Managers!
-
I have just heard my boss on the phone to a client explaining to her that websites on the Mac just don't look the same as on a PC. Whilst this can be true, the fact is we never actually test any sites we develop on a Mac so we have no idea what they look like. Just because my boss hates macs doesn't mean we should ignore their users. :mad: SuzyB If I had a better memory I would remember more.
-
I have just heard my boss on the phone to a client explaining to her that websites on the Mac just don't look the same as on a PC. Whilst this can be true, the fact is we never actually test any sites we develop on a Mac so we have no idea what they look like. Just because my boss hates macs doesn't mean we should ignore their users. :mad: SuzyB If I had a better memory I would remember more.
Macs? Who's using a Mac? What do they expect? 100% compatibility with a PC? If you use a Mac, you -SHOULD- be aware that you're going to have problems. To me, using a Mac is like driving in the left lane in the US. You are gonna get yourself in serious trouble one day or another :) Tell your boss he's not alone :)
-
Macs? Who's using a Mac? What do they expect? 100% compatibility with a PC? If you use a Mac, you -SHOULD- be aware that you're going to have problems. To me, using a Mac is like driving in the left lane in the US. You are gonna get yourself in serious trouble one day or another :) Tell your boss he's not alone :)
I'm seriously hoping that's a bit in gest, especially when it comes to webpages. The truth of the matter is that the default browser on Macs (Safari) is far more W3C standards compliant than IE6. Even IE7 reportedly will not support CSS2 which is so ridculous. Please people, code webpages to W3C standards. Then you shouldn't have any problems (oh, except for those pesky IE people). Hey, what do they expect when they're running a browser that doesn't comply to global standards (that's like driving in the left lane in the US). ;) On another note, if someone really wants to make sure their webpage will look good on non-Windows/IE, install Firefox. You won't need a mac, and the Gecko engine behind Firefox is standards compliant and is a good representation of how your site will look on most other platforms/browsers.
-
Macs? Who's using a Mac? What do they expect? 100% compatibility with a PC? If you use a Mac, you -SHOULD- be aware that you're going to have problems. To me, using a Mac is like driving in the left lane in the US. You are gonna get yourself in serious trouble one day or another :) Tell your boss he's not alone :)
C a r l wrote: Macs? Who's using a Mac? Customers. If you can afford losing them and reduce a bit your development costs, fine. All too often, though, this is not true. I see dead pixels Yes, even I am blogging now!
-
I'm seriously hoping that's a bit in gest, especially when it comes to webpages. The truth of the matter is that the default browser on Macs (Safari) is far more W3C standards compliant than IE6. Even IE7 reportedly will not support CSS2 which is so ridculous. Please people, code webpages to W3C standards. Then you shouldn't have any problems (oh, except for those pesky IE people). Hey, what do they expect when they're running a browser that doesn't comply to global standards (that's like driving in the left lane in the US). ;) On another note, if someone really wants to make sure their webpage will look good on non-Windows/IE, install Firefox. You won't need a mac, and the Gecko engine behind Firefox is standards compliant and is a good representation of how your site will look on most other platforms/browsers.
Yeah absolutely... follow a standard that isnt supported by the browser that +80% are using. THAT will keep your users happy... atleast you can tell them , we follow standard when the IE users call and complain... which im sure they gadly will accept as an answer ;) //Roger
-
Macs? Who's using a Mac? What do they expect? 100% compatibility with a PC? If you use a Mac, you -SHOULD- be aware that you're going to have problems. To me, using a Mac is like driving in the left lane in the US. You are gonna get yourself in serious trouble one day or another :) Tell your boss he's not alone :)
If Mac users wants/expects a 100% original copy of a PC, why don't they just buy one ? They wants to be/feel different from a PC user, but wants all functionalities from a PC ? That's plain stupid, and Carl is true, a Mac won't be a PC before long, even if Microsoft invested in Apple... Kochise In Code we trust !
-
If Mac users wants/expects a 100% original copy of a PC, why don't they just buy one ? They wants to be/feel different from a PC user, but wants all functionalities from a PC ? That's plain stupid, and Carl is true, a Mac won't be a PC before long, even if Microsoft invested in Apple... Kochise In Code we trust !
