Who cares about Firefox? [Archive]

slaughters

10-29-2007, 11:04 AM

Who cares about Firefox?

Have you ever noticed that those people who vehemently argue for writing pages which work in Firefox frequently design pages which are totally unusable if viewed on a 800x600 video screen?

Yet almost the same number of people who use Firefox, 13% of the browser market as of September 2007, ( http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2007/September/browser.php) browse the web on a computer with a video screen to a 800x600 resolution (10% of the browser market: http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2007/September/res.php)

So - Why the lack of (loud) public support from the web design community?

Is it because web designers are loathed to give up their big header graphic images and navigation buttons which take up half the screen even on larger screens ? Is it because shouting for the cause of the 800x600 display can't drum up the rabid fan-boyism of "stickin-it-to-microsoft" that supporters of the Firefox browser enjoy?

Or is it simply the young web designer crowd do not have any friends which browse the web at 800x600 so therefore consider it non-important (after all if none of their friends are doing it why bother to design for it) ?

LeeU

10-29-2007, 04:40 PM

Well, many people now design for 1024x768. However, they should allow for the 800x600. But as you said, it is a small amount. I would venture to say that many more people use FF than 13%, it's just that it is counted as "Netscape comp.", Netscape, or "Unknown".

slaughters

10-29-2007, 05:12 PM

I don't know - I tend to think that:

72% IE,
13% Firefox,
15% Opera/Safari/Weird Cellphone Browsers sounds about right

But as we all know this is just an average. Probably correct for some large public site that gets a lot of hits from a wide range of people. Not so correct for a small niche site which attracts a small segment of the population.

Because of the popularity of smart phone web browsers, like that found in the iPhone and Blackberry, will designing for an even smaller display area be more important than it is now in the near future?

mdjo

10-29-2007, 05:46 PM

Personally, I usually find it very easy to support 800x600: Just avoid using large graphics, and don't put fixed widths on any text boxes.

It absolutely baffles me why web designers create tables or frames or whatever that they intend to fill with text, and then attach a fixed width to them. That just guarantees that if the user has a higher resolution that you use, that he'll get a big empty right-hand margin that will look dumb and waste space. Worse, if he uses a lower resolution than you, text will run off the right edge of the screen and he'll continually have to scroll back and forth. Most graphics I limit to about 300 pixels wide. For your run-of-the mill decorative pictures, that's plenty. I wrote an applet years ago that draws line and bar graphs and pie charts so it can automatically re-scale to the user's screen size, rather than forcing me to pick a size.

If you ran a web site where photographs or similar graphics are a key part of your data, like this is a web site about art or architecture or some such and your users really want to see images that exactly fill the screen, I suppose things would be more difficult.

PS One of my favorite lame web site design incidents: About a year ago I was shopping for a GPS. I found a web site with an excellent selection, all sorts of useful, detailed information about each model. So I printed off this page so I could study it and pick the one that best met my needs ... and the price fell off the right edge of the print out. So great, I now have this list of products, with no idea what the price of any of them is.

Mr Initial Man

10-30-2007, 04:45 AM

I take 800 X 600 into account with my websites; they work perfectly fine with that resolution. But you're right in that there are certain resolutions I don't take into account, such as 640 X 480.

mdjo

10-30-2007, 09:23 AM

I recently did some preliminary work on an application for hand-held devices, where the screen was, I forget the exact size, something like 300 x 250. Now THAT starts to get challenging. In a few places I had to use shorter labels on a form just to get label+value to fit on one line, and the browser on one device we tested didn't support "border-collapse", which was just enough to push a form from fitting to not-fitting.

KDLA

10-30-2007, 10:43 AM

Many of the "older" employees here use 800x600 resolution so they do not have to wear glasses to read the web content. That said, I'd venture to say many "young" designers do design for larger resolutions because they aren't aware of the merits of 800x600 for usage by some of the population.

