OT: Stop IE

[Fyron]

For all those still stuck on IE...

http://www.stopie.com/

[Combat Wombat]

Man people have a insane hatred for microsoft, and don't tell me thats not it because it is.

[Fyron]

So disliking the worst browser on the market means I have an insane hatred for MS? That's some interesting logic.

Did you visit the site?

[wilhil]

Sorry, but I have to say this....

copy from the site, and my comments begin with //

There are countless bugs in Internet Explorer, but here are the main reasons to choose a free alternative.
//most of the bugs refeared to are features, read what I write below, and IE is free, I have no use for a alternative


Prone to viruses and worms
//Well you would be if you had over 80% share of the market?

Renders pages incorrectly. Web designers then need to spend extra time working so that pages work in Internet Explorer. This puts costs up, and slows the web down.
// I am a web programmer, I design for IE from the start, I have NEVER had a problem with rendering

Doesn't let people resize certain text sizes. This means those with poor sight cannot read small text on many sites.
// This occurs when web developers use certain font commands instead of default, the text font commands only resize the default sizes.

Far slower program than other web browsers
// NEVER had a problem with speed

Far larger program than other web browsers
// I have a load of computers and servers here, my largest server being 750GB, and the smallest desktop being 80GB, 10MB extra is so large and a good reason for changing isnt it?

Isn't as user-centric as other web browsers. It lacks many handy features such as tabbed browsing and integrated search
// I agree about tabbed browsing, I enjoy that for reading up many forum posts at once, but you can do that, although limited with the msn addon, and it will be included in the new IE

Doesn't support PNG images properly
//because every website uses png? if it was that good, and everyone wanted it, it would support it, frankly there has not been a website I have visited that didnt work. I AM HAPPY!


now for extra bits, this is a horrible thing to say but, why do you think terroists attacked the twin towers instead of some house in a isolated village?

people will always try and target the largest ammount of people with as small effort, why on earth if I am a virus writer, would I write something to attack a 10% share, when I can take out a 80% share...

mozilla recently has had a load of bugs, I do not just say my opinions, I try the competition, I am always getting the flash thing at the bottom saying update available, why on earth do you think that is? they are adding a quick feature that everyone will enjoy? no, its a quiet, quick bugfix.

anything with a big userbase will always be a target, and if people use others, I can bet my life on tons of bugs being there.

now as for IE worms and stuff, it is shipped in a unsecure mode so people can go to any site they want, a load of people visit hack sites, crack sites, porn sites, bad sites in general, where viruses and trojans hang.

I can say to you again, I have got my security settings to high, it only allows me to go to sites I want, and basically it is much more secure, I have never been to porn sites or crack sites, and I can tell you I have not had ONE SINGLE error with IE.

Yes, there are other options out, but it does not mean that they are any better.

I could say so so much more on this topic, but I will let it lie, but I will write more if I have to!

back to friendly talk about when SEV will come out?

[Fyron]

// I am a web programmer, I design for IE from the start, I have NEVER had a problem with rendering

You should not "design for IE," you should design for w3c standards and avoid all IE rendering bugs whenever possible. Standards exist for a reason. Unfortunately this means that the entire standard can't be used, but it should still be used, not the IE bug set.

// This occurs when web developers use certain font commands instead of default, the text font commands only resize the default sizes.

Which is a good ekample of a problem with IE: inconsistent behavior.

// NEVER had a problem with speed

If you read the rest of the site, the summary becomes more clear. See: http://www.stopie.com/speed/

//because every website uses png? if it was that good, and everyone wanted it, it would support it, frankly there has not been a website I have visited that didnt work. I AM HAPPY!

There is absolutely no excuse for IE to still not render PNG format properly after half a decade. It is an extremely popular format.

people will always try and target the largest ammount of people with as small effort, why on earth if I am a virus writer, would I write something to attack a 10% share, when I can take out a 80% share...

mozilla recently has had a load of bugs...

Mozilla fixes their bugs. MS lets 90% of the bugs and holes go unchecked. This is the difference.

now as for IE worms and stuff, it is shipped in a unsecure mode so people can go to any site they want, a load of people visit hack sites, crack sites, porn sites, bad sites in general, where viruses and trojans hang.

This is a poor hack. The well-documented holes in the browser that are exploited every ms of every day should have been fixed 4 years ago. I should not have to use "deny everything" settings to be free from dozens of critical, unfixed security holes. Further, I should not have to dowgrade my OS to emoticon to get future security fixes. The browser being integrated into the OS (since the days of 98) is one of the most atrocious blunders ever made by MS. Running user level programs (such as rendering web pages) in kernel mode is just absurd. It is one of the most basic security blunders I can think of. Most of the exploits in IE would never have been so bad if MS had not done this to get a few percent improved performance.

Yes, there are other options out, but it does not mean that they are any better.

The fact that IE is so utterly terrible is what makes the alternatives better.

[El_Phil]

Ohh that's the kind of talk that attracts Thermodyne. Probably with some comment about how we all must change now, and you're a fool if you don't. Just a prediction http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

As for me, I've found an IE addon that does tabbed browsing and better searching. Never had a problem with IE, not speed nor security so why change? If I went to dodgy sites then maybe I'd be slightly safer, but probably not. Frankly if the site doesn't support IE it's the sites problem, not the browser. If you don't support the 85%+ market leader your stuborn or stupid.

I don't like Bill or MS, but you must deal with life as it is, and at the moment IE is king regardless of its faults.

[NullAshton]

Sites for IE works for all the other browsers, so why not design it for IE first? Works in all the other browsers, looks the same, more convient for those people who still use IE.

[Fyron]

NullAshton said:
Sites for IE works for all the other browsers, so why not design it for IE first? Works in all the other browsers, looks the same, more convient for those people who still use IE.

This could not be further fom the truth. Sites have to be hacked away from w3c standards to work with IE bugs. Sites should be designed for w3c standards, not the IE bug set! Those standards exist for a reason. Most browsers do not make allowance for IE bugs, but instead implement the w3c standards.

If you don't support the 85%+ market leader your stuborn or stupid.

Sites should be designed for w3c standards, not the IE bug set. Good site design follows w3c, then is forced to deviate to allow for poor-quality browsers (aka IE) to still work.

[wilhil]

do I really care about designing for w3c standards, NO! I will develop for what is popular, and as long as that is internet explorer, I have no reason to change.

over half the sites out there are probably not w3c fully compatible, but look, the internet is not shuting down, failing, or anything. IT WORKS! get used to it!

this website is great! if it has any png images, I would never know, I am not seeing any problems, if png was THAT popular for websites, I am sure everyone would start using it, and then microsoft would make it compatible, although I went to a website with png images, and found NO problem. I use IE almost all the time, I have never seen a problem with images,

I see you did not quote el_phil saying:
Frankly if the site doesn't support IE it's the sites problem, not the browser. If you don't support the 85%+ market leader your stuborn or stupid.

I have to agree with this.

If mozilla or other browsers get over 30% share, then I will start using standards, but as far as I think, my sites work in IE, my sites work in mozilla, but why should I make extra care to make sure they work in mozilla when the user base is a fraction of IE

This is frankly a rediculous argument that always comes up, I have no problem with IE, and why should I change something that works fine, and I have no problems with, just because you are saying IE does not comply with standards that I do not need to use as my site works with IE, and other useless points.

I am sure there are more sites on the internet that are compatible with IE and more importantly WORK in IE than sites that are w3c standards, so I from this moment am going to start a new standard, IE compatible! and my sites are compatible with it, long live forever IE compatible, die w3c!

[General Woundwort]

I switched to Firefox 6 months ago. I've had a few problems loading some websites in Firefox, but nothing to make me regret the switch.

Just doing my bit to undermine the Microborg...

