Time for Chrome to go
-
http://html5test.com/[^] According to this site, the latest Dev build of Chrome is more compliant than any other offical / dev build of any other browser ;P
-= Reelix =-
So? A browser can be 100% compliant and it won't mean a thing if the sites visited are not written to the standard and display like kaka because of it. And if you think anyone is going to spend the time and money to fix their websites to make Chrome happy... Sure, if you're starting from scratch creating a site, it's no big deal. But to redo everything you already have?
Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. My Mu[sic] My Films My Windows Programs, etc.
-
I guess I should have stated "Most US web pages...." In my experience developing US business and US Government sites since 2005, all sites were developed using Visual Studio and were targeted at IE (normally 7 or above). Of course, there may be exceptions, but in my experience, that's the fact.
I'm sorry, but most sites are not developed using VS/IIS. Apache has far more market share than IIS. My experience has been similar to yours, all my jobs since 2000 have been on the MS stack, but there are still more java jobs than C# (Dice survey)[^] and apache leads IIS in market share (http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2011/02/15/february-2011-web-server-survey.html[^]) I don't see how you can make that claim. And anecdotally, I know MS developers who develop using FF or Chrome because IE's developer tools were so late to the game and in my experience haven't been as good as the latter two. So given the apache statistics (the java link is a stretch I admit since that doesn't directly correlate with web pages) and the fact that not all IIS developers develop using IE I'd say that your claims are not factual at all.
Code responsibly: OWASP.org Mark's blog: www.developMENTALmadness.com Bill Cosby - "A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones that need the advice."
-
With all of the statistics and pedantic arguments, it feels like the point is being missed. Chrome is a pain for many of us, and it doesn't really feel like we should have to "tip-toe" through the css just to make things look right. Also, arrogance from the dev team is inexcusable, and merely adds to the stereotype that programmers are prima-donna crybabies. My personal opinion is that Chrome sucks, it thinks it knows best, and it really doesn't. I only have it installed because I have to support it to some degree. The call to google remains, fix it, isn't that why you have the luxury of being perpetually "beta"? Throw the web programmers a bone and support existing layouts before trying to forge ahead with an html 5 spec that is far from mature.
Maybe I should have written my comments using your comments. They are much more succinct and to the point. Thanks, Gus
-
Gregory.Gadow wrote:
A lot depends on your source. The browser statistics[^] for the W3 schools shows that, as of May, 2011, IE users made up only 24.9% of their visitor base. Firefox was used by 42.4% of their visitors, and Chrome was 25.6%. These stats are taken directly from the site's visitor logs.
Sure, but isn't that expected at a site like w3schools? They're not exactly your average web users. I'm sure the stats for espn.com and facebook look a good deal different.
He said, "Boy I'm just old and lonely, But thank you for your concern, Here's wishing you a Happy New Year." I wished him one back in return.
Yeah, but W3 schools targets developers and the link was targeted at the comment that most sites are developed using MS tools, specifically IE. This shows that the default (an assumption based on what they are using to visit the W3 site) browser for most developers is not IE. It might be a stretch but I'm willing to bet that developers use their default browser for development and then follow up with other browsers to ensure compatibility afterwards.
Code responsibly: OWASP.org Mark's blog: www.developMENTALmadness.com Bill Cosby - "A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones that need the advice."
-
I'm sorry, but most sites are not developed using VS/IIS. Apache has far more market share than IIS. My experience has been similar to yours, all my jobs since 2000 have been on the MS stack, but there are still more java jobs than C# (Dice survey)[^] and apache leads IIS in market share (http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2011/02/15/february-2011-web-server-survey.html[^]) I don't see how you can make that claim. And anecdotally, I know MS developers who develop using FF or Chrome because IE's developer tools were so late to the game and in my experience haven't been as good as the latter two. So given the apache statistics (the java link is a stretch I admit since that doesn't directly correlate with web pages) and the fact that not all IIS developers develop using IE I'd say that your claims are not factual at all.
