, "tout suite", it should be "tout de suite".

Otherwise, great article! I also think IE is a sorry excuse for a browser.

Actually, I wrote the phrase as 'toot sweet', which is an English bastardization of 'tout de suite', I thought it was more appropriate. As it is, 'tout suite' would be kinda like a French normalization of the English bastardization, if you get my drift. It is phonetically the same as 'toot sweet', yet approaches the French correct spelling.

I think we oughta leave it the way it is; start our own trend. Who's with me? Damn the Man! Do what you want!



Vern Seward

Quote

VSeward wrote:
I think we oughta leave it the way it is; start our own trend. Who's with me? Damn the Man! Do what you want!

What?! And make it non-compliant with standards? Tsk tsk.

Have been since it was first released. But, I don't mind IE. I know its microshaft and all that. But it seems to work just fine to me. So, whats the issue with it thats so bad? Again, its not very important to me since I'm a safari guy anyway.

After using Firefox, I can't even touch IE anymore. Too slow and unstable. Its like jumping from a Porsche to a minivan... you just can't stand to do it.

Worse. With Mac versions of IE, its like jumping from an F1 car to walking.

or perhaps from hurtling around the earth at who knows how many miles per hour

to being buried six feet under the ground, never to move again...

or something

Actually, I rarely ever use IE (pronounced: Aieee!) anymore - in fact, I only use it for one site. (The pages print/.pdf better - um, when I rarely do it.)

Otherwise, I use Safari for everything. For one thing, it's easier to block pop-up ads with Safari!