What is even more stupid is that many Mac users run most of their software in Virtual PC under Windows... this is slow and plain uneffective. Why am I not using Linux or Macs? Simply because most software I use are made for Windows... it would be a huge waste of time to run everything in a virtual machine, under another OS!
-
I'm seriously hoping that's a bit in gest, especially when it comes to webpages. The truth of the matter is that the default browser on Macs (Safari) is far more W3C standards compliant than IE6. Even IE7 reportedly will not support CSS2 which is so ridculous. Please people, code webpages to W3C standards. Then you shouldn't have any problems (oh, except for those pesky IE people). Hey, what do they expect when they're running a browser that doesn't comply to global standards (that's like driving in the left lane in the US). ;) On another note, if someone really wants to make sure their webpage will look good on non-Windows/IE, install Firefox. You won't need a mac, and the Gecko engine behind Firefox is standards compliant and is a good representation of how your site will look on most other platforms/browsers.
Arrghh! Not this standards thing again. IE *IS* the defacto standard. People should be coding to it. The W3C is a colossal failure at getting Microsoft to implement thier standards, IE is the most prevalent browser, ergo the W3C is a colossal failure. The truth is that overwhelming majority of web browser users couldn't care less about standards and just want it to work. That should be the goal of website developers and leave the standards argument out of it as it's doing no one any good whatsoever.
-
Yeah absolutely... follow a standard that isnt supported by the browser that +80% are using. THAT will keep your users happy... atleast you can tell them , we follow standard when the IE users call and complain... which im sure they gadly will accept as an answer ;) //Roger
You can make a webpage that is standards compliant and works in IE. I do it all the time. The only problem is that you can't use all the newest standars. Also, stay away from things that are specific "features" of IE (as in things it happens to render in a certain way. Oh, and if people did start complaining to Microsoft that standards compliant websites didn't work with IE, then maybe they would change it.
-
I'm seriously hoping that's a bit in gest, especially when it comes to webpages. The truth of the matter is that the default browser on Macs (Safari) is far more W3C standards compliant than IE6. Even IE7 reportedly will not support CSS2 which is so ridculous. Please people, code webpages to W3C standards. Then you shouldn't have any problems (oh, except for those pesky IE people). Hey, what do they expect when they're running a browser that doesn't comply to global standards (that's like driving in the left lane in the US). ;) On another note, if someone really wants to make sure their webpage will look good on non-Windows/IE, install Firefox. You won't need a mac, and the Gecko engine behind Firefox is standards compliant and is a good representation of how your site will look on most other platforms/browsers.
The client could be using mac IE. :rolleyes: What these IE is the standard guys don't get is how much nicer it is to code a page using CSS then straight HTML. It's like the difference between VB6 and VB.Net. When IE was a better development environment it gained share. Now that Firefox is things are starting to go that way. There are plenty of standards that neither browser implement and Mozilla is fighting against the XForms standard. It's just that CSS is a good idea and IE's implementation in many cases is broken worse then not supporting it at all.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
-
Arrghh! Not this standards thing again. IE *IS* the defacto standard. People should be coding to it. The W3C is a colossal failure at getting Microsoft to implement thier standards, IE is the most prevalent browser, ergo the W3C is a colossal failure. The truth is that overwhelming majority of web browser users couldn't care less about standards and just want it to work. That should be the goal of website developers and leave the standards argument out of it as it's doing no one any good whatsoever.
You know what, if you're the kind of person who takes IE to be the defacto standard, then you probably also take MS Office as a defacto standard and thus have no qualms with vendor lock-in or compatibility anyway. I completely disagree with your entire first paragraph, and am sorry that you see things that way. Hopefully you don't get bit by those words later - good luck to you. On the second point, I agree that most users don't care, they just want things to work. To me that says "Use the standards" so that everything will work.
-
You know what, if you're the kind of person who takes IE to be the defacto standard, then you probably also take MS Office as a defacto standard and thus have no qualms with vendor lock-in or compatibility anyway. I completely disagree with your entire first paragraph, and am sorry that you see things that way. Hopefully you don't get bit by those words later - good luck to you. On the second point, I agree that most users don't care, they just want things to work. To me that says "Use the standards" so that everything will work.
