New Internet Explorer

[Klaynos]

again i point to nvu, never used it myself but hear good things about it, I'm all for using something like scite for coding, not a fan of WYSIWYG...

 

Pants: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pants

[Sayonara]

I appreciate the feedback, Sayo.

Sorry if it sounded a bit terse. Threads like these put me in murderer mode

 

 

 

Well no, it doesn't make me feel like an idiot, it makes me look like one. (grin) I'm being a pragmatist here. (BTW, what does "pants code" mean?)

Who cares if the client is ignorant? They're probably going to pay you for support, and it gives you the opportunity to tutor them in the ways of righteousness before someone like herme3 gets to them.

 

 

But just to be even more of a pragmatist for a moment, I have realized for some time now that if I'm going to do any more web work I'm going to have to either find a better tool than Dreamweaver, or work out why it wasn't fully compatible with Moz/FF. I love Moz too much to let that problem continue to slide, and since I've recommended Moz (and now FF) to customers, it's just a bad idea not to address the issue.

DW is one of the best WYSIWYG editors going (or at least, the Studio 2004 MX version is). The problem with its standards support etc is that MM basically threw everything they could think of at this version and you need to do some tweaking to get it working properly, which isn't very user friendly seeing as most users don't even know that they can change the program.

 

 

Yeah I've heard a couple of people say that. I've just been really hesitating to leap from Moz to FF. I tried an EARLY FF beta and did not like it, and I really love Moz, so I've been loathe to switch. But I'll make the change eventually.

It's really really hard to figure out just why FF is so much more appealing than Moz.

[Pangloss]

ROFL!

 

Well editing HTML isn't a problem for me -- I've been working in it since '95 and it's a pretty familiar environment. I just use the tools because they make things go faster. The sad thing is, I switched to Dreamweaver from an earlier WYSIWYG product (NetObjects) because it produced much better, less-mangled HTML. But even so I'm constantly having to pop off the visual layer and edit the HTML directly (so what's the point, right?).

 

Oh well. I don't do a lot of web sites these days anyway, being mainly focused on school at the moment. But I appreciate the suggestions.

[calbiterol]

(g) Don't make silly comments in an Internet discussion group or you will be publicly pantsed.

How incredibly appropriate.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I'd like to note that while herme3 addressed the first bit of my last post, he didn't address the statement:

Herme3 seems to be of the ideology that "if everyone does it, even if it's not by the rules/standards/whatever, then the standards should be changed." Same as "everyone does heroin, even if it's against the law, so the law should be changed so it's legal."

 

I think he ought to address that, or I will consider him strawmanning in a way.

[herme3]

More than 80 million people is just a few?

 

When compared to the number of IE users, yes. IE users make up the majority, so web sites should be designed with them in mind.

 

I have already told you to get your facts straight. These are made-up and/or faulty statistics.

 

Look at the stats in the image I posted. These stats are 100% real and come from several different types of web sites.

 

First, it was an agreement, not a promise. There is a large difference. And for the last time, not only did m$ agree that IE would be written around the standards (as it should be), but standards are not written to browsers. Browsers are written to standards.

 

I'm not saying that Microsoft was being fair by ignoring the standards. However, since most Internet users are IE users, web sites should be written for them. IE users never told Microsoft to ignore the standards. They are simply using the software, and they shouldn't be inconvenienced because of Microsoft's mistakes. This is because they are the majority.

 

No browser is ever going to "work with all sites" while there are people who ignore the standards. Unless it's one built by pixies and powered by magic.

 

I haven't found a web site that doesn't work with IE except for a few that are trying to show the bugs in IE.

 

The w3c is headed by Sir Tim Berners-Lee. He invented the web, in case you didn't know. If he says "this is a recommended practice", and the WW working groups agree, everyone follows suit. Everyone except Microsoft, who are leeching off the success and popularity of his creation without doing him the courtesy of treating it as the resource he intended it to be.

 

I did know that. However, many of the creators of the web and Internet don't know anything about the modern Internet. I once had a teacher that was part of the team that created the original Internet for the Government. He retired, and hasn't used a computer since. Now, he doesn't even know how to get online with a newer computer. He was a really nice teacher, and he could really talk about protocols and everything. However, he didn't know anything about Internet Explorer.

