Bad HTML: HTML's greatest strength. [Archive]

Mr Initial Man

09-30-2004, 01:29 PM

If you're expecting me to say "Made ya look," I'm not. Believe it or not, I'm actually quite serious. And I'll give a quick explanation why.

Since HTML can be coded wrongly, it allows more people to put up websites, especially if their strong suit isn't website building. I suppose there are some purists who think that such people shouldn't build websites at all, but then what would we look at?

I know of some websites that have HORRIBLE coding... and great content. The webmaster might have his strong suit in art, or in writing, but not HTML. So do we say that he should take his website off the net, simply because he doesn't quite know how to code it right?

On the other hand, there are sites that check out 110% in every validator under the sun, and are a snore with a capital ZZZZZZZZZ.

Secondly, the ability to have "bad HTML" gives webmasters a starting point. The fact that they can PUT a site up gives them a sense of triumph. The problem starts only when they decide to rest on their laurels, and don't think they need to improve. (Come to think of it, I think that was Microsoft's mistake, too.)

Anyways, there's my position, I will head off and start coding in HTML 2.0, while you proceed to scream your tags off.

*Puts fry pan on moniter, waiting for flames* :D

Stephen Philbin

09-30-2004, 02:10 PM

Actually it's bad code that makes it harder for people that don't have html as their "strong suit". The whole point of html is that it is very simple and very basic, with the intention of making it usable by all. HTML was put into wide use for that reason, because SGML was way to much for Joe Regular to cope with just to put up a simple page for his holiday diary.

Proper, clean mark up is VASTLY more simple and clean than the monsterous messes that most people think is "how you code". If they saw proper semantic code I'd bet masses of people would have no qualms about taking a stab at learning html at all.

Mr Initial Man

09-30-2004, 03:36 PM

Depends on what you mean.

For example, the creator of the webcomic "Fur-Piled" is not good at HTML. Here is the coding of page 1 of his comic, in it's entirety.

<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Fur-Piled 01</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<CENTER>
<IMG SRC="images/fp-01.jpg">
<a href="fp-02.HTML">Next Comic</a>
</CENTER>

</HTML>

And that's it. No doctype, no meta tags, no nothing.

And yet it will work. THIS is the kind of "bad HTML" I was talking about.

Oh, and it's not one of those "works in IEvil alone" deals. Right now, I'm using Slopera, and I've viewed it with Fireflop before.

MstrBob

09-30-2004, 03:38 PM

Mr Herer is right. Look at the source of these too websites, and tell me which is easier to read, and to design (ignore the actual designs. Given that markup, which would be easier to create a design with?)

http://www.1976design.com/blog/

http://www.amazon.com

You see the sheer complexity bad coding can give the page? The sheer size a page can take on because of it? The amount of time that would be spent debugging it? You can't honestly that clean, valid, semantic coding is harder that the presentational crap on many websites today. I think it has more to do with a lack of knowledge on this topic, and a lack of teachers and website tutorials about it. If I had been taught the proper way to begin with, I know I would have done much better. But so much of it became way more complicated than need be. The point of semantics and validity is to make (x)HTML simpler, smaller, and easier to write/interpret.

steelersfan88

09-30-2004, 04:01 PM

Microsoft has no problem, Apple has the problem. Microsoft knows it must improve, but it has to wait until Apple come sout with it, steal it, and claim it be theirs and make millions off it, that's all. As for IE, its a sense of superiority, despite them all knowing it should be changed.

And as for the topic, Mr. Herer is right (for once, j/k).

pyro

09-30-2004, 04:29 PM

I fail to see why poorly formed HTML is any strength, much less HTML's greatest. Sure, it may allow any Tom, Dick, or Jane to build a "website" (if you want to all it that), but unfortunately poor Tommy probably doesn't know the first thing about design or usability. We've all seen company (yes, company!) websites that look like the guys 12 year old son built it. Tell me how much money that website is making for the owner. My point is, the people who don't know how to write proper HTML (or my personal choice, XHTML - more on that later) probably don't know what it takes to build a successful website. "But wait," I hear you say, "there are many web development companies who don't use standards compliant code." True, I can't argue with that. However, if invalid code simply wouldn't work, they'd learn in a quick hurry.

