PhillMc
08-21-2004, 04:27 PM
Simple question; What's the answer? I have a few opinions of my own, but, you know me, I want to know what everyone else has to say about it. :)
Click to See Complete Forum and Search --> : Why are people afraid to use CSS?
fredmv
08-21-2004, 04:32 PM
Perhaps simply because they're afraid to do something different than what they're used to, or have heard misleading myths and whatnot. But once they realize the benefits and ease of use comes along with CSS, they realize they should've switched a long time ago.
rhsunderground
08-21-2004, 04:32 PM
i wasn't afraid - i was just lazy. i think many people just don't want to have to learn another language, plain and simple.:rolleyes:
PhillMc
08-21-2004, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by fredmv
Perhaps simply because they're afraid to do something different than what they're used to, or have heard misleading myths and whatnot.
You mean like Phlash over at BritBox. lol
Perhaps simply because they're afraid to do something different than what they're used to, or have heard misleading myths and whatnot.
You mean like Phlash over at BritBox. lol
the tree
08-22-2004, 07:19 AM
I think peoples reluctance to make use of css is the belief that it is another language, rater than the anex to html that it actualy is.
buntine
08-22-2004, 08:07 AM
It baffles me, also. Considering its one of the easiest technologies to gain a working knowledge of.
Through conversation with business owners, I have been told that they simply dont have to learn CSS. They have trouble keeping up with business as it is. And lets face it, the big guys dont care whether the net is full of non-standard Web Pages -- they want money!
Regards.
Through conversation with business owners, I have been told that they simply dont have to learn CSS. They have trouble keeping up with business as it is. And lets face it, the big guys dont care whether the net is full of non-standard Web Pages -- they want money!
Regards.
Daniel T
08-22-2004, 08:27 AM
Yeah, CSS is by far the easiest language to learn. It's one of those languages where you can learn everything you need to know about it in less than a day, but you continue to learn different techniques for many-a-day afterwards.
Like buntine said, most web developers nowadays don't care about CSS and web standards. Sadly, these are the people getting paid thousands of dollars a site. :rolleyes:
Like buntine said, most web developers nowadays don't care about CSS and web standards. Sadly, these are the people getting paid thousands of dollars a site. :rolleyes:
Ben Rogers
08-22-2004, 01:05 PM
(Damn- this is relevant! Belongs in the CSS forum IMNSHO...)
Well, why would they care? As soon as the page is launched, it's no longer their concern. Currently, their are no repurcussions of writing inaccessible, non-standard compliant pages, and this way they don't have to worry about learning new techniques, or the ever-fearsome thing called "change." However, if not meeting the requirements of 508 and WAI were to become punishable by law, this'd be another story. Speaking of which, has anyone heard of when/ if this is going to occur?
Well, why would they care? As soon as the page is launched, it's no longer their concern. Currently, their are no repurcussions of writing inaccessible, non-standard compliant pages, and this way they don't have to worry about learning new techniques, or the ever-fearsome thing called "change." However, if not meeting the requirements of 508 and WAI were to become punishable by law, this'd be another story. Speaking of which, has anyone heard of when/ if this is going to occur?
Stephen Philbin
08-22-2004, 01:36 PM
I've been doing this kinda stuf for about 11 months now. It was just after my first week that I found out html was not a static "one size fits all" kinda thing. I found this 'ere html 3.2 thing and though: "bummer man, it expands". So I finally learned all the tags for 3.2 and what they did. So a few weeks more after that, I find 4.0 and 4.01. So again I get learning that. Then I find this DTD thing. I simply assume that it is merely for stating which version of html you are using and that was that (in the sense of version number not frameset strict and transitional). I soon realise this is not the case and have my first encounter with the W3C when I go to find what it actually is for.
My first encounter with the W3C was a far from pleasant one too. Previously having next to no experience with computers I had no idea what most of their terminology meant.I'd start with one page I'm supposed to be reading, then have to go off to another page to find the meaning of some acronym they used whilst describing an aspect of what I was trying to learn about. Trouble is though that the page i'm going to to get an explanation of terminology on the first page also had terminology that needed explanation on another page. So on average I'd spend 80% of my time rumaging around the site looking for explanations of what the hell they were saying and 20% of my time actually getting close to learning something.
Then after that came Javascript. I spent a while trying to learn it, I managed to get some of the bare minimum basics down, but decided not to waste my time learning it much more than that because it can so easily be disabled.
Then came the web standards. I found my pages didn't work in other browsers. I realised that the html I'd been learning from some sites was this "proprietary code". An absurd notion if ever there was one I though at the time (and most certainly still do), so once again off I go trying to learn what is good code and what is bad code (hello again W3C and the inevitable terminology wrestling championship that comes with it).
As you might imagine, after all that I got the distinct impression I was chasing ghosts. At every step there was always something more to learn. Every time you thought you'd got something right, you find you've only uncovered another problem that you have to learn more to fix.
I knew I still had CSS to go if I was to move away from tabular layouts, but loathed the thought of having to learn it because I got the distinct impression that as soon as I would start to get the swing of it, I'd have to learn yet another language to supplement it. The fact that it made my sites look pretty much the same on all browsers though spurred me on and gave me the drive I needed and thankfully I didn't need to learn another language to supplement CSS.
I'm on to php now (which I've been putting of fow quite some time now) and already having to look at bits apache and wondering what the hell I'm looking at.
As you've probably guessed by now it's that sense of the more you learn - the less you know that had the strongest potential to put me off. But I still jumped on CSS pretty much as soon as I found it just because of the cross browser thing and I had a feeling of motivation at the time.
CSS was by far the easiest to learn and for its simplicity has a massive impact. If anything it was the rest of the web development process that put me off learning CSS rather than CSS its self.
My first encounter with the W3C was a far from pleasant one too. Previously having next to no experience with computers I had no idea what most of their terminology meant.I'd start with one page I'm supposed to be reading, then have to go off to another page to find the meaning of some acronym they used whilst describing an aspect of what I was trying to learn about. Trouble is though that the page i'm going to to get an explanation of terminology on the first page also had terminology that needed explanation on another page. So on average I'd spend 80% of my time rumaging around the site looking for explanations of what the hell they were saying and 20% of my time actually getting close to learning something.
Then after that came Javascript. I spent a while trying to learn it, I managed to get some of the bare minimum basics down, but decided not to waste my time learning it much more than that because it can so easily be disabled.
Then came the web standards. I found my pages didn't work in other browsers. I realised that the html I'd been learning from some sites was this "proprietary code". An absurd notion if ever there was one I though at the time (and most certainly still do), so once again off I go trying to learn what is good code and what is bad code (hello again W3C and the inevitable terminology wrestling championship that comes with it).
As you might imagine, after all that I got the distinct impression I was chasing ghosts. At every step there was always something more to learn. Every time you thought you'd got something right, you find you've only uncovered another problem that you have to learn more to fix.
I knew I still had CSS to go if I was to move away from tabular layouts, but loathed the thought of having to learn it because I got the distinct impression that as soon as I would start to get the swing of it, I'd have to learn yet another language to supplement it. The fact that it made my sites look pretty much the same on all browsers though spurred me on and gave me the drive I needed and thankfully I didn't need to learn another language to supplement CSS.
I'm on to php now (which I've been putting of fow quite some time now) and already having to look at bits apache and wondering what the hell I'm looking at.
As you've probably guessed by now it's that sense of the more you learn - the less you know that had the strongest potential to put me off. But I still jumped on CSS pretty much as soon as I found it just because of the cross browser thing and I had a feeling of motivation at the time.
CSS was by far the easiest to learn and for its simplicity has a massive impact. If anything it was the rest of the web development process that put me off learning CSS rather than CSS its self.
rhsunderground
08-22-2004, 09:34 PM
moved to css forum due to relativity, value in that forum, and general on-topic potential.
buntine
08-22-2004, 09:37 PM
Nice post.
Ben Rogers
08-22-2004, 09:39 PM
Originally posted by omega
(Damn- this is relevant! Belongs in the CSS forum IMNSHO...)
Originally posted by rhsunderground
moved to css forum due to relativity, value in that forum, and general on-topic potential.
*Feels special*
Originally posted by rhsunderground
general on-topic potential. Can't have that, now can we? But I'ma shush up now, I'm hurting that potential on-topicness...
(Damn- this is relevant! Belongs in the CSS forum IMNSHO...)
Originally posted by rhsunderground
moved to css forum due to relativity, value in that forum, and general on-topic potential.
*Feels special*
Originally posted by rhsunderground
general on-topic potential. Can't have that, now can we? But I'ma shush up now, I'm hurting that potential on-topicness...
steelersfan88
08-22-2004, 10:54 PM
Originally posted by omega
*Feels special* ... because his post count now increases ...
I like your post, and similar thing has gone over on my end way back when I first learned. Although I'm still a proprietary guy, and unfortunately care less now than I have before ...
I've moved between many languages as you have, except of course I started it all with application programming (the reason I'm the big proprietary guy ... because web programming on VB is IE-only, and doesn't cause problems at all).
Although I beg to disagree that many people who use tables for layout, and depreciated HTML tags don't switch because they don't know of CSS or are too afraid. I think it is frankly a world where they see the results, and see it work for them, and then don't want to change because one doesn't find it necessary. ... If only people even learned form the garden ...
*Feels special* ... because his post count now increases ...
I like your post, and similar thing has gone over on my end way back when I first learned. Although I'm still a proprietary guy, and unfortunately care less now than I have before ...
I've moved between many languages as you have, except of course I started it all with application programming (the reason I'm the big proprietary guy ... because web programming on VB is IE-only, and doesn't cause problems at all).
Although I beg to disagree that many people who use tables for layout, and depreciated HTML tags don't switch because they don't know of CSS or are too afraid. I think it is frankly a world where they see the results, and see it work for them, and then don't want to change because one doesn't find it necessary. ... If only people even learned form the garden ...
pawky
08-23-2004, 12:26 AM
Originally posted by Daniel T
Yeah, CSS is by far the easiest language to learn. It's one of those languages where you can learn everything you need to know about it in less than a day, but you continue to learn different techniques for many-a-day afterwards.
yea, that's how it was for me :D
i have been doing a little web design here and there. I started freshmen year in a class that taught a little html for part of it (didnt pay much attention to that but rather learned on my own from the web :P) i read a lot on html then but nothing else. I didnt have anyone showing me anything as i knew more then the teacher :P i didnt find out about css till about a month ago or so when i asked a friend from the UK how i could make two links appear differently on the same page (something html just could not do >.< :P) i then learned of the STYLE="" stuff for the links and decided i might as well learn it all :P so for me the real reason of not learning it was a lack of knowing it was there. I plan on learning php next (next summer because college will be starting soon). ok, too long of a post :P
Yeah, CSS is by far the easiest language to learn. It's one of those languages where you can learn everything you need to know about it in less than a day, but you continue to learn different techniques for many-a-day afterwards.
yea, that's how it was for me :D
i have been doing a little web design here and there. I started freshmen year in a class that taught a little html for part of it (didnt pay much attention to that but rather learned on my own from the web :P) i read a lot on html then but nothing else. I didnt have anyone showing me anything as i knew more then the teacher :P i didnt find out about css till about a month ago or so when i asked a friend from the UK how i could make two links appear differently on the same page (something html just could not do >.< :P) i then learned of the STYLE="" stuff for the links and decided i might as well learn it all :P so for me the real reason of not learning it was a lack of knowing it was there. I plan on learning php next (next summer because college will be starting soon). ok, too long of a post :P
crh3675
08-23-2004, 08:05 AM
People are afraid to use CSS becuase it requires work! The industry developed several products to make the creation of web pages easy: Dreamweaver,Frontpage,Visual Studio...
People got very use to the applications developing the code for them. What this did was in fact, produce a massive amount of "web designers" that don't know CSS or HTML. So, it's not necessarily people afraid to use CSS, it's businesses that thrive off of the misconception that "Rita Receptionist" can create and manage the company website using Frontpage because it does the coding for you. (I didn't say it did it well ;))
People got very use to the applications developing the code for them. What this did was in fact, produce a massive amount of "web designers" that don't know CSS or HTML. So, it's not necessarily people afraid to use CSS, it's businesses that thrive off of the misconception that "Rita Receptionist" can create and manage the company website using Frontpage because it does the coding for you. (I didn't say it did it well ;))
SuzanneB
08-23-2004, 09:07 AM
Personally, having just learned CSS, I think the main problem is that is not correctly supported and encouraged by packages such as Frontpage.
I know that when I first started out, I wanted a package to help me write html as well as just an editor. Really, with Frontpage, you are largely on your own with CSS. You have to learn it before you can experiment with it. With HTML and Frontpage, you really don't need to know much to start experimenting.
I know that when I first started out, I wanted a package to help me write html as well as just an editor. Really, with Frontpage, you are largely on your own with CSS. You have to learn it before you can experiment with it. With HTML and Frontpage, you really don't need to know much to start experimenting.
toicontien
08-23-2004, 09:25 AM
Originally posted by omega
Currently, their are no repurcussions of writing inaccessible, non-standard compliant pages, and this way they don't have to worry about learning new techniques, or the ever-fearsome thing called "change." However, if not meeting the requirements of 508 and WAI were to become punishable by law, this'd be another story. Speaking of which, has anyone heard of when/ if this is going to occur?
I posted in the accessibility forum about Priceline.com and Ramada.com being investigated using the ADA: http://www.webdeveloper.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42411
I read the story on usatoday.com. It's the first instance of a U.S. company pledging to make its content accessible because of an ADA investigation.
Originally posted by omega
Well, why would they care? As soon as the page is launched, it's no longer their concern.
Since Priceline.com and Ramada.com were found at fault for inaccessible content, they were required to pay around $40k each for the ADA investigation. If you hired someone to build you a site and then you're hit with a $40,000 investigation bill, the design company becomes concerned :)
I think making U.S. sites accessible will be Web design's Y2k bug fix: Going over piles of old code to fix something people should have seen coming a long time ago.
Currently, their are no repurcussions of writing inaccessible, non-standard compliant pages, and this way they don't have to worry about learning new techniques, or the ever-fearsome thing called "change." However, if not meeting the requirements of 508 and WAI were to become punishable by law, this'd be another story. Speaking of which, has anyone heard of when/ if this is going to occur?
I posted in the accessibility forum about Priceline.com and Ramada.com being investigated using the ADA: http://www.webdeveloper.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42411
I read the story on usatoday.com. It's the first instance of a U.S. company pledging to make its content accessible because of an ADA investigation.
Originally posted by omega
Well, why would they care? As soon as the page is launched, it's no longer their concern.
Since Priceline.com and Ramada.com were found at fault for inaccessible content, they were required to pay around $40k each for the ADA investigation. If you hired someone to build you a site and then you're hit with a $40,000 investigation bill, the design company becomes concerned :)
I think making U.S. sites accessible will be Web design's Y2k bug fix: Going over piles of old code to fix something people should have seen coming a long time ago.
PhillMc
08-23-2004, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by toicontien
I posted in the accessibility forum about Priceline.com and Ramada.com being investigated using the ADA: http://www.webdeveloper.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42411
...required to pay around $40k each for the ADA investigation. If you hired someone to build you a site and then you're hit with a $40,000 investigation bill, the design company becomes concerned :)
It's about time! :) To be honest, I was wondering if Section 508 would ever be enforced.
