51–60 of 61 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would you choose to use ie9 over something like chrome? edit: Why not move to another browser with better standards support like firefox or opera?
IE's standards support is pretty decent these days. There are other reasons to choose a browser besides support for standards too.
Funny, for my own reasons I uninstalled Chrome and switched to IE9 on my main computer. Although IE9 supports standards well on paper, it's shocking how many sites aimed at "webby" sorts of people don't work on IE9.
Why would you choose to use ie9 over something like chrome? edit: Why not move to another browser with better standards support like firefox or opera?
Funny, for my own reasons I uninstalled Chrome and switched to IE9 on my main computer. Although IE9 supports standards well on paper, it's shocking how many sites aimed at "webby" sorts of people don't work on IE9.
Quite frankly that is because IE is a browser that we have to live with users using. If it was a bit more realistic I wouldn't support IE at all (no matter the version), I would even take steps to break my site in IE since IE is the last browser which has any meaningful marketshare and which is not automatically updated to the latest version. So if you use IE when you are not forced to, you drag the rest of us down.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quite frankly that is because IE is a browser that we have to live with users using. If it was a bit more realistic I wouldn't support IE at all (no matter the version), I would even take steps to break my site in IE since IE is the last browser which has any meaningful marketshare and which is not automatically updated to the latest version. So if you use IE when you are not forced to, you drag the rest of us down.…
Microsoft will be updating IE to the next version in the future. They've learned their lessons.
But only for people on Win7. Which does nothing at all for those who still use xp.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Long experience of contacting sites suggests that it is, at best, of limited effectiveness. At Opera we have a not-insubstantial team dedicated to developer outreach who frequently contact sites that are broken in Opera and give them help to get stuff working again. But the approach doesn't scale; we can only contact so many broken sites and we can only get so much traction being proactive and asking people not to de…
Honestly I don't really get the existence of Opera. Not when both Firefox and Chrome are free and don't suffer from the issues you mentioned. This may be related to why I don't really care about the few users who use Opera -- it is just not worth it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Long experience of contacting sites suggests that it is, at best, of limited effectiveness. At Opera we have a not-insubstantial team dedicated to developer outreach who frequently contact sites that are broken in Opera and give them help to get stuff working again. But the approach doesn't scale; we can only contact so many broken sites and we can only get so much traction being proactive and asking people not to de…
Honestly I don't really get the existence of Opera. Not when both Firefox and Chrome are free and don't suffer from the issues you mentioned. This may be related to why I don't really care about the few users who use Opera -- it is just not worth it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Microsoft will be updating IE to the next version in the future. They've learned their lessons.
Yes. But only for people on Win7. Which does nothing at all for those who still use xp.
I completely agree that Firefox must not accept -webkit-* prefixes. A better approach would be to contact the sites in question and socially bombard them into changing.
Long experience of contacting sites suggests that it is, at best, of limited effectiveness. At Opera we have a not-insubstantial team dedicated to developer outreach who frequently contact sites that are broken in Opera and give them help to get stuff working again. But the approach doesn't scale; we can only contact so many broken sites and we can only get so much traction being proactive and asking people not to de…
Case and point: Border radius and linear gradients made things better for EVERYONE. Developers didn't have to create the html/js/css/image mess just to create rounded corners. This meant less code, less images, less css, which also translates to snappier websites. (and users like that.. there are studies that prove that) This also meant that, as a company, we decided that IE had to live with a degraded experience until they made their browsers competitive with all the others. (and users had access to said browsers)
As a Front End Engineer, I find it insulting that you suggest we are doing it for "fun" or to make our resume look better. This makes our lives better, and we have to consciously decide who gets a degraded experience and who gets the better experience. I think we call that "graceful degradation" or "progressive enhancement". You stated: "They allow you to create novel effects which you can then discuss in your blog", if these are novel effects then why do...
You state that websites are "broken" for non-webkit browsers on mobile. Well then maybe my definition of broken and yours differ. I say a "broken website" is one where the content CANNOT be consumed by the end users. Also if the end users have functionality that is broken, and therefore prevents them from accessing / modifying content.
I DO NOT think broken means, degraded visual experience. When we decided that IE would get square corners, and flat background (instead of rounded corners and linear gradient backgrounds), we knew that IE would still be consuming the content just the same.
Therefore, please inform me which -webkit prefixed css is causing the breakage I define. (where consumers are blocked from the content)
"This looks bad", doesn't count.
Now granted, I'll give you that as developers, we should be using all prefixes that are supported. It might be a pain in the ass, but that's our job. I'm with you there, and I'm going through my current css to find if any are missing -ms, -o, -moz and the default fallback css. Considering I use a preprocessor for my css, I'm pretty safe, except on my blog, (which has no preprocessor yet). I suggest all of us developers do the same. But this is a "nice to have" not the "the mobile web is broken!" as browser vendors are rallying.
Again, if you can prove to me, that the web is broken under my definition, I will take my words back for those specific css rules according to their proliferation on the web.
What's the reason they even have to add a prefix? If all we end up doing is prefix the feature with 4 different ones, and then the actual feature name in case all else fail, it's pretty pointless. The browser should just implement the feature as it is spec'd and when it's finalized they can do the work to match the specs again. If we did that then nothing would break other than possibly some behavioral differences.
So browser makes can push forward innovation by adding support for experimental procedures.
Why can't we just have '-dev-' prefix which would mean "a feature implemented according to dev or working draft spec"? When the spec changes, the updated feature could be implemented as '-dev-2-', '-dev-3-' and so on. W3C would just need to introduce consistent numbering scheme that could be followed by all vendors. Vendor prefixes should be reserved only for features that are not standardized in any way.
I can't remember any specific examples off the top of my head but I do remember that some of the -webkit and -moz prefixes were ever so slightly different.
I think once it made it into the draft most browsers start supporting it using the standard css without any prefix.