Code responsibly: OWASP.org Mark's blog: www.developMENTALmadness.com Bill Cosby - "A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones that need the advice."
I think I said "In my experience..."
-
I have just completed an Article in which I dearly wanted to dynamically create a stylesheet in the Javascript function that initializes the web page. I followed the following track:
function create_stylesheet ( ) { var created = false; var head = document.getElementsByTagName ( 'head' ) [ 0 ]; if ( head ) { var style = document.createElement ( 'style' ); if ( style ) { var CSS_string = new String ( ); CSS_string = ".green_link," + ".revised_green_link" + "{" + "}" + ".abbreviation_alone" + "{" + "display:none;" + "}" + ".abbreviation_definition" + "{" + "display:inline;" + "}" + ... style.type = "text/css"; style.rel = "stylesheet"; if ( style.styleSheet ) // IE { style.styleSheet.cssText = CSS_string; } else // W3C { var CSS_text = document.createTextNode ( CSS_string ); style.appendChild ( CSS_text ); } head.appendChild ( style ); created = true; } } return ( created ); }The two rules, abbreviation_alone and abbreviation_definition were then to be retrieved from the page stylesheets and pointed to by two Javascript global variables. Although Firefox, IE, Opera, and Safari all performed as desired, Chrome did not. I had to revert to an external CSS file. The only reason for the dynamic stylesheet was to avoid having two files (.js and .css) included in the project. Please see DOM Style Sheets for further details. The Security in Depth: Local Web Pages describes a "feature" that has effectively crippled users of earlier Chrome versions. As a result, folks are suggesting a move away from Chrome. HTH Gus
Seems like a lot of work just to avoid including .js and .css files in the project. Considering they are standard web application files and they are static and therefore cache-able why spend so much time fighting it? Also, I don't see the argument for leaving Chrome because users of previous versions had a problem. By that argument, no one should be allowed to use any version of IE because of IE 6.0. Plus, IE users aren't forced to upgrade like Chrome users. Chrome automatically updates without any user interaction, so the only ones who would still be stuck on an old version would be those who have done something specific to prevent the update. I wouldn't even know how to do that nor would it make sense to because even though I may want to target Chrome for development, my users will always have the latest version so targeting an old version is an exercise in futility.
Code responsibly: OWASP.org Mark's blog: www.developMENTALmadness.com Bill Cosby - "A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones that need the advice."
-
Seems like a lot of work just to avoid including .js and .css files in the project. Considering they are standard web application files and they are static and therefore cache-able why spend so much time fighting it? Also, I don't see the argument for leaving Chrome because users of previous versions had a problem. By that argument, no one should be allowed to use any version of IE because of IE 6.0. Plus, IE users aren't forced to upgrade like Chrome users. Chrome automatically updates without any user interaction, so the only ones who would still be stuck on an old version would be those who have done something specific to prevent the update. I wouldn't even know how to do that nor would it make sense to because even though I may want to target Chrome for development, my users will always have the latest version so targeting an old version is an exercise in futility.
Code responsibly: OWASP.org Mark's blog: www.developMENTALmadness.com Bill Cosby - "A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones that need the advice."
Seems like a lot of work just to avoid including .js and .css files in the project. Although both .css and .js files are " standard web application files," by dynamically creating the CSS I avoid having to supply two files to people who want to use, say, Green Links. Now, because I try to be browser independent, I must supply both. This complicates the developer's tasks, unnecessarily. I don't see the argument for leaving Chrome because users of previous versions had a problem. The latest version of Chrome significantly modified the way Chrome works. In the toy programming environment this is not a major issue - not many people are affected. But in the production programming environment, this is a serious issue. If you are the development manager for a company that had tied its development to Chrome, had obtained a large number of customers, and then, because Chrome changed, found that your customers could no longer use your site, you would probably feel betrayed. To keep your site alive, you would probably suggest that your customers move to another browser. Even though I may want to target Chrome for development, my users will always have the latest version so targeting an old version is an exercise in futility. Exactly the point. Good development always means backward compatible development. At least in my world it does.