Originally posted by crh3675
The industry developed several products to make the creation of web pages easy
How can one get any easier than CSS? I didn't realize I had a creative side until pyro saved me from web hell (aka Geocities...tripod is Pergatory) by showing me his site. I took one look at the EXTREMELY simplified source and checked out how much a page could change visually just with a style sheet (CSSZenGarden). It took me less than a day to learn it and I had been using FrontPage (the horror!!) for months. Within days I was coming up with eye catching layouts with a fraction of the code.
I am still baffeled(sp?) by 'web developers' that shun CSS; I mean, it's a dream come true. When you use it, you are in charge; you tell the browser how to do it. If you don't like a browser's defaults, heck, re-write them; it's that powerful! I'd like to see tables do that. :D
I posted in the accessibility forum about Priceline.com and Ramada.com being investigated using the ADA: http://www.webdeveloper.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42411
...required to pay around $40k each for the ADA investigation. If you hired someone to build you a site and then you're hit with a $40,000 investigation bill, the design company becomes concerned :)
It's about time! :) To be honest, I was wondering if Section 508 would ever be enforced.
Originally posted by crh3675
The industry developed several products to make the creation of web pages easy
How can one get any easier than CSS? I didn't realize I had a creative side until pyro saved me from web hell (aka Geocities...tripod is Pergatory) by showing me his site. I took one look at the EXTREMELY simplified source and checked out how much a page could change visually just with a style sheet (CSSZenGarden). It took me less than a day to learn it and I had been using FrontPage (the horror!!) for months. Within days I was coming up with eye catching layouts with a fraction of the code.
I am still baffeled(sp?) by 'web developers' that shun CSS; I mean, it's a dream come true. When you use it, you are in charge; you tell the browser how to do it. If you don't like a browser's defaults, heck, re-write them; it's that powerful! I'd like to see tables do that. :D
pawky
08-23-2004, 01:59 PM
what is section 508? :S thx
Ben Rogers
08-23-2004, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by PhillMc
baffeled(sp?) Baffled.
Originally posted by pawky
what is section 508? :S thx http://section508.gov/
Damn right, about time. I think that instead of just the fine, taking the site offline to force a complete and immediate rebuild would be more effective, but that's me. ^^
baffeled(sp?) Baffled.
Originally posted by pawky
what is section 508? :S thx http://section508.gov/
Damn right, about time. I think that instead of just the fine, taking the site offline to force a complete and immediate rebuild would be more effective, but that's me. ^^
PhillMc
08-23-2004, 04:03 PM
I just noticed that Section 508 covers browsers and WYSIWYG editors. It's still a W3C draft though; but just imagine how much easier our lives would be when a cetain Mark-up Renderer is forced into standards compliance, or when WYSIWYG editors finally produce valid and standard code.
Ben Rogers
08-23-2004, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by PhillMc
I just noticed that Section 508 covers browsers and WYSIWYG editors. It's still a W3C draft though; but just imagine how much easier our lives would be when a cetain Mark-up Renderer is forced into standards compliance, or when WYSIWYG editors finally produce valid and standard code.
Phill, you're an application developer, no? Well, think about how difficult it probably is to create a program that makes pages that acheive the same look in all current browsers without tables.
EDIT: Typo, sorta.
I just noticed that Section 508 covers browsers and WYSIWYG editors. It's still a W3C draft though; but just imagine how much easier our lives would be when a cetain Mark-up Renderer is forced into standards compliance, or when WYSIWYG editors finally produce valid and standard code.
Phill, you're an application developer, no? Well, think about how difficult it probably is to create a program that makes pages that acheive the same look in all current browsers without tables.
EDIT: Typo, sorta.
PhillMc
08-23-2004, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by omega
Phil, you're an application developer, no? Well, think about how difficult it probably is to create a program that makes pages that acheive the same look in all current browsers without tables.
Difficult; yes. Impossible; no. Improbable; no. Most WYSIWYG editors follow a coding method known as 'quick and dirty' meaning it gets the job done, but there is a better way to do it.
Any application can be difficult; one just has to make the time to do it the right way. :)
Oh, and it's Phill; there are two "l"s. :D
Phil, you're an application developer, no? Well, think about how difficult it probably is to create a program that makes pages that acheive the same look in all current browsers without tables.
Difficult; yes. Impossible; no. Improbable; no. Most WYSIWYG editors follow a coding method known as 'quick and dirty' meaning it gets the job done, but there is a better way to do it.
Any application can be difficult; one just has to make the time to do it the right way. :)
Oh, and it's Phill; there are two "l"s. :D
Ben Rogers
08-23-2004, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by PhillMc
Difficult; yes. Impossible; no. Improbable; no. Most WYSIWYG editors follow a coding method known as 'quick and dirty' meaning it gets the job done, but there is a better way to do it.
Any application can be difficult; one just has to make the time to do it the right way. :)
Oh, and it's Phill; there are two "l"s. :D
Sorry for misspelling the name. But, I'm sure that when it comes to recongnizing IE's CSS-related quirks, it gets a little bit 'tricky' for WYSIWYG editors to do layouts.
Difficult; yes. Impossible; no. Improbable; no. Most WYSIWYG editors follow a coding method known as 'quick and dirty' meaning it gets the job done, but there is a better way to do it.
Any application can be difficult; one just has to make the time to do it the right way. :)
Oh, and it's Phill; there are two "l"s. :D
Sorry for misspelling the name. But, I'm sure that when it comes to recongnizing IE's CSS-related quirks, it gets a little bit 'tricky' for WYSIWYG editors to do layouts.
PhillMc
08-23-2004, 05:07 PM
Not entirely true. If it were to make the CSS as specific as possible; coding it so that it rely's on no browser's defaults but on it's own coding, then it will be accessible. I'm working on such an application now; it is showing quite a bit of promise; but I'm 8 to 12 months from release.
Ben Rogers
08-23-2004, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by PhillMc
Not entirely true. If it were to make the CSS as specific as possible; coding it so that it rely's on no browser's defaults but on it's own coding, then it will be accessible. I'm working on such an application now; it is showing quite a bit of promise; but I'm 8 to 12 months from release.
Heh. I was considering mentioning the idea to you, but then thought the idea was a bit too much work. Heh, well, if you ever need a beta tester... :D
Not entirely true. If it were to make the CSS as specific as possible; coding it so that it rely's on no browser's defaults but on it's own coding, then it will be accessible. I'm working on such an application now; it is showing quite a bit of promise; but I'm 8 to 12 months from release.
Heh. I was considering mentioning the idea to you, but then thought the idea was a bit too much work. Heh, well, if you ever need a beta tester... :D
pawky
08-23-2004, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by omega
http://section508.gov/
Damn right, about time. I think that instead of just the fine, taking the site offline to force a complete and immediate rebuild would be more effective, but that's me. ^^
so it concerns government agencies and stuff? just read the first paragraph or so on the site (the site has a lot to read!) because i dont have the time to read the rest atm. thx :)
http://section508.gov/
Damn right, about time. I think that instead of just the fine, taking the site offline to force a complete and immediate rebuild would be more effective, but that's me. ^^
so it concerns government agencies and stuff? just read the first paragraph or so on the site (the site has a lot to read!) because i dont have the time to read the rest atm. thx :)
klingoncowboy4
08-23-2004, 08:18 PM
I have used CSS ever since I heard of it. I find it more usfull than HTML formatting and the <font> tag is on the chopping board so I decided to convert.
toicontien
08-24-2004, 08:53 AM
To continue beating a dead horse, people are afraid to use CSS because of the people like us responding to this topic. I've found that many Web standards gurus get a bit high and mighty about the topic, like they do things right and everyone else does it wrong. Seasoned designers and developers can be taken aback by this behavior. And it means relearning Web design.
The point is, we need to make CSS layouts and standards seem like the next step, and an advantage, rather than bashing Joe Designer who's been in the business for 10 years.
Especially since many of you posting here aren't out of high school yet :D
The point is, we need to make CSS layouts and standards seem like the next step, and an advantage, rather than bashing Joe Designer who's been in the business for 10 years.
Especially since many of you posting here aren't out of high school yet :D
sharkey
08-24-2004, 09:24 AM
Ditto toicontien and i also find it require a different kind of thinking when your developing a layout using css and some designers wont be used to it if they have been using tables for long enough.
ray326
08-24-2004, 09:32 AM
Old Joe Designer who's been at it for 10 years is just like old Joe Programmer (AKA me) who's been at it for 30 years. If he hasn't retooled his development methods and processes in over five years then he's not really involved in his profession and soon will be DMOT. This is exactly why I recommend Zeldman's dwws over the "ref and do-it" books because it provides that education about the paradigm shift that happened with leading edge web development at the cusp of the 21st century.
PhillMc
08-24-2004, 12:24 PM
Agreed. One cannot use the same 'tools-of-the-trade' for years in this field because the tools change; often. Developer's have to adapt to this or they will go under.
EDIT-- What is DMOT?
EDIT-- What is DMOT?
Ben Rogers
08-24-2004, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by PhillMc
Agreed. One cannot use the same 'tools-of-the-trade' for years in this field because the tools change; often. Developer's have to adapt to this or they will go under. Or, they should, but in this case the tools have been accepted, and have been grown comfortable with, and the workers are stubborn as hell. :D
Agreed. One cannot use the same 'tools-of-the-trade' for years in this field because the tools change; often. Developer's have to adapt to this or they will go under. Or, they should, but in this case the tools have been accepted, and have been grown comfortable with, and the workers are stubborn as hell. :D
ray326
08-24-2004, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by PhillMc
Dead Meat On Table; an old gaming term.
Dead Meat On Table; an old gaming term.
PhillMc
08-24-2004, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by ray326
Dead Meat On Table; an old gaming term.
Ahh! That is quite appropriate! lol
Dead Meat On Table; an old gaming term.
Ahh! That is quite appropriate! lol
mikepurvis
08-26-2004, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by toicontien
The point is, we need to make CSS layouts and standards seem like the next step, and an advantage, rather than bashing Joe Designer who's been in the business for 10 years.
Especially since many of you posting here aren't out of high school yet :D
Amen. And it would be nice to see some tutorials about more than just 'look you can change the background colour on every page at once.'
99% of the elitist CSS-CheckMark pages out there are blogs and basic text content with little or no actual complexity. Sure ALA looks nice, but what is it? A banner and two columns? Fixed-width, no less?
How about some honest-to-goodness information about how to take actual working tablular layouts and turn them into actual working css layouts.
The point is, we need to make CSS layouts and standards seem like the next step, and an advantage, rather than bashing Joe Designer who's been in the business for 10 years.
Especially since many of you posting here aren't out of high school yet :D
Amen. And it would be nice to see some tutorials about more than just 'look you can change the background colour on every page at once.'
99% of the elitist CSS-CheckMark pages out there are blogs and basic text content with little or no actual complexity. Sure ALA looks nice, but what is it? A banner and two columns? Fixed-width, no less?
How about some honest-to-goodness information about how to take actual working tablular layouts and turn them into actual working css layouts.
ray326
08-26-2004, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by mikepurvis
How about some honest-to-goodness information about how to take actual working tablular layouts and turn them into actual working css layouts. That happens over and over on at least a weekly basis here in this forum. The single biggest problem is getting the originator to look at the page without remembering there was ever a table behind it. I've found this shift in perspective to be very similar to the one a procedural programmer must make to become an object oriented programmer. For some it's very difficult; for some it's a snap.
How about some honest-to-goodness information about how to take actual working tablular layouts and turn them into actual working css layouts. That happens over and over on at least a weekly basis here in this forum. The single biggest problem is getting the originator to look at the page without remembering there was ever a table behind it. I've found this shift in perspective to be very similar to the one a procedural programmer must make to become an object oriented programmer. For some it's very difficult; for some it's a snap.
mikepurvis
08-26-2004, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by ray326
That happens over and over on at least a weekly basis here in this forum. The single biggest problem is getting the originator to look at the page without remembering there was ever a table behind it. I've found this shift in perspective to be very similar to the one a procedural programmer must make to become an object oriented programmer. For some it's very difficult; for some it's a snap.
Well, whether it's me being ignorant and refusing to see it from the other point of view, the fact remains: There isn't a concise reference anywhere demonstrating how to make different divs place and size themselves in relation to each other accurately even in different browser window sizes.
Want to see what I mean?
Check the default theme on css Zen Garden in 640x480: http://www.csszengarden.com
Some of what's there couldn't be done with tables, but a lot of it could, and that image at the top aligning itself to the window instead of to the right side of the layout is a situation that wouldn't happen with a table.
That happens over and over on at least a weekly basis here in this forum. The single biggest problem is getting the originator to look at the page without remembering there was ever a table behind it. I've found this shift in perspective to be very similar to the one a procedural programmer must make to become an object oriented programmer. For some it's very difficult; for some it's a snap.
Well, whether it's me being ignorant and refusing to see it from the other point of view, the fact remains: There isn't a concise reference anywhere demonstrating how to make different divs place and size themselves in relation to each other accurately even in different browser window sizes.
Want to see what I mean?
Check the default theme on css Zen Garden in 640x480: http://www.csszengarden.com
Some of what's there couldn't be done with tables, but a lot of it could, and that image at the top aligning itself to the window instead of to the right side of the layout is a situation that wouldn't happen with a table.
Ben Rogers
08-26-2004, 01:36 PM
I guess Shea didn't anticipate anyone using such a tiny resolution...
mikepurvis
08-26-2004, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by Ben R.
I guess Shea didn't anticipate anyone using such a tiny resolution...
Well, yeah, but isn't that sort of an assumption to make about the user's setup, considering that a large part of the reason for standards is to increase accessibility?
(I know this is a minor quibble, but the point is that CZG is a poster-child for layout separated from content, so it's strange that even they couldn't come up with a flawless design.)
I guess Shea didn't anticipate anyone using such a tiny resolution...
Well, yeah, but isn't that sort of an assumption to make about the user's setup, considering that a large part of the reason for standards is to increase accessibility?
(I know this is a minor quibble, but the point is that CZG is a poster-child for layout separated from content, so it's strange that even they couldn't come up with a flawless design.)
Ben Rogers
08-26-2004, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by mikepurvis
Well, yeah, but isn't that sort of an assumption to make about the user's setup, considering that a large part of the reason for standards is to increase accessibility?
(I know this is a minor quibble, but the point is that CZG is a poster-child for layout separated from content, so it's strange that even they couldn't come up with a flawless design.) Correction, he, as in Dave Shea. I think they should consider using a diff design for the homepage, though- maybe Outburst (http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile=069%2F069%2Ecss), or Bonsai Sky (http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile=069%2F069%2Ecss)
Well, yeah, but isn't that sort of an assumption to make about the user's setup, considering that a large part of the reason for standards is to increase accessibility?
(I know this is a minor quibble, but the point is that CZG is a poster-child for layout separated from content, so it's strange that even they couldn't come up with a flawless design.) Correction, he, as in Dave Shea. I think they should consider using a diff design for the homepage, though- maybe Outburst (http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile=069%2F069%2Ecss), or Bonsai Sky (http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile=069%2F069%2Ecss)
PhillMc
08-26-2004, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by ray326
I've found this shift in perspective to be very similar to the one a procedural programmer must make to become an object oriented programmer. For some it's very difficult; for some it's a snap.
Very good analogy. Very good. :)
Originally posted by mikepurvis
There isn't a concise reference anywhere demonstrating how to make different divs place and size themselves in relation to each other accurately even in different browser window sizes.
Originally posted by mikepurvis
Some of what's there couldn't be done with tables, but a lot of it could...
Originally posted by mikepurvis
...so it's strange that even they couldn't come up with a flawless design.