[wilhil]

Internet Explorer - Slow or Fast?
Despite being bloated, standards uncompliant, buggy and dangerous, Microsoft's Internet explorer is fast. It is fast however due to the simple fact that it is integrated into windows and because it has a stone-age, limited rendering engine.

// I have NEVER had speed problems

So, even though being technically fast,
// OH, SO THEY WENT BACK ON THEIR FIRST POINT???
it does not render the page well. You may not be able to read the text correctly, or have some other problem due to its rendering. So in reality - it can be slow.
//BS! I am a internet junky! I go on so many news sites daily, forums, and a whole load more, I HAVE NEVER had a rendering problem, and I have a 8mb/s connection, my connection is never slow, the truth with pictures and others coming is deep in mozilla code, it has a minimum of 8 connections to a webserver, which in actuall facts, when a webserver is having 1000 clients connecting to a image heavy site, this is the equivilant of 8000 connections, slowing down a webserver, so it can be quicker, where as IE has a default of I think 2, this can be changed in the registry. This setting is more generous to webservers, and if changed, the speed can be improved


Tabbed browsing - Seems quicker
Tabbed browsing allows the user to open and view many pages at once, across many different websites. You can open a link 'in a new tab', and while it is loading, you can continue reading the page you are on.
//I agree, tabbed browsing is great, but it makes no diffrence to shift clicking and opening a new window, then alt tabing back.


This definitely (for dial-up users anyway) makes the internet seem faster. Tabbed browsing is a feature that IE does not support.
// It does with addons. If you are using dial up in 2005, you really only have yourself to blame!

However, the alternatives do.

Standards resistance = slower internet
Because Internet Explorer doesn't support CSS properly (faster download, because a page's design must only be loaded once, then just content), programmers and web designers must use 'hacks', or old or invalid code (takes longer to load). This means IE is slowing the entire Internet down significantly!
//I have not got a lot of experiance with css, but I would of thought that the css file would need to be downloaded each time you go to a diffrent page, so hows this diffrent, css is mainly a way for web developers to easily update mass sites in one go, with fonts and stuff, it makes no diffrence to the user if the site is css or not, I could be wrong here, but I do not really 100% understand the new css, I use the old css, and it works fine!


Web developers must go to extra lengths to make PNG alpha transparency, drop-down menus, and many other nice features work in Internet Explorer.
//ahh, BS, I use JPG, works great!

Internet Explorer: Increased costs for all
Because web designers need to charge higher prices to ensure that pages work in Internet Explorer, their clients must pay extra. These costs are then passed down to you, the consumer.
//nope, just use visual studio.net 2003 for asp.net or frontpage for normal html and asp, it works great, and always compatible with IE, view my last part in my last post.


Speed up the Web? Get rid of Internet Explorer
Get an alternative to Internet Explorer. You'll be saving money for people, and speeding up the web for yourself and others.
// sounds like someone just hates microsoft.

[wilhil]

General Woundwort said:
I switched to Firefox 6 months ago. I've had a few problems loading some websites in Firefox, but nothing to make me regret the switch.

Just doing my bit to undermine the Microborg...



but what problems did you have in IE to warrent the switch?

hasnt anyone figured out, there always has been, and always will be companies like microsoft, what happened if I, today, and everyone switched to mozilla?

as free as it is, banners, or google sponsered top, they would then own 100% of the market, and be just a target for hackers as IE is today and then will people be saying switch to IE?




People who go on, and try and convert others are frankly no better than people on streets with megaphones saying convert your religeon, yours does xxx and ours does yyy.

[Fyron]

over half the sites out there are probably not w3c fully compatible, but look, the internet is not shuting down, failing, or anything. IT WORKS! get used to it!

Ok, let me give you this power adaptor for your PC. I am MS, so I ignore standards. Unfortunately, your house was built with standards in mind, so the adaptor shorts out and burns down your house. Now do we see why standards are important?

...if png was THAT popular for websites, I am sure everyone would start using it, and then microsoft would make it compatible...

PNG is a popular format, and is rising all the time. It will never be ubiquitous, and never should be. For images with low numbers of colors, GIF is better because it creates smaller files with no quality loss.

The problem is alpha transparency (blended level transparent pixels for smooth integration with the background instead of the on/off of traditional transparency). This is an awesome feature of PNG that web designers can not use because IE still can not render it after half a decade. Once again, the crappiness of IE stifles innovation. This is a huge problem... There are many excellent features of the w3c standard sets for CSS, HTML, XHTML, etc. that we can not use because IE is poorly implemented.

I see you did not quote el_phil saying:
Frankly if the site doesn't support IE it's the sites problem, not the browser. If you don't support the 85%+ market leader your stuborn or stupid.

Actually, I did. Please refer back a few posts.

do I really care about designing for w3c standards, NO! I will develop for what is popular, and as long as that is internet explorer, I have no reason to change.

This is frankly a rediculous argument that always comes up, I have no problem with IE, and why should I change something that works fine, and I have no problems with, just because you are saying IE does not comply with standards that I do not need to use as my site works with IE, and other useless points...

*cringe* There is little point in addressing the rest of this (especially since you missed the point entirely and I would just be repeating myself). Please do the world a favor and stop designing buggy web sites. Thank you.

[Fyron]

I HAVE NEVER had a rendering problem...

Because site designers are forced to use terrible hacks to work with IE bugs. That's the whole point... HTML code should work identically in all browsers WITHOUT special hacks. Thus, the w3c standards.

...mozilla code... a minimum of 8 connections to a webserver

More like 2...

//I agree, tabbed browsing is great, but it makes no diffrence to shift clicking and opening a new window, then alt tabing back.

This is true. However, it is very messey to have 8 or 9 windows open. Tabs are an excellent organizational tool.

...If you are using dial up in 2005, you really only have yourself to blame!

How elitist of you.

//I have not got a lot of experiance with css, but I would of thought that the css file would need to be downloaded each time you go to a diffrent page

Not at all. The browser cache stores 1 copy of the CSS file that does not need to be downloaded over and over again. It makes a huge difference in bandwidth and loading times.

Web developers must go to extra lengths to make PNG alpha transparency, drop-down menus, and many other nice features work in Internet Explorer.
//ahh, BS, I use JPG, works great!

Wow... just wow. Yay for stifling innovation!

//nope, just use visual studio.net 2003 for asp.net or frontpage for normal html and asp, it works great, and always compatible with IE, view my last part in my last post.

Front Page is one of the worst web page design tools out there. It creates bloated, buggy code. It most assuredly does not produce "normal HTML."

Speed up the Web? Get rid of Internet Explorer
Get an alternative to Internet Explorer. You'll be saving money for people, and speeding up the web for yourself and others.
// sounds like someone just hates microsoft.

Umm... no, it doesn't.

[wilhil]

ok, now then...

if microsoft designed a power adapter and burnt down my house, I would be annoyed, but when it comes down to it, I do not design my websites with standards in mind, I design for what works in IE, and it also works in mozilla, so why should I care if it is a standard or not when it works? Why should I comply to a standard when it already works in multiple browsers? something like a power adapater, fine! it can go wrong if you do something wrong and do not comply to standards, but as I said, internet is not shuting down because people do not comply to standards as most people use IE and there is no problem, which is why I simply said, why not make a new standard called IE compatible? already there is more websites who have this standard than w3c, and then make mozilla and other browsers IE compliant!?

I do not see why I should stop designing my websites with IE in mind, IE is a huge % of the internet, and frankly, my sites work in mozilla and other browsers, my site is not w3c standard. I created it in visual studio, I copied to my webservers, it works in both IE and mozilla, but is not w3c standard.

I feel we are moving away from the main point here, and it is becoming more a flame war, the main thing I can say is, my non w3c standard site works in both IE and it works in mozilla, which means that mozilla supports not w3c sites, so in reality, how is this diffrent from IE?