*I* don't take it to be the defacto standard, it simply *is* the defacto standard. Nearly any website operator who keeps logs can confirm this. Make a nice big corporate website, stick to the exact standards excluding IE and see how long you keep that job.
-
You know what, if you're the kind of person who takes IE to be the defacto standard, then you probably also take MS Office as a defacto standard and thus have no qualms with vendor lock-in or compatibility anyway. I completely disagree with your entire first paragraph, and am sorry that you see things that way. Hopefully you don't get bit by those words later - good luck to you. On the second point, I agree that most users don't care, they just want things to work. To me that says "Use the standards" so that everything will work.
-
I'm seriously hoping that's a bit in gest, especially when it comes to webpages. The truth of the matter is that the default browser on Macs (Safari) is far more W3C standards compliant than IE6. Even IE7 reportedly will not support CSS2 which is so ridculous. Please people, code webpages to W3C standards. Then you shouldn't have any problems (oh, except for those pesky IE people). Hey, what do they expect when they're running a browser that doesn't comply to global standards (that's like driving in the left lane in the US). ;) On another note, if someone really wants to make sure their webpage will look good on non-Windows/IE, install Firefox. You won't need a mac, and the Gecko engine behind Firefox is standards compliant and is a good representation of how your site will look on most other platforms/browsers.
lmuth wrote: Hey, what do they expect when they're running a browser that doesn't comply to global standards (that's like driving in the left lane in the US When 90%+ of the customer base uses a particular browser then it is the de facto "global standard". Mac users can go play with their graphics. Richard "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer --Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)
-
I'm seriously hoping that's a bit in gest, especially when it comes to webpages. The truth of the matter is that the default browser on Macs (Safari) is far more W3C standards compliant than IE6. Even IE7 reportedly will not support CSS2 which is so ridculous. Please people, code webpages to W3C standards. Then you shouldn't have any problems (oh, except for those pesky IE people). Hey, what do they expect when they're running a browser that doesn't comply to global standards (that's like driving in the left lane in the US). ;) On another note, if someone really wants to make sure their webpage will look good on non-Windows/IE, install Firefox. You won't need a mac, and the Gecko engine behind Firefox is standards compliant and is a good representation of how your site will look on most other platforms/browsers.
Safari's standards support is not as good as Apple would have you believe. For example, Safari doesn't understand the tag, which is odd since they support
. It doesn't support styling input fields, doesn't inherit font styles, has weird quirks with things like max and min width, doesn't do proper child selectors, etc... While IE suffers from some of these problems as well, and a lot more, there are some things that are unique problems to Safari. For example, IE supports min and max height, but safari does not. Cursor is another. Another biggie is lack of border-collapse in tables, and lack of support for cell padding. While i'm not trying to claim that Safari sucks, or that any other browser is better. They all have their quirks and problems, and trying to claim one is "better" than the other is a difficult proposition because they have such a wide set of problems. -- Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?
-
What is even more stupid is that many Mac users run most of their software in Virtual PC under Windows... this is slow and plain uneffective. Why am I not using Linux or Macs? Simply because most software I use are made for Windows... it would be a huge waste of time to run everything in a virtual machine, under another OS!
As a user of both platforms, I feel obliged to point out how very, very wrong you are. "Many" Mac users run "most" of their software under Virtual PC? Craziness, specifically because Virtual PC is a dog. A more accurate statement would be that a statistically insignificant number of users run an app or two -- usually Quicken (the Mac version blows) or MS Money -- under VPC. Oh, and I do have a couple of clients who run vertical market apps under VPC, and spend the rest of their business time in OS X. In fact, other than cutting-edge games, there is no shortage of apps on the Mac side any more. I work on both platforms, and each has its good and bad points. For instance, as much as I like XCode on the Mac side (it's free for starters, and I'd like to see MS crib some ideas from Interface Builder), VS.NET rocks hard, and is by far the most productive development platform for enterprise apps. And, as much as I like VS on the Windows side, OS X spanks Windows in the usability department (we'll see how things change with both Tiger and Longhorn). --V