Now on to the XHTML. When XHTML is passed as an application of XML (as it should be), in a decent browser (not IE) the page will simply not display. Instead you will get an XML parsing error. Now tell me it isn't important to have well-formed HTML!

It all boils down to the fact that anyone who calls themself a web developer should invest the time it takes to learn how to program correctly. If that's too much to ask, maybe that person needs to find a different occupation. Try doing some "real" programming for a while, and then tell me that syntax doesn't matter.

Mr Initial Man

09-30-2004, 04:34 PM

Okay, I think what I've been saying has kinda gotten lost in the shuffle. If you'll take a look at HTML from the page I posted ( http://www.liondogworks.com/fp-01.HTML )
It wouldn't take much to validate it. It's not a horrific slop-job of massive amounts of cobbled-together coding. It's just missing a bit of data.

Then again, would you consider that /bad/ HTML, or incomplete? Or does it matter?

Stephen Philbin

09-30-2004, 07:45 PM

Originally posted by steelersfan88

And as for the topic, Mr. Herer is right (for once, j/k).

............... *slap*

Anyway. In my view incomplete mark up is preferable to malformed and outright incorrect code, but still only by a very narrow margin. The page you offered as an example works without a DTD for two reasons:

1) Most popular browsers are created to guess and place a DTD in the document in the hope that a page may still be displayed in some kind of ordered structure of rules, just in case it comes across a page someone made and couldn't be arsed to stick a DTD in like a bell-end.

2) There is no mark up there to screw up. Using that page as an example of how a page can "work" even without a DTD is no different from having one ball and one cup and saying you can guess wich cup the ball is under every time. Of course you're gonna get it right. There's nothing to get wrong. Put a real-world, mid-scale page up without a DTD and then you get to see what a mess can be made when no DTD is offered.

What you have been saying has not been lost in the "shuffle" either (not on me anyway). I aswered your question in my first post. Proper semantic markup is vastly cleaner and far easier to read and write than the abhorrant monstrosoties that most people make through thinking that's "just how to do it". Or to simplify:

Bad mark up is the reason people think using html is hard.

If you can use a highlighter pen, you can do html.

Mr Initial Man

09-30-2004, 07:49 PM

My apologies, then.

Because the page that I showed you was what I was thinking of when I was talking about "bad HTML."

And BTW, "Couldn't be arsed" or simply didn't know about the doctype? Could be the latter.

Stephen Philbin

09-30-2004, 08:14 PM

Don't apologise. If we didn't discuss these things, then nobody would learn.

In my view there are two things that are holding back the development of sites on the internet:

1) The attitude discussed here of: "If it works in IE/If it puts most of the stuff on the page on whatever I'm viewing it in, then it'll do because I can't be arsed finishing it/doing it right". If the modern standards of code are not used, then not only do we have all the problems of inaccessibility and incompatability etc, but we are also presented with the huge problem of people not seeing what modern standards compliant mark up (along with css) can acomplish. If nobody sees it, then fewer people know of it and fewer people starting out will use it. Thus perpetuating the cycle of bad, limited and limiting code being used and the great advancements made in the past 6 or so years going to waste.

2) Microsoft Internet Explorer.

Mr Initial Man

09-30-2004, 08:27 PM

*Nods.* I used to use IE for the longest time. Now, I generally use Opera. I've got Firefox as well, but trying to scroll through that using arrows drove me bonkers.

Interesting, how the attitude seems to be that IEvil isn't even a browser.

pyro

09-30-2004, 08:36 PM

Originally posted by Mr Herer
1) Most popular browsers are created to guess and place a DTD in the document in the hope that a page may still be displayed in some kind of ordered structure of rules, just in case it comes across a page someone made and couldn't be arsed to stick a DTD in like a bell-end.Perhaps I just miss-understood what you were getting at, but browsers don't guess at the DTD the developer was trying to use if one is absent. If a document doesn't have a DOCTYPE (or has an imcomplete/incorrect DOCTYPE) the browser will go into quirks mode. Read up on DOCTYPE switching for more info.

Stephen Philbin

09-30-2004, 08:58 PM

lol. Obviously the browser doesn't have a read of the page and think which DTD would go well with that nav section. Browsers != Calvin Kline;

Merely a simplified analogy.

buntine

09-30-2004, 10:23 PM

Most Web Dev companies dont write in strictly valid markup because its not productive. The big guys dont care whether the Web is full of invalid code, they just want the clients money.