[Thermodyne]

El_Phil said:
Ohh that's the kind of talk that attracts Thermodyne. Probably with some comment about how we all must change now, and you're a fool if you don't. Just a prediction http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif





El_Phil, why don’t you just make your posts under my name? You seem to continuously try to put words into my mouth! Even though you don’t have a clue about me, as usual. You’re worse than an old mother-in-law.

Fact is that I recommend Firefox for personal use, although its popularity has caused it to become a target for exploits too. I was one of the early converts to Firefox. And I really don’t care what browser people use. IE holds the majority of the personal market and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. IE rules the business world, and will remained unchallenged as long as developers rely on activeX controls to make things work. IE 6.0.2900.2180 can be made quite secure on an XPsp2 system, but it is a constant chore to keep it locked down on a system used for random web browsing. Personally, I’m beginning to look for another obscure browser, one that will not have the install base to attract exploits.

Just to set the record straight, the core IE code that keeps being hacked is not even MS’s work. They licensed/bought the majority of it from outside sources.

[Captain Kwok]

All browsers have advantages and disadvantages.

For example, I've being using Firefox for the last year or so and I've experienced more problems with it than I did using IE before - particularily when it crashes and deletes all my bookmarks. I still prefer to use because most it's security features are on by default, so it means less fiddling for me.

I don't follow computer things too closely anymore, but I do find it ironic that many of the programmers who are putting together free software in their spare time are in a way destroying their own future job prospects if their programs take off and replace commercial programs.

[El_Phil]

Imperator Fyron said:
Ok, let me give you this power adaptor for your PC. I am MS, so I ignore standards. Unfortunately, your house was built with standards in mind, so the adaptor shorts out and burns down your house. Now do we see why standards are important?




Hence why MS does bugger all in hardware and long may that continue. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif Seriously though you have to provide the users a reason to switch. As has been shown no-ones bothered about how bodged it is or how much extra work it is for the web monkeys http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

So as a serious question, if all this CSS and XML could be fully implemented on websites what would I notice? Not behind the scenes or less bodges for the writers, but what you see upfront, because I genuinely don't know.

[Renegade 13]

wilhil said:
If you are using dial up in 2005, you really only have yourself to blame!



I'm sorry, but this is blatently untrue. Where I live right now, in the center of British Columbia, Canada, outside of a city, all we have access to is dial-up. Satellite: Maybe. Far far too expensive though. Cable: Nope. ADSL: Nope.

And I'm to blame for this...how?

[Fyron]

Compatibility with all browser and OS environments is the entire purpose of the w3c standards. IE is not a valid standard bearer.

I feel we are moving away from the main point here, and it is becoming more a flame war, the main thing I can say is, my non w3c standard site works in both IE and it works in mozilla, which means that mozilla supports not w3c sites, so in reality, how is this diffrent from IE?

IE supports part of w3c. You can design fully w3c-compliant web sites that work in both IE and the rest of the world. IE also has a lot of junk code that it supports that must be avoided. Do you at least run sites through http://validator.w3.org/ to avoid major errors?

[Thermodyne]

And while we are on the subject of web standards. The linked site is in violation of several laws regarding access by people with disabilities, and as such Mr. Obrien could be needing to make use of that insurance that he probably doesn't have. If someone knows him, they would be doing him a favor by letting him know that many of his link tags don’t work.

[wilhil]

Renegade 13 said:

wilhil said:
If you are using dial up in 2005, you really only have yourself to blame!



I'm sorry, but this is blatently untrue. Where I live right now, in the center of British Columbia, Canada, outside of a city, all we have access to is dial-up. Satellite: Maybe. Far far too expensive though. Cable: Nope. ADSL: Nope.

And I'm to blame for this...how?



yeah sorry for that comment! I can admit when I am wrong, but still, there is a huge percentage of users with broadband now adays as where it is, it is usually cheap and affordable, if you do not have it in your area, Im sorry and retract that comment!

[Fyron]

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stopie.com%2F says it is valid. All of the links save 3 have titles, all of the images have alt tags.

[NullAshton]

Wilhil, Fyron, you people are basically on the same side. You both know that IE has several 'design features' that should be avoided, because of compatibility issues with other browsers. You both also agree that it's smarter to design websites to work on all browsers, and not exclude one browser because of those same 'design features'. Might I ask, then, what it is you are arguing about? Both of you people achieve the same result in the end, a website that will work equally for everyone. Does it really matter what route you use to achieve such ends?

[wilhil]

Imperator Fyron said:
Compatibility with all browser and OS environments is the entire purpose of the w3c standards. IE is not a valid standard bearer.

I feel we are moving away from the main point here, and it is becoming more a flame war, the main thing I can say is, my non w3c standard site works in both IE and it works in mozilla, which means that mozilla supports not w3c sites, so in reality, how is this diffrent from IE?

IE supports part of w3c. You can design fully w3c-compliant web sites that work in both IE and the rest of the world. IE also has a lot of junk code that it supports that must be avoided. Do you at least run sites through http://validator.w3.org/ to avoid major errors?



I always run through a number of validators so I can check for major errors, I just dont both doing the little things that will not change performance and will allow me to say w3c compliant as I see little use for this.

As I said, mozilla supports non w3c standards for the reason, so they can run non compatible sites, for the same reason microsoft runs them. I just honestly can not see a argument here for saying IE is bad and you should switch, I like IE, I have not hard one problem, and I simply have no reason to switch, yet I do not go around forums saying SWITCH TO IE... and go on about things. personally I like it, and to date, I have not hard one problem.

If you have security issues, put it in high security mode. I have not had one problem.

[Fyron]

NA:
As per posts #388024 and #388031, this has pretty much already occured.

[wilhil]

NullAshton said:
Wilhil, Fyron, you people are basically on the same side. You both know that IE has several 'design features' that should be avoided, because of compatibility issues with other browsers. You both also agree that it's smarter to design websites to work on all browsers, and not exclude one browser because of those same 'design features'. Might I ask, then, what it is you are arguing about? Both of you people achieve the same result in the end, a website that will work equally for everyone. Does it really matter what route you use to achieve such ends?



Because when someone starts I get involved! lol

the argument was mainly about web browsers, not websites... but I do get your point, but still I just am a little annoyed because as I said, I do not mind people advising programs, saying, why not try mozilla, you can do this, maybe if I was using IE 3, and then they said try mozilla, it is much better, but frankly, mozilla vs IE is nothing more than someone pushing their points of view on another, which is no better than propaganda in my books.

The owner of stopie.com is just another microsoft hating person.

I am not to keen of some areas of microsoft, but they have good products, why should I stop using them?

[Thermodyne]

I see 7 in the code. The US law allows for none, and is currently being much abused by the legal establishment. It really doesn’t make any difference to me, I just found it ironic that a site that was speaking so much to the state of internet standards would be in less than complete compliance with one of the few that have actually be legislated.

[Renegade 13]

wilhil said:
yeah sorry for that comment! I can admit when I am wrong, but still, there is a huge percentage of users with broadband now adays as where it is, it is usually cheap and affordable, if you do not have it in your area, Im sorry and retract that comment!


Thanks! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

[El_Phil]

There is really a US law about website access for disabled people? Is it just zoomable, scalable text or something more?

[Thermodyne]

Yep, web content has to be equally accessible to individuals with disabilities. Including blind individuals. It provides the mechanism for these “individuals” to collect civil damages, which is where the legal establishment stepped in. The intent was to improve access; the result has been the skimming of much cash.

Every site has to be completely viewable by adaptive software such as JAWS. It can be a real pain when writing code by hand.

