I have met some people who said that they would make a great site without knowing anything.  A WYSIWYG can only take you so far.  The didn't exactly succeed.

Its very easy to make a site that looks good, ignorence is bliss therefor if you dont know about the coding spaghetti and lack of any seo im sure people would feel a warm glow of success. Until some one on a forum tells them that their site should be wrapped in a bag smothered in acetone and set ablaze via arrow as it is thrown off the highest cliff over the deepest valley. In some cases thats been known to smother any sense of joy and success.

atwhatcost wrote:

And, to add my one cent (not even worth two) to the browser topic, if Firefox or IE is slow to upload, I simply click it off and try again. I have DSL and live three houses away from the nearest substation, so if my browser takes longer then five seconds to load up, it's simply a fluke. Try again and it usually loads quickly. If you have DSL (sorry, Ryan, hopefully some day you get to enjoy DSL, or even better, fiber optics) and it always takes longer to load up any browser, contact your provider and ask for the cheaper package -- chances are good, you're far enough away from the nearest substaion, so you shouldn't be getting charged for something that doesn't work fast! There's two prices for DSL around here -- $33 for folks close to substations, or $18 for folks who aren't.

Have to disagree with you there Lynn.  I don't think it's an internet speed thing at all, but rather the browser itself....

It takes me...
8 seconds to open firefox
2 seconds to open opera
1 second to open IE

...that's with default pages set to blank, so we're not even on the internet yet.

What Ryan says makes sense though.  IE doesn't have all those plugins that FF does so, naturally it will open faster.

As far as surfing speed.  It takes...
1 second on all 3 browsers to fully load google.com

So if surfing speed is the same on all browsers & opening speed is slowest on FF, then that means that FF's 'surf the web faster' campaign is a blatant lie.

FireFox definately has some great points (some of those plugins are really useful), but just plain surfing the internet isn't what I'd call it's best feature.

Oh but Roxy, surely you realise that (or have at the very least) experienced the better looking pages in FF? As far as i have seen, FF handles css etc far better than ie and has all the quirks ready and waiting for you when you need em (flash, quicktime, java updates) therefore to view the net properly (at its best) on ie would take longer as one would physically have to hunt down all these little extras.... as opposed to... simply clicking and off you go.

from page to page browsing there isnt to big a gap ( cant argue with you on that one) but as far as saving money on hair replacement products - id have to stick with firefox.

I just have a few comments...

1.) I have never seen web designers that favor IE. That's just crazy.
2.) Dreamweaver is an excellent WYSIWYG. It doesn't inflate the page size with useless tags, and has a very easy and user-friendly coding interface as well. Granted, I use Dreamweaver 99.9% in the coding interface (rarely do I check the "design view"), I have never had a problem with website I create using it.
3.) I'm shocked that you find Firefox at the bottom of your list of browsers. True that everyone has their preferences, but to me, choosing IE over Firefox is like choosing a Big Mac over a filet mignon. Doesn't make much sense

MarkCCDC wrote:

I'm shocked that you find Firefox at the bottom of your list of browsers. True that everyone has their preferences, but to me, choosing IE over Firefox is like choosing a Big Mac over a filet mignon. Doesn't make much sense

Well to be fair, I was talking about "just plain surfing"...nothing to do with web designing at all.

I think both IE & FF have their pro's & con's

IE6 is great for surfing because it doesn't take 8 seconds to load but useless for checking standards compliant websites.  It's still important to make sure a site works on IE6 though because according to stats, ( http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp ) most people still use it...

FF is what I use to check websites that I'm building and also it has that nifty weather plugin!

I find IE7 to be just as standards compliant as FF, but I don't like tabbed browsers (and I know Im in the minority there)

So I use both IE & FF & feel that both have their place.

Yes, web designers need to make sure their sites render properly in IE...6, 7, and Vista's IE7 (yes, IE7 for XP and IE7 for Vista are different!).

My mistake about browsing vs. web design

As for IE7 being standards compliant....you must be doing some magic coding to get IE7 to behave properly 100% of the time...unless you code in very basic HTML...