If they can produce a DreamWeaver Web Site in 3 days and have it fully operational within the week, who cares if its valid? The client certainly doesnt (he/she doesnt even know what valid code is!).

Infact, only the web-savvy people have even heard of the W3C. Its far from law to have your Markup validated, so why bother doing it if its ultimately going to cost you money?

I dont think having Valid code is that important anyway. Provided your site looks fine in the top 3 or 4 browsers. Noone, especially regular web surfers (just about everyone) is going to know or care about xHTML or whether your site will look perfect in every browser known to man and every handheld device.

I have no problem with people spending extra time perfecting their code, not at all. But in the big world of business, its simply not necessary -- even counterproductive.

Regards,
Andrew Buntine.

pyro

09-30-2004, 11:41 PM

Most Web Dev companies dont write in strictly valid markup because its not productive.
That depends on how you define productive.

Its far from law to have your Markup validated, so why bother doing it if its ultimately going to cost you money?
You need to look at the big picture. Sure, it may be a bit cheaper to originally deliver a non-standards compliant, table-based design, but what happens when the client needs things updated? You need to think longer term.

...whether your site will look perfect in every browser known to man and every handheld device.
That shouldn't be the goal. Ensuring that the content is deliverable regardless of the device accessing it should be.

But in the big world of business, its simply not necessary -- even counterproductive.
Again, you're not looking at the big picture. The long-term portability of a well-formed, intelligent site is very likely to save a company money, if they are in it for the long haul.

buntine

10-01-2004, 01:26 AM

You have some potentially good points. However, I dont see how updating a valid Web Site will differ from updating an invalid (but reasonably neat) Web Site.

Also, why are tables not valid/accessable? What browser/device does not have support for them?

Regards.

zachzach

10-01-2004, 03:31 PM

^^Ryan knows all!!!!!

He corrects me half the time, so I'll just correct myself this time. Ryan tries to be the best he can be, but isn't always right. Just most of the time

:D :p

zachzach

10-01-2004, 03:38 PM

Also, why are tables not valid/accessable?
Tables were designed for tabular data, not page layouts. They just weren't made for that. Its like using <pre> tags instead of tags.

What browser/device does not have support for them?
All browsers interperate the code differently. On handheld devices, your tables may be squashed into nothingness. If you used CSS, handheld devices would be better off (http://www.alistapart.com/articles/pocket/). Lynx (http://lynx.browser.org/) does not support tables--other than that, I think all other major browsers support tables fully or partially, at least.

Also, I forgot:
Tables use more markup, and some phone's built in browsers charge by the amount of markup needed to download.

MstrBob

10-01-2004, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by buntine
You have some potentially good points. However, I dont see how updating a valid Web Site will differ from updating an invalid (but reasonably neat) Web Site.

Also, why are tables not valid/accessable? What browser/device does not have support for them?

Regards.

Look, invalid code will generally lead to longer debuggin. Especially if you're going pure CSS layout. Which is the only way you should be laying out a website. Must we go in why tables shouldn't be used? Especially for a company, they should know that tables will increase the size of their pages. Since CSS can be stored in a different file and is completely separate from markup, it's downloaded once. Effectively saving disk space, and saving bandwith. Multiplied by the amount of users and pages accessed, it really adds up. Of course, redesigns are simplified with CSS, and it degrades very nicely.

In terms of support for tables, modern graphical browsers support them. However, quite the bit of hacking can go into making a site cross browser, and makes it a lot better on handheld devies and devices for the disabled.

Generally, you will spend more time fixing issues that pop up by not validating. A lot more effort will go into it. A well formed, semantic, valid website using full CSS can be made and go cross browser a lot more faster than a table based one. And invalidity will simply muck up any sort of designing as browsers attempt to guess or default to a behaviour with the issue. If you know it properly, it will save you time, and the company money.

buntine

10-01-2004, 10:33 PM

I can agree with you on everything, except your last point is incorrect. Its much faster for a company to spit out a bunch of DreamWeaver/FrontPage Web Site, which are going to generate the same amount of profit. I know this from experience. I have worked at several design agencies as a programmer, all the designers laughed at me when I suggested that it would be better to just use xHTML or a code editor.