-
musefan wrote:
the most important part of these "communications" (posts) is that they are understood, rather than that they are spelling correctly
I disagree. For those fluent in English, incorrectly spelled words and/or invalid syntax disrupts the flow of the communication, annoys the hell out of the recipient, and dilutes the intended message. Not only are the messages not understood, but further commu nication is intentioinally avoided, thus harming the intent of the original message. THAT is the primary cause of tension and even outright hostility in internet message exchanges on a site like this.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
I disagree. For those fluent in English, incorrectly spelled words and/or invalid syntax disrupts the flow of the communication, annoys the hell out of the recipient, and dilutes the intended message. Not only are the messages not understood, but further commu nication is intentioinally avoided, thus harming the intent of the original message.
I had so much trouble reading that, the flow was just off, which really annoyed me, and made it so that I had no idea what you meant. I'm now forced to cut off all further communication...
"The computer industry is the only industry that is more fashion-driven than women's fashion. Maybe I'm an idiot, but I have no idea what anyone is talking about. What is it? It's complete gibberish. It's insane. When is this idiocy going to stop?" -- Oracle CEO Larry Ellison
-
You are in a minority - although a very vocal minority. Most web pages are developed using a Microsoft product. Thus, the target browser is IE. From Browser Statistics Internet Explorer 8: 33% Firefox 3: 23% Internet Explorer 6: 13% Internet Explorer 7: 9% Google Chrome: 7% Safari (all versions): 3% All that I'm saying is that the Chrome development team missed the mark. Not that Chrome is bad. Just that I experience significant difficulties with it.
The argument you're making, especially by using market share statistics, is that we should all succumb to Microsoft's monopoly. Microsoft's strategy with IE from the beginning has been to leverage the fact that the average user is going to be starting from Windows and Microsoft products and will therefor be more comfortable with, (i.e. choose by default) the Microsoft browser that comes with the operating system. On this basis, they believed that not only could they succeed with a non-standard compliant browser, but that the rest of the industry would eventually adopt their technology and methods as the standards, a strategy that Microsoft has tried, and often succeeded, with many products and markets. I have found that my websites / pages will generally work well on all browsers (Including Chrome), with some minor tweaks, except for IE. In that case, on the lower impact scale I at least often have to write separate CSS code full of IE work-arounds and on the higher impact scale I have to build entirely separate pages.
-
Seems like a lot of work just to avoid including .js and .css files in the project. Although both .css and .js files are " standard web application files," by dynamically creating the CSS I avoid having to supply two files to people who want to use, say, Green Links. Now, because I try to be browser independent, I must supply both. This complicates the developer's tasks, unnecessarily. I don't see the argument for leaving Chrome because users of previous versions had a problem. The latest version of Chrome significantly modified the way Chrome works. In the toy programming environment this is not a major issue - not many people are affected. But in the production programming environment, this is a serious issue. If you are the development manager for a company that had tied its development to Chrome, had obtained a large number of customers, and then, because Chrome changed, found that your customers could no longer use your site, you would probably feel betrayed. To keep your site alive, you would probably suggest that your customers move to another browser. Even though I may want to target Chrome for development, my users will always have the latest version so targeting an old version is an exercise in futility. Exactly the point. Good development always means backward compatible development. At least in my world it does.
gggustafson wrote:
But in the production programming environment, this is a serious issue. If you are the development manager for a company that had tied its development to Chrome
In my experience the issue isn't "toy" vs. "production" - tying your entire product to a single browser, especially in an environment as volatile as the web would be a big mistake. However, my intention was to say that your argument that users should leave Chrome *now* because an old version broke something doesn't make sense unless that feature is critical to your business and still doesn't exist in the *current* version. From my experience every browser has something that doesn't work right or was broken at some point by a release or bug fix. But that the issue is different for Chrome because users will *always* have the latest version and if they don't they are in such a minority that you aren't going to loose any money by ignoring them - updating chrome or firefox isn't like updating IE where it can break you in many painful ways. Also, because Chrome is open source, if something is truly broken - like a standard DOM feature that isn't implemented - then contribute or raise awareness so someone who's capable can get it fixed. Telling everyone to leave it because there's a bug or missing feature is overkill. As for Green Links, while clever, I still don't see the benefit of omitting the css file. For a simple stylesheet yeah it's convenient, but first the time you save by just using the css file in the first place outways the clever js trick. Second, I can't imagine doing anything like that with a complex set of css rules. Maintaining it would be a nightmare.