ForecastFox

I, for one, dislike IE and wouldn't shed a tear if it were to suffer a horrible death...but, everyone has their preferences

MarkCCDC wrote:

Yes, web designers need to make sure their sites render properly in IE...6, 7, and Vista's IE7 (yes, IE7 for XP and IE7 for Vista are different!).

I haven't checked out Vista yet, but that's rather interesting.

MarkCCDC wrote:

As for IE7 being standards compliant....you must be doing some magic coding to get IE7 to behave properly 100% of the time...unless you code in very basic HTML...

...or maybie I'm just lucky, but I like to think it's the magic coding! haha

Roxane wrote:

MarkCCDC wrote:

I'm shocked that you find Firefox at the bottom of your list of browsers. True that everyone has their preferences, but to me, choosing IE over Firefox is like choosing a Big Mac over a filet mignon. Doesn't make much sense

Well to be fair, I was talking about "just plain surfing"...nothing to do with web designing at all.

I think both IE & FF have their pro's & con's

IE6 is great for surfing because it doesn't take 8 seconds to load but useless for checking standards compliant websites.  It's still important to make sure a site works on IE6 though because according to stats, ( http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp ) most people still use it...

FF is what I use to check websites that I'm building and also it has that nifty weather plugin!

I find IE7 to be just as standards compliant as FF, but I don't like tabbed browsers (and I know Im in the minority there)

So I use both IE & FF & feel that both have their place.

Here's my 2 cents on standards.

IE sucks when implementing the standards, I don't think you'll find much of a debate there.

However, as good as theoretical standards are, if 95% of web browsing is done in IE, doesn't that make how IE renders it the "standard".

It is indeed frustrating to have it look perfect, and as expected, in firefox, only to check your page out in IE and wonder (sometimes with out loud expletives) how it rendered what you told it into that. However sometimes I wish the browsers just rendered the same, even if that meant firefox took a step backwards on the standards,  so you didn't have to come up with lame hacks to get your site to work in both.

BETA was widely considered to be a superior product to Video Cassettes, but in the end everyone was better off and life was that much easier because we "chose a standard." Even if that meant choosing the inferior VCRs.

When it comes to the browser market sometimes I feel like the market has spoken but us nerds just refuse to let go of our "Beta" because the "VCR" doesn't work with an arbitrary list of standards some other nerds pulled out of thin air.

I reckon the reason we don't hold value to IE as the standard is because in this industry it is not a hot idea to stick older technologies. As with a pc, you don't  "not upgrade" because your computer is running fine, you upgrade to keep on par or ahead of the rest. Therefore the vast improvements in firefox are clung to because of the logical disposition that it will become the standard. And so it should, especially if the web is looked at from evolutionary point of view.... all good things start as a dream..

What would be great is if designing for IE worked well for FF, i think its really illogical that they haven't found a common ground where perhaps not the newest language updates but at least the updates from 6months prior are inline. Would it be terrrible for ie to launch a fix for these things? firefox has a patch and fix for just about everything yet the multi billion dollar microflop cant? come on. They should take the energy and resources they use to make microflop office updates (seriously... office '03 was great.... why a new one) and spend it on web standards/cross browser compatibility. They could even charge an extra dollar for it on every purchase of windows if they really want to be petty.

Ryan_steyn wrote:

I reckon the reason we don't hold value to IE as the standard is because in this industry it is not a hot idea to stick older technologies. As with a pc, you don't  "not upgrade" because your computer is running fine, you upgrade to keep on par or ahead of the rest.
...
They should take the energy and resources they use to make microflop office updates (seriously... office '03 was great.... why a new one)

Conflicting points!

I disagree that people upgrade for the sake of upgrading. Vista adoption has been slow, because in most people's minds XP works just fine.

IE not adhearing to standards isnt  "old technology" they just dont follow a list of standards some other people just made up on their own.

If 95% of cars used one part and 5% used another would a mechanic ever call the one that's used 5% of the time the "standard" part, even if some other uber mechanic randomly declared it so? No. He'd tell you your car is one of the few that don't use the standard and that it's going to be 1 billion dollars to order it.

It always amazes me though how much time and effort Microsoft puts into IE given that it's like the one thing they DON'T make money on.