When the client decides he/she wants something changed, the designers simply open the site in their WYSIWYG editor and make the changes. They dont care if its invalid! Why should they? HTML is way to easy to bother hand coding. Its all about code generation these days with markup. I wish it wasnt (thats why i stopped doing it).

Using CASE tools and code generating software is production++. I have just been to the National Oracle conferance (which had alot of conferances about Web-based development), they ALL used code generating tools to get the boring stuff (eg HTML) out of the way.

Regards.

Mr Initial Man

10-02-2004, 02:25 AM

Here's a question for you guys...

What would you say if someone coded in a particularily old version of HTML? Say, HTML 3.2 or 2.0?

the tree

10-02-2004, 04:16 AM

Well that type of person would probaly not bother with a doctype so the browser or validator would fallback to html 4, and I don't see whats wrong with that apart from the invalidness of not having a doctype.

I'm afraid that I do agree with bad html being a strenth because if my first attempts at making sites didn't work then I'd of given up and not learnt correct (x)html.

Mr Initial Man

10-02-2004, 01:04 PM

Indeed. And unless the guy creating the site is using Dreamweaver (where you'd get globs of bad HTML> the HTML is likely to be "bad" in that it would be incomplete.

 without No doctypes or meta tags. No DTDs.

The way I first learned HTML was when I had to move a page built in Angelfire's page builder over to 0catch.

JavaHead Jonnie

10-02-2004, 03:17 PM

I am sooo sorry I didn't see this topic earlier - it's hilarious!

And at the same time so, so sad. It's my life it a nut shell - I started writing crappy HTML 3-point-something when I was nine (four years ago) and it took me three weeks to churn out a non valid, non semantic, CSS free site (Blue backgrounds, 4px wide borders, yellow text, tags everywhere...). Then I noticed a little thing named named JavaScript - it blew my mind; but also got me thinking; "Hey, when I'm at school, my JS doesn't work. I wonder why...".

That lead me to learn about accessibility issues. I still haven't finished learning, but as of nine months ago I can churn out a (X)HTML compliant, semantically coded, CSS layout-ed PHP/DB driven site in a weekend.

I like bad coding. Actually, I hate it now, but without bad coding I would have never learned good coding.

Paul Jr

10-02-2004, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by JavaHead Jonnie
I like bad coding. Actually, I hate it now, but without bad coding I would have never learned good coding.
It would be nice if everyone was like that, but the truth is they are not. I believe that if HTML were more strict — if bad code would not work at all — then, although many people that code today would not be coding, the amount of websites out there with bad code would be greatly, if not completely, diminished.

Mr Initial Man

10-02-2004, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by Paul Jr
I believe that if ... bad code would not work at all — then, ... many people that code today would not be coding...

Now is that a good thing or bad thing?

MstrBob

10-02-2004, 08:28 PM

I'm of the opinion that proper coding is not hard at all. And it really isn't. It's the incredible lack of resources for learning. All those HTML tutorials out there don't teach you properly. All the proffessors in those web design classes don't code properly. If HTML was strict at the get go, then people would code properly, teach others to code properly, and the multitude of WYSIWYG editors out there would have to spit out proper code. HTML started off very flexible, and because of that created a situation now where it's going to be very, very difficult to get it back nice and strict. You can't possible tell me that valid, semantic code is hard. It all makes much more sense. It's simply the lack of proper resources.

Stephen Philbin

10-02-2004, 09:34 PM

Definately with bob on this one. Jonnie. You say you started off with bad code and now write good code (as did I and most other people). But if ya think about it, there's not really any significance to that point. If we'd found the right resources in the first place, we'd have coded properly in the first place. And I dunno about you, but I'd have learned html a damned sight faster to boot.

Mr Initial Man

10-02-2004, 09:42 PM

I'd have to agree on that one. I mean, I wish there were more tutorials that said what the tags were, and why they exist.

One reason, though, some people might think learning proper HTML is hard is because HTML has become an absolute grab bag of a gazillion different programming languages. You have (x)HTML itself, XML, CSS, PHP, Javascript, CGI, ASP...

buntine

10-02-2004, 09:59 PM

One reason, though, some people might think learning proper HTML is hard is because HTML has become an absolute grab bag of a gazillion different programming languages. You have (x)HTML itself, XML, CSS, PHP, Javascript, CGI, ASP...