Code responsibly: OWASP.org Mark's blog: www.developMENTALmadness.com Bill Cosby - "A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones that need the advice."
-
I'm sorry, Google. The time has come to tell you that you need to withdraw Chrome. Although I love your search engine, I have grown to dislike your browser. Why? First, as a developer, I am again facing the "browser wars." Something that works well in Firefox, IE, Opera, and Safari, requires an inordinate amount of time to get working in Chrome. And I've tried - tried very hard to make my HTML, CSS, and Javascript work across browsers. But usually I find myself Googling for Chrome solutions. Secondly, the Google Chrome development team is arrogant. I understand the frustration that the team may feel in trying to keep standards compliant, but to reject a large percentage of the development community requests for repair is arrogant and ill-conceived. Standards can be wrong! They are the creations of humans and are fraught with misinterpretations and possibly downright errors. I speak from personal experience as a former member of the X3J9 standards technical committee. Google, you have a looser on your hands. And I think that is true in both the marketplace (ranking just above Bing) as well as in the developer community. So I suggest that you fix it or throw it.
gggustafson wrote:
Something that works well in Firefox, IE, Opera, and Safari, requires an inordinate amount of time to get working in Chrome. And I've tried - tried very hard to make my HTML, CSS, and Javascript work across browsers.
I'm sorry to be the one to suggest this, but you may be doing things wrong. Due to the way I have learned and practiced HTML and CSS, most of what I attempt to pull off works the first time on Chrome, Safari, FF and Opera. It takes additional time to make it work on IE, but that's besides the point.
gggustafson wrote:
Google, you have a looser on your hands.
Now this is just silly. Most of the people I know use Chrome as their main browser - myself included (with the exception of during development, in which I use Firefox exclusively due to Firebug). Chrome is an excellent browser that has finally provided good competition to Firefox and thus forced Microsoft to invest in standards and realize that nobody who knows what a "browser" is likes IE <= 8. But to re-iterate, I think you're not being careful enough with your markup. I do not know if this applies to you, so disregard it if it doesn't - but I feel that the majority of the developer public seems to write off having good HTML and CSS skills as a useless exercise. I know it's not "coding" in the traditional sense, and I know that most web shops have designers who will often pick up the slack - but come-on, guys. HTML and CSS are not to be taken lightly, and require as much diligence and care as the code you write in C#, Java, Ruby, Python or PHP. Whenever I hear a developer say "I HATE HTML and CSS" or "nothing ever turns out how I want it to look" - it's an indication that the developer hasn't given these skills much thought or time. Remember that in the simplest sense, our jobs as web developers is to serve particular HTML/CSS/JS to browsers.
-
The argument you're making, especially by using market share statistics, is that we should all succumb to Microsoft's monopoly. Microsoft's strategy with IE from the beginning has been to leverage the fact that the average user is going to be starting from Windows and Microsoft products and will therefor be more comfortable with, (i.e. choose by default) the Microsoft browser that comes with the operating system. On this basis, they believed that not only could they succeed with a non-standard compliant browser, but that the rest of the industry would eventually adopt their technology and methods as the standards, a strategy that Microsoft has tried, and often succeeded, with many products and markets. I have found that my websites / pages will generally work well on all browsers (Including Chrome), with some minor tweaks, except for IE. In that case, on the lower impact scale I at least often have to write separate CSS code full of IE work-arounds and on the higher impact scale I have to build entirely separate pages.