Fair enough... but... we are not talking about cars... we are talking about the IT industry, an industry that advances from the 5% into the 95%.In the 70s and 80s nobody thought twice about computers in a home... and now?

dual core processors, some had em a few years ago but nobody thought they would hit the home circuit in mass... and now?

What you are suggesting is that standards developed by random people are unlikely to become commonplace, a daft idea if one considers the origins of php and other open source software---- linux as another. When they first came out they were not widely applicable.. now?

I hope im not deterring your personal opinion but we arent exactly talking smart cars here. One day, the arbitrary becomes the norm in computers, and many people do upgrade for the hell of it or as soon as the oppurtinity arrises simply because they know that in a few months they will need to anyway. Its just logical to suggest that one should accomodate the odd code that some random guy comes up with (if its useful) simply because it may well be a standard in the languages next release. This is already evident in some of the advances in css2.

So why not make room for the stuff thats coming out and make everyone happy... like firefox im not saying FF isnt flawed, but i would rather have a car that runs smooth even if you do put a bit of unleaded in by accident.

/rant

Ryan_steyn wrote:

What you are suggesting is that standards developed by random people are unlikely to become commonplace, a daft idea if one considers the origins of php and other open source software---- linux as another. When they first came out they were not widely applicable.. now?

No, not really. It's not like IE doesn't support CSS at all, or that the only reason people are upgrading to firefox is because it better supports the standards. Firefox could have a million improvements and still be made to render the page the same.

Listen I love firefox, and I like the way it does things and WISH IE was the same. I was merely thinking out loud that sometimes it would just be nice if every browser interpreted javascript, html and css the same way, even if that meant conforming to the "lowest common denominator"

vita10gy wrote:

IE not adhearing to standards isnt  "old technology" they just dont follow a list of standards some other people just made up on their own.

If 95% of cars used one part and 5% used another would a mechanic ever call the one that's used 5% of the time the "standard" part, even if some other uber mechanic randomly declared it so? No. He'd tell you your car is one of the few that don't use the standard and that it's going to be 1 billion dollars to order it.

It always amazes me though how much time and effort Microsoft puts into IE given that it's like the one thing they DON'T make money on.

I think you're misunderstanding here. Nobody is claiming that Firefox is the STANDARD browser; all web designers know IE is used by many more people. What we are claiming is that Firefox FOLLOWS STANDARDS - something completely different.

If 95% of cars used the same part, and the other 5% used the same part but the way it was supposed to be used, the mechanics that work on the minority would of course try to convince the majority their way is better.

IE is known to incorrectly render code. Firefox, which also has its issues, renders code according to standards - and not standards that were thought up in someone's basement. We're talking standardized code decided upon by the World Wide Web Consortium, hardly "standards some other people just made up on their own."

I love a good argument/debate, but brings facts to back up your side. It is a FACT that IE incorrectly renders code wrong. It is a FACT that IE doesn't conform to W3C standards. Regardless of anyone's personal feelings on the matter, facts are facts.

And I too have found it interesting Microsoft uses so many resources that aren't bringing them more money.

vita10gy wrote:

Listen I love firefox, and I like the way it does things and WISH IE was the same. I was merely thinking out loud that sometimes it would just be nice if every browser interpreted javascript, html and css the same way, even if that meant conforming to the "lowest common denominator"

I think 99.9999999% of web designers wish the same

Damn IE....

Vita10gy, you make it sound as if IE not following standards is a good thing.  Wouldn't it be a good thing if all your customers could see your web site the same way without you having to specifically patch the code for one browser or another?  That's what web standardization is about.  And you can't really have any of the companies/organizations that are making the browsers make the standards (especially MS) or you'll have "moving" standards in attempts to throw off the competition.  This is where W3C comes in.  They are independent of any of the browser makers, and can make standards that everybody can follow (even Microsoft, though they choose not to).

The fact of the matter is, if it was any other company instead of Microsoft that chose to abandon the standards, they would be out of business in no time.  Microsoft can get away with it because they tie their browser into the most commonly used operating system.  And since most people don't like to bother downloading and installing a different browser, they just use IE.  And because they've made IE such an integral part of the OS, it's always got a stub running, so can start faster (although this stub is taking up part of your memory).

