Time to Dump Internet Explorer

Incorrect. Browser history:
http://www.blooberry.com/indexdot/history/browsers.htm

Windows IE
1.0 Final Aug. 1995
2.0 Final Nov. 1995
3.0 Final Aug. 1996
4.0 Final Oct. 1997
5.0 Final Mar. 1999
5.5 Final Jul. 2000
6.0 Final Oct. 2001

Macintosh IE
2.0 Final Apr. 1996
2.1 Final Sep. 1996
3.0 Final Jan. 1997
4.0 Final Jan. 1998
4.5 Final Jan. 1999
5.0 Final Mar. 2000

Mosaic
1.0 Final Nov 1993
2.0 Final Nov. 1995
2.1 Final Jan. 1996
3.0 Final Jan. 1997
Mosaic Ends

Netscape
1.0 Final Dec 1994
1.1 Final Apr. 1995
2.0 Final Mar. 1996
3.0 Final Aug. 1996
4.0 Final Jun. 1997
4.5 Final Oct. 1998
6.0 Final Nov. 2000
7.0 Final Aug. 2002

Opera
2.1 Final Dec. 1996
3.0 Final Dec. 1997
3.5 Final Nov. 1998
4.0 Final Jun. 2000
5.0 Final Dec. 2000
6.0 Final Nov. 2001
7.0 Final Jan. 2003

Agreed. Frontpage sucks. And everyone should adhere to HTML standards so everyone can use the web the way it was meant to be.

Yes. This http://www.globalusaonline.com/ is what happens when you use Frontpage.

Haha.

acid: Isn't that the website you designed for your last employer?

Nope. I had created a design to replace it, but "things" hit the fan and I no longer worked there.

this also happens when you use frontpage
http://www.atlantisglassdesign.com/

Nothing happened? [Shows up fine in Opera 7.5]

Frontpage doesn't generate standard html, if you use some of its features. Microsoft really should get it's act together regarding complying with open standards. They are getting better at this with newer product lines, but they do still have a lot of work to do. Unfortunately, in the past they have been more concerned with making things powerful, simple, and easy to use for novice users, rather than sticking to standards.

If a website looks crap, then blame the designer, not the tools.

Been using Firefox myself now for at least 6 months. At the very least for me on my connection Firefox is noticeably faster with most webpages I view. By clicking the load only pictures for originating website option I can take loading of, say, Warp2search to 22seconds, with IE this would take over 1 minute to load (As it has to download all the ad images).

I am web designer and one thing I hate with passion is when I see the web site that states "Best viewed with Internet Explorer" or "...with Netscape" or even worse "Best viewed with 800x600"

What am I supposed to do when I see the one with "best viewed with NS4" ? Go quickly to netscape.com and download their browser just to see the crap on that website ?

When I create web site it's "Best viewed with web browser" and the "computer monitor" Anything else is rubbish.

The problem today is that MS is so big and has huge percentage of internet users so web developers don't care. Not all, but majority of lower end. And Microsoft has gone a lot it's own way ignoring the html conventions. Why ? Why the dog licks his own balls ? Exactly - because he can!

Some people are flaming FrontPage. OK, let me put this straight, FP98 was absolute crap, total disaster. FP 2000 was ... hmmmm .... getting better, FP 2002 (xp) is pretty alright and FP2003 is fantastic. (**conditions apply)

Conditions ? Yes, there is one thing you must do - never use FP themes and other MS specific stuff and you'll never have problems with FP (2002/2003)

When I develop web site it is being tested on: Mozilla, IE, Opera, Firefox and Safari. If there is problem in one of those browsers - there is a problem with me.

For day to day browsing I use Mozilla 1.6 ( since yesterday it's 1.7) I also use Firefox since version 0.8 but more like experimental.

I totally abandoned IE use about 18 months ago. The only time I use it is when I test the web site in development.

Mozilla is far superior browser to IE. The email client is exactly the same (superior). Someone mentioned that tabbed browsing is nightmare (!) Well, this is how I see it. When I need to find something on internet I open google and search for it. I usually get the page with heaps of links. Now, in IE, I would need to go to each of these and go back to google for the next one. Or, I would need to right click / open in new window. Then I have to click on the google one in task bar to get back so I can request the new one.

In Mozilla, it goes this way: once I get the google result, I middle-click on each of the resulting links and the page loads in the new tab in background. So I just go click-click -click ... 20 times if needs to be, and it's all in one window in different tabs. If I need to close the tab I just middle click it and it's gone. If I need to close all tabs, I right click one tab and select "Close all other tabs"

While for someone this might be nightmare, for me this is probably the best thing I ever experienced in web browser.

The other thing is pop up blocking, natively built in, no extra bars, no crap whatsoever, just plainly perfect.

Well said stelex, you're right on the money, and even took the time to qualify your opinion. I couldn't have said it better myself :=).

Uh. 800x600 has nothing to do with this discussion. Websites are designed for 800x600 because the majority of users resolution is 800x600.

You are NOT a good web designer at all if you don't understand that you design for resolutions that the MAJORITY uses and design your page so that the MAJORITY of users can view it correctly.

Who cares what the "correct" way to do html is. A functional page is MORE money for the company. If a page doesnt work correctly the viewer will NOT come back most likely. To ignore this is stupidity and the sign of a bad web designer.

Edit: And you must take into account of the fact that MOST, probably 98% of shoppers online are using IE. There is no way around this fact. Those who know enough about technicalities to use another browser aren't as much of a concern as the general public is.

It's one thing to know how to do "correct" html, but it's other to blatanly ignore the fact that some correct html might not work in the most used browser (IE).

