.

Quote from: M3ta7h3adOne 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: M3ta7h3adOne 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.

Quote from: M3ta7h3ad

Quote from: skidzilla

Quote from: M3ta7h3adOne 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.

Also: I think it the end its about poking MS with enough sticks that in the end they got up off their arse and adhere to standards, instead of buying off committees ( theODF/XML farce for example).

Quote from: skidzilla

Quote from: M3ta7h3ad

Quote from: skidzilla

Quote from: M3ta7h3adOne 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  

Quote from: M3ta7h3adOne really sodding irritating example: http://dcgrendel.thewaffleiron.net/vmbuilder/2.02/

I came across it months back, there was a more recent one that I found as well but cant remember the url nor what the topic was as like the above in IE it displayed nothing other than the designed for firefox logo.

As for the downloads? Did you actually look at the numbers of pledges made? something in the region of 500,000 when I looked.

500,000 != 8,000,000

You know as well as I do that downloading and masking your trail is easy enough. If people want to skew a poll on a website, theyll do it. If its on something as fanboi-esque as firefox, you can bet your bottom dollar a bunch of people would do it.

What you dont know is does every one of the 8 million downloads constitute a record breaking one? No... I didnt say that either, what I said is that people will download firefox repeatedly, believing they are helping it get a world record.

Maybe its my turn to say "read the post".

Appears im not the only one getting irritated by it.

http://blog.keithsilgard.com/2008/05/07/designed-for-firefox/

LOL,
So even though it is being audited and Guinness are looking at the data to make it official you still will not believe it when it comes back because you know better?

The site you linked does not load for me But yur again basically moaning about sites that comply with full web standards which includes css validation which although those standards are there and work in other browsers they will not run in IE.
Do not get me started in regard to vistas rendering issues.

As for the read the post comment I fully well know what you said and again the fact that the data is properly being audited and the official figure will go out and go into the guiness book of records and it DOES NOT count someone repeatability downloading it ^^

I could very easily link loads of bad sites - bbc as a good example with the first version of the iplayer and how they got slated big style as it only worked in IE as well as other high profile sites.

That last link has a point but then he says IE sucks because it does and actually goes against a number of things you have said here yet you linked it, But then he is wrong because if you want to make a site fully validate it will NOT work in IE.


Code you have to do...
http://www.lockergnome.com/news/2004/06/15/why-you-should-dump-internet-explorer/











































DO not see Opera or FF in the detection elements you have to do to get it to look right in all sites, You even have to whack in needless overflows in your css because of IE being dumb.
Anyone and ALL of us can link sites as you done here to "show" our point to be the right one like this..

http://www.lockergnome.com/news/2004/06/15/why-you-should-dump-internet-explorer/
http://www.jeffwu.net/?p=204
http://www.slayerment.com/blog/damn-you-ie-internet-explorer-worst-freaking-browser-ever

But not a valid way to make a point and you havent, actual coding, standards and what it actually means to properly develop websties and web technologies - IE has to many faults and problems, I could go on and on in regard to the rendering engine and background flicker for example and more.

Metal You really do just not read things, make things up and twist and turn what you say just to have a go at a topic or person that you have a problem with, really is bizarre.

Quote from: M3ta7h3adThere 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

Quote from: M3ta7h3adLets not forget the browser with the largest market share is still IE.

Just like to point something out.

IE only has the largest market share cus MS monopolised the software market, and bill gates view was put to a pc in every home.

Thus i think its quite obvious why IE has the largest market share. If Firefox had been packaged under Windows OS it would have been the opposite.

For firefox to get 8 Million downloads in a few days is incredible, believe it or not.

All i know is Firefox > IE over page loading and security, or thats the way it seems to me.

Quote from: skidzillaBut 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...

Quote from: neXus

Quote from: M3ta7h3adOne really sodding irritating example: http://dcgrendel.thewaffleiron.net/vmbuilder/2.02/

I came across it months back, there was a more recent one that I found as well but cant remember the url nor what the topic was as like the above in IE it displayed nothing other than the designed for firefox logo.

As for the downloads? Did you actually look at the numbers of pledges made? something in the region of 500,000 when I looked.

500,000 != 8,000,000

You know as well as I do that downloading and masking your trail is easy enough. If people want to skew a poll on a website, theyll do it. If its on something as fanboi-esque as firefox, you can bet your bottom dollar a bunch of people would do it.

What you dont know is does every one of the 8 million downloads constitute a record breaking one? No... I didnt say that either, what I said is that people will download firefox repeatedly, believing they are helping it get a world record.

Maybe its my turn to say "read the post".

Appears im not the only one getting irritated by it.

http://blog.keithsilgard.com/2008/05/07/designed-for-firefox/

LOL,
So even though it is being audited and Guinness are looking at the data to make it official you still will not believe it when it comes back because you know better?

The site you linked does not load for me But yur again basically moaning about sites that comply with full web standards which includes css validation which although those standards are there and work in other browsers they will not run in IE.
Do not get me started in regard to vistas rendering issues.

As for the read the post comment I fully well know what you said and again the fact that the data is properly being audited and the official figure will go out and go into the guiness book of records and it DOES NOT count someone repeatability downloading it ^^

I could very easily link loads of bad sites - bbc as a good example with the first version of the iplayer and how they got slated big style as it only worked in IE as well as other high profile sites.

That last link has a point but then he says IE sucks because it does and actually goes against a number of things you have said here yet you linked it, But then he is wrong because if you want to make a site fully validate it will NOT work in IE.


Code you have to do...
http://www.lockergnome.com/news/2004/06/15/why-you-should-dump-internet-explorer/

Code Select Expand











































DO not see Opera or FF in the detection elements you have to do to get it to look right in all sites, You even have to whack in needless overflows in your css because of IE being dumb.
Anyone and ALL of us can link sites as you done here to "show" our point to be the right one like this..

http://www.lockergnome.com/news/2004/06/15/why-you-should-dump-internet-explorer/
http://www.jeffwu.net/?p=204
http://www.slayerment.com/blog/damn-you-ie-internet-explorer-worst-freaking-browser-ever

But not a valid way to make a point and you havent, actual coding, standards and what it actually means to properly develop websties and web technologies - IE has to many faults and problems, I could go on and on in regard to the rendering engine and background flicker for example and more.

Metal You really do just not read things, make things up and twist and turn what you say just to have a go at a topic or person that you have a problem with, really is bizarre.

.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------nexus

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.

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

Just to hammer the nail home.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

It comes with the job.

My gripe is that sh*t web designers (you seem to be putting yourself firmly in this basket by your own admission) hide behind the words "standards compliant" and "designed for" badges, believing it to be an excuse for poor code.

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

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.

QuoteWhat 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.

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

Err, NO!  

QuoteNexus 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

QuoteGreat, 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.

QuoteMy 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.

QuoteI 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>

QuoteI 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.

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

Which goes into contradiction with..

QuoteI 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.

QuoteMy 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.

Quotehide 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.

QuoteAs 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.

Just thought i would point out:

QuoteFirefox 3 Hits 17.3 Million Downloads

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,147422-c,mozilla/article.html

Quote from: neXusA 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.

QuoteWhat 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.

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

Err, NO!  

QuoteNexus 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

QuoteGreat, 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.

QuoteMy 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.

QuoteI 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>

QuoteI 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.

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

Which goes into contradiction with..

QuoteI 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.

QuoteMy 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.

Quotehide 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.

QuoteAs 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.

QuoteBacon: Well done for firefox

Im still waiting for you to remind the forum again, that IE has the biggest market share.

I did state the obvious in my other post.

Its not well done for me its well done for Mozilla