[Kamog]

I've been using Firefox for a year or two now, and I'm very happy with it. I haven't had any problems. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

[Kevin Arisa]

I have been using Firefox for a while now. I can't live without tabs. It's really nice and easy to add-on. The skins are fun to play with also. Pop-ups are rare and I didn't even have to install any add-ons for that! I've had no technical problems from it at all which is rare for my hodge-podge PC. I don't hate IE, I just love Firefox. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

[EDIT] I just ran my website through the validator. It was full of errors! I had no idea! It's true about Frontpage. Unfortunatly I am horrible at manual HTML coding. Is there a better program for creating websites that won't have so many errors? I want to make sure my site is bug-free.

[kerensky]

I am now a convert to teh cause of Firefox. This program is awesome!

[Will]

Bah, all this talk of IE v. Firefox et. al., it is complete nonsense. There is only one true way to browse the internet, read mail or news, use the shell, or in general, do anything at all. And that way, friends, is EMACS (http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/emacs.html).

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

[Suicide Junkie]

Bah.
Get the non-firefox Mozilla instead. It works better.

[Fyron]

Evil, evil Will!

Kevin Arisa:

There is Macromedia Dreamweaver... There are programs out there designed to clean up messey code. See Tidy:

http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett/tidy/

[Spoo]

Suicide Junkie said:
Bah.
Get the non-firefox Mozilla instead. It works better.



In what way?


Thermodyne said:
Yep, web content has to be equally accessible to individuals with disabilities. Including blind individuals. It provides the mechanism for these “individuals” to collect civil damages, which is where the legal establishment stepped in. The intent was to improve access; the result has been the skimming of much cash.

Every site has to be completely viewable by adaptive software such as JAWS. It can be a real pain when writing code by hand.



I hadn't heard if this before. Could you post a link to a reference? I googled the topic, but the most recent source that I found (2002) said that the "Americans with Disabilities Act" doesn't apply to web pages: http://news.com.com/2100-1023-962761.html

[Sivran]

Spoo said:

Suicide Junkie said:
Bah.
Get the non-firefox Mozilla instead. It works better.



In what way?




Well, let's put it this way.

I've heard of plenty of people having trouble with Fireweasel crashing, losing profile data such as bookmarks etc., and various other problems.

I have never experienced these problems, never once lost any bookmarks, very rarely experienced a crash. I'm using Mozilla.

Even when I was using the pre-release 0.x versions of Firefox--I started at 0.5 and worked up to 0.8--I did not experience anything more major than some crashes (lockup), which I later attributed to an incompatability between Gecko (the rendering engine for all Mozilla browsers) and my video card at the time.

Firefox 0.5, btw, was much faster than Mozilla, so there was a reason for its existence. Firefox is now no faster than its more mature brother lizard. But if you want speed, try the 1.8 beta of Mozilla--it screams. Try K-Meleon. It screams louder.

[Thermodyne]

Spoo said:

I hadn't heard if this before. Could you post a link to a reference? I googled the topic, but the most recent source that I found (2002) said that the "Americans with Disabilities Act" doesn't apply to web pages: http://news.com.com/2100-1023-962761.html



Here is the part that impacts the web. The key words that allows the rule to be applied to every website "or used by federal agencies", have been much abused. I have seen a case where a private site was linked to by a federal worker in an email to a client. The client took exception and filed a complaint. The site owner was found lible.


Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act requires that all "electronic and information technology" (EIT) developed, procured, maintained, or used by federal agencies must be equally accessible to persons with disabilities as it is to those who are not disabled. The statute and the implementing standards help to create an accessible workplace for federal employees with disabilities. When EIT conforms with the requirements of section 508, people who are blind or visually impaired are able to access and use government information and services as independently and effectively as those who are sighted. Through the use of technology, filling out an electronic form, keeping a copy of the form, or accessing information describing a federal program is as accessible for persons with disabilities as it is for those without disabilities. People who are blind or visually impaired can locate, identify and operate the controls, and functions of any information technology used to provide government information, whether it is on the web, or in a kiosk.

[Raging Deadstar]

Tell me about it....

I started Designing Websites when I was 13, I'm 19 now and now that I use firefox I've found that the w3c standards are a great thing.

However, unlearning 6 years of bad habits and coding is a hell of a lot more difficult than I thought!

[General Woundwort]

I have never experienced these problems, never once lost any bookmarks.



Same here. I'm using Firefox 1.0.7.

[Spoo]

Thermodyne said:
Here is the part that impacts the web. The key words that allows the rule to be applied to every website "or used by federal agencies", have been much abused. I have seen a case where a private site was linked to by a federal worker in an email to a client. The client took exception and filed a complaint. The site owner was found lible.


Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act requires that all "electronic and information technology" (EIT) developed, procured, maintained, or used by federal agencies must be equally accessible to persons with disabilities as it is to those who are not disabled. The statute and the implementing standards help to create an accessible workplace for federal employees with disabilities. When EIT conforms with the requirements of section 508, people who are blind or visually impaired are able to access and use government information and services as independently and effectively as those who are sighted. Through the use of technology, filling out an electronic form, keeping a copy of the form, or accessing information describing a federal program is as accessible for persons with disabilities as it is for those without disabilities. People who are blind or visually impaired can locate, identify and operate the controls, and functions of any information technology used to provide government information, whether it is on the web, or in a kiosk.



Although I couldn't find anything about the specific lawsuit that you mention, from what I can find, section 508 only applies to third-party websites that are under direct contract to the government.

http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/FAQ.htm


4) Does Section 508 apply to the private sector?

No, it does not regulate the private sector and does not apply to recipients of Federal funds.

16) Does this requirement also apply to commercial or private sector Web sites?

No. Section 508 does not apply to a private sector Web site unless such site is provided under contract to a covered entity. For example, a Federal agency might contract with a consulting firm to collect and analyze some demographic data and make that information available to the public on a Web site. In that case, the Web site or portion devoted to fulfilling the contractual obligation would be subject to Section 508. The firm's general Web site, or the portion not devoted to the contracted study, would not be subject to Section 508.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

However, having a website that works for disabled people is a good thing.

How do you make sure the webpage is compatable?

[NullAshton]

Poke your eyes out and see if the site still works http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Or, do it the boring way, and just make sure that it works with braille reading devices.

[Fyron]

All images must hawe alt tags containing a viable description/name of the image. All links wust have title tags describing the purpose of the link. Avoiding images that are links might help, but way be redundant with title tags. Of course, image links are bad for search engine indexing, so are best avoided anyways. That is probably it. Oh, and don't use the demon-spawn imagemap!

[El_Phil]

So what do you do about those security* images? You know the 'Enter the letters/numbers' in the image below' dialogue boxes. You just can't use them I suppose.

* I was told they were to stop general spaming/bot abuse. And to kill price comparison software working properly of course. Seems plausible.

[Fyron]

Text to voice readers are clearly spam bots.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Imperator Fyron said:
All images must hawe alt tags containing a viable description/name of the image. All links wust have title tags describing the purpose of the link. Avoiding images that are links might help, but way be redundant with title tags. Of course, image links are bad for search engine indexing, so are best avoided anyways. That is probably it. Oh, and don't use the demon-spawn imagemap!


... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/confused.gif...

I know very little html.

[Thermodyne]

Try supporting them, and the users. Then add some hearing challenged people so that you can support them over a TTY.

[Thermodyne]

You would need to case name which I didn’t provide.

On our website (s), we no longer link to third party sites and we do not hyperlink to third party sites via email. We are required to meet the standard and any site we “use” must meet the standard or we can not use it. We had to redo two large sites because of this, along with many smaller ones. And no revisions can be published untill they have been reviewed for compliance, which is a real pain when you are trying to rush some content onto the server and it has to wait for review.

These cases are being heard as civil cases and as such are open to wide latitude as to the intent of the law. Depending on the state, the jury may more or less legislate from the jury room. We settled a case where some content that we only linked to was in question. Legal wouldn’t risk a jury award. I should add that from what I have seen, these things settle for small change. But even that can really ruin the day for someone with little or no income. Many of our contractors have been impacted as well as some of our equipment providers, because we were referring consumers to their sites via links in emails.

