One really sodding irritating example: http://dcgrendel.thewaffleiron.net/vmbuilder/2.02/

Have you ever considered the fact that (that) website needs to display properly regardless of operating system? Last time I wrote websites for IE you would need to call an MS-only ActiveX/DirectDraw control to do fade-in-fade-out effect that website does, if you were coding for IE.

I think youre sorely misguided on the reasons behind the designed for banner in this instance, M3ta7. Its about spreading openness, instead of helping MS lock people into their software.

But yes, FF does need a way to be easily deployed in large corporate enviroments. In Red Hat you can do this fairly easily, but not Windows yet.

Quote from: skidzilla

Quote from: M3ta7h3ad

One really sodding irritating example: http://dcgrendel.thewaffleiron.net/vmbuilder/2.02/

Have you ever considered the fact that (that) website needs to display properly regardless of operating system? Last time I wrote websites for IE you would need to call an MS-only ActiveX/DirectDraw control to do fade-in-fade-out effect that website does, if you were coding for IE.

I think youre sorely misguided on the reasons behind the designed for banner in this instance, M3ta7. Its about spreading openness, instead of helping MS lock people into their software.

But yes, FF does need a way to be easily deployed in large corporate enviroments. In Red Hat you can do this fairly easily, but not Windows yet.

Im for spreading openness, designing for one particular browser is poor design. The "designed for" logo may have been intended to spread openness, but ultimately it gives poor web developers a shield to hide behind.

There should be no need to specify what browser your site was intended for viewing in. It should just work.

The term is "web developer" not "IE developer" or "FireFox developer".

Regardless of OS... typically any linux browser (aside from lynx ) has been designed using the mozilla framework.

Konqueror, Opera, Galeon? I have used lynx () in framebuffer (GUI) mode once or twice as well.

Quote from: M3ta7h3ad

Quote from: skidzilla

Quote from: M3ta7h3ad

One really sodding irritating example: http://dcgrendel.thewaffleiron.net/vmbuilder/2.02/

Have you ever considered the fact that (that) website needs to display properly regardless of operating system? Last time I wrote websites for IE you would need to call an MS-only ActiveX/DirectDraw control to do fade-in-fade-out effect that website does, if you were coding for IE.

I think youre sorely misguided on the reasons behind the designed for banner in this instance, M3ta7. Its about spreading openness, instead of helping MS lock people into their software.

But yes, FF does need a way to be easily deployed in large corporate enviroments. In Red Hat you can do this fairly easily, but not Windows yet.

Im for spreading openness, designing for one particular browser is poor design. The "designed for" logo may have been intended to spread openness, but ultimately it gives poor web developers a shield to hide behind.

There should be no need to specify what browser your site was intended for viewing in. It should just work.

The term is "web developer" not "IE developer" or "FireFox developer".

Regardless of OS... typically any linux browser (aside from lynx ) has been designed using the mozilla framework.

Konqueror, Opera, Galeon? I have used lynx () in framebuffer (GUI) mode once or twice as well.

lol good point I clearly couldnt see the wood for the trees this morning

And omg... framebuffer mode lynx  

There should be no need to specify what browser your site was intended for viewing in. It should just work.

Grats on basically arguing against yourself again  
You link something to support yourself and comment yourself in regard to making sites work for IE and then you say this later on which from my above post proves the point that You make sites working under many OS and other browsers but then have to have conditional css to make it work in IE basically putting down your own comments.
Make your mind up

But yes, FF does need a way to be easily deployed in large corporate enviroments. In Red Hat you can do this fairly easily, but not Windows yet.

build a .MSI file and push it out using Server 2003/2008?  or just build it into the company image.  Ive used the latter myself, and I know of a large IT company who has pushed it out to all their XP workstations...

A little while ago when I quoted large responses a certain person with the name starting M3 Moaned and threw some insults my way and we have the above, funny that.

What is the point of coding to "standards" when the largest market share (bacon well done for pointing out the obvious, it doesnt change a thing however) browser fails to display it.

I could Go into great detail but basically you just show you not got a clue about the field your trying to contribute to so why bother?
I mean search alone and business and marketing in terms of your appearance on the web and search engines, standards are VITAL, NOT your meta tags, lol.