It really annoys me when people come in here and talk about how web designers should design a page to live up to html standards. People that do that don't know what they are talking about when it comes down to it and are bad designers and I sure wouldnt hire anyone to create a webpage with that attitude. A webpage had better work well for the majority of it's viewers or you would be out of a job if I was the one hiring you.

Frontpage, is in fact crap. No matter HOW you look at it. Take a look at frontpage html with Notepad and you will immediately know why if you are a good designer.

Your all ignoring the facts because you are blind. Just because you decide that FireFox or Opera are "better" doesn't mean everyone else uses it or wants to. Pages SHOULD and NEED to be designed for the majority. If your too blind to see this than well, that is your problem, your downfall and you would be the one losing money, having the customer pissed at you, and this would be the reason you do not move up in the world as a web page designer.

acid: Don't you think you are being a little hard on stelex?

If you look at any code generation tool's output, be it dreamweaver, frontpage, or whatever, the output isn't designed to be easily readable, and isn't formatted as such.

Further, it is important that standards are kept to, otherwise how can you ensure that everyone can view the same page, unless it is coded to an agread standard? The programmer's job is also made significantly easier if he doesn't have to code to take into account all the variable permutations of non-standard coding practice that exists. He should however, make such additions as necessary to ensure that the large majority of users can still view the website, even if it means using non-standard coding practice.

People are free to choose and use any browser they wish, but that does not excuse writing non-standard code.

Look at the mess with DVD+R/DVD-R, VHS/Betamax, BlueRay-DVD/HD-DVD. It isn't in anyones interest to have multiple versions of any technology, not by any means. I'm sure even you (acid) will realise this (I hope). Proprietary techniques in any field is fast becoming unacceptable to users, and it will benefit all of us at the end of the day.

As regards screen resolution, browsers, such as Opera have a zoom control so you can scale wider pages to fit the display resolution you are running. Also, with more and more PC's shipping with LCD monitors, it would appear that 1024x768 will soon (if it isn't already) be the most common desktop resolution.

Well as long as you make the viewing pleasant enough for the user and at the same time write the code to spec as much as possible then that is no big deal. I'll agree 100% with that. If you can do that, then your doing a great job.

All HTML should be made to specification.

But... a good web developer will also ensure their website works on non-compliant browsers too.

It may not seem right to have to put a lot of extra work into a site because of company's inability to adhere to W3C standards, but it is necessary until all browsers are uniformly compliant.

You have to admit though - Web developing has gotten MUCH more standardized than it was a few years ago. The differences between how Netscape and IE rendered pages was amazing sometimes.. But you don't see much of a difference anymore.

Non-standards compliant browsers are no excuse for a website that doesn't work among all major browsers. If you use it as an excuse, you either don't know enough to make it work on all browsers or you are just a lazy web designer.

And IE users don't account for 98% of the users out there, fortunately. Nor is 800x600 the most popular resolution any longer. Here are some hard statistics for you.

And remember to take these statistics lightly... Many browsers may or may be instructed to misreport information or don't report information at all. But overall, this is probably a fairly accurate chart for 2004.

I've been using firefox for about a year now. LOVE IT, will never go back to IE, imo faster than IE

One thing I'd like to mention is the inline Autocomplete option in IE. Back in IE 4.0 the option was enabled by default. I remember watching someone use the feature. He was typing an address and IE had filled in the rest of the address bar with another recently visited site. He then got mad and said "Argh I hate when it does that" and took the mouse and highlighted the part that IE had added to what he had typed. He didn't know that you can just keep typing and IE will remove its suggestion!!! IE 5.0 and subsequent versions have all had that option off by default. I have not yet seen that option available in Firefox or as an extension. This is one of the main reasons I haven't made the switch to Firefox. If any one has any knowledge of an extension with that feature, please let me know!

Edit 1: I believe Rick mentioned that in SP2 IE has been improved. To expound upon what he said, IE's security is nicely improved (though still not at the level of other browsers such as Opera or Firefox) and a built-in Pop-up blocker is now in place.

Edit 2:Also, on the subject of tabs, while they are pretty darn nice, a friend of mine stated that he didn't care for them because he felt that it broke consistency with program handling. He felt that there should be a taskbar button for every instance of every program. Perhaps others feel that same way?

No, not majority, you build web site that works on ALL resolutions, because you can design web site that works great on 800x600 but looks disaster on 1280x1024. What you have to do is to make it to look same on 800x600, 1024x768 and up.

Being good web designer is when your web site is working on ALL browsers and in all resolutions. And that's why I test it on all browsers in all resolutions.

THAT is the bad web designer's attitude. Mate, web page must work on ALL browsers, not only on majority.

No, mate, we're not blind here, nor dumb. We use it because we find it more useful and more secure than IE.
Nobody here is forcing or pushing anyone to use FF or Mozilla, we are just putting our experiences on the table for others to see and judge, If you don't find it interesting, that's fine, you keep using IE, someone else will try it and maybe like it, or maybe even not.

I tried Mozilla 1.something (1.2 I guess) and I didn't like it initially. A little while later someone "opened my eyes" and I never had a need to go back.

I said, I use Mozilla 1.7 at the moment and the rason I use it is because it (for me) has superior usability comparing to IE. Simple as that.

If you think McDonald's burgers are better than Kebab or Souvlaki, just because McDonalsd's is everywhere around and cheaper - well, it's up to you to pick your lunch. I know what I pick.

(And no, I'm not Greek )

Take that way of thinking to an employer and see where it gets you.

Yes, you can make a page look decent in all resolutions, at least a few anyways (a page is going to look like crap in 600x480 these days in any case), but there are some designs in which a page stays a specific size and does not dynamically change with the viewers resolution. In those cases you want to design for. Guess... 800x600. That is a fact.