There is a reference: W3 Schools (http://www.w3schools.com) . If asking for a placement algorithm, you will not find one because placement needs would change per layout. It's really up to the developer to "do his homework" and find the best solution. That is what any kind of developement is all about. :)
True, a lot of that could have been done with tables, but that would have defeated the purpose. The purpose of CSSZenGarden is to prove that standard's compliant layouts can be aesthetically pleasing. Tabular layout's can be aesthetically pleasing, but will be inherently non-compliant and less accessible, as tables were never meant for layout.
As long as there are browsers out there that "do their own thing", a flawless layout would be very difficult if not impossible to achieve. The fact of the matter remains; CSS is more accessible than tables.
Note: My intent is not to bash, insult, or "toe stomp", so please forgive me if I come accross that way. :)
I've found this shift in perspective to be very similar to the one a procedural programmer must make to become an object oriented programmer. For some it's very difficult; for some it's a snap.
Very good analogy. Very good. :)
Originally posted by mikepurvis
There isn't a concise reference anywhere demonstrating how to make different divs place and size themselves in relation to each other accurately even in different browser window sizes.
Originally posted by mikepurvis
Some of what's there couldn't be done with tables, but a lot of it could...
Originally posted by mikepurvis
...so it's strange that even they couldn't come up with a flawless design.
There is a reference: W3 Schools (http://www.w3schools.com) . If asking for a placement algorithm, you will not find one because placement needs would change per layout. It's really up to the developer to "do his homework" and find the best solution. That is what any kind of developement is all about. :)
True, a lot of that could have been done with tables, but that would have defeated the purpose. The purpose of CSSZenGarden is to prove that standard's compliant layouts can be aesthetically pleasing. Tabular layout's can be aesthetically pleasing, but will be inherently non-compliant and less accessible, as tables were never meant for layout.
As long as there are browsers out there that "do their own thing", a flawless layout would be very difficult if not impossible to achieve. The fact of the matter remains; CSS is more accessible than tables.
Note: My intent is not to bash, insult, or "toe stomp", so please forgive me if I come accross that way. :)
mikepurvis
08-26-2004, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by PhillMc
It's really up to the developer to "do his homework" and find the best solution. That is what any kind of developement is all about. :)
As long as that attitude remains the norm, the css-layout-standards-w3c community will remain what it currently is: an elitist and vocal group, significantly in the minority.
Note: My intent is not to bash, insult, or "toe stomp", so please forgive me if I come across that way. :)
I appreciate the notice. My intention is not to present a case for tables being superior to css, only to say that from a developer's perspective, the disadvantages of css frequently outweigh the advantages. A table has cells that are always aligned to each other -- all you do is control their size. Easy. A DIV could be anything. The concept of 'floating' it this way or that and using negative margins is not intuitive. A serious developer isn't going to go out of their way to learn this stuff, particularly when it won't even necessarily work on every browser.
Very good analogy. Very good. :)
Actually, not really. It makes a nice sound-byte, but not a good analogy. When possible, CSS layouts are always superior, but object-oriented code is not. In many cases it is, but it depends on the task at hand. When writing an algorithm to run on a 16MHz controller, you'd want speed, not some elegant source with ten different objects all referencing instances of each other.
It's really up to the developer to "do his homework" and find the best solution. That is what any kind of developement is all about. :)
As long as that attitude remains the norm, the css-layout-standards-w3c community will remain what it currently is: an elitist and vocal group, significantly in the minority.
Note: My intent is not to bash, insult, or "toe stomp", so please forgive me if I come across that way. :)
I appreciate the notice. My intention is not to present a case for tables being superior to css, only to say that from a developer's perspective, the disadvantages of css frequently outweigh the advantages. A table has cells that are always aligned to each other -- all you do is control their size. Easy. A DIV could be anything. The concept of 'floating' it this way or that and using negative margins is not intuitive. A serious developer isn't going to go out of their way to learn this stuff, particularly when it won't even necessarily work on every browser.
Very good analogy. Very good. :)
Actually, not really. It makes a nice sound-byte, but not a good analogy. When possible, CSS layouts are always superior, but object-oriented code is not. In many cases it is, but it depends on the task at hand. When writing an algorithm to run on a 16MHz controller, you'd want speed, not some elegant source with ten different objects all referencing instances of each other.
Paul Jr
08-26-2004, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by mikepurvis
Want to see what I mean?
Check the default theme on css Zen Garden in 640x480: http://www.csszengarden.com
How many people do you think browse with a resolution of 640x480? How many sites do you think look right at that resolution? How many people using that resolution do you think realize that most sites aren't going to look right? The lowest I go is 800x600; anyone lower needs an upgrade.
Want to see what I mean?
Check the default theme on css Zen Garden in 640x480: http://www.csszengarden.com
How many people do you think browse with a resolution of 640x480? How many sites do you think look right at that resolution? How many people using that resolution do you think realize that most sites aren't going to look right? The lowest I go is 800x600; anyone lower needs an upgrade.
PhillMc
08-26-2004, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by mikepurvis
As long as that attitude remains the norm, the css-layout-standards-w3c community will remain what it currently is: an elitist and vocal group, significantly in the minority.
Tell me how what I stated is incorrect. It is true; each and every layout will have it's own requirements, tables or not. Either way, it's the developer's job to find the best,not the easiest, solution. :)
CSS and OOP is an extremely good analogy. CSS promotes seperation of presentation and mark-up for accessibility and semantecs This also makes debugging and future upgrades much easier. OOP promotes seperating the User Interface from the working code for ease of debugging and upgrading.
As long as that attitude remains the norm, the css-layout-standards-w3c community will remain what it currently is: an elitist and vocal group, significantly in the minority.
Tell me how what I stated is incorrect. It is true; each and every layout will have it's own requirements, tables or not. Either way, it's the developer's job to find the best,not the easiest, solution. :)
CSS and OOP is an extremely good analogy. CSS promotes seperation of presentation and mark-up for accessibility and semantecs This also makes debugging and future upgrades much easier. OOP promotes seperating the User Interface from the working code for ease of debugging and upgrading.
mikepurvis
08-26-2004, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by Paul Jr
How many people do you think browse with a resolution of 640x480? How many sites do you think look right at that resolution? How many people using that resolution do you think realize that most sites aren't going to look right? The lowest I go is 800x600; anyone lower needs an upgrade.
Well, yeah, but that's not the point. The layout shouldn't collapse when you make it too small, it should have a minimun width and require the user to scroll horizontally...
And I only pointed it out to show how frustrating it can be to try to make something work in CSS, when even CZG's default stylesheet can't get it right.
How many people do you think browse with a resolution of 640x480? How many sites do you think look right at that resolution? How many people using that resolution do you think realize that most sites aren't going to look right? The lowest I go is 800x600; anyone lower needs an upgrade.
Well, yeah, but that's not the point. The layout shouldn't collapse when you make it too small, it should have a minimun width and require the user to scroll horizontally...
And I only pointed it out to show how frustrating it can be to try to make something work in CSS, when even CZG's default stylesheet can't get it right.
Paul Jr
08-26-2004, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by mikepurvis
Well, yeah, but that's not the point. The layout shouldn't collapse when you make it too small, it should have a minimun width and require the user to scroll horizontally...
That all depends. Some would rather it collapse, some would rather a scrollbar appear. It shouldn't do anything. It should do whatever it is the designer wants it to do. And, as far as I know, CZG does just that.
Originally posted by mikepurvis
And I only pointed it out to show how frustrating it can be to try to make something work in CSS, when even CZG's default stylesheet can't get it right.
In this situation, “right” is subjective. You say it doesn't get it right, why? Because it isn't how you think it should be? Ask Mr. Shea, and I'm sure he'll tell you it's just right — and it is. He wants it to collapse, so it collapses.
Well, yeah, but that's not the point. The layout shouldn't collapse when you make it too small, it should have a minimun width and require the user to scroll horizontally...
That all depends. Some would rather it collapse, some would rather a scrollbar appear. It shouldn't do anything. It should do whatever it is the designer wants it to do. And, as far as I know, CZG does just that.
Originally posted by mikepurvis
And I only pointed it out to show how frustrating it can be to try to make something work in CSS, when even CZG's default stylesheet can't get it right.
In this situation, “right” is subjective. You say it doesn't get it right, why? Because it isn't how you think it should be? Ask Mr. Shea, and I'm sure he'll tell you it's just right — and it is. He wants it to collapse, so it collapses.
klingoncowboy4
08-26-2004, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by Paul Jr
How many people do you think browse with a resolution of 640x480? How many sites do you think look right at that resolution? How many people using that resolution do you think realize that most sites aren't going to look right? The lowest I go is 800x600; anyone lower needs an upgrade.
Hmmm yes I usually use 1024x768 but my brothers use 800x600 res however I wouldn't design anything lower than 800x600.
How many people do you think browse with a resolution of 640x480? How many sites do you think look right at that resolution? How many people using that resolution do you think realize that most sites aren't going to look right? The lowest I go is 800x600; anyone lower needs an upgrade.
Hmmm yes I usually use 1024x768 but my brothers use 800x600 res however I wouldn't design anything lower than 800x600.
PhillMc
08-26-2004, 04:41 PM
I have no problem "making" anything work in CSS. It's not hard. Just ask the beginner to Web Design, Uncommoner, who started this (http://www.webdeveloper.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42419) thread, looking for what direction to go. He later posted here (http://www.webdeveloper.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42412) backing up the advice I was giving. He learnd the basics in less than a day!
Or SuzanneB, who thought the work would be daunting and take forever, but then started this (http://www.webdeveloper.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42312) thread thanking the forum members after she completely converted a quite nasty, nested tabular layout. As Ray stated, this happens almost daily.
There are kids (sorry Dan and Ben) here not even in High School yet that are really creative with their use of CSS. It is not hard. Frankly, it is much easier than getting a tabular layout to work cross-browser.
Or SuzanneB, who thought the work would be daunting and take forever, but then started this (http://www.webdeveloper.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42312) thread thanking the forum members after she completely converted a quite nasty, nested tabular layout. As Ray stated, this happens almost daily.
There are kids (sorry Dan and Ben) here not even in High School yet that are really creative with their use of CSS. It is not hard. Frankly, it is much easier than getting a tabular layout to work cross-browser.
Ben Rogers
08-26-2004, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by PhillMc
(sorry Dan and Ben) Meh. If it's to prove a point, I'm fine with it.
(sorry Dan and Ben) Meh. If it's to prove a point, I'm fine with it.
Stephen Philbin
08-26-2004, 05:48 PM
I think a lot of people think table to to div conversion will be harder than it actually is. As I see it I wouldn't call it conversion. More..... emancipation. You aren't really likely to have to think about it too much now are you? Div to table, yeah, now that would be a mammoth task, but table to div I don't see as much to worry about (in comparison to some overhauls developers may have made to their own sites before). Most of the time <td>'s are used in place of otherwise much more minimal and semantic mark up. So often it's more more a case of simply ripping out the useless table markup and throwing in a comparatively tiny amount of semantic markup in its place. Just take a secong to rip out a chunk of table tags and then paste in a <div>. Then when you've chopped it up into smaller more managable divs, mark up their content properly.
As I've said a few times now, properly marking up your documents in a semantic way will often minimise the amount of css needed and (in most cases) require only minimal thought and skill to style effectively.
The most difficult change of all is always that of the mind of the coder, not the code its self.
Before I converted I distinctly remeber the feeling that I was taking an some daunting task that I might never get the hang of. Then once I learned to quit thinking about things so much (like I used to with tables) that it was actually a relative breeze.
I just think there's too much myth and misconception about the whole thing.
As I've said a few times now, properly marking up your documents in a semantic way will often minimise the amount of css needed and (in most cases) require only minimal thought and skill to style effectively.
The most difficult change of all is always that of the mind of the coder, not the code its self.
Before I converted I distinctly remeber the feeling that I was taking an some daunting task that I might never get the hang of. Then once I learned to quit thinking about things so much (like I used to with tables) that it was actually a relative breeze.
I just think there's too much myth and misconception about the whole thing.
Ben Rogers
08-26-2004, 05:56 PM
I think, for most sites, it'd be good to first just change it so the <td>+<tr> are what is dividing the page up, practically working ad <div>s, and converting the design from there first. So, then you're just moving styled chunks around.
JPnyc
08-26-2004, 06:10 PM
Well speaking as someone who used tables for layout and is now using CSS, or TRYING to, I find it an absolute nightmare. There may be less clutter in the content part of the page, but the amount of settings required to achieve an apparently simple visual is nightmarish. Unless I just go ahead and hard code every blessed thing with absolute positioning, which is dangerous.
Stephen Philbin
08-27-2004, 10:15 PM
It's rare to actually need absolute positioning. Instead just use your friendly neighbourhood "float:" :D
You might find playing around with "display:" might help you out a bit. Just experiment with them a bit to give yourself some ideas. As far as I can remember its attributes are "block", "inline", "hidden" and "none". Although knowing which elements are block level and inline elements in the first place would help tremendously. You're not really going to see "display:block" doing much to a <div> because it is already a block level element. Playing around with the "display:" should yield all kinds of interesting results and give you plenty of ideas.
You might find playing around with "display:" might help you out a bit. Just experiment with them a bit to give yourself some ideas. As far as I can remember its attributes are "block", "inline", "hidden" and "none". Although knowing which elements are block level and inline elements in the first place would help tremendously. You're not really going to see "display:block" doing much to a <div> because it is already a block level element. Playing around with the "display:" should yield all kinds of interesting results and give you plenty of ideas.
Ben Rogers
08-27-2004, 10:25 PM
Well, it does no harm to use absolute positioning as long as you take different resolutions into mind. Actually, it's probably more efficent, since browsers accept absolute positioning the same way. I'm actually tempted to use it, because IE is being VERY weird on a recent layout and not displaying a scrollbar- simply not allowing any scrolling, even though it's loading and rendering all the content. The only problem with abs positioning is footers...
MstrBob
08-27-2004, 10:45 PM
Well, I can't really said I ever did a tables to CSS switch. Pretty much, I had used frames for layout, with like no styling (back in my geocities days). Then I came here. And I learned CSS. And I'll say this about CSS. CSS is easy to learn. It has to be one of the simplest syntaxes to learn. The trick in CSS lies in the implementation. I found myself really screwing it up bad, and going insane using it. So then I stepped back. I looked at ryanbrill's site, and bashed my head up against a wall.
Then I went I said screw this! I went to w3schools, and studied up on my XHTML. I kept reading people like Charles' and ray's comments. I took up XHTML 1.1, used very semantic markup, and Mr. Herer is right, it really makes everything simple. I go for simplification now. Layouts, are generally easy and quick to do. The bulk of my CSS lies in the actual visual stylings (size, colors, and images). Usually, it's about the floats.
Absolute positioning is very much printed text oriented, so a lot of times won't work. The web is normally to flexible for it. However, when I made a 3 column layout, I used absolute positioning. I used it, combined with margins and a central div, and was able to make a layout who's central div always expanded to pages width, and the page wouldn't actually break unless it was less than about 310 px wide. And it works well on widescreens. Only the centre column expands. Let's see that on a table-based layout.
Bottom line: CSS and semantic XHTML are far more powerful then the standard HTML 4.01 Transitional and table based layout. Any good developer would choose CSS do to its sheer power to overide browser defaults.
Then I went I said screw this! I went to w3schools, and studied up on my XHTML. I kept reading people like Charles' and ray's comments. I took up XHTML 1.1, used very semantic markup, and Mr. Herer is right, it really makes everything simple. I go for simplification now. Layouts, are generally easy and quick to do. The bulk of my CSS lies in the actual visual stylings (size, colors, and images). Usually, it's about the floats.