Stephen Philbin

10-31-2007, 11:57 AM

I used to prefer Firefox for a long time, but recently I've been leaning more towards Opera. Opera tends not to screw up on key points of certain technologies like Firefox does. However, Opera doesn't have the "Developer Tools", "Adblock Plus" and "NoScript" extensions. So I gradually slipped back to Firefox anyway. Not sure what all this waffle about not supporting 800x600 just because I use Firefox is all about though. I find it strange that you would assume I don't do a proper job just because I use Firefox. If you weren't a regular here I'd have thought you were yet another FUD puppet.

Personally I aim for support down to about 650 in screen media. Anything less than that and I go for handheld media. I don't see a problem.

slaughters

10-31-2007, 10:27 PM

Hmm... I think you took this personal for some weird reason.

The point was essentially that Firefox fans are not driven by how important something is to the market - otherwise the hue and cry about not supporting 800x600 displays would be just as loud and just as frequent.

It's just plain fandom.

I use Firefox almost exclusively (if you've not used the firebug pluggin - then download it) - BUT I use it for the developer tools it has. I don't assume that Mr and Mrs Average Joe Internet user does. I assume the average person uses IE7 (and 50% still uses IE6)

Stephen Philbin

11-01-2007, 05:27 AM

For most people, I recommend Opera exactly because they have no need for Developer Tools etc., but I think I see where you're coming from. It sounds like you're saying something I've thought for a very long time. You just seem to be saying it in a rather different way.

I wouldn't say it's so much Firefox users. I'd say it's just the "trendy" goons of the web dev world (who tend to use Firefox). The type that like to rabbit on about "web 2.0" and "AJAX" and all that nonsense. Those that like to cram as many buzzwords in to sentence as possible in an effort to sound as up-to-date, knowledgeable and trendy as possible. Those people, yes, they do get on my nerves a great deal. Shelving the fundamentals and basics in favour of trying to out-cool the next developer.

drhowarddrfine

11-02-2007, 11:48 PM

Depending on which part of the world you are in, Firefox can be up to 50% usage, such as Finland, Germany and Australia. ArsTechnica reports Firefox usage is no lower than 19% with many countries around 30%, including those mentioned above. So, overall, visitors to you web page using non-IE browsers can be 1 in 7 to half.

Firefox is more standards compliant than IE so, of course, if you are writing standards-compliant markup (which you must) then you want a browser that most correctly displays what you wrote. Opera is also a good choice but, as mentioned above, doesn't have the developer tools that FF has. IE is out of the question for any of the reasons listed in my sig below.

dabbish

11-02-2007, 11:59 PM

Obviously you should facilitate as much as possible for people who take a political or security stance to not use IE. It should be encouraged as much as possible. Down with the MS monopoly!

drhowarddrfine

11-03-2007, 01:10 PM

The issue is not the monopoly for me. The issue is Microsoft's not making their browser compliant with today's standards. This makes it difficult to create web sites that work in all browsers.

It doesn't matter what the reasons are. Microsoft/IE makes work difficult. So if IE became standards-compliant (which it won't) or went away (slowly fading but probably won't) it would make our jobs easier and that is why I hope IE disappears.

IE disappearing is better, maybe quicker, than waiting and hoping for it to become modernized. Hoping is an unknown.

dabbish

11-03-2007, 10:53 PM

Yeah but the root cause is the monlopy. Ones that goes, the rest will too.

mlim

11-03-2007, 11:21 PM

Then again, what about Blackberry screen and other PDAs with
Window Mobile os.

bustya

11-04-2007, 12:39 AM

I love FF and use it exclusively for surfing. I only keep IE loaded on my machine for testing purposes. I wish IE would go away. The problem is most internet users are too stupid/lazy to go looking for a better browser. "If you were born in a cage would you try to break out of it?" Most FF users are either web designers or the enlightened few who have had the nerve to try it. The fact is this: FF is quicker than IE(7), hands down. I hate waiting for IE just to start up when I'm about to test my latest work. It has nothing to do with my design... just launching the damn thing is a pain. I could go on and on how I hate IE... the stupid workarounds: restating attributes with ~ in my CSS files so IE7 can get it right, or no flashblock, or no image blocking by domain name ...just to name a few.

