«

"MaHogany" <> wrote in message
news...
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:15:31 +1300, juicyjuice wrote:
>
>> That would be nice in a perfect world, but unfortuantely most of
>> the planet
>> uses the 'broken browser' therefore you have to write a broken
>> version of
>> the site so most of the planet can see it.
>
> But if most developers didn't accept what the broken browser did -
> if most
> developers coded their sites to conform to the published standards,
> then
> the creators of the broken browsers would be embarrased by their
> defective
> products, and the public would be more encouraged to seek out
> browsers
> that worked properly.
>

Calling something "broken" because it doesn't work exactly the way
you'd like is pretty childish. If a developer can't manage the minor
coding adjustments needed to have their pages rendered on IE, Firefox,
and, Opera, they should find another way to earn a living.

In message <D->, impossible wrote:

> "MaHogany" <> wrote in message
> news...
>> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 09:50:20 -0400, impossible wrote:
>>
>>> Given that 85% of users are
>>> rendering web pages in some version of IE, developers darn well
>>> better
>>> learn how to cope with its idiosyncracies, whether they like them
>>> or
>>> not.
>>
>> Latest report says IE is now down to 82% - and falling.
>
> Good reason for developers to ignore it, is that what you're saying?

It's certainly getting to the point where, when users complain about
problems, it's easier to say "use Firefox".

In message <G_mdndW->, impossible wrote:

> Calling something "broken" because it doesn't work exactly the way
> you'd like is pretty childish.

Calling something "broken" because it doesn't work the way it's _supposed_
to is not childish. It's just calling a spade a spade.

> If a developer can't manage the minor
> coding adjustments needed to have their pages rendered on IE, Firefox,
> and, Opera, they should find another way to earn a living.

Some of those adjustments are hardly "minor".

> But if most developers didn't accept what the broken browser did - if most

Web developers are the only people who *give a ***** about these standards,
and most web developers are not the decision makers in what it is they are
developing.

I am not saying that is a good thing, but it is a *relevant* thing.

--
Adam

>> Given that 85% of users are
>> rendering web pages in some version of IE,

> Latest report says IE is now down to 82% - and falling.

I dunno why IE naesayers tout these percentages around like it's some sort
of victory.

IE could lose a third of its current market and STILL have more bums on
seats than *all the rest of the other browsers combined*.

I dislike IE as a browser, only use it in emergencies (dunno what would be
"an emergency", but you know what I mean), and will be unlikely to upgrade
to IE7 unless for some reason I aam forced to. But it's just a bit silly
to cite IE's popularity dropping to a measly 82% as some sort of
achievement by the competitors. Basically what it says is that despite
everything, IE simply doesn't actually *have* any serious competitor.

--
Adam

Adam Cameron wrote:

>>> Given that 85% of users are
>>> rendering web pages in some version of IE,
>
>> Latest report says IE is now down to 82% - and falling.
>
> I dunno why IE naesayers tout these percentages around like it's some sort
> of victory.
>
> IE could lose a third of its current market and STILL have more bums on
> seats than *all the rest of the other browsers combined*.
>
> I dislike IE as a browser, only use it in emergencies (dunno what would be
> "an emergency", but you know what I mean), and will be unlikely to upgrade
> to IE7 unless for some reason I aam forced to. But it's just a bit silly
> to cite IE's popularity dropping to a measly 82% as some sort of
> achievement by the competitors. Basically what it says is that despite
> everything, IE simply doesn't actually *have* any serious competitor.
>


I agree, its exactly the same with webserver software, a change of +/- 2
percentage points gets people worked up
--
Fry: Why aren't we moving?
Leela: I don't know! Usually when I do stuff like this, the ship moves!

blog: http://shanes.dyndns.org

"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in
message news:egmd42$ur5$...
> In message <D->,
> impossible wrote:
>
>> "MaHogany" <> wrote in message
>> news...
>>> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 09:50:20 -0400, impossible wrote:
>>>
>>>> Given that 85% of users are
>>>> rendering web pages in some version of IE, developers darn well
>>>> better
>>>> learn how to cope with its idiosyncracies, whether they like them
>>>> or
>>>> not.
>>>
>>> Latest report says IE is now down to 82% - and falling.
>>
>> Good reason for developers to ignore it, is that what you're
>> saying?
>
> It's certainly getting to the point where, when users complain about
> problems, it's easier to say "use Firefox".

What problems? Or is this just one of those throw-away lines you use
when you can't be bothered investigating the real source of the
trouble someone might be having?

Adam Cameron wrote:
>>> Given that 85% of users are
>>> rendering web pages in some version of IE,
>
>> Latest report says IE is now down to 82% - and falling.
>
> I dunno why IE naesayers tout these percentages around like it's some sort
> of victory.
>
> IE could lose a third of its current market and STILL have more bums on
> seats than *all the rest of the other browsers combined*.
>
> I dislike IE as a browser, only use it in emergencies (dunno what would be
> "an emergency", but you know what I mean), and will be unlikely to upgrade
> to IE7 unless for some reason I aam forced to. But it's just a bit silly
> to cite IE's popularity dropping to a measly 82% as some sort of
> achievement by the competitors. Basically what it says is that despite
> everything, IE simply doesn't actually *have* any serious competitor.
>

It is even more ridiculous in the context of IE originally going from
<20% to 40% in something less than a year (1997), eventually getting
almost 100% of the market.

Haha, microsoft embarrased! haha, since when did microsoft listen to its
users?
I think you've forgotten that they like to dictate what is right and wrong
and I find it hard to recall many instances when they conform to 'standards'
without modification.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you 100%, but unfortuately I and other
designers would like our sites usable now on all browsers including the most
popular (broken or not) not sometime in the future when some boycott might
happen when all developers will join together to fight this cause! We have
functions that need to work and deadlines to meet and the big guy making out
our paycheques dosnt care how it works as long as it works. I would like to
see you explain to him why most can't see his new site because of your
broken browser cause.

"MaHogany" <> wrote in message
news...
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:15:31 +1300, juicyjuice wrote:
>
>> That would be nice in a perfect world, but unfortuantely most of the
>> planet
>> uses the 'broken browser' therefore you have to write a broken version of
>> the site so most of the planet can see it.
>
> But if most developers didn't accept what the broken browser did - if most
> developers coded their sites to conform to the published standards, then
> the creators of the broken browsers would be embarrased by their defective
> products, and the public would be more encouraged to seek out browsers
> that worked properly.
>
>
> Ma Hogany
>
> --
> "The average user doesn't know what he wants. The average user wants
> fries with that, if prompted."
>

"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in
message news:egmd6p$ur5$...
> In message <G_mdndW->,
> impossible wrote:
>
>> Calling something "broken" because it doesn't work exactly the way
>> you'd like is pretty childish.
>
> Calling something "broken" because it doesn't work the way it's
> _supposed_
> to is not childish. It's just calling a spade a spade.
>
>> If a developer can't manage the minor
>> coding adjustments needed to have their pages rendered on IE,
>> Firefox,
>> and, Opera, they should find another way to earn a living.
>
> Some of those adjustments are hardly "minor".

Then leave it to the professionals. There are hundreds of millions of
web pages out there that render perfectly well in any browser -- it's
clearly not that big a deal.