MarkCCDC wrote:

vita10gy wrote:

IE not adhearing to standards isnt  "old technology" they just dont follow a list of standards some other people just made up on their own.

If 95% of cars used one part and 5% used another would a mechanic ever call the one that's used 5% of the time the "standard" part, even if some other uber mechanic randomly declared it so? No. He'd tell you your car is one of the few that don't use the standard and that it's going to be 1 billion dollars to order it.

It always amazes me though how much time and effort Microsoft puts into IE given that it's like the one thing they DON'T make money on.

I think you're misunderstanding here. Nobody is claiming that Firefox is the STANDARD browser; all web designers know IE is used by many more people. What we are claiming is that Firefox FOLLOWS STANDARDS - something completely different.

If 95% of cars used the same part, and the other 5% used the same part but the way it was supposed to be used, the mechanics that work on the minority would of course try to convince the majority their way is better.

IE is known to incorrectly render code. Firefox, which also has its issues, renders code according to standards - and not standards that were thought up in someone's basement. We're talking standardized code decided upon by the World Wide Web Consortium, hardly "standards some other people just made up on their own."

I love a good argument/debate, but brings facts to back up your side. It is a FACT that IE incorrectly renders code wrong. It is a FACT that IE doesn't conform to W3C standards. Regardless of anyone's personal feelings on the matter, facts are facts.

And I too have found it interesting Microsoft uses so many resources that aren't bringing them more money.

Well see that was my original point, if 95% of people are doing something one way, how can we say that they are doing it "incorrectly". I was never disputing that IE didn't conform to the standards, just pointing out how it's sort of funny that us purists point and go "but, but, but, you're all doing it wrong!" when it's 95% of the market who are doing it the 'wrong' way. My point was that if 95% of the population is doing something a certain way, isn't that almost by definition 'the standard' way of doing it?

It's like we're playing a board game with house rules we think makes the game better, and then getting upset that no one else plays the game with the same rules.

Steven_A_S wrote:

Vita10gy, you make it sound as if IE not following standards is a good thing.

Well then you're misunderstanding my point.

I so enjoy web designers passionately debating browsers. (Real web designers, not like my friends and me, who might venture into actually making a web site, although more likely just surf the web for fun, info, or a buying spree, but wouldn't know a W3C from WD40!) No doubt IT would be much easier if all websites had to be compliant. From what I gather compliancy does make for higher rankings, however, I'm not even sure of that.

Meanwhile, it seems one really important aspect of websites is being given second team status on this all-star line-up of real web designers thread. Any browser besides IE isn't likely to even be known by the middle-aged or older folks, who are surfing the web regularly, (and often have the most throw-away money to spend), especially if building a site will never enter their minds. Doesn't this really have to go way back to the basics, yet again? Doesn't the purpose of creating a site, no matter the reason for its creation, still go back to "Who do I want to find my site and what action do I want them to take?"

As it stands now, the best way to gather visitors and get them to act is still through IE. The only way that will ever change, as far as I can see, is through a conserted effort from all you real web designers to convince the average public that FireFox, or whoever else, is THE way to go. Dunno how you can do that, but I'm fairly certain it can't be done off techy related forums. As it stands now, from what you've been saying about the lack of speed for FF, it doesn't seem likely that you'll convince most of them, yet.

On the other hand -- there is no longer any doubt in what y'all think on the subject. I so love the passion behind the posts! Thanks!

The thing is I really don't consider this a debate. IE stinks out loud, I'm not  defending it. I just had a couple points waxing philosophical about whether or not something should be a standard because a group declared it so, or should we consider the standard to be the way that 95% of the internet users see the internet.

I also just wanted to make the point that there is lots of precedent for everyone being better off in the long run when we all line up behind a single entity*. Even if that entity* isn't the best.

The problem is, like all things internet, people:

a) Read way too far between the lines at things the person never meant.
and
b) Pointing out something even the slightest bit contrary to the popular opinion about something means that thing must be your most favoritest thing ever and you'll go to your grave defending everything about it.

*In this case "entity" being how IE renders HTML, JS, and CSS