What do you mean by that?

Stephen Philbin

10-02-2004, 10:09 PM

Kind of true yeah. It's rare that anyone can learn html and just stop there. Mainly (I assume) because people assume that html is more than it actually is. html can put a form on a page yeah, but it can't do anything with the data given to it. Before learning html people just seem to assume that html does everything and that the creation and processing of the forms (and just about everything else on the web) is done via html. So naturally when someone thinks of a page, then gets half way through it only to find they can't do it without other stuff too, then naturally they will progress. The fact still remains though that html its self is very simple (, even more simple when used semantically and with CSS).

The difficulty comes from other languages really if ya think about it. Think what you said through. Originally posted by Mr Initial Man
One reason, though, some people might think learning proper HTML is hard is because HTML has become an absolute grab bag of a gazillion different programming languages. You have (x)HTML itself, XML, CSS, PHP, Javascript, CGI, ASP...

Basically what you're saying there is that html is hard because it's simple.. That html would be easier if it was harder. As though because html is simple, it can't do everything. So you have to go and learn harder languages to be able to do what you assumed html did in the first place and that because these other more complex scripting laguages are more difficult, that it makes html more difficult by some obscure bi-directional proxy.

Mr Initial Man

10-02-2004, 10:13 PM

Not exactly, no. What I'm saying is someone might look at a page that has PHP, Javascript, CSS in its header, the whole 9 yards, and be like "I think I'll stick with my code" which has no doctype, no meta tags, or so on, because the code he sees seems very complex.

Stephen Philbin

10-02-2004, 10:30 PM

Yes, they would. If they saw the kind of code we are trying to discourage. But with minimal, semantic, valid, clean code they wouldn't.

Php never gets sent to the user so that's the first one out the window and solved straight off. Ideally CSS would not be in the head of the document either. It would be in a seperate style sheet to be cached to save transfer, loading speeds and for use on other pages. Javascript that comes in the head of the document is usually set there to set up functions etc for scripts later in the page. As such it should really be kept to a minimum. If there's a lot of javascript there, the chances are that it's used to do things that would cause the page not to function properly without. Obviously there are masses of pages that do have perfectly sound javascript in large volumes in the head, but not nearly as many as those that don't. Plus the entirely different format and syntax should be a bit of a give-away that it is not html.

If you read a post of mine in another thread. In my opinion it's not so much the validity of the mark up that counts (although I still consider validity to be of high import), but more the the fact that it should be clean, clear and concise. If the mark up was all 3 of these, then why would someone look at it and think "F*** that. It's too complicated.

MstrBob

10-02-2004, 10:35 PM

Originally posted by Mr Initial Man
Not exactly, no. What I'm saying is someone might look at a page that has PHP, Javascript, CSS in its header, the whole 9 yards, and be like "I think I'll stick with my code" which has no doctype, no meta tags, or so on, because the code he sees seems very complex.

Of course, you wouldn't see PHP on a page, since it's server side. ;)

But yes, the web has become very much user-friendly. It's become so rich in terms of multimedia, that to create what people think of as a website can, indeed, become rather complex. Of course, this is because as people want more out of the web, it does get more complex. Think of the development of the web as the development of cars. Yeah, a Model T actually was very simple. You get down the basics of making the carriage and the motor and you're done. But in today's modern car, it's a hell of a lot more complex.

Even so, very nice websites can be made simply with HTML and CSS. Of course, the confusion of it all is directly related, once again, to the lack of resources. I know myself, when I first started out with HTML, I was ten. Now, actually, It wasn't until about two years ago that I started with forms and more complex things, and realized that HTML couldn't do anything but create forms.

Of course, while learning, I was always jumping around from one guide to the next. With guide A being incomplete, guide B being complete, but annoyingly simple, and guide C being complete but brain bruisingly technical. What's really needed is a good, complete guide to making a valid, semantic, full CSS website. And, though W3Schools is an excellent website for learning the actual languages, most people are looking for something more. We need to start somewhere, we need guides to show how to put what we know together and make something. And the guides out there that do that, don't show how to do it properly. It'd be a lot simpler with better guides.

