Printable View
I think firefox is a much more popular choice than a lot of people realise, for example a quick glance at my websites stats shows that almost 50% of the visitors came with a non-firefox browser, and of those 39.5% used firefox...
http://www.nedstatbasic.net/s?tab=1&link=5&id=2504624
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin_smithers
Wow! :yikes:Quote:
Originally Posted by iaskwhy
personally i think that is extremely bad practice.Quote:
I install FireFox as befault on all machines I fix for my customes without asking them first
your average user is not going to update firefox, so in 6 months time (for arguments sake) he/she has a vulnerable browser.
ie may be the worst culprit for security but on an up to date pc running xp2
on dafault settings m$ informs you of security updates etc.
if you are going to install firefox on your customers computers it may be a good idea to inform them about updates and fixes etc.
also, if they come across a site that used to work before and doesn't now they are going to be a little confused to say the least, so it may be in idea to inform them about browser differences, and inform them that ie should be used on sites that don't work with firefox.
Already done that one I even have an entire section on my customer support forum about all browsers and rendering and browser support sites etc etc etcQuote:
Originally Posted by darkstar
I don't think one of my customers is a total dummey when it comes to things like this at the end of the day they run their own companies!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin_smithers
Hmmm. It appears that these two people are telling two different stories.Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin_smithers
I'm not sure which one of them I believe.
i want that...Quote:
Originally Posted by random10122
There are no "just surfers" out there, because everyone is different. Everyone is getting more experienced with computers and a person who started surfing a year ago will know quite a lot by now. He will know how to download and will like the download system in FF, he will try to press other buttons to see what they do and experiment. I use FF for security and for the development options. The main reason is extensions, like beeing able to watch my stocks, the weather and forum updates in the lower corner of the browser or deleting all ads. My mum is sligthtly above the normal user and she just got Skype installed at her office so they can call their offices in other countries. She learns and so does the people who work there, even though they are a lot less techie than she is.
Whats the most popular game in the world and what is the best game in the world according to gamers? solitaire and HL2 Does that mean we should stop producing games, since 90% of the people play solitaire?
Yes, all gamers should be shot, drawn and quartered.Quote:
Does that mean we should stop producing games, since 90% of the people play solitaire?
Not just because they're gamers, but because when they aren't playing games, they're out skateboarding.
Are some of you people just plain retarded? I can't believe some of the ignorance I've read here... and from webdesigners!
For those of you taking the stance that Firefox isn't viable because it "can't get all sites to work" think about this: HTML has a proper syntax and form, a specific set of rules governing how it should be written. With IE, more websites work because IE accepts sloppy code (not using "s for example.) This then makes less experienced designers (or stubborn ones, as appear to be posting in this thread) think that they have created a site with correct html. When a browser like Firefox views the same code, the page breaks, because FF actually requires correct coding. You should be glad that there are browsers out there that actually care about continuity, and even more glad that they are gaining popularity.
If every new browser stooped to IE's level of sloppy code acceptance (or just decided to make up their own rules, as IE has done,) eventually we would have a much bigger mess on our hands than we do now. While it is a pain making sites cross-browser compatible, it's a worthy effort and a necessary effort in working towards a future where, hopefully, all browsers will adhere to the standards and we won't have to worry about different browser compatibility.
Or, you know, you can always keep using sloppy code and further degrading the "standards" until the entire world wide web is a big mess of incompatible broken websites... your choice.
Why are you calling people retarded? You don't seem to get it. Not everyone is a top level coder, in fact, very few of the worlds 6 billion people are even good coders. So I'd say that M$ and my wonderfull Uncle Bill have it all figured out. They built a browser for the masses, and as long as it will read sloppy code, it's going to be the best one out there.
It works out like this. If you build a browser that only works good on perfectly coded web pages, then your going to be like those open sore, er, um, open source Linux types. Too few, too soon.
In fact, I don't code all that great, and all you FF users can just stay the hell off my site if you don't like it. :p
The main question is "why do websites alienate Firefox users?". If all reports are true then 5% is a hell lot of unsatisfied costumers. And for some of the sites this percent might be even bigger [or smaller, still]. Why do websites choose to loose costumers? Can anyone really answer that?