Absolute positioning is very much printed text oriented, so a lot of times won't work. The web is normally to flexible for it. However, when I made a 3 column layout, I used absolute positioning. I used it, combined with margins and a central div, and was able to make a layout who's central div always expanded to pages width, and the page wouldn't actually break unless it was less than about 310 px wide. And it works well on widescreens. Only the centre column expands. Let's see that on a table-based layout.
Bottom line: CSS and semantic XHTML are far more powerful then the standard HTML 4.01 Transitional and table based layout. Any good developer would choose CSS do to its sheer power to overide browser defaults.
JPnyc
08-28-2004, 12:58 PM
With the advent of powerful CSS, HTML is almost obsolete at this point. You could use xml in it's place, make each node unique in name, eliminating the need for class attr., which is less clutter in content and smaller files, and just style the unique node name in the css.
Ben Rogers
08-28-2004, 01:40 PM
If >90% of the web were to suddenly decide to use a decent browser, that is. Remember IE doesn't fully support CSS/XML hybrids, if at all... Also, then you'd have to learn to make DTDs for special things, like forms, and links.
PhillMc
08-28-2004, 04:10 PM
Internet Explorer does a lot of things it's own way. Then again, so does Avant (Considering Avant is IE, just in a different wrapper). Why do they go out on the proverbial limb? Why do they have to be the only Mainstream browsers that do not fully support the standards; while all of the others gladly comply? One of my opinions on fear of CSS is that IE and the like's poor implementation of it.
MstrBob
08-28-2004, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by PhillMc
Why do they have to be the only Mainstream browsers that do not fully support the standards; while all of the others gladly comply?
Because Internet Explorer is the mainstream browser. Considering it has >90% of internet users using it (basically, its browsing engine. AOL users and other variations are included in this percentile), and also considering the complete lack of knowledge of the things that can be accomplished with new standards, they can do whatever the **** they want. Who's to stop them. I wouldn't see them change their ways unless suddenly, they lost massive amounts of users, like >20%. Than we might see IE improvement. But I'm unsure if MS even cares about IE anymore...
Why do they have to be the only Mainstream browsers that do not fully support the standards; while all of the others gladly comply?
Because Internet Explorer is the mainstream browser. Considering it has >90% of internet users using it (basically, its browsing engine. AOL users and other variations are included in this percentile), and also considering the complete lack of knowledge of the things that can be accomplished with new standards, they can do whatever the **** they want. Who's to stop them. I wouldn't see them change their ways unless suddenly, they lost massive amounts of users, like >20%. Than we might see IE improvement. But I'm unsure if MS even cares about IE anymore...
Ben Rogers
08-28-2004, 05:49 PM
Just so you know, SP2 has a lot of security crap, as well as a pop up blocker added on to IE. I don't know if this works, but any user ignorant enough to have been using IE, will be satisfied... *sigh* :(
PhillMc
08-28-2004, 06:47 PM
I thought that AOL ditched (http://www.webdeveloper.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32857) IE and went back to Netscape.
'Course, if 508 enforcement hits full force Microsoft will have to comply; sooner or later. (Hopefully sooner)
'Course, if 508 enforcement hits full force Microsoft will have to comply; sooner or later. (Hopefully sooner)
MstrBob
08-28-2004, 07:12 PM
(1)No. AOL bought Netscape, methinks, but they have a contract with MS. They're browser is IE. Don't believe me? Try grabbing the browser's name, and try some CSS 2 and see how it turns out.
(2)Section 508 has nothing to do with IE or Microsoft. It has to do with Webdevelopers.
(2)Section 508 has nothing to do with IE or Microsoft. It has to do with Webdevelopers.
PhillMc
08-28-2004, 07:24 PM
If you read further into it, you'll see that a draft, by the W3C, is in progress that will mandate that web browsers follow rendering compliance. That very same draft includes WYSIWYG editors and will mandate they produce compliant code and/or markup. This is not law yet, and it has a good chance of making it, considering section 508 legislation is it's backbone.
Ben Rogers
08-28-2004, 08:54 PM
Originally posted by PhillMc
a draft, by the W3C Do you have a link to this draft? I'd like to read it. :)
a draft, by the W3C Do you have a link to this draft? I'd like to read it. :)
PhillMc
08-28-2004, 09:37 PM
I'll have to dig it up. Spending time with the wife. Have it for you Monday. :)
Ben Rogers
08-28-2004, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by PhillMc
I'll have to dig it up. Spending time with the wife. Have it for you Monday. :) Lol. The wife, eh? Gee, I wonder what's going to occupy your weekend, lol.
I'll have to dig it up. Spending time with the wife. Have it for you Monday. :) Lol. The wife, eh? Gee, I wonder what's going to occupy your weekend, lol.
PhillMc
08-29-2004, 01:20 AM
Found it. AlistApart did a write-up (http://old.alistapart.com/stories/ticking/ticking3.html) on it. I have to give credit to toicontien, as one of his posts here at the forum pointed me to it to begin with. :)
klingoncowboy4
08-29-2004, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by Ben R.
Just so you know, SP2 has a lot of security crap, as well as a pop up blocker added on to IE. I don't know if this works, but any user ignorant enough to have been using IE, will be satisfied... *sigh* :(
hmmm yes all of thoses neat little features that allowed MSIE to overtake netscape a few years ago are disappering due to the fact that they are a security risk.
Just so you know, SP2 has a lot of security crap, as well as a pop up blocker added on to IE. I don't know if this works, but any user ignorant enough to have been using IE, will be satisfied... *sigh* :(
hmmm yes all of thoses neat little features that allowed MSIE to overtake netscape a few years ago are disappering due to the fact that they are a security risk.
Ben Rogers
08-29-2004, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by klingoncowboy4
hmmm yes all of thoses neat little features that allowed MSIE to overtake netscape a few years ago are disappering due to the fact that they are a security risk. "Neat little features"? I have to say, as a user, totally ignoring any qualms I have with IE as far as its page rendering, I hate IE. FF is faster, looks better, is clearer, more convenient, and more powerful. I don't know how shizzy NN was then, but it must've been incredibly bad...
Originally posted by PhillMc
... Thanks, Phil.
hmmm yes all of thoses neat little features that allowed MSIE to overtake netscape a few years ago are disappering due to the fact that they are a security risk. "Neat little features"? I have to say, as a user, totally ignoring any qualms I have with IE as far as its page rendering, I hate IE. FF is faster, looks better, is clearer, more convenient, and more powerful. I don't know how shizzy NN was then, but it must've been incredibly bad...
Originally posted by PhillMc
... Thanks, Phil.
klingoncowboy4
08-29-2004, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by Ben R.
"Neat little features"? I have to say, as a user, totally ignoring any qualms I have with IE as far as its page rendering, I hate IE. FF is faster, looks better, is clearer, more convenient, and more powerful. I don't know how shizzy NN was then, but it must've been incredibly bad...
Thanks, Phil.
I use mozzila most of the time. I dispise MSIE because it is an unrelieable piece of M$ crap. BTW what is FF.
"Neat little features"? I have to say, as a user, totally ignoring any qualms I have with IE as far as its page rendering, I hate IE. FF is faster, looks better, is clearer, more convenient, and more powerful. I don't know how shizzy NN was then, but it must've been incredibly bad...
Thanks, Phil.
I use mozzila most of the time. I dispise MSIE because it is an unrelieable piece of M$ crap. BTW what is FF.
Paul Jr
08-29-2004, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by klingoncowboy4
I use mozzila most of the time. I dispise MSIE because it is an unrelieable piece of M$ crap. BTW what is FF.
FF is Firefox. It's the latest incarnation of the "light" version of the Mozilla Suite. The latest version out is... 9.somethingorother.
I use mozzila most of the time. I dispise MSIE because it is an unrelieable piece of M$ crap. BTW what is FF.
FF is Firefox. It's the latest incarnation of the "light" version of the Mozilla Suite. The latest version out is... 9.somethingorother.
Ben Rogers
08-29-2004, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by Paul Jr
FF is Firefox. It's the latest incarnation of the "light" version of the Mozilla Suite. The latest version out is... 9.somethingorother. Mozilla Firefox, v 0.9.3. It's not even finished, and it's still better than IE.:D
FF is Firefox. It's the latest incarnation of the "light" version of the Mozilla Suite. The latest version out is... 9.somethingorother. Mozilla Firefox, v 0.9.3. It's not even finished, and it's still better than IE.:D
klingoncowboy4
08-29-2004, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by Paul Jr
FF is Firefox. It's the latest incarnation of the "light" version of the Mozilla Suite. The latest version out is... 9.somethingorother.
ok thanks I run Mozilla 1.7 used to use Opera but it take too long to load the program.
FF is Firefox. It's the latest incarnation of the "light" version of the Mozilla Suite. The latest version out is... 9.somethingorother.
ok thanks I run Mozilla 1.7 used to use Opera but it take too long to load the program.
Paul Jr
08-29-2004, 02:36 PM
I use Firebird 0.7, myself. I'm too lazy to keep downloading versions.
klingoncowboy4
08-29-2004, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by Paul Jr
I use Firebird 0.7, myself. I'm too lazy to keep downloading versions.
Can't blame you I have to keep updateing GAIM since with each release fixes or adds features to the IMs I use.
I use Firebird 0.7, myself. I'm too lazy to keep downloading versions.
Can't blame you I have to keep updateing GAIM since with each release fixes or adds features to the IMs I use.
MstrBob
08-29-2004, 02:58 PM
Well, I only downloaded v0.9.3 because of that big security issue with the shell that they mad a big deal about. (In turned out that MSIE had the same bug, however, Mozilla fixed the bug in a few days. When they released the patch, MS was still "further investigating the reported error". :rolleyes: )
But, now I'm holding out til v1 Actually, I'll probably wait til version 1.0.3 or something, because I know there will be something they need to fix. But hey, it's coming out October, so I can wait. :D
You know, I wouldn't loathe IE if it support the web standards. If they came out with a fully standards-supporting v7, then I'd just strongly dislike it.
But, now I'm holding out til v1 Actually, I'll probably wait til version 1.0.3 or something, because I know there will be something they need to fix. But hey, it's coming out October, so I can wait. :D
You know, I wouldn't loathe IE if it support the web standards. If they came out with a fully standards-supporting v7, then I'd just strongly dislike it.
Ben Rogers
08-29-2004, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by Paul Jr
I use Firebird 0.7, myself. I'm too lazy to keep downloading versions. Heh. The first time I switched to Firefox was from Mozilla 1.6, I think. I just wanted the middle click function... :D
I use Firebird 0.7, myself. I'm too lazy to keep downloading versions. Heh. The first time I switched to Firefox was from Mozilla 1.6, I think. I just wanted the middle click function... :D
IncaWarrior
08-29-2004, 06:27 PM
I use Opera (nothing against all those inferior browsers) because it's the best.
(trillian for messaging)
Opera supports CSS the best without adding it's own extra tags
(trillian for messaging)
Opera supports CSS the best without adding it's own extra tags
JPnyc
08-29-2004, 06:43 PM
Yeah but it doesn't support opacity for all elements yet, because it's not a standard yet. But it's one of the most fun effects for DHTML use. So I'm forced to test for Opera and redirect to a page that doesn't use that attribute.
MstrBob
08-29-2004, 06:44 PM
What you talking 'bout?
How does Opera support CSS more than any other (real) browser? I'd say that Mozilla == Opera with CSS support.
How does Opera support CSS more than any other (real) browser? I'd say that Mozilla == Opera with CSS support.
Ben Rogers
08-29-2004, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by IncaWarrior
I use Opera
Ignoring your ignorant comment, (:D), I tried Opera... I just didn't like the way it was layed out, and it had a lot of unneccessar things. Overall, it seemed to lack polish.
Originally posted by IncaWarrior
(trillian for messaging)
I did that for a while, but I missed the emoticons, and Trillian's text is so small and ugly. It seemed like it needed work, and annoyed me after a while. I only use it when I want to talk on AIM (which is almost never) because I uninstalled AIM. I only use Y and MSNM now.
I use Opera
Ignoring your ignorant comment, (:D), I tried Opera... I just didn't like the way it was layed out, and it had a lot of unneccessar things. Overall, it seemed to lack polish.
Originally posted by IncaWarrior
(trillian for messaging)
I did that for a while, but I missed the emoticons, and Trillian's text is so small and ugly. It seemed like it needed work, and annoyed me after a while. I only use it when I want to talk on AIM (which is almost never) because I uninstalled AIM. I only use Y and MSNM now.
JPnyc
08-29-2004, 06:49 PM
Which text are you referring to? You can change the size and the font in the message window.
Ben Rogers
08-29-2004, 06:53 PM
Meh. I don't like screwing with the settings... I'll just sign on to 2 different messengers. They're both in quick start, anyways.
Paul Jr
08-29-2004, 08:33 PM
Originally posted by IncaWarrior
Opera supports CSS the best without adding it's own extra tags
Whoa, what're you talkin' about, man? Opera's CSS support is reminiscent of IE's CSS “support”.
Opera supports CSS the best without adding it's own extra tags
Whoa, what're you talkin' about, man? Opera's CSS support is reminiscent of IE's CSS “support”.
IncaWarrior
08-29-2004, 09:19 PM
Ben- trying Opera 6 doesn't count, you have to go with the latest version. Opera has lots of features built into which I initially thought were unnecessary until I started using them and found how convenient they are. It's all packed up into a smaller faster built program than mozilla.
Paul- I think you may be confusing Opera with a bad browser. Opera supports all the requirements plus the optional ones and the deprecated ones. Just because it doesn't make up its own CSS tags doesn't mean it doesn't support it.
Sure you can probably get a few plugins to make mozilla as good as Opera or some patches, but that's not all that convenient.
Paul- I think you may be confusing Opera with a bad browser. Opera supports all the requirements plus the optional ones and the deprecated ones. Just because it doesn't make up its own CSS tags doesn't mean it doesn't support it.
Sure you can probably get a few plugins to make mozilla as good as Opera or some patches, but that's not all that convenient.
Ben Rogers
08-29-2004, 09:24 PM
Originally posted by IncaWarrior
Ben- trying Opera 6 doesn't count, you have to go with the latest version. Opera has lots of features built into which I initially thought were unnecessary until I started using them and found how convenient they are. It's all packed up into a smaller faster built program than mozilla.
Paul- I think you may be confusing Opera with a bad browser. Opera supports all the requirements plus the optional ones and the deprecated ones. Just because it doesn't make up its own CSS tags doesn't mean it doesn't support it.
Sure you can probably get a few plugins to make mozilla as good as Opera or some patches, but that's not all that convenient. You're jsut an Opera fanboy. If Opera had anything Firefox didn't, I'd be saying the same things. But, as it is, there is no functionality I could want from Firefox it doesn't already have.
Ben- trying Opera 6 doesn't count, you have to go with the latest version. Opera has lots of features built into which I initially thought were unnecessary until I started using them and found how convenient they are. It's all packed up into a smaller faster built program than mozilla.
Paul- I think you may be confusing Opera with a bad browser. Opera supports all the requirements plus the optional ones and the deprecated ones. Just because it doesn't make up its own CSS tags doesn't mean it doesn't support it.
Sure you can probably get a few plugins to make mozilla as good as Opera or some patches, but that's not all that convenient. You're jsut an Opera fanboy. If Opera had anything Firefox didn't, I'd be saying the same things. But, as it is, there is no functionality I could want from Firefox it doesn't already have.
Paul Jr
08-29-2004, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by IncaWarrior
Ben- trying Opera 6 doesn't count, you have to go with the latest version. Opera has lots of features built into which I initially thought were unnecessary until I started using them and found how convenient they are. It's all packed up into a smaller faster built program than mozilla.
