Why IE is a dog today and every other day....
-
AspDotNetDev wrote:
but is just text in IE
That would be because of this;
window.addEvent('domready', function () {
var isWebKit = navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase().match(/applewebkit/);
var isSupported = isWebKit || Browser.safari || Browser.firefox || Browser.chrome || Browser.opera;if (isSupported) { new Root(); } else { var body = document.id(document.body); body.style.background = "white"; body.style.color = "#111"; body.style.overflow = "auto"; body.style.overflowX = "auto"; body.style.overflowY = "auto"; document.id("sections").style.display = "block"; }});
If you spoof the user-agent string in IE10 the site displays just fine. But then, as he is an Appleite I expect such a half-arsed implementation. :rolleyes:
People are more violently opposed to fur than leather because it's safer to harass rich women than motorcycle gangs
I can only hope that anyone who has the know-how to spoof their user-agent string isn't still using IE.
-
#region RANT Does anyone else spend far to much time trying to get IE to render similar outputs as ALL other browsers... i am ammused that the IE team seems not to care to much about CSS3 gradients or HTML "standards" because they can rely on the default install for 85% of users not bothering to get a real browser :(( #endregion
-
It seems that I am the only one that is going defend IE here today ;) CSS3 gradients is implemented in IE10, and comes with Windows 8 in oktober. As for IE9, the only stuff of real everyday value that's missing is gradients and text-shadow, but they're long over due indeed. The positive thing about IE9 is the speed. It's awesome at animations containing rgba backgrounds, transparent pngs and shadows etc. IE9 wins over all browsers on this one. I notice this all the time on the project we're working on at work right now. IE9 really excels with its buttery smooth animations. As for the IE-team caring about standards, they're probably the team focusing on it the most right now, and also getting it right (which means without bugs). I believe it was on MIX they made fun of chrome because of the clipping bug in css3 columns. IE9 also does border-radius correct: http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/HTML5/BorderRadius/Default.html[^] while many of the other browsers don't. IE10 will probably blow away the competition _when_ it comes out.
There's also the significantly improved f12 tools in ie9, in my opinion the best feature therein. I know everyone will cry 'BUT FIREBUG/CHROME DEVELOPER TOOLS.' Honestly? I find them garish and occupy more space than I care to commit to a UI for debugging an xml dom. I'm not by any stretch of the imagination a 'who needs an IDE when you have viedit' zealot, but I tend to grade my expectation of the UI complexity to the importance of the task. /bunnytrail
-
#region RANT Does anyone else spend far to much time trying to get IE to render similar outputs as ALL other browsers... i am ammused that the IE team seems not to care to much about CSS3 gradients or HTML "standards" because they can rely on the default install for 85% of users not bothering to get a real browser :(( #endregion
-
#region RANT Does anyone else spend far to much time trying to get IE to render similar outputs as ALL other browsers... i am ammused that the IE team seems not to care to much about CSS3 gradients or HTML "standards" because they can rely on the default install for 85% of users not bothering to get a real browser :(( #endregion
-
#region RANT Does anyone else spend far to much time trying to get IE to render similar outputs as ALL other browsers... i am ammused that the IE team seems not to care to much about CSS3 gradients or HTML "standards" because they can rely on the default install for 85% of users not bothering to get a real browser :(( #endregion
Interesting question. I am just preparing to post a 4th post in a series on SharePoint 2010, CSS3 and HTML5. The result was a little surprising. My examples were with the latest versions of Firefox and Chrome, and Internet explorer versions 8 - 10. No suprise that IE8 was a non-starter. IE9 performed rendering (other than CSS3 Gradients for which the DXImageTransform.Microsoft.gradient work-around was required) better than both competitors and IE10 from the Developer Preview outperformed everything. I'm hoping Microsoft adds CssGradients to IE10, but even if they don't they have certainly demonstrated a commitment to HTML5 and CSS3. While your rant and frustrations are understood and deserved, it's also good to give Miscrosoft credit when it responds to the user community requests. Look at this Modernizr compatibility array from IE10 - there's not much missing here. ;) no-flexboxr flexbox-legacyr canvasr canvastextr no-webglr no-touchr geolocationr postmessager no-websqldatabaser indexeddbr hashchanger historyr draganddropr websocketsr rgbar hslar multiplebgsr backgroundsizer no-borderimager borderradiusr boxshadowr textshadowr opacityr cssanimationsr csscolumnsr cssgradientsr no-cssreflectionsr csstransformsr csstransforms3dr csstransitionsr fontfacer generatedcontentr videor audior localstorager sessionstorager webworkersr applicationcacher svgr inlinesvgr no-smilr svgclippaths
If you're going to look back and laugh... you might as well laugh now.