I'm sorry. You are putting words in my mouth. I said no such thing. What I did say was that Chrome needs fixing or withdrawal. I also said that the Chrome development team was arrogant. I stand by both. Gus
-
A lot depends on your source. The browser statistics[^] for the W3 schools shows that, as of May, 2011, IE users made up only 24.9% of their visitor base. Firefox was used by 42.4% of their visitors, and Chrome was 25.6%. These stats are taken directly from the site's visitor logs. In my company, I actually design for Firefox, with IE using a special CSS block when needed. We have a very small web user base, and few of them are technically literate, so I don't worry about Chrome, Opera or any of the others.
-
I'm sorry. You are putting words in my mouth. I said no such thing. What I did say was that Chrome needs fixing or withdrawal. I also said that the Chrome development team was arrogant. I stand by both. Gus
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
I disagree. For those fluent in English, incorrectly spelled words and/or invalid syntax disrupts the flow of the communication, annoys the hell out of the recipient, and dilutes the intended message. Not only are the messages not understood, but further commu nication is intentioinally avoided, thus harming the intent of the original message.
I had so much trouble reading that, the flow was just off, which really annoyed me, and made it so that I had no idea what you meant. I'm now forced to cut off all further communication...
"The computer industry is the only industry that is more fashion-driven than women's fashion. Maybe I'm an idiot, but I have no idea what anyone is talking about. What is it? It's complete gibberish. It's insane. When is this idiocy going to stop?" -- Oracle CEO Larry Ellison
Srroy, I cna't hlep but dmeonsatrte how lttile sepllnig raelly mttaers to the hauman eye. (msot nroamlly wolud not eevn nticoe if jsut one wrod was awry) (OK, we aren't excatly normal.)
-
I'm sorry, Google. The time has come to tell you that you need to withdraw Chrome. Although I love your search engine, I have grown to dislike your browser. Why? First, as a developer, I am again facing the "browser wars." Something that works well in Firefox, IE, Opera, and Safari, requires an inordinate amount of time to get working in Chrome. And I've tried - tried very hard to make my HTML, CSS, and Javascript work across browsers. But usually I find myself Googling for Chrome solutions. Secondly, the Google Chrome development team is arrogant. I understand the frustration that the team may feel in trying to keep standards compliant, but to reject a large percentage of the development community requests for repair is arrogant and ill-conceived. Standards can be wrong! They are the creations of humans and are fraught with misinterpretations and possibly downright errors. I speak from personal experience as a former member of the X3J9 standards technical committee. Google, you have a looser on your hands. And I think that is true in both the marketplace (ranking just above Bing) as well as in the developer community. So I suggest that you fix it or throw it.
I`m sorry Gustav but if you can`t keep up doesn`t mean a browser should go. Not so long ago IE was going through the same path. Than Firefox. If something is broken you don`t just throw it away, you try and fix it. In my opinion Chrome is by far the best browser.
NO. Layers. Onions have layers. Ogres have layers. Onions have layers. You get it? We both have layers.
-
I`m sorry Gustav but if you can`t keep up doesn`t mean a browser should go. Not so long ago IE was going through the same path. Than Firefox. If something is broken you don`t just throw it away, you try and fix it. In my opinion Chrome is by far the best browser.
NO. Layers. Onions have layers. Ogres have layers. Onions have layers. You get it? We both have layers.
I don't think I said anything different. Fix it or throw it. Also, stop flaming! I'm a professional and take umbrage at your use of the phrase "if you can't keep up."
-
I don't think I said anything different. Fix it or throw it. Also, stop flaming! I'm a professional and take umbrage at your use of the phrase "if you can't keep up."
No offense gggustafson but I can't quite call you a professional if you are so eager to say 'Time for chrome to go'. I'd say you are a bit frustrated, but by no means I consider, nor do I see Google Chrome as trash-worthy. I'd be pissed too if the stuff from Google would ignore me but this is by no means the way to go on with your war. Just my opinion.