Maybe. But I don't use Mozilla; Mozilla is too big and bulky -- just like Opera.
Originally posted by IncaWarrior
Paul- I think you may be confusing Opera with a bad browser. Opera supports all the requirements plus the optional ones and the deprecated ones. Just because it doesn't make up its own CSS tags doesn't mean it doesn't support it.
Nope, I think I'm getting Opera confused with Opera. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "it doesn't make up its own CSS tags"? Mozilla has a few (only one I know of) vendor-specific properties, but they're totally cool (you can get rounded borders; that's CSS3 stuff!) -- and no, Opera doesn't support them. Also, what's so great about supporting deprecated stuff? :rolleyes: That kind of support is reminiscent of IE! Besides, what in CSS is deprecated...?
I just don't like Opera, and a lot of positioning and box-model problems I run into with IE I also run into with Opera -- and the fix works for both of them. Opera is just... icky.
Originally posted by IncaWarrior
Sure you can probably get a few plugins to make mozilla as good as Opera or some patches, but that's not all that convenient.
Uhm, dude, plugins are more convenient! Plugins are awesome. Who wants a load of crap you don't need? What comes with Opera that's so good? Whatever it is you can download a plugin for Mozilla, get the same functionality, and be able to remove it if you don't like it anymore, thus removing all the clutter.
Ben- trying Opera 6 doesn't count, you have to go with the latest version. Opera has lots of features built into which I initially thought were unnecessary until I started using them and found how convenient they are. It's all packed up into a smaller faster built program than mozilla.
Maybe. But I don't use Mozilla; Mozilla is too big and bulky -- just like Opera.
Originally posted by IncaWarrior
Paul- I think you may be confusing Opera with a bad browser. Opera supports all the requirements plus the optional ones and the deprecated ones. Just because it doesn't make up its own CSS tags doesn't mean it doesn't support it.
Nope, I think I'm getting Opera confused with Opera. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "it doesn't make up its own CSS tags"? Mozilla has a few (only one I know of) vendor-specific properties, but they're totally cool (you can get rounded borders; that's CSS3 stuff!) -- and no, Opera doesn't support them. Also, what's so great about supporting deprecated stuff? :rolleyes: That kind of support is reminiscent of IE! Besides, what in CSS is deprecated...?
I just don't like Opera, and a lot of positioning and box-model problems I run into with IE I also run into with Opera -- and the fix works for both of them. Opera is just... icky.
Originally posted by IncaWarrior
Sure you can probably get a few plugins to make mozilla as good as Opera or some patches, but that's not all that convenient.
Uhm, dude, plugins are more convenient! Plugins are awesome. Who wants a load of crap you don't need? What comes with Opera that's so good? Whatever it is you can download a plugin for Mozilla, get the same functionality, and be able to remove it if you don't like it anymore, thus removing all the clutter.
MstrBob
08-29-2004, 09:32 PM
Originally posted by IncaWarrior
Opera supports all the requirements plus the optional ones and the deprecated ones.
Really? What about opacity (http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/CR-css3-color-20030514/#transparency) ? Well, to be fare, mozilla requires that moz-opacity thing. *sigh* Life would be perfect if I woke up tomorrow and found out that IE, FireFox, Opera, Safari, Konqueror, and others all suddenly supported CSS 3. Then I would dance and dance and dance...
Opera supports all the requirements plus the optional ones and the deprecated ones.
Really? What about opacity (http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/CR-css3-color-20030514/#transparency) ? Well, to be fare, mozilla requires that moz-opacity thing. *sigh* Life would be perfect if I woke up tomorrow and found out that IE, FireFox, Opera, Safari, Konqueror, and others all suddenly supported CSS 3. Then I would dance and dance and dance...
Ben Rogers
08-29-2004, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by Paul Jr
Maybe. But I don't use Mozilla; Mozilla is too big and bulk -- just like Opera. To be fair, the latest, non-java version of Opera takes about the same time to download as the latest version of Firefox.
Originally posted by MstrBob
Really? What about opacity (http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/CR-css3-color-20030514/#transparency) ? Well, to be fare, mozilla requires that moz-opacity thing. *sigh* Life would be perfect if I woke up tomorrow and found out that IE, FireFox, Opera, Safari, Konqueror, and others all suddenly supported CSS 3. Then I would dance and dance and dance...
Firefox 0.9 supports opacity, and -moz-opacity.
BTW- I don't test for Opera, except for the latest version. I previously gave 7.23 a real try, but I don't plan to bother with the one I downloaded a day or two ago.
Maybe. But I don't use Mozilla; Mozilla is too big and bulk -- just like Opera. To be fair, the latest, non-java version of Opera takes about the same time to download as the latest version of Firefox.
Originally posted by MstrBob
Really? What about opacity (http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/CR-css3-color-20030514/#transparency) ? Well, to be fare, mozilla requires that moz-opacity thing. *sigh* Life would be perfect if I woke up tomorrow and found out that IE, FireFox, Opera, Safari, Konqueror, and others all suddenly supported CSS 3. Then I would dance and dance and dance...
Firefox 0.9 supports opacity, and -moz-opacity.
BTW- I don't test for Opera, except for the latest version. I previously gave 7.23 a real try, but I don't plan to bother with the one I downloaded a day or two ago.
Paul Jr
08-29-2004, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by Ben R.
To be fair, the latest, non-java version of Opera takes about the same time to download as the latest version of Firefox.
Oh well. Firefox loads pretty slow for me.
Also, Opera comes with this big, stupid, ugly ad in the corner, and you have to pay money to get it removed. :rolleyes:
To be fair, the latest, non-java version of Opera takes about the same time to download as the latest version of Firefox.
Oh well. Firefox loads pretty slow for me.
Also, Opera comes with this big, stupid, ugly ad in the corner, and you have to pay money to get it removed. :rolleyes:
MstrBob
08-29-2004, 09:47 PM
Originally posted by Ben R.
Firefox 0.9 supports opacity, and -moz-opacity.
Really? Never really tried it... Well, I did now, and you're right. Hell, even IE can be tricked into opacity with filters:
#opaque{
opacity: .5;
filter: alpha(opacity=50);
}
Can't get it to work in Opera, though...
Edit: Firefox 0.9.3 is the fastest loading browser I've had to date. And I'm running a crappy comp with Windows ME and somewhere round 128 MB ram...
Firefox 0.9 supports opacity, and -moz-opacity.
Really? Never really tried it... Well, I did now, and you're right. Hell, even IE can be tricked into opacity with filters:
#opaque{
opacity: .5;
filter: alpha(opacity=50);
}
Can't get it to work in Opera, though...
Edit: Firefox 0.9.3 is the fastest loading browser I've had to date. And I'm running a crappy comp with Windows ME and somewhere round 128 MB ram...
Ben Rogers
08-29-2004, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by Paul Jr
Oh well. Firefox loads pretty slow for me.
Also, Opera comes with this big, stupid, ugly ad in the corner, and you have to pay money to get it removed. :rolleyes: Yeah, forgot you had dial up. And I'll never use Opera until that ad is gone, no matter how good it is. One of the main reasons I was so eager to switch to GMail...
Originally posted by MstrBob
Can't get it to work in Opera, though... Meh. Firefox 0.8 doesn't either. *Shrug*
Oh well. Firefox loads pretty slow for me.
Also, Opera comes with this big, stupid, ugly ad in the corner, and you have to pay money to get it removed. :rolleyes: Yeah, forgot you had dial up. And I'll never use Opera until that ad is gone, no matter how good it is. One of the main reasons I was so eager to switch to GMail...
Originally posted by MstrBob
Can't get it to work in Opera, though... Meh. Firefox 0.8 doesn't either. *Shrug*
MstrBob
08-29-2004, 09:51 PM
But does moz-opacity work with Firefox 0.8?
Benny boy, what do ads on Opera have to do with you using Gmail?
Benny boy, what do ads on Opera have to do with you using Gmail?
Ben Rogers
08-29-2004, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by MstrBob
But does moz-opacity work with Firefox 0.8?
Benny boy, what do ads on Opera have to do with you using Gmail? Yes, -moz-opacity works in all versions of Firefox. I hate ads, which makes me dislike Opera and Yahoo. Both Firefox and GMail have no ads. See the connection? :rolleyes:
But does moz-opacity work with Firefox 0.8?
Benny boy, what do ads on Opera have to do with you using Gmail? Yes, -moz-opacity works in all versions of Firefox. I hate ads, which makes me dislike Opera and Yahoo. Both Firefox and GMail have no ads. See the connection? :rolleyes:
Paul Jr
08-29-2004, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by Ben R.
Yeah, forgot you had dial up.
What's that got to do with it? The program is slow in loading after I click the icon.
But it seems lots of things are slow these days -- it seems my computer can't handle Apache, MySQL, PS, Homesite, FB, and Winamp running all at the same time. :(
PS lags somethin' terribable!
Yeah, forgot you had dial up.
What's that got to do with it? The program is slow in loading after I click the icon.
But it seems lots of things are slow these days -- it seems my computer can't handle Apache, MySQL, PS, Homesite, FB, and Winamp running all at the same time. :(
PS lags somethin' terribable!
PhillMc
08-29-2004, 09:57 PM
I'm assuming that you mean transparancy. Although lowering something's opacity will make it transparant. I still havn't found a mainstream browser that does not support 'background: transparant;'.
EDIT -- Disregard. lol. Just read up on it. :)
EDIT -- Disregard. lol. Just read up on it. :)
MstrBob
08-29-2004, 10:02 PM
Good. Do your homework! :p
PhillMc
08-29-2004, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by MstrBob
Good. Do your homework! :p
LOL. Still using CSS1. I figure I shouldn't bother learning 2 or 3 until there is full support. :)
Good. Do your homework! :p
LOL. Still using CSS1. I figure I shouldn't bother learning 2 or 3 until there is full support. :)
MstrBob
08-29-2004, 10:07 PM
So you're never going to learn it?
PhillMc
08-29-2004, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by MstrBob
So you're never going to learn it?
Eventually there will be support: correct me if I'm wrong (and I know you will :) ) but why use it if it is not yet cross-browser?
So you're never going to learn it?
Eventually there will be support: correct me if I'm wrong (and I know you will :) ) but why use it if it is not yet cross-browser?
klingoncowboy4
08-29-2004, 10:14 PM
Originally posted by PhillMc
Eventually there will be support: correct me if I'm wrong (and I know you will :) ) but why use it if it is not yet cross-browser?
Exacatly I even make sure it works in Lynx before releasing it.
Eventually there will be support: correct me if I'm wrong (and I know you will :) ) but why use it if it is not yet cross-browser?
Exacatly I even make sure it works in Lynx before releasing it.
MstrBob
08-29-2004, 10:18 PM
Well, I use XHTML 1.1 and semantic markup, so rule #1 is it can be read in lynx. Rule #2 is to style it to my likings. Rule #3 is to apply any necessary hacks for IE.
Certain, very cool things, like max-width, min-width, max-height, min-height, :hover :active and :focus for all elements, and much more are very handy. I really want to make rounded corners with borders!
But yes, there isn't much point in using them since 90%+ uses IE based browser. But I like throwing in little goodies that IE won't understand. :D
Plus, if you are right and there is standards support, I'll be one up on you. Additionally, I can boast to you about my knowledge of CSS 2 and some CSS 3. :cool:
Certain, very cool things, like max-width, min-width, max-height, min-height, :hover :active and :focus for all elements, and much more are very handy. I really want to make rounded corners with borders!
But yes, there isn't much point in using them since 90%+ uses IE based browser. But I like throwing in little goodies that IE won't understand. :D
Plus, if you are right and there is standards support, I'll be one up on you. Additionally, I can boast to you about my knowledge of CSS 2 and some CSS 3. :cool:
Ben Rogers
08-29-2004, 10:19 PM
Originally posted by Paul Jr
What's that got to do with it? The program is slow in loading after I click the icon.
But it seems lots of things are slow these days -- it seems my computer can't handle Apache, MySQL, PS, Homesite, FB, and Winamp running all at the same time. :(
PS lags somethin' terribable! Really? They both go pretty quickly for me. When I use PD, I can't even view my site offline...
What's that got to do with it? The program is slow in loading after I click the icon.
But it seems lots of things are slow these days -- it seems my computer can't handle Apache, MySQL, PS, Homesite, FB, and Winamp running all at the same time. :(
PS lags somethin' terribable! Really? They both go pretty quickly for me. When I use PD, I can't even view my site offline...
MstrBob
08-29-2004, 10:25 PM
If I knew how to, I'd hack into microsoft.com and release a "patch" for IE that made it standards compliant....
We can dream, can't we?
We can dream, can't we?
JPnyc
08-29-2004, 10:27 PM
Well there's the IE7 script which more or less accomplishes that.
IncaWarrior
08-29-2004, 10:27 PM
Opera without java: 3.4 MB
FireFox: 4.7 MB
Then say you want some of the features that come with opera, that's another 5-10 MB
Opera does have a small add running across the top (the type google makes so they can even be useful- it's what you'll get with Gmail) but it doesn't bother me.
Anyways, all the CSS required is there for opera, the old stuff is just so badly built pages don't screw up.
I still use features that don't work on all browsers, but I test to make sure the page works out. A lot of good things you can do with out if you just do a little more work
FireFox: 4.7 MB
Then say you want some of the features that come with opera, that's another 5-10 MB
Opera does have a small add running across the top (the type google makes so they can even be useful- it's what you'll get with Gmail) but it doesn't bother me.
Anyways, all the CSS required is there for opera, the old stuff is just so badly built pages don't screw up.
I still use features that don't work on all browsers, but I test to make sure the page works out. A lot of good things you can do with out if you just do a little more work
Paul Jr
08-29-2004, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by IncaWarrior
Opera without java: 3.4 MB
FireFox: 4.7 MB
Then say you want some of the features that come with opera, that's another 5-10 MB
Huh, since when? Plugins are like... 100, 200 Kb. The largest thing I ever got was this cool skin, it was like 1 meg. You can't skin Opera, can you? I didn't think so.
Opera without java: 3.4 MB
FireFox: 4.7 MB
Then say you want some of the features that come with opera, that's another 5-10 MB
Huh, since when? Plugins are like... 100, 200 Kb. The largest thing I ever got was this cool skin, it was like 1 meg. You can't skin Opera, can you? I didn't think so.
PhillMc
08-29-2004, 10:30 PM
I also like the idea of the "min/max" attributes and I also think psuedo-classes shold apply to all elements but I can only pray that IE joins the compliance crowd before I can use them. :(
Ben Rogers
08-29-2004, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by PhillMc
I also like the idea of the "min/max" attributes and I also think psuedo-classes shold apply to all elements but I can only pray that IE joins the compliance crowd before I can use them. :( A geek can dream. :p
I also like the idea of the "min/max" attributes and I also think psuedo-classes shold apply to all elements but I can only pray that IE joins the compliance crowd before I can use them. :( A geek can dream. :p
PhillMc
08-29-2004, 10:38 PM
It shouldn't have to be a dream. It should be a reality.
IncaWarrior
08-29-2004, 10:38 PM
Huh, since when? Plugins are like... 100, 200 Kb. The largest thing I ever got was this cool skin, it was like 1 meg. You can't skin Opera, can you? I didn't think so.
http://my.opera.com/customize/skins/
yep, one click too and you get the option to preview before you actually use it.
To get what opera has you'll need a lot of plugins.
If only IE would support those things...