Why would anyone use IE if they know better would be a more appropriate title for this post. For the masses, I guess I have to forgive their ignorant asses but for a designer to prefer IE... that's just blaspheme.

In fact for a designer to ask this question makes me think he's lazy or inexperienced.

NogDog

11-04-2007, 04:37 AM

bustya

11-04-2007, 08:17 AM

Ah, i was a little under the Jameson when I wrote that and totally missed the point. I design for 800x600 and 1024x768 and switch stylesheets via javascript but (as NogDog might recall from my recent question on the PHP board) I'm very much interested in doing this via PHP in the future. I don't put images in markup (usually or at least not on static pages). I'll resize a 1x1 transparent gif and give it an alternate background image in the stylesheets.

As far as other resolutions go... I could design other stylesheets for these but those with wider screens than 1024 are currently getting served the 1024 version from me, and as for the folks on handhelds... who is going to be looking at my site(s) on a phone or handheld? ...that's just overkill.

Even though I design for those using 800x600, I can't imagine trying to surf like that. I find it hard enough to read my stylesheet in my editor while viewing at 800x600.

JPnyc

11-05-2007, 10:00 AM

I'm not sure why that is the case on your machine. On either of mine IE starts up in roughly one fourth the time of either Firefox or Opera.

KDLA

11-05-2007, 10:36 AM

I'm not sure why that is the case on your machine. On either of mine IE starts up in roughly one fourth the time of either Firefox or Opera.
Agreed. I have IE6 (work) and IE7 (home) and both load faster than Fx. Even without the extensions, Fx is a little slower. With the extensions, it takes several seconds.

TJ111

11-05-2007, 11:57 AM

I only design for 1600x1200 resolutions, and block IE browsers because they are teh suck.

Seriously though, I think the reason you don't hear about the resolutions is because it's generally a non-issue when compared the the IE hate. Designing a website to work on different resolutions requires almost no extra work if you plan for it. However, who hasn't gotten a site working/looking good, only to open up IE and have all hell break loose? If my site breaks on smaller resolutions in testing, I know I am to blame. But when it breaks in IE, I feel like Mario in the Original Donkey Kong, having to jump over all the barrels MS decided to throw at me.

Personally, I'll admit not all of my pages display perfectly in 800x600. Not because of large graphics or pre-designated widths as mentioned earlier. It's usually just the menu runs down into two lines or something similar. Something very minor, that no way affects functionality, it just doesn't display 100% perfect.

Designing for smaller resolutions is important, sure, but as long as developers know that they aren't going discuss it at length like the Firefox/IE thing.

slaughters

11-05-2007, 01:02 PM

.... However, who hasn't gotten a site working/looking good, only to open up IE and have all hell break loose? ...

Good point. But you know what? When the opposite happens (looks good in IE only to open up and have all hell break loose in Firefox) people *still* blame IE :) - and we all know Firefox has it's own share of bugs and sloppy CSS support.

The point of my original post was that the people who do this one-sided complaining don't care all that much about the user experience. They are fans (or anti-fans) who latch onto *any* reason to bash Microsoft.

This makes problems when trying to design web sites. One issue keeps being raised (browser of choice) - drowning out others that (according to the stats) are just as important.

Example:

How many sites break because the web browser does not support CSS? How many phone browsers support CSS? What level/flavor of CSS?

