Ut ooh, fight between Firefox and Explorer

[Hmph]

http://www.bbspot.com/News/2005/01/fire ... lorer.html

pretty cute...

[RangerBob]

Welp, I've finally caved in and I'm trying Firefox...... we'll see how it actually stacks up....

[KingFo1]

RBob...Firefox is great, and theres a much less chance of spyware infecting your system if ya use it instead of IE.

In other words, FIREFOX WON!!!! YYAAAAAYYYYYY!!!!!!

[thewiseonecommeth]

Well I finally broke down and tried Firefox. Its not a bad browser and by far the most appealing thing about it is less risk of spyware / spam ware or adware.

As a web developer though the only issue I have run into so far is that certain database application administration pages don't seem to work properly in Firefox.

Example: In one situation an application using both php and the HTML Texatarea editor, the editor would not show up properly within the form, compared to netscape or IE where it shows up fine.

Guess time shall tell whether this ends up being a great browser to replace IE, or another web developer's nightmare like some of the earlier version of Netscape..lol.

[Hmph]

and some graphics appear awful. but the reason the dbase app not working properly is poor and inconsistent coding. companies are now going to be forced to do their job with 28 million users switching to firefox. no more IE nipple anymore.

programmers out of laziness or lack of funding/resources just exclusively develop and test for IE because it's the "monopoly" (more like Baltic Ave. of monopoly). and also, if coding was consistent and thoroughly checked, there wouldn't be display/functionality problems, as the code could easily be ported to any browser type.

so many times when I'm having a firefox display problem, I look at the source of the page and so many HTML/javascript coding errors (missing end tags, invalid values, values specifically for IE only, etc.)

[thewiseonecommeth]

I do agree, however you cannot always attribute it to laziness of the programmer . Sometimes a plugin required for an item a customer requests, is not yet supported by that browser.

Example: With the textarea HTML editor, previous versions of netscape would not support some of the advanced javascripting it used, so itwould only appear as a form field without all the bells and whistles.

So what of an alternative that is supported by all browsers? At that time, the only other versions or similar solutions were based upon Java technology, which is extremely outdated and shall be obsolete within 2 years at MOST, or Active X components, which are more times than not blocked on the average users PC due to: anti virus, browser settings, personal firewalls, etc. The list continues to grow .

I personally run browser compatability testing on all web sites we build, check for errors in coding, and go over a list of roughly 25 othe things we commonly check for. However, sometimes clients...not always listening as much as they should to our professional opinions....sometimes they request items that we know are not compatible with all browsers, etc. The best I personally do is educate them on the limitations of said items, discuss other options with them, and go from there.

Being the owner of a web development company since 1997, I can honestly say while I do my best to educate a client on all options and reasons he should take option B over his requested option A, you have to give the client what they want ultimately. I don't like it, but as long as I or my staff do educate them on all options and limitations of something they may have selected on their own....that's about the best we can do .

So I am definately going to have to disagree with you on this one item. Sometimes it is the fault of lazy programmers who do this as a part time gig, but sometimes it is not. Case by case .

[thewiseonecommeth]

Thought of one more good example

We have had requests in the past for the use of certain HTML tags / coding, or styles, that work perfect on all PC based browsers, but lack in some of the MAC browsers.

Another thing to consider is that there are some pretty complex layouts, designs, etc. which a client may request...and no matter what you do...it will not look perfect in ALL browsers.

Personally I ensure all of our designs use tables, versus layers (which as you know do not show up properly in Netscape 4.0-4.43). Same with certain CSS styles which are compatible with all browsers over the past 2 years, but going further back than that...ends up making it look like a total cluster..lol.

Cases like that, we educate the customers on knowing, according to current statistics, that if they select this solution...say 7% of users will not view it exactly like this, etc.

If you take every single browser out there into consideration, not just current ones but older ones still in use by at least 4% of the population, the only way you will end up with a website that looks identical in every single one, is by using minimal formatting, minimal tables, no style sheets, no java, etc...lol. Basically a page with few graphics and text slapped up there.

Side Note: have you ever went to some of the libraries and seen their dinosaur systems, which still use browsers with versions 1.x on them?...lol. God you want to talk about having your world crash down around you viewing some sites in that.

[Hmph]

hmmm, i rarely run into html that's not mac compatible

but it's also called planning ahead of time when developing an application or site. knowing what's lacking in one browser should be something included in development planning for the final product.

what's also funny is AOL's underlying browser is Netscape/Mozilla based. entertainment people are paying 25,000 to 50,000 for a web site, however, it's a general entertainment website. but here's the catch, their devs only plan for IE, which eliminates AOL users, Mac european markets and Mac educational groups. that makes absolutely no sense. and if I'm paying someone 25,000.00 for a site to promote a movie or video, rest assured I want all users to view the information, not just IE users. that's like saying, "naaah" I only want IE users to buy my products, because only they have money.

if someone's serious about marketing their goods and services, there are no limitations. kind of like an idiot who claims to be religious, but doesn't want to sell products to other religions. that's not a religion then, it's a cult.

[thewiseonecommeth]

I will look back through my records to send a sample HTML tag that doesn't work in MAc browsers I mentioned.

I do agree ultimately if something doesn't work in all browsers, you should ensure the final site is fully compatible.

However in cases where clients have specific requests of the use of scripts, items, or plug-ins that are not completely compatible, other options are given...but it comes down to what they are willing to pay.

Have had some clients who found and loved the HTML textarea editor, even though it does not function in 25% of browsers. Offered them solutions of building a new one from scratch that would be completely compatible, but they did not have the budget for it...or flat out stated since they only use the latest IE and Netscape, and this script was only for admin purposes (say creating articles in a dbase) they werre not concerned with it since it would not effect the users viewing the site.

You get the idea. Always comes down to what the client wants, and how much they are willing to spend to get there. In this case though, it doesn't effect the visitors to the website, only whether certain admin tools were available or not for the site admins to use, which they decided was fine since they always use IE anyways.