There's so many better things you can do with those.
http://my.opera.com/customize/skins/
yep, one click too and you get the option to preview before you actually use it.
To get what opera has you'll need a lot of plugins.
If only IE would support those things...
There's so many better things you can do with those.
MstrBob
08-29-2004, 10:51 PM
Meh, Opera seems 'bout the same as Mozilla to me, 'cept with an ad.
In terms of IE 7, well, there won't be an IE 7 until Microsoft releases Longhorn. In 2006. Hopefully. And who even says it'll be released? Or even have standards support? When questioned about standards support, the IE team is uncomfortably silent.
In terms of IE 7, well, there won't be an IE 7 until Microsoft releases Longhorn. In 2006. Hopefully. And who even says it'll be released? Or even have standards support? When questioned about standards support, the IE team is uncomfortably silent.
Paul Jr
08-29-2004, 11:20 PM
Originally posted by IncaWarrior
To get what opera has you'll need a lot of plugins.
To get everything Opera has, you'll probably need a few, but who wants all that crap? What's there, anyways? UWhat does Opera have that's so great and you can't get for Mozilla? NOTHING!
To get what opera has you'll need a lot of plugins.
To get everything Opera has, you'll probably need a few, but who wants all that crap? What's there, anyways? UWhat does Opera have that's so great and you can't get for Mozilla? NOTHING!
Ben Rogers
08-30-2004, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by Paul Jr
What does Opera have that's so great Really. You keep on saying Opera has all these great features, but you haven't named any.
What does Opera have that's so great Really. You keep on saying Opera has all these great features, but you haven't named any.
Paul Jr
08-30-2004, 01:42 PM
Oh, I just thought of something that totally makes Moz PWN Opera: The Web Dev Toolbar. You can't get that for Opera, can you?
Oh yeah, go Moz, go Moz, oh yeah! Give me an M! Give me an O! Give me a Z! What's that spell? MOZ, BABY!!!
Oh yeah, go Moz, go Moz, oh yeah! Give me an M! Give me an O! Give me a Z! What's that spell? MOZ, BABY!!!
Ben Rogers
08-30-2004, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by Paul Jr
Oh, I just thought of something that totally makes Moz PWN Opera: The Web Dev Toolbar. You can't get that for Opera, can you?
Oh yeah, go Moz, go Moz, oh yeah! Give me an M! Give me an O! Give me a Z! What's that spell? MOZ, BABY!!! I'm tempted to say "When gothics take up cheerleading..." but I'm already in trouble for my "Polly want a cracker?" comments...
Oh, I just thought of something that totally makes Moz PWN Opera: The Web Dev Toolbar. You can't get that for Opera, can you?
Oh yeah, go Moz, go Moz, oh yeah! Give me an M! Give me an O! Give me a Z! What's that spell? MOZ, BABY!!! I'm tempted to say "When gothics take up cheerleading..." but I'm already in trouble for my "Polly want a cracker?" comments...
IncaWarrior
08-30-2004, 07:47 PM
Well let's see, opera has
Better tabbing, and had tabs before mozilla
Smaller file size
Easy to install skins (nicer looking too)
Control over loading images
Quick turning off of java/javascript/sound/flash/others
Control over website referrer info
More seachbar choices and shortcuts
Control over bookmarks and sessions in opening multiple pages
A few other nice panels including notes, page info, contacts, history, others
M2 mail system which collects and organizes mail for you
Choice over CSS on a web page with options to add new ones to use instead of the page
Cookie and cache controls
Wand, fills in forms
Mouse gestures and keyboard shortcuts
Navigation with fast-forward and rewind
Text options for clicking on words on a page, spell checker for forms
Opera-show, powerpoint equivalent that uses web pages
Active support and forums that don't go down.
All that for less than mozilla without plug-ins so you can't say it's wasting space, and you have the option to hide any of these so you can't say it makes things cluttered.
Better tabbing, and had tabs before mozilla
Smaller file size
Easy to install skins (nicer looking too)
Control over loading images
Quick turning off of java/javascript/sound/flash/others
Control over website referrer info
More seachbar choices and shortcuts
Control over bookmarks and sessions in opening multiple pages
A few other nice panels including notes, page info, contacts, history, others
M2 mail system which collects and organizes mail for you
Choice over CSS on a web page with options to add new ones to use instead of the page
Cookie and cache controls
Wand, fills in forms
Mouse gestures and keyboard shortcuts
Navigation with fast-forward and rewind
Text options for clicking on words on a page, spell checker for forms
Opera-show, powerpoint equivalent that uses web pages
Active support and forums that don't go down.
All that for less than mozilla without plug-ins so you can't say it's wasting space, and you have the option to hide any of these so you can't say it makes things cluttered.
Ben Rogers
08-30-2004, 07:54 PM
Better tabbing, and had tabs before mozilla - how is it better? I hate hte way Opera does tabs, myself.
Smaller file size - Not really. Both take like 3 seconds to download on DSL, and afterwards Firefox starts up faster.
Easy to install skins (nicer looking too) - Firefox skins are just download and select. As for looking better, that's opinion.
Control over loading images - Elaborate.
[Quick turning off of java/javascript/sound/flash/others
Control over website referrer info
Choice over CSS on a web page with options to add new ones to use instead of the page
Cookie and cache controls ] - Webdev toolbar has that and lots more.
More seachbar choices and shortcuts - pointless.
Control over bookmarks and sessions in opening multiple pages - Elaborate.
A few other nice panels including notes, page info, contacts, history, others
M2 mail system which collects and organizes mail for you - I have GMail, all that seems to be clutter
Wand, fills in forms - Even IE does that
Mouse gestures and keyboard shortcuts - Extension that does the gestures, every browser has shortcuts.
Navigation with fast-forward and rewind - you mean Forward and back?
Text options for clicking on words on a page, spell checker for forms
Opera-show, powerpoint equivalent that uses web pages - Pointless.
Active support and forums that don't go down. - FF doesn't need support forums.
I can say it's cluttered, and I have. Pointless crap = clutter. FF gives you control of what to add.
Smaller file size - Not really. Both take like 3 seconds to download on DSL, and afterwards Firefox starts up faster.
Easy to install skins (nicer looking too) - Firefox skins are just download and select. As for looking better, that's opinion.
Control over loading images - Elaborate.
[Quick turning off of java/javascript/sound/flash/others
Control over website referrer info
Choice over CSS on a web page with options to add new ones to use instead of the page
Cookie and cache controls ] - Webdev toolbar has that and lots more.
More seachbar choices and shortcuts - pointless.
Control over bookmarks and sessions in opening multiple pages - Elaborate.
A few other nice panels including notes, page info, contacts, history, others
M2 mail system which collects and organizes mail for you - I have GMail, all that seems to be clutter
Wand, fills in forms - Even IE does that
Mouse gestures and keyboard shortcuts - Extension that does the gestures, every browser has shortcuts.
Navigation with fast-forward and rewind - you mean Forward and back?
Text options for clicking on words on a page, spell checker for forms
Opera-show, powerpoint equivalent that uses web pages - Pointless.
Active support and forums that don't go down. - FF doesn't need support forums.
I can say it's cluttered, and I have. Pointless crap = clutter. FF gives you control of what to add.
IncaWarrior
08-30-2004, 08:22 PM
Well I guess if you don't like using tabs then mozilla is better
Opera is still smaller so it'll download faster (it also hosts itself) It loads pages faster once it's downloaded.
Opera Skins you just click and they're downloaded and installed, no need to apply them (of course you get a preview option first)
Opera lets you load no images, cached images, or all images just by clicking a button or G
I didn't list everything, but it can do almost all the things your toolbar can (but it's built in)
You may think shortcuts and searches are pointless but they sure speed things up.
Opera lets you save the opened pages as a session that you can open later. You can also open a set of bookmarks.
I've never used Gmail, but after using outlook, pegesus, and groupwise, I'd say opera is a lot better. It's an option that you don't have to use.
IE doesn't fill in forms, it fills in popup boxes that need a login. Opera remembers multiple login forms for pages or servers that can used again later and specific personal info.
Forward to the next page in a series or the "next" link, back to the last logical point. (mozilla does some of that)
Opera-show isn't a seperate program (stop thinking plug-in), if the page supports it then you just hit f11.
FF doesn't need support forums. - Well that's fortunate, too bad for all those people who can't figure out installing a bunch of plug-ins.
I don't understand how something can be clutter if it's all packed up tightly and out of the way. You're thinking of the mozilla equivilent which would be a whole bunch of plug-ins that would clutter your browser.
Opera gives you everything in a nice way and lets you use it if you want
Opera is still smaller so it'll download faster (it also hosts itself) It loads pages faster once it's downloaded.
Opera Skins you just click and they're downloaded and installed, no need to apply them (of course you get a preview option first)
Opera lets you load no images, cached images, or all images just by clicking a button or G
I didn't list everything, but it can do almost all the things your toolbar can (but it's built in)
You may think shortcuts and searches are pointless but they sure speed things up.
Opera lets you save the opened pages as a session that you can open later. You can also open a set of bookmarks.
I've never used Gmail, but after using outlook, pegesus, and groupwise, I'd say opera is a lot better. It's an option that you don't have to use.
IE doesn't fill in forms, it fills in popup boxes that need a login. Opera remembers multiple login forms for pages or servers that can used again later and specific personal info.
Forward to the next page in a series or the "next" link, back to the last logical point. (mozilla does some of that)
Opera-show isn't a seperate program (stop thinking plug-in), if the page supports it then you just hit f11.
FF doesn't need support forums. - Well that's fortunate, too bad for all those people who can't figure out installing a bunch of plug-ins.
I don't understand how something can be clutter if it's all packed up tightly and out of the way. You're thinking of the mozilla equivilent which would be a whole bunch of plug-ins that would clutter your browser.
Opera gives you everything in a nice way and lets you use it if you want
JPnyc
08-30-2004, 08:27 PM
You guys argue like religious groups. The Judeo-Arabic browser wars.
Ben Rogers
08-30-2004, 08:31 PM
Well I guess if you don't like using tabs then mozilla is better - I use tabs all the time. I have 5 open right now. Your point is moot.
Opera is still smaller so it'll download faster (it also hosts itself) It loads pages faster once it's downloaded. - 1. Moot point. Not much of a difference, and all that matters is ONCE it's downloaded. 2. Huh?!? 3. Bull.
Opera Skins you just click and they're downloaded and installed, no need to apply them (of course you get a preview option first) - You have to choose which theme from a menu once they're downloaded. What if you download more than one at a time? FF lets you choose which theme to use.
Opera lets you load no images, cached images, or all images just by clicking a button or G - Pointless.
I didn't list everything, but it can do almost all the things your toolbar can (but it's built in) - And all that is useless to the average user. Meaning they get clutter.
You may think shortcuts and searches are pointless but they sure speed things up. - Shortcuts to what? You mean bookmarks? And there's a single input in the upper right in FF so you can google search, or whatever you set your prefs to.
Opera lets you save the opened pages as a session that you can open later. You can also open a set of bookmarks. - You can do that in Mozilla, I beleive. It's very annoying to me. And all my the pages I visit daily are in a folder so they're a middle click away when I want to visit them.
I've never used Gmail, but after using outlook, pegesus, and groupwise, I'd say opera is a lot better. It's an option that you don't have to use. - So, it'd be clutter for me. This is why extensions are good: They prevent useless features.
IE doesn't fill in forms, it fills in popup boxes that need a login. Opera remembers multiple login forms for pages or servers that can used again later and specific personal info. - Uh... yeah it does, actually. At least IE6 on XP does. So does FF.
Forward to the next page in a series or the "next" link, back to the last logical point. (mozilla does some of that) - Mozilla does all of that.
Opera-show isn't a seperate program (stop thinking plug-in), if the page supports it then you just hit f11. - Still pointless. Maybe you use it, it'd be clutter for me.
FF doesn't need support forums. - Well that's fortunate, too bad for all those people who can't figure out installing a bunch of plug-ins. - Uh... you click. It downloads. Confused? Help files. :rolleyes:
I don't understand how something can be clutter if it's all packed up tightly and out of the way. You're thinking of the mozilla equivilent which would be a whole bunch of plug-ins that would clutter your browser. - No, I'm not. Useless things annoy me. I want only what I use. Anything else gets in the way.
Opera gives you everything in a nice way and lets you use it if you want - Firefox stays minimalistic and allows you to choose what you want.
Opera is still smaller so it'll download faster (it also hosts itself) It loads pages faster once it's downloaded. - 1. Moot point. Not much of a difference, and all that matters is ONCE it's downloaded. 2. Huh?!? 3. Bull.
Opera Skins you just click and they're downloaded and installed, no need to apply them (of course you get a preview option first) - You have to choose which theme from a menu once they're downloaded. What if you download more than one at a time? FF lets you choose which theme to use.
Opera lets you load no images, cached images, or all images just by clicking a button or G - Pointless.
I didn't list everything, but it can do almost all the things your toolbar can (but it's built in) - And all that is useless to the average user. Meaning they get clutter.
You may think shortcuts and searches are pointless but they sure speed things up. - Shortcuts to what? You mean bookmarks? And there's a single input in the upper right in FF so you can google search, or whatever you set your prefs to.
Opera lets you save the opened pages as a session that you can open later. You can also open a set of bookmarks. - You can do that in Mozilla, I beleive. It's very annoying to me. And all my the pages I visit daily are in a folder so they're a middle click away when I want to visit them.
I've never used Gmail, but after using outlook, pegesus, and groupwise, I'd say opera is a lot better. It's an option that you don't have to use. - So, it'd be clutter for me. This is why extensions are good: They prevent useless features.
IE doesn't fill in forms, it fills in popup boxes that need a login. Opera remembers multiple login forms for pages or servers that can used again later and specific personal info. - Uh... yeah it does, actually. At least IE6 on XP does. So does FF.
Forward to the next page in a series or the "next" link, back to the last logical point. (mozilla does some of that) - Mozilla does all of that.
Opera-show isn't a seperate program (stop thinking plug-in), if the page supports it then you just hit f11. - Still pointless. Maybe you use it, it'd be clutter for me.
FF doesn't need support forums. - Well that's fortunate, too bad for all those people who can't figure out installing a bunch of plug-ins. - Uh... you click. It downloads. Confused? Help files. :rolleyes:
I don't understand how something can be clutter if it's all packed up tightly and out of the way. You're thinking of the mozilla equivilent which would be a whole bunch of plug-ins that would clutter your browser. - No, I'm not. Useless things annoy me. I want only what I use. Anything else gets in the way.
Opera gives you everything in a nice way and lets you use it if you want - Firefox stays minimalistic and allows you to choose what you want.
MstrBob
08-30-2004, 08:35 PM
I've used Internet Explorer *shudders*, Opera 7.5, Mozilla 1.6, Firefox 0.8, Lynx, and Firefox 0.9 The fastest is Lynx :p
But seriously. Opera and Mozilla seem similar to me. At any rate, they are both faster than IE (no surprise) but Firefox outdoes them both. Opera always seemed a bit bloated to me.
Now, I don't know how Opera does tabs better than Firefox. I click the middle button of my mouse, and presto! I open the link in the tab. If I middle-click that tab, it closes. So simple, I love it.
Firefox remebers login info, that's nothing Opera-specific.
I've found that pages generally load faster in Firefox 0.9
I hate the ad. I don't care what you say. I HATE ads. And I really dislike the fact that there's an ad there.
The one thing I'll give opera is the dropdown of different search engines in the top toolbar.