It's just that maybe there's something more then just "IE is cool and FF sux".
I dont have enough money to buy fuel. Infact thats a bit of a lie, infact i havent even passed my driving test. ok im gonna start a new thread about my driving test!Quote:
Originally Posted by Subway
lolQuote:
So I'd say that M$ and my wonderfull Uncle Bill have it all figured out.
And if I make a site that only works in FF, then thats IE's fault then? I'm happy with that :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by big_k
this is the problem, the entire world wide web is a big mess of incompatible broken websites and firefox wont accept it and neither it seems will its fans, they appear to think that the www should change for them rather than the other way round, some of them even think that the tests are rigged or that they are unlikely choices
anyway whats done cant be turned back and ie 6 is getting old, a lot of web standards now were twinkles then.
wait to see what ie 7 is like and we can see a proper battle of the browsers,
not the adolescent vs the old man.
and watch ie 7 crush firefox.
mwaha
hahaaha
HaAaAAahaahhaa :crazy:
My webmail only fully works in IE. There was something a few days ago i had to open IE for because it wasn't working in firefox.Quote:
Originally Posted by admedia
Talk about incompatible standards most of the browsers still don't comply with the few standards that are in place. Safari became the first CSS2 compliant browser, who will follow next? I'm still waiting for a standarized javascript DOM. will it ever exist.
Wow...
*Shakes head at whole thread...*
oops
It's a lot smarter to build a browser that reads sloppy code than it is to try and force millions of FrontPage users to learn to code correctly.
nyck-nyck
well clearly different sites are going to have different statistics. While a site geared toward programers or coders will have a much higher ff or non-ie browser views, a standard news site such as bbc or nytimes.com will have, most likely, at the most 10% not using ie.Quote:
Originally Posted by random10122
If the www had depended solely on perfect code for a browser to view the page, the www would be ranked right beside the Edsel and there'd be 4 or 5 thousand of you effetes out there admiring each others websites while the rest of the world was still sitting on the front porch watching kids play jumprope out in the street.
I didnt want to jump into this but, i think that is a rather silly thing to say. If the www had depended solely on perfect code for a browser to view the page then designers would write perfect code, simple as... they do it for most other programming languages...Quote:
Originally Posted by iaskwhy
I don't know if i would say that, there is alot of crappy code out there, sure it works... but I would say it is far from perfect.Quote:
Originally Posted by random10122
Your missing my point. The www did not get to be what it is today because a few, very few people were able to write good code. It got this way; huge, like a snowball rolling down hill, first devouring small villages, then whole continents, because WYSIWYG editors such as Netscape Composer, FrontPage and other cheapo html editors were available to every Tom, Dick and Harry that wanted to try his hand at web design.
Without them, the internet would have floundered and died.
what about flash? flash is the most popular multimedia format in the world and it requirers perfect code to work. Another point to note is that perfect code is a lot easier to learn than sloppy code. If you can change the way you do things and they do different things then that is confusing. Now you have to learn that <br>, <BR> and <br /> all do the same thing and that your website wont work on all browsers. If the web was strict from the begining it would have been a lot easier.
bad code is how people found things... by sheer accident, I found a way to "scale" images from 1 pixel to their correct size way back during the Netscape 3.3 Gold days... my site would initially take a longer time to load because it was also loading the secondary images too, but once they were all loaded... poof. The site was incredibly fast.
But bad code and the internet... the standards for the www weren't really necessary, nor enforceable until recently. If it had started out strict, then 90% of the stuff out now wouldn't even be able to parse bad code, 90% of the sites wouldn't exist because you'd have just a few people able to make a perfectly good/strictly perfect written web page, and the growth of the www would have been choked out from the beginning.
The standards that are here now are due mainly to experimentation, expansion... and bad code.
Talk about bad code, and nobody mentioned Microsoft!? They write some of the crappiest programs known to mankind... but they "work"... and that's all a consumer needs... for it to work. That's all.
This is just what I've been trying to point out. Not 90% of websites out there, it's really more like 98% of all websites are build by WYSIWYG editors. Nobody learns code now, never did.Quote:
Another point to note is that perfect code is a lot easier to learn than sloppy code.