-
#region RANT Does anyone else spend far to much time trying to get IE to render similar outputs as ALL other browsers... i am ammused that the IE team seems not to care to much about CSS3 gradients or HTML "standards" because they can rely on the default install for 85% of users not bothering to get a real browser :(( #endregion
you don't know what you are talking about - not a single one of the browsers out there are compliant with with all the standards, and even the ones that "thnk" that they are compliant with is just a matter of opinion thats the trouble with just having browser standards and letting various companies determine for themselves what the standards actually mean and how to implement the browser functionality to "meet" those standards - in short the whole thing boils down to how the developers "interpret" the standards. in other cases they just outright choose not to support certain parts of the standards and that will be the problem with html5 - it sounds great, but we will have the same issues with html5 that we have now with certain browsers working one way and others doing something else when they are all reading the same code there is only one answer to this problem - have the same authority that writes the standards also test each browser and if it doesn't pass 100%, then it can not be released to the public till it is nothing more frustrating than to have to write 4 different variations of a html site just so it will render that same on all browsers - actually is not possible depending on what code you write as not all browsers have support for certain things in the css this is what makes Silverlight so great as a plugin - any code will work and render the same on any browser
-
Yep. I agree. And why did the "Crap" of Microsoft became the mostly used software OS and Explorer ?
-
krumia wrote:
I can suggest users to boycott IE, and ask developers to show the message "You're using the crappy IE browser. Get a 'real browser' now', if the users are using IE.
Another reason Bret Victor is the man... his website looks awesome in Chrome/FF, but is just text in IE. :-D
Yes, looks way better in IE, the dude can't design for shit.
-
#region RANT Does anyone else spend far to much time trying to get IE to render similar outputs as ALL other browsers... i am ammused that the IE team seems not to care to much about CSS3 gradients or HTML "standards" because they can rely on the default install for 85% of users not bothering to get a real browser :(( #endregion
Only when I don't get to do things my way and use HTML5 Boilerplate, which takes advantage of Modernizr.js to deal with all of IE's bullshit.
When posting here, I do not represent anybody but myself.
-
#region RANT Does anyone else spend far to much time trying to get IE to render similar outputs as ALL other browsers... i am ammused that the IE team seems not to care to much about CSS3 gradients or HTML "standards" because they can rely on the default install for 85% of users not bothering to get a real browser :(( #endregion
This makes me very sad, all this hating on Microsoft and IE, why? Is IE9 standards compliant? Yes, probably more so that any other popular browser (no I'm not hitting the pipe, just talking about real standards compliance, HTML 1.1 being the last finalized standard). As Pete O'Hanlon pointed out, HTML5 is NOT a standard. The idea that browser developers should keep 'pushing things forward' regardless of actual standards is just stupid. When would you advocate that type of development process anywhere but in the browser space. As for the general Microsoft haters, well, what's your beef? The NT kernel is the most modern of the monolithic OS's. Mac OS had to die, it was pure crap, unless you enjoyed listening to the restart chime all day and had an aversion to real productivity, (funny how they sell iStuff on the promise of the app store, all those thousands of apps, didn't seem to bother Apple fanboys that there was no software for Mac OS). So what did Apple do, take a nearly 40 year old OS kernel and stick a 25 year old GUI on top, there's real progress and innovation for you. Irix did that 15+ years ago to much better effect for the time (and on far superior hardware). And don't even go there with Linux, 15+ years I've been installing Linux in the hope that they've finally got something... still a badly designed OS that runs hobby apps. But hey, its free, that makes up for everything, right. OK, so they own the server space, not actually much of a plus as Apache Server is just sad, talk about the triumph of stupid. Swiss Army Knife, does everything but nothing well. Microsoft has its faults, of course, but right now Windows 7 is arguably the best OS available (simply depends on your requirements) and IE9 is a great browser. Do some real-world profiling, fastest loading and rendering in almost all cases (interesting bug, can be even faster when it loses focus..). Chrome is still nice with a fast JS engine but FireFox has lost the plot completely, some nice debugging tools, all else, fail. And hey, lets not forget that Microsoft even invented XMLHttpRequest, the foundation of the modern interactive web, JS is interchangeable and pretty lame, thanks Netscape, could have been worse I suppose, maybe. So IE doesn't support your latest CSS3 tricks, get a life and stop hating Microsoft just because its trendy, you are lazy, and you think gradients and rouded corners equate to good web design ...sad. Just as an aside. I'm going to laugh my ass off when someone finally does a real head to head between flash a
-
What difference does the "why" make? It is the way it is, and we have to deal with it, or lose customers.
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP.
TNCaver wrote:
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP.
If you are writing an Assembly program, you are claiming you know how to write code to drive the machine. If you are writing a higher level language, you are claiming you know how to write code that can be converted to drive the machine, because it's easier to write while needing less thought. If you are coding with less thought about what you are doing, you shouldn't be allowed to write goto because that requires a more thoughtful design for someone who wants to be thoughtless. I really don't mind being lumped with the thoughtless, because my designs are easier to build and I'm not debugging someone else's muddled thoughts liberally sprinkled with gotos that completely hides that someone else's "thought" process. With goto's they ususally prove they don't have one, (A thought process.) That, or I don't have to debug their code because their thought process is better than mine and they've anticipated any kind of change in requirements ahead of time. I have yet to see that. I have often been faced with code that doesn't work right, never did, several dead (IE If (a) goto 1 --> several lines that don't touch a --> If (!a) goto 2 --> dead code including gotos that you have to figure out if they are referenced elsewhere or can be accessed through fall-through code) sections of code, no comments, and the "author" is long gone.