But generally, I feel that there's just too much stuff in there. Reminds me of microsoft. They're trying to make one super-application. No. If I want to check my mail, I'll go to gmail.com, or I'll open outlook. If I want to IM someone, I'll open up an IM program. I want simple, slim, fast programs that focus on the one task at hand.
Edit: Ben beat me to it. And Dunsel, this is nothing. Get one IE - lover in this thread and see the fireworks.
But seriously. Opera and Mozilla seem similar to me. At any rate, they are both faster than IE (no surprise) but Firefox outdoes them both. Opera always seemed a bit bloated to me.
Now, I don't know how Opera does tabs better than Firefox. I click the middle button of my mouse, and presto! I open the link in the tab. If I middle-click that tab, it closes. So simple, I love it.
Firefox remebers login info, that's nothing Opera-specific.
I've found that pages generally load faster in Firefox 0.9
I hate the ad. I don't care what you say. I HATE ads. And I really dislike the fact that there's an ad there.
The one thing I'll give opera is the dropdown of different search engines in the top toolbar.
But generally, I feel that there's just too much stuff in there. Reminds me of microsoft. They're trying to make one super-application. No. If I want to check my mail, I'll go to gmail.com, or I'll open outlook. If I want to IM someone, I'll open up an IM program. I want simple, slim, fast programs that focus on the one task at hand.
Edit: Ben beat me to it. And Dunsel, this is nothing. Get one IE - lover in this thread and see the fireworks.
Ben Rogers
08-30-2004, 08:42 PM
Originally posted by MstrBob
The one thing I'll give opera is the dropdown of different search engines in the top toolbar. Uh... Bob? See attached.
The one thing I'll give opera is the dropdown of different search engines in the top toolbar. Uh... Bob? See attached.
MstrBob
08-30-2004, 08:43 PM
Oh! So THAT'S what that lil arrow underneath the Google icon is. *feels dumb* I retract my earlier statement.
Ben Rogers
08-30-2004, 10:01 PM
Originally posted by MstrBob
Oh! So THAT'S what that lil arrow underneath the Google icon is. *feels dumb* I retract my earlier statement. Lol. You know the saying, listen to your feelings... :D Just kidding. But if you think Opera has something on Firefox, chances are there's something you missed... ;)
Oh! So THAT'S what that lil arrow underneath the Google icon is. *feels dumb* I retract my earlier statement. Lol. You know the saying, listen to your feelings... :D Just kidding. But if you think Opera has something on Firefox, chances are there's something you missed... ;)
PhillMc
08-30-2004, 10:34 PM
As far as the skins looking better; I wouldn't say it's opinion. It's option. If it comes down to it, you can make your own (the beauty of open-source) or select from the thousands that are available from several sites.
Mozilla FireFox does tab. Weather it was before or after Opera is a moot point.
When it comes to additional 'features', I like to choose what to install; why waste system resources if I will not use them?
FireFox has 'auto-complete' and it is page-specific. This is also a moot point.
I'm not 'dissing' Opera; I just choose Mozilla FireFox. :)
Mozilla FireFox does tab. Weather it was before or after Opera is a moot point.
When it comes to additional 'features', I like to choose what to install; why waste system resources if I will not use them?
FireFox has 'auto-complete' and it is page-specific. This is also a moot point.
I'm not 'dissing' Opera; I just choose Mozilla FireFox. :)
klingoncowboy4
08-30-2004, 10:39 PM
I say that they both have their advantages though I like the way Opera handles tabs better it is more convenient for me to use Mozzila.
IncaWarrior
08-30-2004, 11:45 PM
You people keep saying that Opera is bloated and has useless features, then tell me all about how you download these great features (that were pointless in opera) and you get a special toolbar for it... In Opera you can turn off and get rid of any of the buttons you don't want. It's well built so it uses less system resources than firefox too.
Also for skins you don't have to select them from a menu, it's automatic.
Opera you can just right click on a link and drag down and you have the page opened in a new tab. All sorts of things you can do by just moving the mouse.
Why get a patched together program made by a bunch of people in their garages when you can get a nice well built browser.
Also for skins you don't have to select them from a menu, it's automatic.
Opera you can just right click on a link and drag down and you have the page opened in a new tab. All sorts of things you can do by just moving the mouse.
Why get a patched together program made by a bunch of people in their garages when you can get a nice well built browser.
Ben Rogers
08-31-2004, 12:00 AM
Originally posted by IncaWarrior
You people keep saying that Opera is bloated and has useless features, then tell me all about how you download these great features (that were pointless in opera) and you get a special toolbar for it... In Opera you can turn off and get rid of any of the buttons you don't want. It's well built so it uses less system resources than firefox too.
Also for skins you don't have to select them from a menu, it's automatic.
Opera you can just right click on a link and drag down and you have the page opened in a new tab. All sorts of things you can do by just moving the mouse.
Why get a patched together program made by a bunch of people in their garages when you can get a nice well built browser.
Okay, first of all, that last comment is simply BS, and I'm going to pretend you didn't make it. Secondly, middle clicking on bookmarks opens them in new tabs. Third, with Firefox, you can choose what you get- not everybody likes the crap Opera supplies. The webdev toolbar and Mouse Gestures are two extensions that are very nifty. Finally, the way skins are dealt with in FF means you can CHOOSE what skin you want. You can use one you had previously, use them offline, etc., etc.
You people keep saying that Opera is bloated and has useless features, then tell me all about how you download these great features (that were pointless in opera) and you get a special toolbar for it... In Opera you can turn off and get rid of any of the buttons you don't want. It's well built so it uses less system resources than firefox too.
Also for skins you don't have to select them from a menu, it's automatic.
Opera you can just right click on a link and drag down and you have the page opened in a new tab. All sorts of things you can do by just moving the mouse.
Why get a patched together program made by a bunch of people in their garages when you can get a nice well built browser.
Okay, first of all, that last comment is simply BS, and I'm going to pretend you didn't make it. Secondly, middle clicking on bookmarks opens them in new tabs. Third, with Firefox, you can choose what you get- not everybody likes the crap Opera supplies. The webdev toolbar and Mouse Gestures are two extensions that are very nifty. Finally, the way skins are dealt with in FF means you can CHOOSE what skin you want. You can use one you had previously, use them offline, etc., etc.
PhillMc
08-31-2004, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by IncaWarrior
You people keep saying that Opera is bloated and has useless features, then tell me all about how you download these great features (that were pointless in opera) and you get a special toolbar for it... In Opera you can turn off and get rid of any of the buttons you don't want. It's well built so it uses less system resources than firefox too.
Also for skins you don't have to select them from a menu, it's automatic.
Opera you can just right click on a link and drag down and you have the page opened in a new tab. All sorts of things you can do by just moving the mouse.
Why get a patched together program made by a bunch of people in their garages when you can get a nice well built browser.
I never said that all of Opera's features were useless; I just do not need nor want all of them. Also, it doesn't matter if it's built in, if it's in the source, it's using resources. I only install what I need. FireFox gives me that option. Also. if it's well written it is not 'patched' together; that's what dll's are all about.
You people keep saying that Opera is bloated and has useless features, then tell me all about how you download these great features (that were pointless in opera) and you get a special toolbar for it... In Opera you can turn off and get rid of any of the buttons you don't want. It's well built so it uses less system resources than firefox too.
Also for skins you don't have to select them from a menu, it's automatic.
Opera you can just right click on a link and drag down and you have the page opened in a new tab. All sorts of things you can do by just moving the mouse.
Why get a patched together program made by a bunch of people in their garages when you can get a nice well built browser.
I never said that all of Opera's features were useless; I just do not need nor want all of them. Also, it doesn't matter if it's built in, if it's in the source, it's using resources. I only install what I need. FireFox gives me that option. Also. if it's well written it is not 'patched' together; that's what dll's are all about.
klingoncowboy4
08-31-2004, 12:17 AM
Originally posted by MstrBob
I've used Internet Explorer *shudders*, Opera 7.5, Mozilla 1.6, Firefox 0.8, Lynx, and Firefox 0.9 The fastest is Lynx :p
Well of coars Lynx is faster it is a TEXT ONLY BROWSER but that is what makes it so great in fact when x crash on my laptop I had to learn to use Lynx for a while since I didn't even know if it was worth reinstalling since it is soo old but anyway MSIE SUCKS
For a grphical browser I don't know which is better Oper or Mozzila.
I've used Internet Explorer *shudders*, Opera 7.5, Mozilla 1.6, Firefox 0.8, Lynx, and Firefox 0.9 The fastest is Lynx :p
Well of coars Lynx is faster it is a TEXT ONLY BROWSER but that is what makes it so great in fact when x crash on my laptop I had to learn to use Lynx for a while since I didn't even know if it was worth reinstalling since it is soo old but anyway MSIE SUCKS
For a grphical browser I don't know which is better Oper or Mozzila.
PhillMc
08-31-2004, 12:18 AM
I still believe that would be a matter of preferance. :) FireFox just works better for me :)
Ben Rogers
08-31-2004, 12:48 AM
Originally posted by PhillMc
I still believe that would be a matter of preferance. :) FireFox just works better for me :) That's what I should beleive, but my hate for Opera interferes. :p
I still believe that would be a matter of preferance. :) FireFox just works better for me :) That's what I should beleive, but my hate for Opera interferes. :p
BuezaWebDev
08-31-2004, 02:46 AM
My vote goes to FIREFOX!
JPnyc
08-31-2004, 08:46 AM
They each have pros and cons. Opera ain't free, and you have a little less flexibility regarding toolbar manipulation, unless I'm missing something. I couldn't move the address onto the menu bar. Firefox takes a slew of extensions to have the features I would want, which I personally find annoying.
rhsunderground
08-31-2004, 09:14 AM
Originally posted by DUNSEL
They each have pros and cons. Opera ain't free, and you have a little less flexibility regarding toolbar manipulation, unless I'm missing something. well i tried to avoid this discussion, but here i am. opera IS free. you can buy opera, but it is perfectly fine as free. there is a banner ad at the top, but you can easily save whatever banner you want in its place on your computer. and you can do whatever you want with the toolbars.
They each have pros and cons. Opera ain't free, and you have a little less flexibility regarding toolbar manipulation, unless I'm missing something. well i tried to avoid this discussion, but here i am. opera IS free. you can buy opera, but it is perfectly fine as free. there is a banner ad at the top, but you can easily save whatever banner you want in its place on your computer. and you can do whatever you want with the toolbars.
JPnyc
08-31-2004, 09:17 AM
Yes you're correct. I was speaking from my perspective, which was myopic of me. For me, any browser which wastes screen real estate is one I won't be using. So for me, it wouldn't be free. But then, you can't move things around with Opera to the same extent as some other browsers, so no matter what, they'll be wasted space somewhere, like the menu bar for example. The whole right of it remains barren.
MstrBob
08-31-2004, 09:38 AM
Well, I say, Lynx Is the Best Cuttin-Edge Browser!
:p ;)
Aye, the thing I like about Firefox, is that you have the options for everything. Extensions are uber easy to install. And Bennyboy is right, I get to choose the features that I want, and I'm not stuck with features that I don't want. They clutter everything up and slow down the program.
I want the web developer toolbar. I can manipulate the page and gather all of its information. But someone like my mother doesn't need that. And for non-computersavy people, the more buttons you have, the more confusing it is and the more intimidated they are. I like Firefox better than the Mozilla suite because Firefox is slim, fast, reliable, and upgradeable. So, :p !
:p ;)
Aye, the thing I like about Firefox, is that you have the options for everything. Extensions are uber easy to install. And Bennyboy is right, I get to choose the features that I want, and I'm not stuck with features that I don't want. They clutter everything up and slow down the program.
I want the web developer toolbar. I can manipulate the page and gather all of its information. But someone like my mother doesn't need that. And for non-computersavy people, the more buttons you have, the more confusing it is and the more intimidated they are. I like Firefox better than the Mozilla suite because Firefox is slim, fast, reliable, and upgradeable. So, :p !
Stephen Philbin
08-31-2004, 10:01 AM
I have Fire Fox, the security hole, Netscape Navigator and Opera. FF is my default, but so long as I'm not using the sucurity hole I'm a happy chappie. Operal and FF are both mighty fine browsers in my eyes.
JPnyc
08-31-2004, 11:00 AM
They are. They're both good. If I may curse on this board, I use Maxthon(formerly MyIE2). IE's security issues are well known and widely publicized, but most of them can be eliminated by disabling active-x, java, and scripting, all of which Maxthon allows right from a toolbar icon, either on a per tab basis, or globally. The features I want are built in so I don't need to search out a dozen extensions, I don't have to pay for it, and I can use it for windows updates, or anything that's IE specific because it IS IE, just more secure than plain IE, the way I configure it.
MstrBob
08-31-2004, 11:38 AM
But the real question is, does it support the webstandards? Can it handle the full specifications of CSS 1, 2.1, & 3? Does it know how to handel DTD's and XML declarations ( <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> )? That's what I want IE to do.
JPnyc
08-31-2004, 11:46 AM
You know it won't. But from a user perspective that's not important to me. From a developer perspective it WOULD be, except that I accept the world as it is. IE's CSS support is poor, it's XML parser bites, and that's the reality. But from a user I care that it does what I mentioned above, and uses roughly 33% less resource while doing it (on my machine).
IncaWarrior
08-31-2004, 01:17 PM
Opera skins are added to a menu on your computer after you download them so you could apply them offline (for all the offline browsing I do)
You can make opera into a text browser
You can make opera into a text browser
Ben Rogers
08-31-2004, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by IncaWarrior
Opera skins are added to a menu on your computer after you download them so you could apply them offline (for all the offline browsing I do)
You can make opera into a text browser
Ooooh! Yay, more clutter! We downloaded a nice graphical browser so we could use a text browser! :rolleyes:
So let's see, just to get things cleared up:
FireFox
--------
- Me (Ben R.)
- PhillMC
- MstrBob
- Buezawebdev
Opera
---------
- Incawarrior
- RHSU
Undecided
----------
- Mr. Herer
- klingoncowboy4
Other
-----
- Dunsel
Am I missing anyone, or have I put them in the wrong place?
Opera skins are added to a menu on your computer after you download them so you could apply them offline (for all the offline browsing I do)
You can make opera into a text browser
Ooooh! Yay, more clutter! We downloaded a nice graphical browser so we could use a text browser! :rolleyes:
So let's see, just to get things cleared up:
FireFox
--------
- Me (Ben R.)
- PhillMC
- MstrBob
- Buezawebdev
Opera
---------
- Incawarrior
- RHSU
Undecided
----------
- Mr. Herer
- klingoncowboy4
Other
-----
- Dunsel
Am I missing anyone, or have I put them in the wrong place?
JPnyc
08-31-2004, 01:36 PM
"Alone again, naturally"........
Ben Rogers
08-31-2004, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by DUNSEL
"Alone again, naturally"........ 'Syour fault, for using an IE-related browser. :D
"Alone again, naturally"........ 'Syour fault, for using an IE-related browser. :D
JPnyc
08-31-2004, 01:44 PM
I usually take the road less traveled. Less chance of stepping in anything.:)
Ben Rogers
08-31-2004, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by DUNSEL
I usually take the road less traveled. Less chance of stepping in anything.:) Uh, but your taking the road 90% of people with internet travel... Firefox would be the road less traveled.
I usually take the road less traveled. Less chance of stepping in anything.:) Uh, but your taking the road 90% of people with internet travel... Firefox would be the road less traveled.
JPnyc
08-31-2004, 02:12 PM
Actually not. Maxthon has considerably smaller userbase than FF does. I'm not using IE. I'm using it's engine, but not IE. I'm not even as susceptible to it's vulnerabilities as pure IE.
