Site Reference Forums

I wouldnt call it false advertising, as Firefox works just as fast or faster on my Windows machine

Anyways, a couple of comments:

atwhatcost:
(sorry I'm having trouble remembering your real name )

IE is so popular for one reason only. That reason is that Microsoft forces it upon its users. Granted, you have the option for other browsers, but by default every Windows machine has it pre-installed, it is set as the default browser, and it is used by default for Windows Updates. If Firefox came preinstalled, it would take the entire market just as IE did. It is, of course, Microsoft's right to plug their own product.

Just like Roxane said, code compliancy does NOT mean higher rankings. In reality, the only benefits to code compliancy are cross-browser compatibility, pride in coding to standards, and supporting the belief that proper coding is the way to go. I code to W3C XHTML Transitional 9 times out of 10, and I do it so that I can say that I do it. That, and so its not as big of a PITA trying to get it to look right in IE.

Roxane:

You're right. Google doesn't give more weight to code compliant websites. Hell, their own homepage throws up 19 warnings - which is better than it used to be. Maybe someone at Google is wising up


vita10gy:

I called it a debate because that is what we were doing. We had the Firefox side versus the Firefox side that thinks IE sucks but since 95% of the people use it we should consider it the basis for coding.

Seriously though, I wasn't trying to come off rude. Just stating my opinions


EDIT: I absolutely always code to W3C standards. What I meant in my statement above is that I use the XHTML Transitional DOCTYPE Declaration 9 times out of 10

I don't know about anyone else, but my sites look just fine in IE. The problem is that I shouldn't have to use special code just for those who use IE. IE should listen to W3C standards. I don't blame the 95% of IE users, as 95% of them probably don't know they have a choice.

vita10gy wrote:

screw those IE n00bs, rabble standards!, rabble WC3 rabble rabble!

Classic South Park!

Serious now:

It also depends on what the site contains and to whom it is geared. My personal site, when I had it, was meant for Firefox, and it was stated that, and I quote: "This site was designed for Firefox. If you are using IE and it doesn't display properly, please go here.

However, I have to make the sites I create for where I work look correct in both browsers.

Ok, back to work

OK, understanding the Devil's advocate part, and the exaggerated 95% (I see more like 70 - 75%); the fact of the matter is that it is not in the best interest of people in general nor fair competition, for one browser maker to set the standards for the industry (especially when that one is a monopolist who has been judged as using unfair business practices already (even if the current administration let them off with a slap on the hand)).  Personally that's a big reason why I do focus on the standard first before making sure it works on Microshaft's toy browsers.

(and don't worry, this venom's not aimed at you but MS)

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.

"Debate" is a six-letter word, not a four-letter word! Personally, I love debates, particularly since I'm learning stuff while reading it. I'd quickly live out my days in a looney bin, if good, old fashion disagreement (or even agreement with just a longer path to get there, like this thread has done) ever became unlawful, or just plain "impolite." There seemed to be no doubt that IE is the least liked from anyone joining this debate. (Well, I don't count, not being a true web designer, nor knowing much about other browsers, besides FF. The only reason I do like IE is for the obvious reasons most like it -- it came with the computer and is what I used when I was first learning about The Web. )

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.

Strangely, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one remembering an historical note in the history of the Christian Chuch. (No, not turning this into a religious debate.) There was a point in time when everyone in the church believed something that was the opposite of what was taught in the Bible. Everyone believed it but one guy, Athanasius. There was even an old cliche that came about from his disagreement -- something about Athanius taking on the whole world, but I don't remember the exact quote, nor is it important to the subject at hand. The end result was that this guy convinced enough folks to agree with his view, that the concept of the Trinity is still held with hardly a question for most of this religion.

How does this relate? Sounds like 70-95% of Internet users just assume IE is the proper platforn, but from what I'm learning through here, it is anything but that. IMHO, seems to me all you true web designers have an obligation to shout it from the rooftops (pun connecting this back to Christianity is unintended, yet still enjoyed. ) To let us naive lemmings go along our merry way following MS, simply because they are taking over the computer field like maggots on rotting flesh, is cutting off what the future for the web could/should be. Maybe Web 3.0 can become what the web experience should be -- standardized, cleaned up, and working smoothly for everyone, because of the hard work web designers are doing today.

Sounds like FF is trudging along, slowly, but consistently to build a truly better platform. MS's goal has been and always will be to make money by hooking people onto their products, before they ever find out others have better products. Can y'all shift the average person's thinking towards a corrected course (away from those cliffs for us lemmings )? Some of my earlier memories from when we (hubby and I) first hopped on board this new fangled electronical gizmo (486 computer -- version Windows 3.11):
1. Who'll ever need more then 512K of memory in a computer?
2. Like AOL will ever have a shot over Compuserve!
3. Novell is the natural leader in networking computers. Microsoft got into this arena too late in the game.

Yeah, lemmings can be turned to a new direction, easily and quickly. LOL

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.

Must be me. I haven't seen anyone getting hot under the collar over anything anyone else said. Disagreed, sure, but even then, by the time all words and thoughts have settled, sure sounds like everyone here is agreeing. As for contrary, viva la contrary! Not knowing this field any better then a first grader taking an advanced university course, when everyone is in agreement, I tend to assuming I'm getting nothing but perfect, unadulterated truth! The moment someone disagress (and I don't recall anyone disagreeing 180 degrees from what ever everyone else is saying, more like a footnote added to the subject), it is as if I'm awaken out of hypnosis. Suddenly, I really ponder everything, and tend to learn much more then if I just assume all agree.

