Time to Dump Internet Explorer

User Comments: 68

1. June 20, 2004 1:57 PM
   Nic said:
   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.
   Reply
2. June 20, 2004 3:09 PM
   acidosmosis said:
   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.
   Reply
3. June 20, 2004 4:34 PM
   Rick said:
   All HTML should be made to specification.[b]But[/b]... 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.[quote]Browser TrendsBrowser trends is important information. What you can read from the statistics below, is that Internet Explorer 6 is the dominating browser, XP is the most popular operating system, and most users are using a display with 800x600 pixels or more, with a color depth of at least 65K colors.-----------------------------------------------------
   --------------------------Browser Statistics IE6 - 72.8% IE5 - 8.6% Opera 7 - 2.3%Mozilla - 11.4% Netscape Navigator 3 - 0.3% Netscape Navigator 4 - 0.3% Netscape Navigator 7 - 1.4% Browsers that count for less than 0.5% are not listed.-----------------------------------------------------
   --------------------------OS Platform StatisticsCurrent trend is that Windows XP is growing fast. The windows family counts for more than 90%:2004 Win XP W2000 Win 98 Win NT Win 95 Linux Mac Windows XP - 51.2%Windows 2000 - 29.6%Windows 98 - 8.0%Windows NT - 2.0%Windows 95 - 0.3%Linux - 2.9%Macintosh - 2.5% Platforms that count for less than 0.5% are not listed. ------------------------------------------------------------
   -------------------Display ResolutionThe current trend is that more and more computers are using a screen size of 1024x768 pixels:2004 Higher 1024x768 800x600 640x480 Unknown Higher than 1024x768 - 10%1024x768 - 47%800x600 - 37%640x480 - 1%Uknown - 5% Developers be aware: Many users still have only 800x600 display screens[/quote]
   Reply
4. June 20, 2004 4:45 PM
   Rick said:
   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.
   Reply
5. June 20, 2004 10:24 PM
   somekid007 said:
   I've been using firefox for about a year now. LOVE IT, will never go back to IE, imo faster than IE
   Reply
6. June 20, 2004 10:48 PM
   DaveSylvia said:
   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?
   Reply
7. June 21, 2004 3:52 AM
   Mictlantecuhtli said:
   [quote][i]Originally posted by DaveSylvia [/i]One thing I'd like to mention is the inline Autocomplete option in IE. I have not yet seen that option available in Firefox or as an extension. [/quote]That's odd, I have had it in every Mozilla, Firebird, Phoenix and Firefox version I've tested, if I remember correctly. My main browser is still Mozilla 1.4b, but I use Firefox 0.8 & 0.9 sometimes too.
   Reply
8. June 21, 2004 4:11 AM
   stelex said:
   [quote][i]Originally posted by acidosmosis [/i]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.[/quote] 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. [quote]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.[/quote]THAT is the bad web designer's attitude. Mate, web page must work on ALL browsers, not only on majority. [quote]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. [/quote]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 :) )
   Reply
9. June 21, 2004 7:05 AM
   acidosmosis said:
   [quote][i]Originally posted by stelex [/i]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 :) ) [/quote] 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.
   Reply
10. June 21, 2004 8:43 AM
    DigitAlex said:
    Static design = BADLiquid design = GOODbinary, but true ....So please acid, review your courses of webdesign a bit ;)
    Reply
11. June 21, 2004 9:31 AM
    DaveSylvia said:
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Mictlantecuhtli [/i]That's odd, I have had it in every Mozilla, Firebird, Phoenix and Firefox version I've tested, if I remember correctly. My main browser is still Mozilla 1.4b, but I use Firefox 0.8 & 0.9 sometimes too. [/quote] Could you look at your settings and options and find out which option that is? It'd be fantastic if it had that feature. I'd like to clarify my words on this though. I don't mean the feature where you type in an address and a list of alphabetically similar addresses drops down and then you can select which one you want. No, the feature I want will fill in automatically while you are typing.The first screenshot is without inline Autocomplete. The second one is with. In both cases the only thing I typed was "www.es". You can see that in the 2nd screenshot the rest of the address was filled in automatically.[IMG]http://home.earthlink.net/~daversylvia/wi