It’s not just web pages, it almost anything you can think of. Toilet stall widths, Ramp inclines, wall receptacle locations, types of doorknobs. And the really bad part is that most cases settle for cash, out of court, with no corrections being required in the settlement. It has become all about getting some quick cash.

[wilhil]

Why not just do what large sites like most of microsoft do or most online game publishers do, and all extrenal links start by opening a pop up box saying you are no visiting a page outside of <site> we do not take responsibility for the content.

I am all for making sites good, and work for disabled people, but there comes to a point when people are just people and are trying to squeeze some pennys for miner flaws.

[El_Phil]

Because such messages probably have no legal standing. Take for instance those 'Left at own risk' signs, you cannot remove all liability just by putting a sign up. You can limit it certainly, but not remove it.

You choose to put the link there, you are at least slightly responsible for it.

[ToddT]

Never under estimate laywers (and people who will will use them for any excuse to sue)
Do to some wording in NAFTA, you could theoreticcaly sell sell plutonium laced baby food, naturally it would be banned and other things, but you could then turn around and sue for lost profits and win. (oh selling from one country to another.
So if Canada banned IE, given ie is integrated in to windows< microsoft could sue for llost future profits and win. Courtsy of the US lawers who created that that loop hole. i can't remeber the wording but it has something to do misapropriation, and its arbitrated outside the courts behind closed doors.
PS i have dialu p given how much i use the interent, and what i use it for i can't justify the expense. So switched from ie to get faster browseing, funny so MS pges download real fast, thier blank.

[El_Phil]

Well as has been proved many times IE isn't integrated into Windows. They claim it is, but it isn't. I can't remember the details but it involved faked desktop screen grabs from different machines. Actually thinking about it that was earlier versions, by now it probably is or at least much closer.

And as many US lawyers have found to their shock, US laws don't actually apply outside the US. I know shocking isn't it?

[General Woundwort]

Howard "Schlock Mercenary" Tayler is now officially on the Firefox bandwagon.

If you haven't switched yet, go to his site (http://www.schlockmercenary.com/index.html) and click on the switch link in today's news. You'll get a great new browser and help keep Sgt. Schlock's Ovalkwik addiction going strong.

[bearclaw]

In my profession (real estate) we use many online resources. I am the computer tech for our real estate board. ALL of the online resources require IE for our realtors to use them. Online forms and such that we use will not function with anything else. I've tried.

So from the point of view of business applications, IE isn't going anywhere.

[Fyron]

Blame poor web site designers that do not design for standards. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Captain Kwok]

Some of my workplace's applications are designed to use IE. /threads/images/Graemlins/Cold.gif

[Colonel]

Is there anyway to actually delete IE. I have tried and it just pops back up, like trying to kill a virus.

[Fyron]

Yes, actually. This solution costs money for the program though...

http://www.litepc.com/

Be aware that uninstalling IE means some functionality, such as Windows Update, will be lost.

[General Woundwort]

Even the StopIE website does not recommend full removal of IE - just that you don't use it as your browser.

[Ed Kolis]

It's probably a bad idea to try to delete IE, seeing as it's used by the Windows shell for the filesystem explorer http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Atrocities]

IE is not so evil... I use it all the time any my system has been safe and secure. I don't get why so many poeple hate IE?

Its the greatest thing since sliced bread.

[Xrati]

I didn't know that 'sliced bread' was a Microsoft product. What will Gates steal next? Ipod!!!

[Atrocities]

01000010011010010110110001101100001000000100011101 10000101110
10001100101011100110010000001100011011011000110000 10110100101
10110101110011001000000111010001101111001000000110 11110111011
10110111000100000011000010110110001101100001000000 11101000110
10000110000101110100001000000110100001100001011100 11001000000
11000100110010101100101011011100010000001100011011 10010011001
01011000010111010001100101011001000010110000100000 01100001011
01110011001000010000001100001011011000110110000100 00001110100
01101000011000010111010000100000011010000110000101 11001100100
00001111001011001010111010000100000011101000110111 10010000001
10001001100101001000000110001101110010011001010110 00010111010
00110010101100100001011100010000000100000001000100 10010000110
11110111011100100000011001000110000101110010011001 01001000000
11101000110100001100101011110010010000001101100011 00001011110
01001000000110001101101100011000010110100101101101 00100000011
10100011011110010000001101101011110010010000001101 00101100100
01100101011000010111001100100000011000100110010101 10011001101
11101110010011001010010000001001001001000000110010 10111011001
10010101110010001000000110010101110110011001010110 11100010000
00110101101101110011001010111011100100000010010010 01000000110
10000110000101100100001000000111010001101000011001 01001000000
11010010110010001100101011000010010000100100010001 00000001011
01001000000100001001101001011011000110110000100000 01000111011
0000101110100011001010111001100101110

Translate (Note it is all one continues line... no spaces)

[Thermodyne]

Well, it’s not a binary number.........

[wilhil]

01001001001000000111010001101000011011110111010101 100111011
01000011101000010000001001001001000000111011101101 111011101
01011011000110010000100000011010110110010101100101 011100000
01000000110111101110101011101000010000001101111011 001100010
00000111010001101000011010010111001100100000011101 000110111
10111000001101001011000110010000001100110011011110 111001000
10000001100001001000000111011101101000011010010110 110001100
10100101100001000000110001001110101011101000010000 001101001
01101101001000000110001101101111011011010110100101 101110011
00111001000000110001001100001011000110110101100100 001000011
01000010100000110100001010010010010010000001101100 011010010
11010110110010100100000011010010110111001110100011 001010111
00100110111001100101011101000010000001100101011110 000111000
00110110001101111011100100110010101110010001011000 010000001
00100100100000011100000110010101110010011100110110 111101101
11001100001011011000110110001111001001000000110100 001100001
01110110011001010010000001110011011001010110001101 110101011
10010011010010111010001111001001000000111001101100 101011101
00011101000110100101101110011001110111001100100000 011100110
11001010111010000100000011101000110111100100000011 010000110
10010110011101101000001011000010000001100001011011 100110010
00010000001001001001000000110100001100001011101100 110010100
10000001101110011001010111011001100101011100100010 000001101
00001100001011001000010000001101111011011100110010 100100000
01110011011010010110111001100111011011000110010100 100000011
10000011100100110111101100010011011000110010101101 101001011
10000011010000101000001101000010100100000100100000 011011000
11011110111010000100000011011110110011000100000011 100000110
01010110111101110000011011000110010100100000011011 110110111
00010000001110011011011110010000001101101011000010 110111001
11100100100000011001000110100101100110011001100111 001001100
10101101110011101000010000001100110011011110111001 001110101
01101101011100110010000001100011011011110110110101 110000011
01100011000010110100101101110001000000110000101100 010011011
11011101010111010000100000010010010100010100100000 011000100
11001010110100101101110011001110010000001100010011 000010110
01000010110000100000011000100111010101110100001000 000110100
10110011000100000011110010110111101110101001000000 110000101
11001101101011001000000111011101101000011110010010 000001100
10001101111001000000101100101001111010101010010000 001101110
01101111011101000010000001101100011010010110101101 100101001
00000011010010111010000101100001000000110100001100 001011100
10011001000110110001111001001000000110000101101110 011110010
11011110110111001100101001000000110000101100011011 101000111
01010110000101101100011011000111100100100000011010 110110111
00110111101110111011100110010000001100001011100000 110000101
11001001110100001000000110011001110010011011110110 110100100
00001110011011000010111100101101001011011100110011 100100000
01110100011010000110010100100000011100110110000101 101101011
00101001000000110001101110010011000010111000000100 000011011
00011010010110101101100101001011000010000001101001 011101000
01000000110010001101111011001010111001101101110011 101000010
00000111001101110101011100000111000001101111011100 100111010
00010000001000011010100110101001100100000011011110 111001000
10000001010011011101000110000101101110011001000110 000101110
01001100100011100110010111000101110001011100010000 001100001
01110011001000000110100101100110001000000111010001 101000011
00001011101000010000001100101011101100110010101101 110001000
00011000010110011001100110011001010110001101110100 011100110
01000000110110101101111011100110111010000100000011 100000110
01010110111101110000011011000110010100100001000011 010000101
00000110100001010010000010111001100100000011001100 110111101
11001000100000011100110111000001111001011101110110 000101110
01001100101001000000110000101101110011001000010000 001100101
01110110011001010111001001111001011101000110100001 101001011
01110011001110010000001100101011011000111001101100 101001011
10001011100010111000100000011000110110111101101101 011001010
01000000110111101101110001000010010000001101001011 001100010
00000110011001101001011100100110010101100110011011 110111100
00010000001100111011011110111010000100000011000010 010000000
11100100111001001001010010000001110011011010000110 000101110
01001100101001000000110111101100110001000000111010 001101000
01100101001000000110110101100001011100100110101101 100101011
10100001011000010000001100100011011110010000001110 000011001
01011011110111000001101100011001010010000001110010 011001010
11000010110110001101100011110010010000001110100011 010000110
10010110111001101011001000000111010001101000011000 010111010
00010000001110000011001010110111101110000011011000 110010100
10000001110111011010010110110001101100001000000110 111001101
11101110100001000000111001101110100011000010111001 001110100
00100000011101000110111100100000011010000110000101 100011011
01011001000000111010001101000011000010111010000100 000011010
01011011100111001101110100011001010110000101100100 001000000
11011110110011000100000010010010100010100111111000 011010000
10100000110100001010011100110110010101100101001000 000111100
10110000100100000011000010110110001101100001000000 110110001
10000101110100011001010111001000100001