Still, all those people who want to build a website, and do, aren't listening to rule makers, they continue to use their editors.
That confuses me. Why dont the WYSIWYG's make propper code?
I've used FP since 1998. I never learned code, except what I picked up on my own. So I don't really know. Maybe because the rules keep changing?
I just started using Dreamweaver, and it makes as many or more mistakes as FP ever did. Now I got to learn more code. LOL
But I'm getting away from plain html, I'm going to learn CSS which seems to be a lot better and easier to learn.
I just got here and not read all the thread, just a few first posts and last few posts, so comment below based only on what i read so far :p
The reason why DW makes so many mistakes is often coz people try to use it to design sites in, its the adding and removing of code via WYSISYG interface that screws things up, if the site was designed properly with a design tool like PS, and introduced into DW in a planned and concise way without hit and miss trial on error judgement calls, then the code will rarely get messed up, I can 95% of the time validate my pages first time from DW, only on odd occasions i get validation errors, and when i do its usually coz the DW editor has screwed up a table (yes i still use tables sometimes, not all clients pay enough for CSS headaches :p ) or missed an alt tag. Not rocket science to fix :rolleyes:
So you can't blame the tools, it's the user, people are too lazy or unskilled in the tools they use, thats what makes bad code.
I use FF and i rarely get a problem, in fact i think since i started using it (0.9) i can only think of 1 site that i couldn't visit and they have now changed that recently due to requests by FF users (UK Bank).
I did hear rumours about a year ago that Ciscos was introducing stricter authentication on code passing through there networks in the near future, all code would have to validate to the latest W3C standards, and seeing that Ciscos has a major part of the network that creates the internet, this could be interesting if true.
that's the beauty of it, and that's why there are so many "webdesigners" around. You can't go study medicine by yourself, and say "ok, now i'm gonna go operate some patients, it doesn't matter if i don't know where the liver is, the nurse will tell me what i have to take out, or there are machines that know". But with web design...you can read a couple of tutorials, learn to work with a program without knowing what it does, be bad at what you do, and still get work and start calling yourself a webdesigner. Ain't it beautifull?
That's just priceless.... sorry to go off topic again.Quote:
Originally Posted by iaskwhy
Wow, the fanboyism in this thread is off the scale! :yikes:
I'm not even saying that perfect code is needed... especially with all of the wysiwyg editors out there (*shudder*). However, if we keep becoming more and more leniant then soon it will be impossible to do anything with one browser, coding will become a nightmare, etc. I'm not saying we should switch to browsers that only parse *perfect* code right now, but we definetly need to move toward a more strict markup.
Sure, it will be hard, but thats growing pains for ya...
FIREFOX FIREFOX FIREFOX OHH OHH OHH! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by gesteves
Apparently Target doesn't care about FireFox either.
not that it matters that much to me.... *opens in IE window
whats the problem with target
*leaves site and marks as "crap site, do not come back"
then how come it opens in my firefox browser?Quote:
Originally Posted by admedia
Check the menus...Quote:
Originally Posted by mark_my_words
But lhoss is right, for every site like target, there's gonna be another hundred that sell all the same gear, so move on, and find one that works. Far simpler than switching back to IE, and when target see how many FF visitors are dashing off after seeing the first page, they'll fix it.
uhhhh...right
In reference to the Target thing, why the hell does FF have issues with flash. That's the main thing there, the menus are dropping behind the swf. Also FF has issues with some of the embedding options for flash movies (scaling centering crap).
My 2 cents about the debate as if you all care...I am far more an artist than a coder and the fact that IE provides an 'error buffer' (not that I ever screw up) is not a bad thing. I run both on my P4HT 3.2 and a gig of ram and neither performs significantly better than the other. I think they are both viable options and standards need to be met somewhere in the middle.
The real point is!!!!!Why are we fighting amongst ourselves when we really should turn our attention to crushing those eccentric, rich, trust fund baby, "I wanna be different" bastards that use macs and really muck everything up!!!
where the hell did that come from? why are you callin apple users that! what does that have todo anything with firefox?Quote:
Originally Posted by JWin