 

Then you should be avoiding them. ActiveX was a great idea on paper, but a diabolical mess in practice.

 

I researched ActiveX and read that Ebay requires it. That is a major web site.

[herme3]

I'd like to see some of your pages. I would bet a lot of money they don't even declare doctypes.

 

I am a professional web site designer, and I've made some very nice web sites that work with IE. I didn't spend very much time on my ghost web site. A web site design that I am very proud of is for my company. Check out the design at http://www.bluealan.com and prepare to be amazed. Of course, I don't know if it works right in other browsers besides IE.

[ydoaPs]

I researched ActiveX and read that Ebay requires it. That is a major web site.

something you said has to be a lie. either FF does run activex or ebay doesn't use it. i use ebay several times a day on FF.

[Klaynos]

I am a professional web site designer, and I've made some very nice web sites that work with IE. I didn't spend very much time on my ghost web site. A web site design that I am very proud of is for my company. Check out the design at http://www.bluealan.com[/url'] and prepare to be amazed. Of course, I don't know if it works right in other browsers besides IE.

 

 

You have a doctype at the top of your page, saying it is html 4.01 transitional, I fear you may be slightly misguided in that reguard.

 

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bluealan.com%2F

 

</slightly bitchy comments>

 

Serriousely though it probably wouldn't take much to make it complient

 

I went through making my last site 4.01 strict today, took me around an hour

 

Doesn't look bad though, you might consider including a copyright message just as good form...

[herme3]

You have a doctype at the top of your page' date=' saying it is html 4.01 transitional, I fear you may be slightly misguided in that reguard.

 

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bluealan.com%2F

 

</slightly bitchy comments>

 

Serriousely though it probably wouldn't take much to make it complient

 

I went through making my last site 4.01 strict today, took me around an hour

 

Doesn't look bad though, you might consider including a copyright message just as good form...[/quote']

 

Ok, I'm confused by the error messages from that link you gave me. Those letters "r, g, b" are for the rectangles. There are several rectangles on my site, and they all seem to be working correctly.

 

It also says "Line 59 column 2159: there is no attribute HEIGHT" which is wrong because the height is 208. It also says some things about the WIDTH.

[bloodhound]

I researched ActiveX and read that Ebay requires it. That is a major web site.

Link to source, cos I don't believe you. I use ebay with FF all the time with no problems. Try Harder.

[herme3]

Link to source, cos I don't believe you. I use ebay with FF all the time with no problems. Try Harder.

 

It isn't a lie. My source is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer

 

ActiveX is used by many public websites and web applications, including eBay.

[calbiterol]

First, it seems like everyone is being much more civil now, and I'm in a much better mood so I won't flame up again. Both of these are good things. Now, on to business.

 

 

When compared to the number of IE users, yes. IE users make up the majority, so web sites should be designed with them in mind.

I am not in any way arguing that IE has (a tad bit less than) 80% of the marketshare. I am saying that over 80 million people is not a few.

 

Look at the stats in the image I posted. These stats are 100% real and come from several different types of web sites.

Yes, but you don't have a large enough statistics base. You need more subjects. Plus, the chart you posted had a lot of different results, with a high degree of difference between them. For example, one showed Firefox (which I recently learned is actually supposed to be capitalized like that, and abbreviated Fx, but that's a totally different discussion, and very nitpicky) at nearly 30% of total visitors, and another didn't have it at all.

 

I'm not saying that Microsoft was being fair by ignoring the standards. However, since most Internet users are IE users, web sites should be written for them. IE users never told Microsoft to ignore the standards. They are simply using the software, and they shouldn't be inconvenienced because of Microsoft's mistakes. This is because they are the majority.

Errrm... Kindof. Not written for, but they accomodate for IE issues. But I do agree with you that the end user should not be inconvenienced because of m$'s mistakes. Hopefully IE7 will be better, but I somehow doubt it will. I did, however, see that it is supposed to have alpha-channel transparency and full .png support. That in itself makes me happier.

 

I haven't found a web site that doesn't work with IE except for a few that are trying to show the bugs in IE.

In my use of IE, I agree - EXCEPT when I design a page strictly to standards, checking it in Firefox, and then re-check it in IE. When something inevitably brakes, I'm forced to accomodate - but before that, it worked fine. Except in IE. Anyways...