How many sites break because the web browser does not have JavaScript support turned on ? (Note: About 5% - i.e. the same number of Firefox users for the first year or two of it's existence)

How many sites look so-so OK on an 800x600 screen, but could be adjusted easily to look much better if it happened ever to be discussed in web forums like this?

etc..

etc..

etc..

bustya

11-05-2007, 01:32 PM

As I mentioned before, I design for 800x600 and 1024x768. I use % as much as possible but then there's images. I usually use floats so those with screenwidths larger than 1024 will get the gap in the middle which I think looks better. I design in FF and check everything in IE7 at both resolutions. I'm trying to get away from JavaScript as much as possible but I still use it to check screenwidth to figure out which stylesheet to load. I don't use transparent PNGs because of IE6 and below. If IE7 gives me a problem with an attribute in CSS I do this:

margin-top:25px;
~margin-top:10px;

If a user's browser doesn't support CSS... too bad, get with the times, I haven't used a font tag in years. Question, why are English speaking folks still using IE6? I understand it takes a while to get a new browser in other languages but why not upgrade to IE7 in the US and Britain?

slaughters

11-05-2007, 01:46 PM

...If a user's browser doesn't support CSS... too bad, get with the times, I haven't used a font tag in years. Question, why are English speaking folks still using IE6? ...

Well - Most phone browsers have limited to "icky" CSS support. I see the mobile phone market as a "huge" web browsing market, which frankly, web designers seem to ignore in "droves". For me the discussion should not be so much about "start using FONT tags again", as it should be, "what the heck do they support?" - like WCSS - http://dev.mobi/node/154

As of the IE6 question. Blame it on conservative businesses. Many people when they browse the web do it from the office. Many businesses (especially with those of a 1000 or more employees) still use IE6 because they tend to have older PC's which do fine for what they do (usually just for e-mail and word doc/excel work).

No business wants to purchase brand new PC's just so their employees can browse porn web sites with the latest and greatest browser. :)

LeeU

11-05-2007, 03:51 PM

Question, why are English speaking folks still using IE6? I understand it takes a while to get a new browser in other languages but why not upgrade to IE7 in the US and Britain?
Simple in some cases - there is no upgrade to version 7 for Windows 2000 and Internet Explorer 7 will not run on Windows 2000.

KDLA

11-05-2007, 04:24 PM

Simple in some cases - there is no upgrade to version 7 for Windows 2000 and Internet Explorer 7 will not run on Windows 2000.

Or, the employer has invested in web-apps. that only work with IE6. Not all developers can keep up with the changing browser versions, at least enough to package and market their products in time. Further, you have some businesses (or even industries) who operate on contractual basis with development firms and get stuck with these IE6-only products for two to three years.

KDLA

drhowarddrfine

11-05-2007, 04:32 PM

But you know what? When the opposite happens (looks good in IE only to open up and have all hell break loose in Firefox) people *still* blame IE :)Of course. In most cases, the coder used IE to design their site. In other cases, it was just luck. In most cases, you will find IE just happened to do what they wanted but not what they coded. They say Firefox is wrong because it's not what they wanted. But then it's pointed out that IE only did what they wanted due to an IE bug.

For example, we frequently get asked why a div does not expand to contain floated elements. They wonder what is wrong with Firefox because IE does that. However, div containers are never supposed to do that so, even though IE did what they wanted, it's a bug and FF was performing correctly.
we all know Firefox has it's own share of bugs and sloppy CSS support.
But nowhere near the bugs or "sloppy support" that IE has. Firefox has ongoing, daily work by the developers while IE, as far as we know, has none. IE has said they don't consider W3C compliance as important as compliance with their own software while FF is only concerned with W3C compliance. While IE is nine years (and soon 10) behind web compiance, Firefox, as well as Opera and Safari, are fairly current.

These are the reasons you should never use IE as a reference for how things should work. Doing so sends a red flag up to those of us reading your post.

dtm32236

11-05-2007, 04:32 PM

Question, why are English speaking folks still using IE6? I understand it takes a while to get a new browser in other languages but why not upgrade to IE7 in the US and Britain?

according to the W3C (http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp) 35% of users are using IE6... and according to TheCounter.com (http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2007/October/browser.php), 50% are still using it.

so regardless of why this is, we still have to make sites accessable (look nice and work) in IE6

the majority of surfers seem to be using IE6... it's something we just have to deal with.

bustya

11-05-2007, 11:34 PM

I wish IE supported pseudo elements so I could freely use :before and :after. On the other hand, I must give it up to IE for VML, but that's about it. I can live without page transitions, gradients (without images), and the handful of dynamic things you can pull off in IE most of which is annoying anyway.