Sure passions provoke superlatives, but, when the dust settles, it usually works out that the contrary post fits in smoothly and equally with all other posts. One thing I like about this forum -- in the end, eveyone acts their age, adults!

Roxanne,
Just wanted to let you know, I'm not ignoring your posts back to me. Just taking them as correcting my often-wrong concepts on subjects in these forums. Thanks for your education. Much appreciated.

Mark,
I've been called worst things then atwhatcost! I also go by "at," and Lynn. (When you forget again, and I'm not memorable enough to remember for all time , my signature includes my name, simply because I usually forget to sign my posts.)

IE is so popular for one reason only. That reason is that Microsoft forces it upon its users. Granted, you have the option for other browsers, but by default every Windows machine has it pre-installed, it is set as the default browser, and it is used by default for Windows Updates. If Firefox came preinstalled, it would take the entire market just as IE did. It is, of course, Microsoft's right to plug their own product.

Oh, trust me, I know. In my mind, IE, Word, and Excel as the best programs for what they do. But, in reality, they are merely the ones I learned on. I remember heated debates on which was better – WordPerfect, or MSWord – and to a person, it always went back to, “Which program did you learn on?” Ultimately, as a business model, nothing works better for quantity of sales quite like monopolies do it, even if Microsoft actually has competition.

OK, understanding the Devil's advocate part, and the exaggerated 95% (I see more like 70 - 75%); the fact of the matter is that it is not in the best interest of people in general nor fair competition, for one browser maker to set the standards for the industry (especially when that one is a monopolist who has been judged as using unfair business practices already (even if the current administration let them off with a slap on the hand)).  Personally that's a big reason why I do focus on the standard first before making sure it works on Microshaft's toy browsers.

(and don't worry, this venom's not aimed at you but MS)

Steve,
This administration? Cool! Time isn't speeding along at rollercoaster rates! I thought it was the last one.

As for venom, that was it?! Not even sure that one was deep enough to pass skin level. Maybe your fangs need sharpening?! j/k

I reckon the biggest chip on my shoulder as far as IE goes is that as a "web designer" i enjoy the new tricks in the book, anything i can use to create something exciting, it just upsets me that if i were to try it - chances are pretty good it wouldnt work on normal ie thus defeating the purpose.

That's one of my goals, to learn enough coding to feel I'm being cheated outta the possibility of using it. Soooo, once again, up to you guyz to work on the public consciousness, so I can do whatever I want, once I learn how to do it all.

70% IE usage is pretty low. That's on par with the wc3's stats, and it isn't exactly "Joe internet user" surfing wc3.

Again I'm not defending them, they aren't my best buddies, I use Firefox and Open Office. However the unadulterated hatred for Microsoft on the internet is kind of funny to me. The cries of monopoly when ever something comes packaged with windows always makes me chuckle. In what other product market would we bitch and moan about TOO MUCH being included for the price of admission.

Think of the "monopoly" the big auto companies have on deciding what stereos go in cars. Think of the boom of sales the poor after market car stereo industry would get if only the government would step in and force automakers to ship their cars with no audio system preinstalled!

Last edited by vita10gy (2007-06-13 10:12:40)

atwhatcost wrote:

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.

Strangely, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one remembering an historical note in the history of the Christian Chuch. (No, not turning this into a religious debate.) There was a point in time when everyone in the church believed something that was the opposite of what was taught in the Bible. Everyone believed it but one guy, Athanasius. There was even an old cliche that came about from his disagreement -- something about Athanius taking on the whole world, but I don't remember the exact quote, nor is it important to the subject at hand. The end result was that this guy convinced enough folks to agree with his view, that the concept of the Trinity is still held with hardly a question for most of this religion.

But could you imagine how much better the world would be if we all mutually decided to pick on religion, and one sect of said religion. Think of the utopia that would be. Or at least would be for a year or two until we found something equally as moronic to war over, like race, hair color, or shoe size.

Just a couple of points to re-adjust the mind-frame here

1 - who said that the W3C published standards? (I seem remember them being called 'specifications')

2 - who said user agents had to follow these 'standards' / 'specifications' ?

In a prefect world, these specifications would be followed completely by browsers and all browsers would interpret the specifications the same as each other and correct in the eyes of those who wrote the specifications.

Remember - all that your web server does is serve up plain text and that that plain text may be downloaded by 1 000s, if not 1 000 000s of people all over the world. Pretty phenomenal if you ask me!

vita10gy wrote:

Think of the "monopoly" the big auto companies have on deciding what stereos go in cars. Think of the boom of sales the poor after market car stereo industry would get if only the government would step in and force automakers to ship their cars with no audio system preinstalled!

I don't think you really understand what the problem is.  The term monopoly doesn't mean that a company is only putting one product into their own product.  It means that one company dominates a certain market.   The auto companies don't have a monopoly.  There is no one company that has enough of a significant lead over all the others that it could be considered a monopoly.

Microsoft has a monopoly on OSes for the PC (yes, Linux is a PC OS, but we're talking about average home computers, and the average user wouldn't use Linux due to level of complexity).  Microsoft's monopoly status has been judged to be fact.  But it's not the monopoly itself that Microsoft is in trouble for.  The problem is they've leveraged the monopoly to build monopolies in other areas (web browsers, office suites).  This anticompetitive business practice is considered illegal, and has been found to be so in court (see http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm for more detail).  The fact of the matter is that it's because they are a monopoly that they have to watch what they add.