Its effectively: "im going to cut off my nose to spite my face"

Err, NO!  

Nexus please do correct me if im wrong, but what I see from your ranting is that you approve of only standardised code and suggest that to take account of a browsers limitations is foolish, as its not your website that doesnt work, its the browser.

Your wrong

Great, but Ill be sure to not recommend you for any web design jobs that come my way, because to fail to cater for the majority of internet users means that businesses will effectively lose the custom of those users.

LOL ^ Has no Clue, Funny How I got this very good job I am in now that SteveF insisted I would not get and could not get paid this amount of money for because Of What I can do, this is one of the leading web development companies in New Zealand and they ONLY code in strict XHTML.
Really, Far to much I could go into why your wrong M3ta7h3ad, the reason I am not is simply because your so wrong I could do 2,3 pages of posts on why you are and others can as well like they have only just touched on.

My point is that as a web developer, I would expect you to put in workarounds, to develop alternate views and to do the necessary leg work so that my company can be seen by as large a footprint as possible. Standards just dont cut the mustard Mr Jobsworth.

Funny how I showed above that I do but how IE is CRAP because you have to, but you seem to have ignored or not understand what was shown to you.
Sorry but I have to Laugh at you really hard if you think standards are meaningless, that really and honestly a really really dumb thing to say.

I would expect you to adhere to W3C guidelines on accessibility
I would expect valid XHTML.

Going back on what some of the things you say and say about IE, LOL>

I would expect the necessary additional work for the site to display in whatever browser I so choose, or at the very least a big selection of them.

Leading off the chain of discussion, again you ignoring or twisting even your own responses to reply to what comes you way.

Just as much as I would expect you to develop for any and all screen resolutions.

Which goes into contradiction with..

I would expect you to adhere to W3C guidelines on accessibility

IF you knew what they were actually saying at the moment, Are you a registered member of W3C and the web standards group like myself? I doubt you are.

My gripe is that sh*t web designers (you seem to be putting yourself firmly in this basket by your own admission)

Nope, You though have shown a massive lack of real understanding about web design and development and I am not the only one (msn ftw) agreeing that your way off the ball and until your attitude changes its you on the lower end because your basically shooting yourself in the foot in this thread in a big way.

hide behind the words "standards compliant" and "designed for" badges, believing it to be an excuse for poor code.

SORRY BUT AGAIN      Saying standards and poor code in the same sentence, sorry M3ta7h3ad but honestly this is just a massive "I HAVE NO CLUE" post yet again, as I said I can prove you wrong very easily and others will agree I am sure but it will just be from start to finish and take a while, basically it would be like introducing someone to the web from uni to a standard to be a good developer and designer. Next you will be saying people should still have javascript turned off.

As for 8 million, if thats the fully ratified total that guiness world records recognise has no duplicates in, so be it.

Took what? 3/4 attempts to get this drilled into your head what was ACTUALLY going on  

Let me just list a couple of bits in official web standards profile..

# Accessibility
# Usability

Then lets look at what you said

Every time standards is mentioned I know you do not know what it actually means and what your thinking is very wrong. I am not thinking your an idiot here, I really am pissed off how you attack people on this forum often wrongly like others and that is idiotic as its often meaningless attacks but here I just know you do not actually know enough and you just need to learn a lot more, what gets me is your arrogance and attitude here, I think the problem is again its nexus so your a bit blinded and more interested in just putting anything I post down even when your very wrong.

A little while ago when I quoted large responses a certain person with the name starting M3 Moaned and threw some insults my way and we have the above, funny that.

Quote

What is the point of coding to "standards" when the largest market share (bacon well done for pointing out the obvious, it doesnt change a thing however) browser fails to display it.

I could Go into great detail but basically you just show you not got a clue about the field your trying to contribute to so why bother?
I mean search alone and business and marketing in terms of your appearance on the web and search engines, standards are VITAL, NOT your meta tags, lol.

Quote

Its effectively: "im going to cut off my nose to spite my face"

Err, NO!  

Quote

Nexus please do correct me if im wrong, but what I see from your ranting is that you approve of only standardised code and suggest that to take account of a browsers limitations is foolish, as its not your website that doesnt work, its the browser.