Kravvitz

11-06-2007, 01:33 AM

according to the W3C (http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp) 35% of users are using IE6...
Don't let the "W3" in the names confuse you! W3C and W3Schools are two completely separate organizations. "W3" is simply another way to write "WWW", which is short for "world wide web".

W3Schools' stats only apply to that site. They do not necessarily represent the average statistics for the web in general.

I wish IE supported pseudo elements so I could freely use :before and :after.
Yeah. Don't we all?
On the other hand, I must give it up to IE for VML, but that's about it.
You actually use VML?

If IE7 gives me a problem with an attribute in CSS I do this:
margin-top:25px;
~margin-top:10px;
That works but it's a major syntax error. :/

bustya

11-06-2007, 08:55 AM

Actually the W3C means world wide web consortium, meaning the organization who sets forth the standards of the web.

You actually use VML? No, but I think it would make a nice addition to the standard. My general rule is: if it doesn't work in IE and FF don't use it, hence :before and :after.

That works but it's a major syntax error.
Really? Now that I think about it, I've never checked that technique in a validator. Does this validate?

*p{
margin:0;
}

Kravvitz

11-06-2007, 09:01 AM

Actually the W3C means world wide web consortium, meaning the organization who sets forth the standards of the web.
Yeah. I just didn't bother to say it.

No, but I think it would make a nice addition to the standard.
Isn't it a lot like SVG?

Does this validate?

*p{
margin:0;
}
No. A space (the descendant combinator) or another combinator is required between the "*" and the "p". Why ask me when you can see for yourself (http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?text=*p%7B%0D%0Amargin%3A0%3B%0D%0A%7D)?

drhowarddrfine

11-06-2007, 09:58 AM

I wish IE would support SVG like other browsers do.

bustya

11-06-2007, 10:04 AM

Isn't it a lot like SVG?
Yep.

I wish IE would support SVG like other browsers do.

VML or SVG either way. This is like Blueray vs HD DVD, I just wish the powers that be would pick a standard and go with it.

slaughters

11-06-2007, 12:01 PM

....These are the reasons you should never use IE as a reference for how things should work. Doing so sends a red flag up to those of us reading your post.
Thanks - sort of goes to support the point of my post. "Never use" the browser as a reference that roughly 70% of your users prefer?

dtm32236

11-06-2007, 12:22 PM

true - but their point is that IE is buggy, and future versions will be fixing these bugs...

so if you have code that looks good in IE (but it's syntax is wrong according to the W3C)... chances are the layout is going to break when a new version of IE comes out - so it's better to design for a browser that [mostly] meets W3C standards, and then fix it for IE.

slaughters

11-06-2007, 12:53 PM

true - but their point is that IE is buggy, and future versions will be fixing these bugs....Not arguing that at all.

But - as an example - if you have a page that does not look good on a 800x600 screen it will affect more people - but - once again - this is not considered as important as what browser you are using.

Why?

Why do posters chastise those who used IE as a reference, yet do not also chastise who those who design only for 1024x768 and above screens?

Why do posters chastise those who make pages which will not work in Firefox, yet do not also chastise those who make pages which will not work in IE6?

All are important. All are issues which can impact the visitors to your site. I my opinion, way too much effort is being used to focus on just one issue and it's being done by those who have an "ax to grind".

drhowarddrfine

11-06-2007, 02:12 PM

You aren't following the point. The point is not to design "for" Firefox. The point is to use standards compliant markup. But the only way you will know if your proper markup is working correctly is if you test it, first, in a browser that will correctly interpret your markup; and that is not IE.