Ben Rogers
08-31-2004, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by DUNSEL
Actually not. Maxthon has considerably smaller userbase than FF does. I'm not using IE. I'm using it's engine, but not IE. I'm not even as susceptible to it's vulnerabilities as pure IE. *shrug* If it has the same engine, it's the same browser as far as I'm concerned.
Actually not. Maxthon has considerably smaller userbase than FF does. I'm not using IE. I'm using it's engine, but not IE. I'm not even as susceptible to it's vulnerabilities as pure IE. *shrug* If it has the same engine, it's the same browser as far as I'm concerned.
JPnyc
08-31-2004, 02:18 PM
Then why do firefox users not switch to Mozilla or Netscrape? Same engine. By the way, Maxthon does have the capability to use the gecko engine. It's just not well supported yet.
Ben Rogers
08-31-2004, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by DUNSEL
Then why do firefox users not switch to Mozilla or Netscrape? Same engine. By the way, Maxthon does have the capability to use the gecko engine. It's just not well supported yet. Yes, and I expect to be grouped in with Mozilla and Netscape users, because I am one. Out of those, Firefox is the best.
Then why do firefox users not switch to Mozilla or Netscrape? Same engine. By the way, Maxthon does have the capability to use the gecko engine. It's just not well supported yet. Yes, and I expect to be grouped in with Mozilla and Netscape users, because I am one. Out of those, Firefox is the best.
MstrBob
08-31-2004, 02:30 PM
Well, you can put any body on top of a Honda, but at the end of the day it's still a Honda. The IE engine is nothing worth building on, IMO. And Maxthon will render a page the same as IE. However, browsers like Firefox and even Opera render pages faster and better. That's the main reason I switched from IE. Everything else is icing on the cake.
IE's engine is old and needs a rewrite. They just keep throwing things onto it. Crappy XML, crappy CSS, has proprietary, and is generally holding back to continued development of web technologies. While the W3C standardizes new technologies (wake up, they're issuing CSS 3, and IE chokes of 2!) these technologies are being held back by the fact that the browser engine used by 90%+ of web surfers can't support technologies released 6 years ago. Tis pathetic, and the reason why I don't care what GUI you put on it, it's inherently crappy.
IE's engine is old and needs a rewrite. They just keep throwing things onto it. Crappy XML, crappy CSS, has proprietary, and is generally holding back to continued development of web technologies. While the W3C standardizes new technologies (wake up, they're issuing CSS 3, and IE chokes of 2!) these technologies are being held back by the fact that the browser engine used by 90%+ of web surfers can't support technologies released 6 years ago. Tis pathetic, and the reason why I don't care what GUI you put on it, it's inherently crappy.
PhillMc
08-31-2004, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by IncaWarrior
Opera skins are added to a menu on your computer after you download them so you could apply them offline (for all the offline browsing I do)...
Moot point. :) It works the same way with FireFox. :) (Not graphically, but programmatically)
Opera skins are added to a menu on your computer after you download them so you could apply them offline (for all the offline browsing I do)...
Moot point. :) It works the same way with FireFox. :) (Not graphically, but programmatically)
JPnyc
08-31-2004, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by Ben R.
Yes, and I expect to be grouped in with Mozilla and Netscape users, because I am one. Out of those, Firefox is the best.
They're not interchangeable. Or you would not be able to call one the best. IF they were the same, there could be no best. If Maxthon's gecko support becomes fully functional, would that make it a mozilla/netscrape browser? It's a shell, no matter how you slice it
Yes, and I expect to be grouped in with Mozilla and Netscape users, because I am one. Out of those, Firefox is the best.
They're not interchangeable. Or you would not be able to call one the best. IF they were the same, there could be no best. If Maxthon's gecko support becomes fully functional, would that make it a mozilla/netscrape browser? It's a shell, no matter how you slice it
MstrBob
08-31-2004, 02:40 PM
I'd categorize Mozilla Suite/Netscape/Firefox together because they're using the same engine. That engine is different from Opera. And those two engines are very different from IE. Firefox is a slimmed down version of Mozilla. Netscape is a commercial version. However, Maxthon is using IE's engine, hence it is IE. You may like the shell better than standard IE, but it's still IE. Now, if this Maxthon has a gecko based engine, than that's a different animal. ;)
Ben Rogers
08-31-2004, 02:40 PM
They are all on the same engine, and all have the same basic functionality. Firefox performs the best for the user. It was designed the best of them, IMO. The other browsers of its class could acheive its browsing nirvana-ness with some design changes, but have not.
JPnyc
08-31-2004, 02:44 PM
If the functionality changes, it's not the same. Max configured as I use it is FAR more secure than IE. You cannot disable things in IE and have them enabled on certain tabs, because it HAS no tabs. When I used straight IE, I would get malware. With Maxthon, I get none. I would call that a significant difference. But I still have the option to use active x when I want to, like for windows updates, and I don't have to do anything but click a button on the toolbar.
MstrBob
08-31-2004, 02:46 PM
Back to the honda analogy, I can pop a Stereo and put in a new alarm on the brand new body for my Honda. But at the end of the day, it's still a Honda. And will function as such.
JPnyc
08-31-2004, 02:48 PM
Better analogy. The current Jaguar is just a Ford underneath (that's a fact). But I'd still much rather own the Jag.
Exuro
08-31-2004, 03:04 PM
A couple weeks ago The Web Standards Project (http://www.webstandards.org/) launched a new campaign they call Browse Happy (http://browsehappy.com/). I switched to Firefox one day after becoming particularly irritated with IE's incompitencies and I haven't regretted it one bit! There have been a couple annoyances, such as the lack of FTP support (which will be remedied in the next version of Mozilla I believe), and the code examples being improperly rendered in the MSDN database. Because of this I have to switch back to IE whenever I'm FTPing or searching MSDN for my ASP.Net development, which I don't like having to do... But anyway! Browse Happy (http://browsehappy.com/) is a very neat little site that I've been spreading around and I just thought I'd get the word out here as well!
Update:
After making this post I set out to see if I could solve my little problem with the MSDN code examples displaying improperly. After examining their CSS I found this block to be the culprit:
pre {
margin-top: .5em;
margin-bottom: .5em;
white-space:normal;
word-wrap:break-word;
}
Last I checked word-wrap wasn't valid, and that's probably why Firefox doesn't render it the way IE does. However, using the Web Developer Extension (http://www.chrispederick.com/work/firefox/webdeveloper/) for Firefox you can add a "User Style Sheet" to fix the page rendering. I simply set it to white-space: pre; and it looks right now! *yay!* :)
Update:
After making this post I set out to see if I could solve my little problem with the MSDN code examples displaying improperly. After examining their CSS I found this block to be the culprit:
pre {
margin-top: .5em;
margin-bottom: .5em;
white-space:normal;
word-wrap:break-word;
}
Last I checked word-wrap wasn't valid, and that's probably why Firefox doesn't render it the way IE does. However, using the Web Developer Extension (http://www.chrispederick.com/work/firefox/webdeveloper/) for Firefox you can add a "User Style Sheet" to fix the page rendering. I simply set it to white-space: pre; and it looks right now! *yay!* :)
Ben Rogers
08-31-2004, 03:09 PM
Thanks for the link, Exuro. I'll have to start referring that site to stubborn IE-lovers. ;)
PhillMc
08-31-2004, 03:14 PM
Thank you, Exuro :)
I agree with Ben, those links will be valuable to share. :D
I agree with Ben, those links will be valuable to share. :D
IncaWarrior
08-31-2004, 08:26 PM
hm well look at that: http://www.opera.com/pressreleases/en/2004/06/04/
Found that under the opera section of browse happy
Found that under the opera section of browse happy
Ben Rogers
08-31-2004, 08:47 PM
Good for it. I'm supposed to care what they think? This isn't a case of review. I've tried both browsers, and... ugh, we've gone through this already.
IncaWarrior
08-31-2004, 09:36 PM
Well they are a bunch of experts
Ben Rogers
08-31-2004, 09:39 PM
Originally posted by IncaWarrior
Well they are a bunch of experts Uhm... okay? But why are you even bringing that in as a point? This is a discussion of the two- that's a different discussion.
Well they are a bunch of experts Uhm... okay? But why are you even bringing that in as a point? This is a discussion of the two- that's a different discussion.
IncaWarrior
09-01-2004, 01:48 AM
Opera has voice controls and screen reading, I don't see that in the gecko
browsers
browsers
PhillMc
09-01-2004, 02:03 AM
THIS IS RIDICULOUS! :mad:
This thread has shifted from the inquisitive "How did you shift into CSS/What is keeping you from shifting" to a pissing contest between, of all things, two STANDARDS COMPLIANT browsers that are both endorsed by the Web Standards Project! :mad: :confused: It's a matter preferance! Browser 'A' may be great for one user, but not for the other! Drop it, or take it to the lounge! :rolleyes:
This thread has shifted from the inquisitive "How did you shift into CSS/What is keeping you from shifting" to a pissing contest between, of all things, two STANDARDS COMPLIANT browsers that are both endorsed by the Web Standards Project! :mad: :confused: It's a matter preferance! Browser 'A' may be great for one user, but not for the other! Drop it, or take it to the lounge! :rolleyes:
Ben Rogers
09-01-2004, 09:29 AM
True, Phil, but I'm making it a point to nullify all of his points. And this is too ontopic for the lounge...Originally posted by IncaWarrior
Opera has voice controls and screen reading, I don't see that in the gecko
browsers You don't get this? It's a visual browser! Why would it have that crap? I don't want it on my visual browser. So much unneccessary crap... :rolleyes:
Opera has voice controls and screen reading, I don't see that in the gecko
browsers You don't get this? It's a visual browser! Why would it have that crap? I don't want it on my visual browser. So much unneccessary crap... :rolleyes:
BuezaWebDev
09-01-2004, 01:58 PM
Voice would be cool, though. Also, it would be very effective for the blind. ;)
Ben Rogers
09-01-2004, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by BuezaWebDev
Voice would be cool, though. Also, it would be very effective for the blind. ;) But how would the blind be able to activate the option? And, anyways, there ARE audio browsers out there.
Voice would be cool, though. Also, it would be very effective for the blind. ;) But how would the blind be able to activate the option? And, anyways, there ARE audio browsers out there.
BuezaWebDev
09-01-2004, 02:13 PM
Good point there, Bennyboy ;)
Probably could just press a button on the braille screen, "Play Paragraph."
:/ Perhaps? I don't know, honestly. Heheh.
Probably could just press a button on the braille screen, "Play Paragraph."
:/ Perhaps? I don't know, honestly. Heheh.
Ben Rogers
09-01-2004, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by BuezaWebDev
I don't know, honestly. Same, never had the oppurtunity to work with a audio browser.
I don't know, honestly. Same, never had the oppurtunity to work with a audio browser.
PhillMc
09-01-2004, 02:50 PM
I just use Lynx. If the site linearizes in Lynx and looks like plain english, then it should work well in an audio browser. :)
Ben Rogers
09-01-2004, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by PhillMc
I just use Lynx. If the site linearizes in Lynx and looks like plain english, then it should work well in an audio browser. :) Where do you get Lynx, anyways? I just use Lynx view (http://www.delorie.com/web/lynxview.html) right now to view my pages, but I want something offline, and the 2.8.5 (http://lynx.isc.org/current/) zip won't work for me (nothing to run)
I just use Lynx. If the site linearizes in Lynx and looks like plain english, then it should work well in an audio browser. :) Where do you get Lynx, anyways? I just use Lynx view (http://www.delorie.com/web/lynxview.html) right now to view my pages, but I want something offline, and the 2.8.5 (http://lynx.isc.org/current/) zip won't work for me (nothing to run)
PhillMc
09-01-2004, 03:06 PM
I cannot remember the URL because I got it from one of Peo's links. ^^;
PhillMc
09-01-2004, 03:12 PM
Ah!! Try here (http://lynx.isc.org/current/) :)
Ben Rogers
09-01-2004, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by PhillMc
Ah!! Try here (http://lynx.isc.org/current/) :) Uhm, yeah, that's where I got the zip. It has nothing to run in it, just the batch files... and I don't know MS DOS, so...
EDIT- I just read that, and I sound like a little brat. Sorry. *sheepish grin*
Ah!! Try here (http://lynx.isc.org/current/) :) Uhm, yeah, that's where I got the zip. It has nothing to run in it, just the batch files... and I don't know MS DOS, so...
EDIT- I just read that, and I sound like a little brat. Sorry. *sheepish grin*
PhillMc
09-01-2004, 03:16 PM
You have to compile it, then install it.
Here are the instructions (http://lynx.isc.org/release/lynx2-8-5/INSTALLATION) .
Here are the instructions (http://lynx.isc.org/release/lynx2-8-5/INSTALLATION) .
Ben Rogers
09-01-2004, 03:23 PM
Oops. O_o. I knew that. *shifty eyes* Alright, thanks.
PhillMc
09-01-2004, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by Ben R.
Oops. O_o. I knew that. *shifty eyes* Alright, thanks.
Sure ya did... :D
Oops. O_o. I knew that. *shifty eyes* Alright, thanks.
Sure ya did... :D
Ben Rogers
09-01-2004, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by PhillMc
You have to compile it, then install it. Ugh... I'm starting to wonder if it's worth the trouble... when it comes to things like this, I'm lost.
EDIT- messed VB.
You have to compile it, then install it. Ugh... I'm starting to wonder if it's worth the trouble... when it comes to things like this, I'm lost.
EDIT- messed VB.
PhillMc
09-01-2004, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by Ben R.
Ugh... I'm starting to wonder if it's worth the trouble... when it comes to things like this, I'm lost.
EDIT- messed VB.
They included the compiler. All you have to do is follow the instructions. It is all command line, though.
Ugh... I'm starting to wonder if it's worth the trouble... when it comes to things like this, I'm lost.
EDIT- messed VB.
They included the compiler. All you have to do is follow the instructions. It is all command line, though.
Ben Rogers
09-01-2004, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by PhillMc
They included the compiler. All you have to do is follow the instructions. It is all command line, though. O_O; I'll pass, I don't know anything about that stuff, thanks anyways. Paul reminded me about Evolt (http://browsers.evolt.org/?/lynx/2.8), so I d/l'ed that.
They included the compiler. All you have to do is follow the instructions. It is all command line, though. O_O; I'll pass, I don't know anything about that stuff, thanks anyways. Paul reminded me about Evolt (http://browsers.evolt.org/?/lynx/2.8), so I d/l'ed that.
BuezaWebDev
09-01-2004, 04:04 PM
I always did hate confusing instructions. :/
Why can't some things be simple, like the installation of apache. :(
Why can't some things be simple, like the installation of apache. :(
rhsunderground
09-01-2004, 11:01 PM
i'm going to recommend that this thread be closed and that these topics, if continued, be continued in new threads.
Ben Rogers
09-01-2004, 11:16 PM
Originally posted by rhsunderground
i'm going to recommend that this thread be closed and that these topics, if continued, be continued in new threads. Uh... okay? Well, the Opera vs. Firefox one will just degrade further into mindless banter, the original topic is done, and I have Lynx now, so... fine by me.
i'm going to recommend that this thread be closed and that these topics, if continued, be continued in new threads. Uh... okay? Well, the Opera vs. Firefox one will just degrade further into mindless banter, the original topic is done, and I have Lynx now, so... fine by me.
DaveSW
09-02-2004, 03:10 AM
Yes you have strayed somewhat... :)
webdeveloper.com
Copyright Internet.com Inc., All Rights Reserved.
Copyright Internet.com Inc., All Rights Reserved.