Your wrong

Quote

Great, but Ill be sure to not recommend you for any web design jobs that come my way, because to fail to cater for the majority of internet users means that businesses will effectively lose the custom of those users.

LOL ^ Has no Clue, Funny How I got this very good job I am in now that SteveF insisted I would not get and could not get paid this amount of money for because Of What I can do, this is one of the leading web development companies in New Zealand and they ONLY code in strict XHTML.
Really, Far to much I could go into why your wrong M3ta7h3ad, the reason I am not is simply because your so wrong I could do 2,3 pages of posts on why you are and others can as well like they have only just touched on.

Quote

My point is that as a web developer, I would expect you to put in workarounds, to develop alternate views and to do the necessary leg work so that my company can be seen by as large a footprint as possible. Standards just dont cut the mustard Mr Jobsworth.

Funny how I showed above that I do but how IE is CRAP because you have to, but you seem to have ignored or not understand what was shown to you.
Sorry but I have to Laugh at you really hard if you think standards are meaningless, that really and honestly a really really dumb thing to say.

Quote

I would expect you to adhere to W3C guidelines on accessibility
I would expect valid XHTML.

Going back on what some of the things you say and say about IE, LOL>

Quote

I would expect the necessary additional work for the site to display in whatever browser I so choose, or at the very least a big selection of them.

Leading off the chain of discussion, again you ignoring or twisting even your own responses to reply to what comes you way.

Quote

Just as much as I would expect you to develop for any and all screen resolutions.

Which goes into contradiction with..

Quote

I would expect you to adhere to W3C guidelines on accessibility

IF you knew what they were actually saying at the moment, Are you a registered member of W3C and the web standards group like myself? I doubt you are.

Quote

My gripe is that sh*t web designers (you seem to be putting yourself firmly in this basket by your own admission)

Nope, You though have shown a massive lack of real understanding about web design and development and I am not the only one (msn ftw) agreeing that your way off the ball and until your attitude changes its you on the lower end because your basically shooting yourself in the foot in this thread in a big way.

Quote

hide behind the words "standards compliant" and "designed for" badges, believing it to be an excuse for poor code.

SORRY BUT AGAIN      Saying standards and poor code in the same sentence, sorry M3ta7h3ad but honestly this is just a massive "I HAVE NO CLUE" post yet again, as I said I can prove you wrong very easily and others will agree I am sure but it will just be from start to finish and take a while, basically it would be like introducing someone to the web from uni to a standard to be a good developer and designer. Next you will be saying people should still have javascript turned off.

Quote

As for 8 million, if thats the fully ratified total that guiness world records recognise has no duplicates in, so be it.

Took what? 3/4 attempts to get this drilled into your head what was ACTUALLY going on  

Let me just list a couple of bits in official web standards profile..

Quote

# Accessibility
# Usability

Then lets look at what you said

Every time standards is mentioned I know you do not know what it actually means and what your thinking is very wrong. I am not thinking your an idiot here, I really am pissed off how you attack people on this forum often wrongly like others and that is idiotic as its often meaningless attacks but here I just know you do not actually know enough and you just need to learn a lot more, what gets me is your arrogance and attitude here, I think the problem is again its nexus so your a bit blinded and more interested in just putting anything I post down even when your very wrong.

So where is the correction? All I see are retorts against what Ive suggested, not any actual content. Just "no" "wrong" "me and my secret army (msn 4tl)".

When you start posting actual content Ill see fit to respond.

Could you please explain how coding for any and all screen resolutions contravenes anything about the W3C accessibility guidelines? Hmm... because yes obviously developing a site to adapt to screen resolutions completely rules out using browser detection techniques to display content appropriately.

cross-platform code doesnt rule out standards at all.

Bacon: Well done for firefox.

Nexus: I suggest you re-read my first post in this thread.

My post simply states my opinion on something, its a device currently part of no formal HTML standard, and firefox supports it. It will lead to more incompatibilities with IE and other major browsers Id imagine, and it will introduce the "homestead" effect to most newbie web developers.

Its an opinion. Lose the vitriol, none of this at all is targeted at you in a particularly personal way.