Ben Rogers

10-02-2004, 10:40 PM

Way offtopic probably, but I can't be bothered with back reading, apparently. I actually agree with the original poster. HTML is simple, and allows people to post a lot content by someone other than a company onto the web, and easily. In fact, I think that as standards enthusiasts with nothing better to do, the next time we see a good site done badly (non-corporate, of course) offer to do it over! Ask them to zip up the files, and say you'll spiff up their site. I promise that the next time I read a fanfic off of some geocites site, I will contact the webmaster, and tell them of their wrongdoings, and offer my assistance. Who's with me, lol?

Now, back to your regularly scheduled discussion, and feel free to delete this if I'm repeating someone else.

JavaHead Jonnie

10-03-2004, 10:12 AM

There's a few good points in the previous posts - what people need is a good way of learning; Books are out because most people program crappy code because they don't want to spend money on something like a book. What people need is a website that teaches semantic code - just like W3 Schools.

However, unlike W3 Schools, which teaches things seperately (CSS, HTML, JS etc.) there should be a site that runs people through making a website teaching the things as they need it, whether it's CSS, HTMl or JS or simple PHP or whatever.

It would be great if a few people for WebDev got together to make a site like that.
I know I would.

Ben Rogers

10-03-2004, 10:22 AM

Originally posted by JavaHead Jonnie
It would be great if a few people for WebDev got together to make a site like that.
I know I would. I actually started to do that at one time, but it was one of those projects that never got finished. I had written out an outline/TOC, so I wish I had kept it. I guess I'll rewrite that. By the way, this isn't going to turn out like the internet bible, is it? I hope not, especially since this is more realistic.

Finally, new thread (in general), or continue it here?

Stephen Philbin

10-03-2004, 10:39 AM

I'd certainly be interested in helping to make such a thing. However I doubt I'll be able to help until the new year. :(

MstrBob

10-03-2004, 11:10 AM

Okay, look. There's a need for this. A call has been sent out and we must answer it! (And more of that encouraging mumbo-jumbo) But I'm going to make sure this actually happens:

http://www.webdeveloper.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=255498#post255498

Poegle

10-03-2004, 11:21 AM

Im sure people who want to learn how to make websites would want to learn correctly. I know the book I was using Sam's Teach yourself HTML and XHTML didnt explain it very well and was hard for me to get anywhere because i find it hard to stick with stuff especially books. Thankfully I had good old Mr Herer to point me into the right direction of what to learn and where from. I know I cant do anything fancy but I still can make my sites valid XHTML and CSS which i try to do each time I practice making something, and yes there are some hitches along the way but as we all do I learn from my mistakes. So this sounds like a good idea would be very handy for people wanting to learn correctly.:)

Ben Rogers

10-03-2004, 12:49 PM

Yes, learning right the first time makes for an excellent base. Afterwards, it's just trial and error, but sites like ALA and the various blogs exist so we can learn from others mistakes. (There'll have to be a resource section, of course.)

bol

10-07-2004, 08:38 AM

I'm just making my very first ever web site.
Made it all in css, with not a single table tag in the whole thing, and now - thanks to reading this bloody site - I've been lured into getting it validated. I didn't even know what "getting a page validated" was five minutes ago (some links to validation sites on this thread might help), but after a quick yahoo search I found http://validator.w3.org

I'm happy to say that 8 of my twelve pages passed on their first go WOOOO! and the others were all missing the alt attribute in some image tags.

I can now display a FOUR COLOUR w3C offical graphic on my page, with a little link to validate it when I feel like it.

I'm very happy. I think I'll have another beer.

Incidentally, I just ran Yahoo's front page through the checker and they have 261 errors. Ha! That's why they dont have the w3c icon on their page. No beer for them, bastards.

zachzach

10-07-2004, 05:37 PM

acually, i dont think they care if their bastards. theyre making billions of dollars a year, who cares. stupid.

soccer362001

10-07-2004, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by zachzach
acually, i dont think they care if their s. theyre making billions of dollars a year, who cares. stupid.
Plus they would not care because most internet users use IE and they dont care if you use another browser

bol

10-07-2004, 09:31 PM

hmm.

touche.

Ben Rogers

10-07-2004, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by soccer362001
Plus they would not care because most internet users use IE and they dont care if you use another browser Well, in the case of Yahoo, they work fine (with the exception of launch vids) in other browsers, so I got nothing against 'em; they have great content, which would be improved by a site done right, but I don't hold it against 'em.