 

I did know that. However, many of the creators of the web and Internet don't know anything about the modern Internet. I once had a teacher that was part of the team that created the original Internet for the Government. He retired, and hasn't used a computer since. Now, he doesn't even know how to get online with a newer computer. He was a really nice teacher, and he could really talk about protocols and everything. However, he didn't know anything about Internet Explorer.

A lot of times, this is the way it works. I don't know if it's really a good or a bad thing.

 

I researched ActiveX and read that Ebay requires it. That is a major web site.

As has been previously stated, Ebay works completely with Firefox. Perhaps the IE version of Ebay (if there are different sites for different browsers) does, or perhaps it uses ASP on the IE version (easily confused with ActiveX - ASP, if you didn't know, stands for active server pages, IIRC, but you might already know that). But I can tell you that it is not a requirement to have activex in the sense that we have been talking about it.

 

Cheers.

[ydoaPs]

It isn't a lie. My source is: [url']http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer[/url]

i guess that means Firefox does support ActiveX.

[calbiterol]

It isn't a lie. My source is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer

 

Well, Wikipedia isn't always right. In my scanning of the article, I didn't see your quote; where is it?

 

Also, the word "uses" is not the same as "requires." As I said before, there could be multiple versions of the ebay site. Yourdad, that doesn't necessarily mean that Firefox supports ActiveX.

[ydoaPs]

Well' date=' Wikipedia isn't always right. In my scanning of the article, I didn't see your quote; where is it?

 

Also, the word "uses" is not the same as "requires." As I said before, there could be multiple versions of the ebay site. Yourdad, that doesn't necessarily mean that Firefox supports ActiveX.[/quote']

it's in there. i missed it the first time too. i had to search page for the word "ebay"

[Pangloss]

I don't know why you guys are debating ActiveX support. What difference does it make? Aren't we just talking about obscure GDI tricks? Why would it matter?

 

Just curious.

[herme3]

I don't know why you guys are debating ActiveX support. What difference does it make? Aren't we just talking about obscure GDI tricks? Why would it matter?

 

Just curious.

 

If ActiveX is required for important web sites, it would be an advantage to Internet Explorer.

 

I don't know much about ActiveX being required for important features, but I do know that certain advertisements require ActiveX. If an advertiser tells me to put an ActiveX ad on one of my sites, I would get paid each time that ad is displayed. If somebody visits my site without ActiveX enabled, then I won't get paid for the ad.

[ydoaPs]

o darn, my browser doesn't support activex, so i can't see some ads. i am so depressed now.

[herme3]

o darn, my browser doesn't support activex, so i can't see some ads. i am so depressed now.

 

This is bad for the owners of web sites who want to get paid.

[Dak]

Why on earth would an ad require active-x?

[ydoaPs]

This is bad for the owners of web sites who want to get paid.

if it isn't compatible with my browser, they shouldn't use it.

[herme3]

Why on earth would an ad require active-x?

 

I really don't know anything about ActiveX. However, advertisers pay a lot of money if I display them on my site. Here is the code for an ActiveX ad:

 

<script language="JavaScript" src="http://www.paid-to-promote.com/active.php?zoneid=142236&uid=1&type=active" type="text/javascript"></script>

 

Can you tell me why it requires ActiveX? Could it be any security risk to the visitors of my web site?

[Pangloss]

Again, I don't really see a problem here, even if Moz doesn't support ActiveX (which it does).

 

ActiveX is "the old way" -- the post-COM early days of building web applications, back when ASP was in its early stages. It's been more or less replaced in terms of web functionality by .NET. Moz/FF is fully compatible with .NET, and that organization shows every sign of continuing to be compatible with .NET (showing quite a lot of "we stand behind our words" guts, if you ask me -- it means that developers have a real, solid choice between .NET and PHP, which means more competitive goodness, which means WE WIN).

[Dak]

<script language="JavaScript" src="http://www.paid-to-promote.com/active.php?zoneid=142236&uid=1&type=active" type="text/javascript"></script>

 

I think i may have an incomplete understanding of what active-x actually is, so im going to go and look it up.

 

Untill then, ill just say that im pretty sure thats a javascript, and not an active-x.