-
#region RANT Does anyone else spend far to much time trying to get IE to render similar outputs as ALL other browsers... i am ammused that the IE team seems not to care to much about CSS3 gradients or HTML "standards" because they can rely on the default install for 85% of users not bothering to get a real browser :(( #endregion
While not a programmer I do sympathise with you. As a construction worker we used to have all sorts of problems dealing with competing standards. Having problems getting a round peg into a square hole? Try getting a metric anything to fit with an imperial anything. Nothing could ruin you day quicker than being giving imperial parts to do a job in a metric country. We don’t have these problems any more though. Everything is made in China now to a standard we want. I’m sure American manufacturing is still going strong though I wouldn’t want to be the boss/owner that thought the rest of the world was just going to use imperial.
-
I can only hope that anyone who has the know-how to spoof their user-agent string isn't still using IE.
grimertop90 wrote:
I can only hope that anyone who has the know-how to spoof their user-agent string isn't still using IE.
No I don't use IE as my main browser, in this particular case I was more interested in why it was excluded as nothing shown was beyond the capabilities of the latest version of IE which spoofing the user-agent string in IE10 showed, but then in reading the persons CV on the site you can see where the bias against IE comes from. Oh if you're wondering I refuse to support IE6 and if something doesn't work in it I say tough sh*t, upgrade and if really necessary use compatibility view. Anything is preferable to the abortion that is IE6.
People are more violently opposed to fur than leather because it's safer to harass rich women than motorcycle gangs
-
#region RANT Does anyone else spend far to much time trying to get IE to render similar outputs as ALL other browsers... i am ammused that the IE team seems not to care to much about CSS3 gradients or HTML "standards" because they can rely on the default install for 85% of users not bothering to get a real browser :(( #endregion
The company I work for is doing some pretty neat stuff in PDF to HTML5, so for the first time ever I have put a browser recommendation (chrome) on our site with a link to download it. I had a copy of Windows 1, so this wasn't done lightly. If enough people do the same perhaps MS may wake up. Maybe... I know the standard is still evolving, but at least browsers like chrome make an attempt to keep up with the demand with updates rather than issuing only bug fixes and making us wait sooo long before any of the new toys can be played with. To say it works in the IE10 preview is just a tease, because its not yet a proper browser. Its 2012, not 1995!
-
krumia wrote:
I can suggest users to boycott IE, and ask developers to show the message "You're using the crappy IE browser. Get a 'real browser' now', if the users are using IE.
Sometimes I get message like this: small popup or big letters instead of actual page. I just close sites like this and find another. If they want this kind of reaction, it's really work.
Linda-chan wrote:
Sometimes I get message like this: small popup or big letters instead of actual page. I just close sites like this and find another. If they want this kind of reaction, it's really work.
Exactly. Alienating potential users/customers/etc because of personal bias is simply stupid.
Currently reading: "The Prince", by Nicolo Machiavelli
-
TNCaver wrote:
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP.
If you are writing an Assembly program, you are claiming you know how to write code to drive the machine. If you are writing a higher level language, you are claiming you know how to write code that can be converted to drive the machine, because it's easier to write while needing less thought. If you are coding with less thought about what you are doing, you shouldn't be allowed to write goto because that requires a more thoughtful design for someone who wants to be thoughtless. I really don't mind being lumped with the thoughtless, because my designs are easier to build and I'm not debugging someone else's muddled thoughts liberally sprinkled with gotos that completely hides that someone else's "thought" process. With goto's they ususally prove they don't have one, (A thought process.) That, or I don't have to debug their code because their thought process is better than mine and they've anticipated any kind of change in requirements ahead of time. I have yet to see that. I have often been faced with code that doesn't work right, never did, several dead (IE If (a) goto 1 --> several lines that don't touch a --> If (!a) goto 2 --> dead code including gotos that you have to figure out if they are referenced elsewhere or can be accessed through fall-through code) sections of code, no comments, and the "author" is long gone.
Well, you certainly overthought your rebuttal to my somewhat tongue-in-cheek sig line. And I think your second sentence is non sequitur to your first, which rather nullifies everything else that follows. :)
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP.
-
Well, you certainly overthought your rebuttal to my somewhat tongue-in-cheek sig line. And I think your second sentence is non sequitur to your first, which rather nullifies everything else that follows. :)
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP.
Well, since code can't be code until it gets to machine instructions and assembly is the closest to MI, it is almost a direct correlation. (In fact, I haven't the faintest what MI is, other than something I never worked with.) Basically, a single higher level language instruction converts to a set of MI commands. So, the object of both is to produce MI. I may have lost the point in the second sentence, but I wouldn't go to being a non sequitur.
TNCaver wrote:
Well, you certainly overthought your rebuttal
Agreed. My rebuttal was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek. :) So's this one.