[AgentZero]

Um, we're communicating in binary now? But yeah, I don't really recommed IE, since when I turned the security features to full, I couldn't access anything (except microsoft.com. Strange that), and at anything less than full, I was just getting plowed with viruses and spyware, even with my firewall at full power. Firefox ftw!

Sorry. Too much time on the WoW forums.

[Strategia_In_Ultima]

It is only because I had no internet over the weekend that I didn't post this sooner, but.....

Fyron, you keep (kept) going on about w3c "standards". To my knowledge, a "standard" is something that works with the majority of some thing or other. Right now, IE has an 85%+ market share, as I inferred from other posts here, so therefore IE IS the standard. Make a website compatible with IE and you make sure over 80% of the web-browsing community can view it without problems. Sure, there are more web browsers out there - but together they can't hold a candle to IE's user base.

I'm not a fan of Microsoft myself, and I much prefer Firefox, but Fyron, you're just spewing out your blind hatred for Microsoft here. And like CW said in the first reply, don't say it's not just spewing your hatred because this entire thread has everything to do with blind hatred of the big M.

[Fyron]

The w3c standards are implemented fully by all browsers except IE, and partially by Opera last I checked, but that may have been fixed by now. Therefore, they work with an overwhelming majority of browsers. Just because Microsoft now gives a big f* you to the rest of the web development world does not make the w3c standards any less than the standards they are, and neither does IE's large but decreasing market share... Technical standards are defined as what a recognized industry group declares them to be, nothing else. Microsoft even recognizes the w3c standards as the web technology standards and was on its way to making IE compliant with them. They stopped development of IE 4 years ago when their market share reached insane levels, primarily due to strong arm tactics over any particular technical competence. IE may currently be the de facto Windows standard browser, but it does not define the standards for web technologies.

This has absolutely nothing to do with blind hatred. It has to do with well-founded, insightful, knowledgable hatred. I have absolutely no blind hatred for Microsoft. Please do not be so prejudiced to believe that anyone that dislikes a product of Microsoft is blind. Thank you.

[wilhil]

il translate my above post...

I thought I would keep out of this topic for a while, but im coming back!

I like internet explorer, I personally have security settings set to high, and I have never had one single problem.

A lot of people on so many diffrent forums complain about IE being bad, but if you ask why do YOU not like it, hardly anyone actually knows apart from saying the same crap like, it doesnt support CSS or Standards... as if that even affects most people!

As for spyware and everything else... come on! if firefox got a 99% share of the market, do people really think that people will not start to hack that instead of IE?

see ya all later!


---

anyway about your last post, you keep saying all this, but since post number one I made, I just do not agree and you keep going around in circles.

I would now like to ask you a question.

How does IE not supporting W3C actually affect you, and why is that actually bad?

If you do not like IE, it is simple, use Firefox and stop all the complaints!

And a little correction to one of my earlier posts where I said about why I do not program for w3c...

As far as I think, I simply create webpages, I want a big target, I program how I have been doing for years and like to do it the best, I program and make sure it is compatible with IE because then I know that nearly all of my customers will be able to see it, I then have a look from mozilla and some other browsers to see if the site works, and 99% of the time it does, or I make a couple of changes, I do not go out of my way to make changes though.

I want a new standard called IES (internet explorer standard) for sites that are compatible with IE, other browsers can live up to it if they want, but to date it is the largest standard with many websites supporting it!

According to Alexa results of websites most visited, the top ones are (in order):

www.yahoo.com (http://www.yahoo.com)
www.msn.com (http://www.msn.com)
www.google.com (http://www.google.com)
www.ebay.com (http://www.ebay.com)
www.passport.net (http://www.passport.net)

According to the w3c validator site, NOT ONE site is valid! and yet each site works perfectly in IE.

Please can you give a few reasons if you had to write a letter to the Director/CEO's of these companies as to why they should go to these standards whilst there website works on every browser that they want it to?

It makes no sense to me why anyone should use a standard that does not actually improve anything and using does not give any improvements apart from being able to say I am W3C compliant, and if a site can work 100% fine in all browsers without using it.

If IE came out tommorow and was W3C compliant, I can not see a reason why everyone would start using it.

[Sivran]

As for spyware and everything else... come on! if firefox got a 99% share of the market, do people really think that people will not start to hack that instead of IE?



Of course, but without the scourge of activeX, it is much less likely that they will accomplish the exploits they have made with IE. MS should use their considerable muscle for good, and deprecate ActiveX in favor of something more secure (isn't .NET supposed to be the answer here? It has much the same capabilities and, from what I've heard, is much more secure).

No browser, security measure, operating system, or any other software will protect a stupid user from himself. There already is spyware running around in XPI form to infect Mozilla browsers. Some of it actually simply uses XPI as a springboard to launch those IE exploits which don't even require IE to be running. None of it, however, installs itself without user intervention.

[Fyron]

"How does IE not supporting W3C actually affect you, and why is that actually bad?"

It slows down my development of web sites because I constantly have to remove features that are unusable due to lack of IE support. I can't just develop a standards-compliant site and expect IE to render it. It very negatively affects me because of this increased development time and by virtue of stifling excellent new time saving web technologies. So yes, the lack of 100% w3c compliance does affect me, and all web developers that use more than front page. Of course, the front page users tend to create web sites with some gibberish laced into the html, but that is another issue entirely.

"If you do not like IE, it is simple, use Firefox and stop all the complaints!"

I will not stop exercising my right to protest. I shall continue pointing out the problems of IE at every opportunity so that more people will stop using it, eventually forcing MS to fix IE to stop leaking market share. I am doing my part to make the world of web development better.

"According to the w3c validator site, NOT ONE site is valid! and yet each site works perfectly in IE."

They make the mistake of arrogance, yes.

"Please can you give a few reasons if you had to write a letter to the Director/CEO's of these companies as to why they should go to these standards whilst there website works on every browser that they want it to?"

