IE, Firefox conflict.

[Harlan Messinger]

[1] Two blokes are having a swim in the creek when they spot a Tiger
lurking. Bloke 1 bolts while bloke 2 carefully puts on his running shoes.
Bloke 1 calls back: "Mate, running shoes will not enable you to out-run a
Tiger". Bloke 2 replies "I don't have to out-run a Tiger. I only have to
out-run you".

(1) Bloke 2 was carrying his running shoes with him while he was swimming?

(2) The tiger will reach Bloke 2 before Bloke 2 catches up with Bloke 1.

 

[dorayme]

[1] Two blokes are having a swim in the creek when they spot a Tiger
lurking. Bloke 1 bolts while bloke 2 carefully puts on his running shoes.
Bloke 1 calls back: "Mate, running shoes will not enable you to out-run a
Tiger". Bloke 2 replies "I don't have to out-run a Tiger. I only have to
out-run you".

(1) Bloke 2 was carrying his running shoes with him while he was swimming?

(2) The tiger will reach Bloke 2 before Bloke 2 catches up with Bloke 1.

The first point might seem to be nitpicking. But the second one is all
class.

 

[Adrienne Boswell]

Yes that is exactly the problem, so in most cases, what it looks like
in Expression Web, which is just an upgrade of Front Page, is what it
usually looks like in IE.

Which is exactly the reason to avoid it. This is like a kid whose
friends all take drugs - should that kid take drugs because 80% of his
friends are?

Fortunately Firefox is much more forgiving.

No, Firefox is NOT forgiving, it is compliant - there is a difference.

Unfortunately IE is the browser of choice for about 80% of those on
line.

Isn't that wonderful? I remember when it was 90%. Still, why pander to
something that is inherently broken?

The judge who heard the anti-trust suit against microsquish did
not have a clue as to how programs are constructed. MS tole the court
that they had to "integrate" the browse into windoze in order to make
it run properly. The attorneys for the Justice Department did not
have enough knowledge to challenge this, or maybe did not want to. No
one suggested in court that IE was really a separate program activated
by a call to a sub routine. MS got away with giving away a program in
order to drive a competitor out of business. A clear violation of
anti-trust law.

The universe works in the way it works, anti-trust laws notwithstanding.
As a result of the lawsuit, the issue came to the public's attention,
and people started looking at other browsers.

That didn't happen to me, I started out using Netscape 2.0, and
continued with it until version 6, when I finally switched to Opera 5.1
(and paid for it).

 

[rf]

I open IE and Firefox to start and look at the results. Then if
everything seems to be OK I try Opera, Sea Monkey, and Netscape 7.2.
If no one complains then I let it go.

Throw in Lynx as well. This gives you a rough feel of how your page will
sound to a blind person.

Hint: No CSS. No images (hence the importance of the alt attribute). No
Javascript. Just text.

So far, the viewers are not as sophisticated as the people on this NG, so
most of them probably do not have any understanding of web site design.
There are some who are very good at publishing however.

Good at publishing is usually inversly proportional to good at web design.

Look at:

http://www.desertreport.org/
for instance.

A perfect example. This design would look good on a peice of glossy papar
*exactly* 8 inches wide. It does not look good on my browser. I either have
unused blank space either side of the content or a horizontal <spit/> scroll
bar.

The font size is specified at 7.5pt, stupidly small. And points are for
print (publishing), not web. Ems are for web. And if I don't happen to have
verdana on my computer then this text will drop to arial, or sans serif, and
be miniscule, totally unreadable.

Use of images of text, not the real text (the welcome and current issue
headings).

A 4.3 megabyte file containing the "current issue"? What is wrong with a
link to a plain text page?

Gratuitious use of flash, containing the main heading of the site and a
bloody wolf trotting around. At least it's not a Tiger.

Email link is unusable to anybody without an email client that actuall
interfaces to their particular browser (mailto. These people include
anybody using a public library. One would have to re-type the address from
the status bar.

Running the browser in quirks mode. Transitional doctype. Extensive use of
tables for layout. Using <br><br> to "force" a blank line (<p> should be
used).

XHTML closing / all over the place when the doctype says HTML 4.01. Several
other HTML errors as well.

 

[DLU]

Look at:

A perfect example. This design would look good on a peice of glossy papar
*exactly* 8 inches wide. It does not look good on my browser. I either have
unused blank space either side of the content or a horizontal <spit/> scroll
bar.

It is mailed to most members. It is online only for those who want to
look at it there. As publication it is quite good. However, if funding
dries up due to current economic problems, they may have to make the web
site primary.
--
***************************************
* This is the Spammish Inquisition *
* Not Lumber Cartel Unit 75 [TINLC] *
* I am not SPEWS.ORG *
***************************************

 

[Bergamot]

Isn't that wonderful? I remember when it was 90%.

Actually, most of the sites I manage are reporting IE at 70% or less.
Depends on the site, though. One is still near 85%, but several are
closer to 50%. The type or location of the biz/organization doesn't seem
to matter.