However, yes, it is important to make your page work in IE. IEs bugs and quirks are known as are the fixes. So write proper markup so you know it should work in all browsers. Then it's easier to hack for IEs many problems.

slaughters

11-06-2007, 02:44 PM

... So write proper markup so you know it should work in all browsers. Then it's easier to hack for IEs many problems.

I think you are not seeing the point that I am making. How is this more important than any other aspect of good web page design ? Why have you harped on just this one point when I keep bringing up others? Yes, it's important, but it is just one thing in the whole web experience for the end user.

P.S.

Every browser will fail at correctly implementing some aspect of Proper mark-up. It's a developers job to deliver a working page. Not sit back and expect the user to suffer because they choose to use a popular web browser.

TJ111

11-06-2007, 03:00 PM

Every browser will fail at correctly implementing some aspect of Proper mark-up. It's a developers job to deliver a working page. Not sit back and expect the user to suffer because they choose to use a popular web browser.

This isn't true. Opera 9 was the first mainstream browser to pass the acid2 test. When Firefox 3 comes out at the end of this year/beginning of next year, it will also pass the acid2 test. In fact, the alpha version already passes it.

slaughters

11-06-2007, 03:30 PM

This isn't true. Opera 9 was the first mainstream browser to pass the acid2 test....

http://www.geocities.com/csssite/opera/bugs.xml

http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/Opera9Bugs/

KDLA

11-06-2007, 04:24 PM

Why do posters chastise those who used IE as a reference, yet do not also chastise who those who design only for 1024x768 and above screens?
That's easy -- because the majority of our forum visitors do not use 800x600 resolution. If they don't use it, and unless they're really into testing for others, they aren't going to bother changing their resolution for one post. It doesn't have to do with apathy, just convenience.

slaughters

11-07-2007, 07:34 AM

That's easy -- because the majority of our forum visitors do not use 800x600 resolution. If they don't use it, and unless they're really into testing for others, they aren't going to bother changing their resolution for one post. It doesn't have to do with apathy, just convenience.If you have Firefox then an 800x600 resize is only one click away.

I think it's neither apathy nor convenience though (many people are willing to bring up 2 separate browsers to view a problem in both IE and Firefox). They just never think to do it because:

The stats aren't that easy to find *and* people tend to disbelieve them if the stats don't exactly fit the trends they and their friends follow.

It's rarely brought up as an issue in web forums, and the times it is, there tends to be a dismissive snort and the attitude of "get a decent browser grandpa"
When web page layout issues are brought up they tend to drift into an IE rant fest

NogDog

11-07-2007, 08:20 AM

Here's a simple fix that will make all 1024px-wide layouts "work" on any narrower screen:


<div style="width:1000px;height:1px;margin:0;padding:0;font-size:1px;line-height:1px>
</div>
</body>
</html>

There you go, no more problems with 800x600 or smaller resolutions. ;) :p

JPnyc

11-07-2007, 09:23 AM

It's a web developer's job to make his client's page available to as many mediums as the client wishes. If the popular use of one browser or another, or one screen size or another, makes it difficult, well that's tough. Life is tough, too. If you wanna cash the check, do the work. If you exclude certain browsers and resolutions for your OWN site, well that's your business.

LeeU

11-07-2007, 09:54 AM

I agree. I think one of the problems is that many designers/developers confuse personal preferences with working conditions. Personally I don't like IE, so I don't use it except for development/design work, as it is necessary. Stan stated it correctly when he said, "When web page layout issues are brought up they tend to drift into an IE rant fest". I have seen it here when someone asks a question about IE, many people will reply and only a few will answer the question, the rest go off on an IE rant. You said it correctly, Joe: "If you wanna cash the check, do the work."

TJ111

11-07-2007, 10:11 AM

I do agree for the most part with what is being said. But as a developer, you have to keep in mind you have more knowledge about the subject than your client will. Describing being a developer as doing whatever your client asks is in my opinion, a poor mindset about your job.

