MetaPost comments and questions about the messageboards and other parts of EN World. If you have a problem, this is where to go. Moderator email addresses are posted here.
I'm currently going through one part of my job I hate - fixing sites to look - passable - in IE. Actually, in my day job I have to make it *exact* but I'm not going to do that IE users - I will make it passable.
For example, in EN2's layout the navbars have a left margin away from the logo on the left and are allowed to expand to hit the right page. The top one's margin is 300px, the bottom one 400px. Now the internal table in Firefox, Opera, and Safari (read *CSS compliant*) is set width 100% to fill this space, and only this space. IE thinks 100% is relative to the *page* so it shoots out part of the menu 300px beyond the right margin of the page.
PAMWF, the support software I developed for DMGx and am using on EN2, solves this problem by letting me selective add or omit lines of CSS from a master file from being sent to a browser. So in IE the table has no set width and as a result all the nav options - though present and functional, are crammed up against each other.
Microsoft has bragged that IE8 will be compliant - I'll believe this when I see it but given the company's past foot dragging I won't be on it. In the meanwhile be forewarned that pages will look slightly worse on IE 6 and 7. This is unavoidable - IE sucks.
Or, just possibly, Firefox, Opera, and Safaris suck
More seriously, I'm not an IE fan either, though coding a site to work with several browsers that are used by only a tiny fraction of the consuming public as opposed to the single most popular browser used by consumers seems to be more than a bit counter-productive.
If it were me, making my site accessible to more people would take precedence over making my site accessible to fewer people just because they use browsers that I personally prefer (for the record, I'm an Opera guy).
Or, just possibly, Firefox, Opera, and Safaris suck
More seriously, I'm not an IE fan either, though coding a site to work with several browsers that are used by only a tiny fraction of the consuming public as opposed to the single most popular browser used by consumers seems to be more than a bit counter-productive.
If it were me, making my site accessible to more people would take precedence over making my site accessible to fewer people just because they use browsers that I personally prefer (for the record, I'm an Opera guy).
That tiny fraction is 60% of this board last time I ran tracking software. IE has about an 80% global market share, but 1 year ago accounted for only 40% of ENWorld's hits (50% firefox, 10% others).
And I don't code for other browsers. I code to standards - then complain about fixing IE because of it's market share. If Opera didn't follow standards I would ignore it.
I would argue that "standards" are meaningless; the only standards that matter are the ones used by the software adopted by the majority of people. If 80% of people use IE, the "standard" is the way IE does it.
I would argue that "standards" are meaningless; the only standards that matter are the ones used by the software adopted by the majority of people. If 80% of people use IE, the "standard" is the way IE does it.
No no no! That's a little like saying "vomit over your food before eating it. Millions of houseflies can't be wrong!"
Web standards are good. IE is bad. IE7 was better but still defaulted to quirks mode so that nobody had to worry about poorly coded sites breaking. At least IE8 promises to use standards mode as default - short term some broken sites, longer term better usability for the web all round.
Standards are important (if people didn't follow the HTTP standard there would be no internet as we know it today! If browser manufacturers didn't follow the HTML standard we'd be in a sorry state. The CSS standard is no different.
Buggy software which doesn't conform to the standard needs to be fixed; workarounds may be necessary to support buggy software, but the software needs to be brought up to spec.
(yes, browser compatibility is part of my day job. How did you guess?)
Cheers
__________________ Plane Sailing
(Enworld Admin)
If you need to email me click here
"It makes as much sense as having Batman kill his parents and then go on to fight mutants from another dimension." - Rykion
I would argue that "standards" are meaningless; the only standards that matter are the ones used by the software adopted by the majority of people. If 80% of people use IE, the "standard" is the way IE does it.
I would argue that Microsoft should be the one who is meaningless.
There are only two possible reasons for how they write code.
Either they're just really bad at it due to the unmanagable size of their company or the ineptitude of their coders which is also mostly due to the size of the company. Who can go through the past code of several hundred/thousand people and stay sane?.
Or they're doing it on purpose to hinder the other companies.
So, incompetent or malicious. If we follow them blindly we are only pardoning their mentality and that path leads to a bigger market share for them, and more of the same problems.
The only reason I am on Internet Explorer right now is the fact that my job doesn't allow anything altered. The only reason for that is that it is easier for their IT staff. And of course hiring IT staff who are only familiar with MS is easier and cheaper. And the reason for that is their market share.
Besides which "adopted by people" is a dire misnomer in this case. Most people don't even know that they have a choice in the matter.
Hmm. Is there monster called Dire Misnomer? Gonna have to use one next game time. =)
__________________
"Elves are rare because they are kender who grew up."
I would argue that the very existence of the internet is a testament to the strength and utility of standards. "Internet Protocol" - a standard. Wireless connectivity - a standard. HTML (and every other ML) - a standard. Every little piece of this amazing communications system is based on, relies upon, and shows the strength of having and meeting standards. The thing that makes this place possible can hardly be meaningless to it's further development, hm?