    hout.gif[/IMG] [IMG]http://home.earthlink.net/~daversylvia/with.gif[/IMG]
    Reply
12. June 21, 2004 2:25 PM
    acidosmosis said:
    [quote][i]Originally posted by DigitAlex [/i]Static design = BADLiquid design = GOODbinary, but true ....So please acid, review your courses of webdesign a bit ;) [/quote] Alex that is not at all true. That is nothing but your opinion.A site such as this [url]http://www.templatemonster.com/flash-templates/5514.htm
    [/url] should be designed around 800x600.A site such as Techspot which is dynamic is a different story. Both are good designs. It all comes down to preference and opinion.
    Reply
13. June 21, 2004 4:14 PM
    Nic said:
    The TechSpot website appears to be designed for 1024x768 screen resolution and stretches the border area to take up any slack when larger resolutions are used. It doesn't go smaller than 1024x768, and many websites are now like this. The last time I saw an 800x600 monitor it had Windows 3.1 running on it :=).Websites designed to fit 800x600 res unfortunately don't look good (too cramped), so what do you do if you are a website designer? If it is a Tech website, then you can expect that most users will be running at least 1024x768 res (visit your favourite tech website and check it out for yourself). If it is a news website, then 800x600 would allow most users to view without sideways scrolling. Here is one website that is designed for 640x480 ([url]http://www.theinquirer.net/[/url]) and it is reasonably ok because it is a news site, mostly full of text.Designing all your websites for 800x600 res is not a good idea, and it really depends on your target audience, as to what is, or isn't, acceptable. There are no hard and fast rules, but if your website doesn't look good, then you will likely lose return visits, so do your homework before deciding.
    Reply
14. June 21, 2004 5:13 PM
    acidosmosis said:
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Nic [/i]The TechSpot website appears to be designed for 1024x768 screen resolution and stretches the border area to take up any slack when larger resolutions are used. It doesn't go smaller than 1024x768, and many websites are now like this. The last time I saw an 800x600 monitor it had Windows 3.1 running on it :=).[/quote] Um. Nick, I didn't say TS was designed for 800x600. I said TS was a different story. Sites like TS aren't going to be designed for "specific" resolutions because it's a site that resizes itself. It will be designed to look better on a few ideal resolutions, but not a specific one. The page I linked though is another story. You'll want that "box" to fit exactly in a 800x600 window, but still look decent in other resolutions. The fact still remains that websites like that which I mentioned need to be built around 800x600 more than any other resolution.
    Reply
15. June 22, 2004 12:54 AM
    DigitAlex said:
    Designing is not taking static flash 320x240 templates and putting them on the middle of your page ....
    Reply
16. June 22, 2004 7:17 AM
    Mictlantecuhtli said:
    [quote][i]Originally posted by DaveSylvia [/i]Could you look at your settings and options and find out which option that is? It'd be fantastic if it had that feature. I'd like to clarify my words on this though. I don't mean the feature where you type in an address and a list of alphabetically similar addresses drops down and then you can select which one you want. No, the feature I want will fill in automatically while you are typing.[/quote]My bad, it appears this feature has been removed from Firefox (I didn't find it from about :config either). I have it in Mozilla 1.4 though, but haven't checked 1.7 yet.[img]http://eo.yifan.net/users/j/melkor/autocomplete.png
    /img]
    Reply
17. June 22, 2004 2:15 PM
    DaveSylvia said:
    Ah yes!! I see! I've always gone for the stand-alone browser and email client in Firefox and Thunderbird than the full package in Mozilla. Perhaps I should utilize Mozilla for once!
    Reply
18. June 22, 2004 3:05 PM
    acidosmosis said:
    [quote][i]Originally posted by DigitAlex [/i]Designing is not taking static flash 320x240 templates and putting them on the middle of your page .... [/quote] Again Alex there you go making assumptions. I never said ANYTHING about using templates. I was using that page as an example. Please, all of you pull your heads out of your backsides.
    Reply

Recently commented stories