As the people with experience in this area, its our job to speak up when your client asks for something that you don't think is right. I'm not saying be rude about it, I mean something like "Ok, this is what you want, but it would be much better if we did this here instead, and heres why...".

For example, if your client only wanted to support IE, you could say that one out of every 3-5 users is browsing with a different broswer. If they didn't want to support resolutions less than 1024x768, you could bring up issues of older computers or people using higher resolutions for accessibility reasons. If they wanted a flash only site, you could mention problems with SEO optimization and accessibility. If they are still stubborn about it, then go ahead and do what they ask.

Saying that "if you want the money, do what they ask" isn't the best mindset about it. It should be "if you they want something that you think should be done differently or could be done better, explain it to them, then let them remake up their mind, then do whatever they ask and cash the check".

And as I said before, the reason developers rant about IE is because of all the barrels it throws at us. People don't rant about display sizes because its a our problems we are dealing with, not IE's.

LeeU

11-07-2007, 10:30 AM

... If they are still stubborn about it, then go ahead and do what they ask....Saying that "if you want the money, do what they ask" isn't the best mindset about it. It should be "if you they want something that you think should be done differently or could be done better, explain it to them, then let them remake up their mind, then do whatever they ask and cash the check".
That is exactly what I meant. The intent, at least for me, with saying "if you want the money, do what they ask" is a final statement, i.e., if all other discussion fails, then do what they want. However, I think that if they want something that is completely off-base, e.g., an IE only site, then you should push a bit harder. But in the end, if they're set in their ways, it is either the check or your stance.

You're right, we should be educating the consumer. This is a new arena and it's up to use to help the public understand what is available and the proper implementation of it, much like an architect (which is actually what a Web designer/developer is).

JPnyc

11-08-2007, 09:36 AM

TJ111

11-08-2007, 09:38 AM

LeeU

11-08-2007, 10:15 AM

yes, we know more than the client knows, but personally I think far too much is made of the little peccadillos certain browsers require. There are nearly always ways around them. I can count on one hand the number of times I wasn't able to find a work around quite easily.
I agree. I never understood the stress that people go through when trying to do workarounds. It's like anything else, you just need to learn your craft and understand there will always be differences.

Kravvitz

11-08-2007, 12:37 PM

I agree. I never understood the stress that people go through when trying to do workarounds. It's like anything else, you just need to learn your craft and understand there will always be differences.
Yeah, pixel perfection cross-browser is overrated.

Here's a simple fix that will make all 1024px-wide layouts "work" on any narrower screen:

<div style="width:1000px;height:1px;margin:0;padding:0;font-size:1px;line-height:1px>
</div>
</body>
</html>
There you go, no more problems with 800x600 or smaller resolutions. ;) :p
But that just forces a horizontal scrollbar. :(

I suggest you read these:
Scrolling and Scrollbars (http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20050711.html)
Comments on Scrolling and Scrollbars (http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200508/scrolling_and_scrollbars/)

JPnyc

11-08-2007, 01:08 PM

Firefox 3 has a private browsing mode, where no cookies or sessions can be created or stored, and also no information about the browser is sent in the headers. What will the site this post was originally about do then?
my guess is, they'll test for a blank user agent string, or better still, test for functionality.

NogDog

11-09-2007, 06:32 AM

...
But that just forces a horizontal scrollbar. :(
...

Thus the ;) and the :p in my post. Just trying to lighten things up a bit in the midst of all this pontification.

Kravvitz

11-09-2007, 07:15 AM

Some newbies might use it anyway, so I wanted to point out why they shouldn't. ;)

bustya

11-12-2007, 07:03 AM

I just found a bug in IE7. Try this:

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<style type="text/css">
.someclass{
float:right;
}
.someclass:first-letter{
font-family:Arrus BT,Garamond,Times New Roman;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<p class="someclass"><span>test test test</span>test</p>
</body>
</html>

If the first letter in the paragraph is included in the span (by itself or with others) IE7 freezes and CPUs max out. FF on the other hand handles it just fine.