Admittedly, for a small business ideological arguments must give way to practical realities. In the past, the practical reality was that folks coded to a standard - the unofficial IE standard. Now the practical reality is that competition is pushing the web towards compliance to official standards for a very simple reason - the standards are well-considered, so that browsers who meet the standards work better. And, as Michael reports, the majority of the users here are using more standards-compliant browsers. Add to this the fact that coding to the standard is easier and faster for the engineer, and the meaning of the standard starts becoming more clear.
For a small business, the goal is the best service for the most people - and that means jumping on the standards bandwagon.
No no no! That's a little like saying "vomit over your food before eating it. Millions of houseflies can't be wrong!"
Web standards are good. IE is bad. IE7 was better but still defaulted to quirks mode so that nobody had to worry about poorly coded sites breaking. At least IE8 promises to use standards mode as default - short term some broken sites, longer term better usability for the web all round.
Standards are important (if people didn't follow the HTTP standard there would be no internet as we know it today! If browser manufacturers didn't follow the HTML standard we'd be in a sorry state. The CSS standard is no different.
Buggy software which doesn't conform to the standard needs to be fixed; workarounds may be necessary to support buggy software, but the software needs to be brought up to spec.
Very well put! I agree wholeheartedly.
The very fact that MS has *finally* decided to actually use standards in IE8 is a testament to those of us who have stood up for standards compliance.
If they update from IE6 at work I will be able to view the pages correctly and get even less done.
Thanks for trying to make it look at least passable on IE6 and 7, Michael.
__________________ "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction." - Albert Einstein
No no no! That's a little like saying "vomit over your food before eating it. Millions of houseflies can't be wrong!"
Web standards are good. IE is bad. IE7 was better but still defaulted to quirks mode so that nobody had to worry about poorly coded sites breaking. At least IE8 promises to use standards mode as default - short term some broken sites, longer term better usability for the web all round.
Of course, if you go back to the beginning, Netscape was terrible and IE went from at least trying (IE3) to quite good by the standards of the time (IE5/6 -- remember that IE6 was out years before FireFox was useable). Despite building in a lot of stuff to handle Netscape's quirks. Microsoft did far more to get CSS from 'a nice idea' to 'something that can actually be used' than anyone else.
(IE5/6 -- remember that IE6 was out years before FireFox was useable).
Well, more than one year, anyway. I was using it back when they called it Phoenix, and it was definitely usable. Despite there being a few sites that didn't behave properly when viewed in Phoenix, it was usable long before they renamed it Firebird.
Internet Explorer 6: August 2001
Mozilla Phoenix: September 2002
Mozilla Firebird: April 2003
Mozilla Firefox: February 2004
Standards are important (if people didn't follow the HTTP standard there would be no internet as we know it today! If browser manufacturers didn't follow the HTML standard we'd be in a sorry state. The CSS standard is no different.
On the flip side, a lot of the standards we have and use are standards because someone got tired of waiting around for a de jure standard to evolve, said 'screw it' and did something good enough that it became a de facto standard.
Personally, I think it's a big mistake relying on lots of custom stuff to make the site work. It'll just lead to the same situation it's in now, where only one person can maintain it, and if Spoony gets hit by a bus, we're screwed. If it's a choice between a shiny feature or pretty style that needs a lot of custom code to make work, and basic functionality right out of the box, I'll take the latter.
And yes, IE sucks. I've been using Opera since 2000, and would have a hard time giving it up. It annoys me no end when I have to revert to IE for something.
Personally, I think it's a big mistake relying on lots of custom stuff to make the site work. It'll just lead to the same situation it's in now, where only one person can maintain it, and if Spoony gets hit by a bus, we're screwed.
QFT Loads of problems can be traced to this sort of situation.
On the flip side, a lot of the standards we have and use are standards because someone got tired of waiting around for a de jure standard to evolve, said 'screw it' and did something good enough that it became a de facto standard.
Personally, I think it's a big mistake relying on lots of custom stuff to make the site work. It'll just lead to the same situation it's in now, where only one person can maintain it, and if Spoony gets hit by a bus, we're screwed. If it's a choice between a shiny feature or pretty style that needs a lot of custom code to make work, and basic functionality right out of the box, I'll take the latter.
And yes, IE sucks. I've been using Opera since 2000, and would have a hard time giving it up. It annoys me no end when I have to revert to IE for something.
I disagree. Much of the problem can be traced to lack of documentation in the code. Twin Rose for instance didn't leave behind more than 20 words of comments in the entire store code. Bad documentation or no documentation plagues most custom work. Contrawise I tend to write more comment text than functioning code because I have a lot of products and poor memory and I don't want to stare at a block of code I wrote 6 months ago and wonder "what the hell?"
Maybe Safari will work for me. Firefox has been acting up on me for the last 9 months.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