Industry standards make the world go round. Standards insure interoperability and compatibility. Your PC would cost $8,000 if it were not for companies following industry standards for computer hardware, thus allowing parts from a plethora of companies to work together seamlessly. Your house would have burnt down years ago if electronics manufacturers did not follow the IEEE standards for the electrical power grid, or even the builder of your home. You would not have those fancy USB and Firewire ports that make connecting peripherals to your PC a hell of a lot easier without industry standards. Yes, they were invented by MS and Apple, respectively, but they both have IEEE standards specifications. Following standards is the morally correct thing to do.

Following the w3c standards allows the site to be future-proofed. They are designed in such a way that the standards of 5 years ago are a subset of the current standards. There is no need to go back and fix web sites because of this. This makes the site easier to maintain, which saves time and money. If you take an 8 year old site designed for IE 4 or NS 4, chances are it will no longer work in modern browsers (unless it only used the most primitive tags). This (and cross-platform support) was the entire point of starting the w3c standards in the first place.

Further, the HTML/etc. proposed by the standards is designed to be easier to use and maintain than older methods. Should we not use CSS and go back to font tags et all? This is a prime example of standards making web development and maintenance easier and faster.

In my opinion, excluding 1 user in any arena due to sloppiness is morally reprehensible. 100% user base should be the target, not 99%. This is what adhering to standards allows in general. w3c is no exception.

"It makes no sense to me why anyone should use a standard that does not actually improve anything and using does not give any improvements..."

BS. Max-width is a beautiful tag. So are many other CSS specifications not supported by IE. The w3c standard web languages contain many powerful mechanisms that provide added functionality and/or provide for faster, easier ways to code and manage web pages. The advancing technologies proffered by w3c have always been designed to increase the flexibility and power of web languages. Plus the whole standard thing illustrated above.

Some good reading for those with an open mind:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ie+sucks+standard+tags&btnG=Google+ Search

[NullAshton]

Okay, can this topic die already? I think you've beat this topic to death already. Wilhil is making good sites, that work in all browsers, including IE which unfortunatly most people use. I believe everyone here agrees with you, Fyron, in that IE is buggy, and does not follow standards to the letter.

[wilhil]

lol, i want this topic to die, but as long as it is here I feel forced to reply and get my point across!

"Following the w3c standards allows the site to be future-proofed. They are designed in such a way that the standards of 5 years ago are a subset of the current standards. There is no need to go back and fix web sites because of this. This makes the site easier to maintain, which saves time and money. If you take an 8 year old site designed for IE 4 or NS 4, chances are it will no longer work in modern browsers (unless it only used the most primitive tags). This (and cross-platform support) was the entire point of starting the w3c standards in the first place."

I can access sites in IE that are much older....

look, I am not against standards at all, I just think that this standard, as a excuse for why you do not like IE is just such a bad example...

And yes I agree that IE does not follow standards to the letter, personally not buggy, but what I am trying to say is just because it does not follow standards to the letter does not translate to bad...

"Of course, but without the scourge of activeX, it is much less likely that they will accomplish the exploits they have made with IE. MS should use their considerable muscle for good, and deprecate ActiveX in favor of something more secure (isn't .NET supposed to be the answer here? It has much the same capabilities and, from what I've heard, is much more secure). "

correct, .net controls are like activex but much better, personally I thought activex was a wonderful idea, if you understand it from a programming level, it sounds like a good idea, it is a way to run propour applications on a computer and display controls in a web page, it is just bad that a lot of people abused it, and people installed bad controls by clicking ok without reading, but again, if people read through security options, you can actually disable this option.

I personally since the first post see why any site should go for this when as I said, all the top websites do not even use them! we are talking here about websites that have usually been optomised to do everything quicker...

"Industry standards make the world go round. Standards insure interoperability and compatibility. Your PC would cost $8,000 if it were not for companies following industry standards for computer hardware, thus allowing parts from a plethora of companies to work together seamlessly. Your house would have burnt down years ago if electronics manufacturers did not follow the IEEE standards for the electrical power grid, or even the builder of your home. You would not have those fancy USB and Firewire ports that make connecting peripherals to your PC a hell of a lot easier without industry standards. Yes, they were invented by MS and Apple, respectively, but they both have IEEE standards specifications. Following standards is the morally correct thing to do."

Just one thing to say there.... you are correct about in industry how some standards reduce prices due to interoperability, but it would not cost 8k otherwise! and even still, unlike a computer that would probably cost more without standards, W3C is not enforced anywhere and there is no brakedown in the internet, there is no blablabla... everythign works fine, it is like me saying a standard where everyone has to walk on their right... it would just be a nightmare to enfoce, an you would not see a improvment, just a nightmare to try and do! but everything would work fine before the rule would be enforced, and after, meaning that nothing was acctually gained from it...

This is a very stupid thing for me to say now, I do not code like this, but I want to show something..

having the following

<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre> test &lt;b&gt; hello &lt;/b&gt; </pre><hr />

would make in ALL browsers say test, then in bold hello,

the following :

<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>&lt;html&gt;
&lt;head&gt;
&lt;/head&gt;
&lt;body&gt;
&lt;font size = "4"&gt;test &lt;b&gt; hello &lt;/b&gt;&lt;/font&gt;
&lt;/body&gt;
&lt;/html&gt;
</pre><hr />

now then, I am missing a lot like I could do css and a hell of a load more.... infact all of this extra stuff actualyl makes the code more so if anything, it would take longer to load on people with a poor connection. I know this is a bad excuse, but I am just trying to show that infact some standards are meant to be a standard, and that is all, speed is not actually a issue if you look at the way they are designed, if I had to create one from scratch I would do things like

<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre> &lt;start&gt;
test &lt;b&gt; hello &lt;/b&gt;
&lt;/start&gt;
</pre><hr />

and have a real language optimised for speed...

""According to the w3c validator site, NOT ONE site is valid! and yet each site works perfectly in IE."

They make the mistake of arrogance, yes."

So you call the site actually working in every browser and the fact that they have no need to follow a stndard is arrogance?

I really cant be bothered to go on saying more, I have so much more to say! it is just so boring saying the same thing over and over again.

anyway... can a mod lock this topic, it is getting so boring..... I am personally not going to make any more replys here no matter how much I disagree with what else gets said!

[Atrocities]

As any one stopped and considered the possibity that Microsft does not want Exploder to be a safe secure browser? Think about it, without a clear and obstructed path for viruses and other nasty programs to enter our computers, companies such symatic would loose profittablity.

Lets face it, spyware, adware, virus, and the like are a nessarry evil, as viewed from the Microsoft position, because they sustain a market dedicated to preventing them.

Now if you suddenly removed the threat, then there would be no need for the security and the anti virus software companies would begin to fail.

The real crux of this debate is about motivation for not complaying with the standard and not that they should or could, but rather that they simply won't because to do so would undermine the entire anti-virus software industry. An industry that Microsoft is heavily invested in.

Why kill the very thing that keeps you in the black?

[Atrocities]

A follow up what Fyron posted about MS and standards.

It has been my forgone conclusion that Microsoft seldom if ever, follows any standard that it did not create. So it can be said without sarcasim that if Microsoft does not set the standard, there is no standard. And Microsoft will never comply with any standard that it does not recognize as a Microsoft created standard. That per Microsft Standard Operating Proceedure.

Microsoft will not yeild to the standard because they want it to fail. After it fails they will buy, adopt, invent, create, a new standard that looks an awfully lot like the old non Microsoft standard and bill it as their own knowning full well that it is far less effective than the old standard. A clear cut example of MOTOS.

[wilhil]

ahh, I dont beleive the is true, I know I said I would not reply again, but this is not exactly the same topic about w3c... anyway, I do not beleive this is true...

It is bad I agree about viruses and the whole dark side, but there will always be people wanting to make a name for themselves, and it is just unfortunate, IE's bigness is its downfall, I hate this comparisson, but why did the terrorists strike the world trade center isntead of some house far away...? You always want to target the biggest possible audiance with as little effort.