NO. Layers. Onions have layers. Ogres have layers. Onions have layers. You get it? We both have layers.
-
I'm sorry, Google. The time has come to tell you that you need to withdraw Chrome. Although I love your search engine, I have grown to dislike your browser. Why? First, as a developer, I am again facing the "browser wars." Something that works well in Firefox, IE, Opera, and Safari, requires an inordinate amount of time to get working in Chrome. And I've tried - tried very hard to make my HTML, CSS, and Javascript work across browsers. But usually I find myself Googling for Chrome solutions. Secondly, the Google Chrome development team is arrogant. I understand the frustration that the team may feel in trying to keep standards compliant, but to reject a large percentage of the development community requests for repair is arrogant and ill-conceived. Standards can be wrong! They are the creations of humans and are fraught with misinterpretations and possibly downright errors. I speak from personal experience as a former member of the X3J9 standards technical committee. Google, you have a looser on your hands. And I think that is true in both the marketplace (ranking just above Bing) as well as in the developer community. So I suggest that you fix it or throw it.
For all practical purposes I'm not a web developer, but I am a heavy web user, and have seldom seen Chrome fail to render a webpage correctly. Besides, try as I might I cannot let go of it anymore... I can tell, because I tried going back to Firefox back when version 4 was released, and couldn't stand how slow the thing ran on my poor Core2 Duo notebook – not counting that then and again it would go nuts on some Flash advertisement and take up 2GB of memory, effectively freezing my machine. Also, having been spoiled by Chrome, I don't think I'll put up anymore with restarting every time an update or new plug-in is installed. I'm sorry Gustaf, but I guess you'll have to deal with it. Even if Chrome is such big a nightmare for web developers, for web users it's sublime – and where the web market is concerned, the word of users is the word of God.
-
For all practical purposes I'm not a web developer, but I am a heavy web user, and have seldom seen Chrome fail to render a webpage correctly. Besides, try as I might I cannot let go of it anymore... I can tell, because I tried going back to Firefox back when version 4 was released, and couldn't stand how slow the thing ran on my poor Core2 Duo notebook – not counting that then and again it would go nuts on some Flash advertisement and take up 2GB of memory, effectively freezing my machine. Also, having been spoiled by Chrome, I don't think I'll put up anymore with restarting every time an update or new plug-in is installed. I'm sorry Gustaf, but I guess you'll have to deal with it. Even if Chrome is such big a nightmare for web developers, for web users it's sublime – and where the web market is concerned, the word of users is the word of God.
Please do not misunderstand what I am about to say. Because you are not a developer, it is very difficult for you to grasp the amount of work that goes into even the simplest web page. It takes an extraordinary effort to get web pages to be cross-browser compatible, and the one browser that is making it more difficult is Chrome. The Chrome development team needs to fix the problem. What you see on Chrome should be what you see on other browsers, ignoring minor differences in color, line thickness, etc. And what you see on other browsers should be what you see on Chrome. As a developer, I must spend an inordinate amount of time making my web page display "correctly" on Chrome. All the other major browsers, Firefox, IE, Opera, and Safari (FOSI) accept the pages, normally after some minor tweaks. For Chrome, it is major tweaks. In the most recent problem, I had to change the way that a part of the web page was presented to the browser. FOSI browsers accepted the way that I had designed the web page. Chrome did not. This extra effort to make web pages viewable in Chrome is one reason that US businesses and the US Government do not target Chrome (of course, they also do not target Firefox, Opera, and Safari either). But as a professional developer, I do target FOSI. I also try to make my pages viewable in Chrome. But to be honest, I keep asking if it's really worth the effort. As a Chrome user, you'd probably answer "yes." But the manager, whose whole organization is geared towards IE, would probably answer "no." As a note, "and where the web market is concerned, the word of users is the word of God" is not true in the major US business and US Government worlds. Those worlds are concerned with costs not the users. If I succeed in my efforts to be cross-browser compatible, you (a non-technical user) will see no differences. But understand the pain that I had to go through to make that happen. Regards, Gus