If I write a virus, would I target something with a small user share or a big one? as I said, if mozilla became really big, I am sure we will start seing holes there.

I do agree with you about how if this was to close, security companies may start to fail, but then again, p2p, IM and loads of other areas exist where people could get viruses, and remember it is not usually about hacking or security, but just money, look how many good or real programs come with bundled applications?

I think there will always be a need for security, but at the same time I do not think it is a conspiracy!

now that has been said! I am done again on this topic, but I may repond to posts like that which are not about the same thing over and over again...

[Atrocities]

MODERATOR NOTE:

Fyron, as the originator of the thread, is really the only person who can request that it be locked. However Moderators are free to use their own discresion in such matters and frankly I can see no need to lock a thread that has not violated the terms of service or use as outlined by Shrapnel.

[Thermodyne]

Let’s clear the air a little. MS is a major supporter of w3c. IE6 greatly predates the w3c standards, so does not and can not fully support the rule set. IE7 has been legally castrated by several foreign governments (one of them an illegal cartel under US law) not to mention several years delayed, so who knows what it will support when it is released.

In the real world, you code for IE if you want to make money. That’s the way it has been, is now, and will be for the near future. The OS community has of late begun using w3c as another tool to attack MS. This is their right, but one day they too will need to leave the reverse economy of the university and go out into the real world to earn money. And out there, MS is where the money is.

[Markavian]

now then, I am missing a lot like I could do css and a hell of a load more.... infact all of this extra stuff actualyl makes the code more so if anything, it would take longer to load on people with a poor connection. I know this is a bad excuse, but I am just trying to show that infact some standards are meant to be a standard, and that is all, speed is not actually a issue if you look at the way they are designed,



CSS is the most important part of designing websites, from several angles.
Proper usage of CSS reduces the the amount of HTML used in a file, makes easier to read documents and helps seperate design from content.

Usually you reduce the bandwidth of a website by using CSS because the CSS file is only called upon once and then cached for use with other pages in the website, like reusing an image on multiple pages - its loaded once from the website, then read from cache there-after.

HTML code can be kept very clean through the use of CSS. It also allows designs to be radically updated without even touching the HTML. It something well worth looking into and working with.

As for the issue of designing websites for a particular webbrowser - I agree that websites should be designed for the widest target audience. Designing and building on features which exist only in IE limits your target audience. Designing browsers that parse incorrect HTML only breeds problems down the line. There are many positive things you can do when designing a website to facilitate accessibility, and if you are a good webdesigner you should advise these things to clients.

There are laws in most western countries about accessibility. As a business (any business in the UK) you must take steps to makes your website accessible to disabled people.

BTW, consider this CSS example as improving efficiency in a HTML document (no external CSS sheet required).

<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>&lt;style&gt;
p { font-size: 20pt; }
h2 { font-size: 40pt;
&lt;/style&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Joy&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Hello.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Joy&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Hello.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Joy&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Hello.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;Joy&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Hello.&lt;/p&gt;
</pre><hr />

compared to:
<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>
&lt;h2&gt;&lt;font size="11"&gt;Joy&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;font size="7"&gt;Hello.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;&lt;font size="11"&gt;Joy&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;font size="7"&gt;Hello.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;&lt;font size="11"&gt;Joy&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;font size="7"&gt;Hello.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;&lt;font size="11"&gt;Joy&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;font size="7"&gt;Hello.&lt;/p&gt;
</pre><hr />

If you wanted to change the paragraph font size to 10pt, which example would be easiest?
Which example takes up less bytes when uploaded to a website?

[Baron Munchausen]

Imperator Fyron said:

This has absolutely nothing to do with blind hatred. It has to do with well-founded, insightful, knowledgable hatred. I have absolutely no blind hatred for Microsoft. Please do not be so prejudiced to believe that anyone that dislikes a product of Microsoft is blind. Thank you.



LOL! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

[Fyron]

"I can access sites in IE that are much older...."

As I said, some can be accessed, but some sites written for old browsers before standardization began occuring do not render properly in modern browsers, due to using tags that are no longer valid. Future-proofing is a good thing.

"look, I am not against standards at all, I just think that this standard, as a excuse for why you do not like IE is just such a bad example..."

Thanks for dismissing my cogent arguments as mere "excuses" for... whatever it is you think they are excuses for. The lack of standards support is only part of why I do not like IE, but it is the only part that still affects me greatly when I am not using it as my browser.

"And yes I agree that IE does not follow standards to the letter, personally not buggy, but what I am trying to say is just because it does not follow standards to the letter does not translate to bad... "

I strongly disagree. It's lack of 100% standards compliance is bad for web designers and the Internet in general. Would you use photoshop if it made JPGs that could only be read in Photoshop without errors? No. Standards are vital... A valid HTML page should look the same in every browser without resorting to hacks, just the same as any other file format.

"So you call the site actually working in every browser and the fact that they have no need to follow a stndard is arrogance? "

They have every need to follow the standards, for reasons stated in previous posts. It is indeed arrogance that allows them to ignore them... Maybe apathy or ignorance, but not good any way you cut it.

"W3C is not enforced anywhere and there is no brakedown in the internet"

Please reread my posts to see why never finishing w3c compliance is a problem for the Internet.

"I could do css and a hell of a load more.... infact all of this extra stuff actualyl makes the code more so if anything, it would take longer to load on people with a poor connection."

You have it backwards. CSS reduces load times because style information is only downloaded once for the entire site. All subsequent page requests get vastly smaller html streams. CSS is great for people with slow connection speeds. Further, it is necessary for good coding style. Font tags are abhorrid.

"some standards are meant to be a standard, and that is all, speed is not actually a issue if you look at the way they are designed"

w3c standards are designed for speed. html and doctype tags are trivial in size compared to the rest of the file. Not even a fraction of a percent... You do not have to close tags such as p and td in the w3c html standard, which serves to marginally reduce file sizes... How is this set of standards not designed to increase browsing speed? Your example of a page with just a bit of text does not reasonably represent real web pages.

=0=

Thermo, the lack of updates finishing the w3c standards compliance was part of my argument. If they would stop integrating the browser into the OS and make it a standalone app again, maybe they would have less to be sued about. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif I truly hope that IE 7 supports the standards 100%.

You can maintain full w3c compliance and have your site working perfectly in IE due to the partial support. There is no excuse to violate w3c standards. It is terrible programming style.

"The OS community has of late begun using w3c as another tool to attack MS."

Ah yes, your typical Microsoft on a pedastal position.

=0=

"as I said, if mozilla became really big, I am sure we will start seing holes there."

The main difference is that they will be patched. Even in XP SP2, there are still at least 2 dozen severe holes in IE that allow a malicious coder to gain root access to your machine even when IE is not actively running! They are all well documented and have been so for years. And to hell with all other users not using XP... This is why I always recommend blocking IE from accessing the net at the firewall level... IE is fundamentally dangerous because it runs in kernel mode, so any security bug is automatically escalated in severity. There is no reason for a web browser to run in kernel mode. It is just bad programming any way you look at it. The high security mode can not fix the fundamental flaw of a user level app running as a kernel level app.

[Atrocities]

Atrocities said:
A follow up what Fyron posted about MS and standards.

It has been my forgone conclusion that Microsoft seldom if ever, follows any standard that it did not create. So it can be said without sarcasim that if Microsoft does not set the standard, there is no standard. And Microsoft will never comply with any standard that it does not recognize as a Microsoft created standard. That per Microsft Standard Operating Proceedure.

Microsoft will not yeild to the standard because they want it to fail. After it fails they will buy, adopt, invent, create, a new standard that looks an awfully lot like the old non Microsoft standard and bill it as their own knowning full well that it is far less effective than the old standard. A clear cut example of MOTOS.