Browser Dark Ages

Are we entering a dark ages of the web browser?

Now Mozilla has turned off window.focus(); method by default in FF 2.0, oh and it still seems to leak memory like a siv. IE7 seems clunky as usual and I am not sure about their CSS support yet + Eolas.... Safari seems to have random results.

I miss the good old days when a browser was controllable and a developer could control the users experience and wasn't locked down by browser 'security' or 'standards'. I never had any problems with browser security before all of these new 'fixes'. I mean the worst thing that happened to me was a bunch of Pop-ups on some porn page I probably didn't need to be visiting anyways? :rolleyes:

I just feel browsers in general are in a bad spot right now and seems to be getting worse with the latest releases.

I guess I'm on the opposite sides. Firefox, Opera, Safari, and even IE are all more DOM compliant than ever before. The choice of what objects and methods I can use are higher than before. It doesn't mean all work correctly across all platforms/browsers, but where a lot of stuff I'd rather do is now covered in both browsers across the multiple OS variations.

Far from perfect though. But better than the weird tricks we were pulling out with Netscape Communicator 3.3 Gold and IE 4.02.

I feel like it's watering things down... everyone is so friggin scared that their popup will be blocked, or their css will break we are forced to come up with these weak static sites.

This is why I'm not a proponent of full AJAX / CSS sites. With Flash, it's one plugin. All browsers use the same plugin. There's only one standard: the one Adobe sets. All designs are completely self-contained. A Flash file will display the same through Firefox as it will in Opera, IE, handheld browsers, console browsers, and just about everywhere else.

I can't understand why it's so hard for browsers to adhere to a single standard.

Don't get me wrong... I like working within the DOM, CSS, XML and standards... I just feel like all browsers are currently forcing a certain way of designing a site down my throat. I would rather provide a solid standard across the board and let me work out the implementation details.

So in other words, you want a one browser, no competition future? Let's hope that's not MS. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gerbick

I guess I'm on the opposite sides. Firefox, Opera, Safari, and even IE are all more DOM compliant than ever before.

---

Have to agree. Just made an ajax feed aggregator the past two weeks with nearly 1000 lines of custom JavaScript, lots of effects and surprisingly everything works perfectly in all major browsers, damn beta testers didn't even find a single bug, just one misspelled word. ;)

Only Safari bugged me for a while because of that ugly "I don't remember anymore what I've put into there if it's cloning something that's already somewhere in the page" innerHTML bug.

Fredi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subway

Just made an ajax feed aggregator the past two weeks with nearly 1000 lines of custom JavaScript

---

i wonder how that will work when the FF 3.0 is released with javascript disabled by default ;)

Then I boycott the internet and become a gardener. ;)

Fredi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by admedia

i wonder how that will work when the FF 3.0 is released with javascript disabled by default ;)

---

That won't happen though, specially because, whether you want it or not, javascript is one of the things that made web2.0 happen. A lot of what you see in sites, done with javascript, are things you could do 7 years ago....but now, it's easier, and works better on most browsers, so it's less of a headache. That's why javascript is being considered again as a great option for webdev. I don't think anybody would try to make a browser with javascript disabled.

And, nowadays, the tendency is to use javascript to enhance a site. With dom scripting, you can hijack every element in your page and add functionality. So, if you do it the right way, you can have your site working with javascript disabled, and probably it won't have all the functionality, but at least the basic one. When you enable javascript, you'll add all the extra functionality. But your app shouldn't be totally javascript dependent, or at least it should degrade gracefully (i hate that buzz term, but it's the best description of the issue).




Regarding flash, it's not a flash problem, but you probably know that nowadays, the best options to embed flash in a webpage involve javascript (swfobject, for example), so for something so minimal, flash is kinda javascript dependant.

You can use flash, but it also has its problems regarding integration with the rest of your site (unless you want to make a full flash site, which limits you on other aspects as SEO), and then, javascript is the bridge that lets you communicate between your flash and your html.


We know about the problems of firefox, but you have to keep one thing in mind. Firefox has been a great aid in the evolution of the web. It's raise awareness and has made microsoft realize (somehow) that their browser also needed improvement (though i think they fail with ie7), and that developers are screaming for good standards and not. Browser competition is good, as long as they don't try to get all the market by closing their solutions (propietary implementations) but offering standards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by admedia

Are we entering a dark ages of the web browser?

Now Mozilla has turned off window.focus(); method by default in FF 2.0

---

I see that as a good thing

Quote:

---

I miss the good old days when a browser was controllable and a developer could control the users experience and wasn't locked down by browser 'security' or 'standards'. I never had any problems with browser security before all of these new 'fixes'. I mean the worst thing that happened to me was a bunch of Pop-ups on some porn page I probably didn't need to be visiting anyways?

---

Honestly, I'm a complete 180 from that. Standards allow you to make one page that looks identical on all browsers. No voice-family CSS hacks or * body hacks. If the browsers followed the standards, then testing and debugging a web page would be a hell of a lot easier.

I've always approached web design off the idea that I'm making this web page for the users. Not for me. I think the worst thing you could do to a web page is control the users experience. That includes forced pop-ups, disabling the back button, or my personal favorite, opening a new window fullscreen with no title bar or other browser features. Flash hasn't helped with this, in fact it has only made the problem worst.

If someone wants to open a page in a new window, then they have the ability to do that with their browser. I shouldn't force that on them. However, I can understand that in some cases it really might be necessary to open a new window. Well, then your design should let the user know this.

As a side note, there exists a difference between what a user will expect to happen and what actually happens. Designers need to take the time to look at their design from the users perspective. We have two links that look identical, one open in a new window, the other opens in the same window. What will the user expect? Does this choice have implications (like no more back button)? This is one of the simplest examples, but it makes sense.

In short, having standards compliance and javascript pop-up disabled are a good thing.

And all designers should go read The Design of Everyday Things

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yasunobu13

I see that as a good thing

---

I thought as developers we were getting the hang and starting to self police ourselves, what is good and proper when vs. what is not. Full screen sites and Flash intros were falling far from fashion... I didn't feel like we needed the browsers to step in and start mandating these things for the benefit of the user.

We maybe, but there are tons of devs, especially in the ad business that just don't give a ****, all they care is the amount of money they make and nothing else. Something like self police ourselves will never work.

Fredi

I'm on all 3 sides of the fence. I was doing page layout long before the internet, only it was for books and magazines. Talk about design standards, everyone who picked up the book was going to see the same thing. Seems silly to think about it that way but given speed bumps of todays designers it's more of a best case scenario.

What I mean is, design used to be just that, design. As soon as I decided what I wanted to see, I'd let the computer know and be done. Sure it required some prep work but it was the kinda stuff you macro or flight check and get back to the enjoyable part of being creative. It was an amazing time for me and believed the future would only get easier and more enjoyable.

Today it's almost criminal the amount of creative deterrents we have. The list of things you can't do is longer than the things you can. Some of you might argue, "But what about the DOM and ajax?" but what I'm saying is, I DON'T GIVE A FK! I want to let the computer know what's in my head and be done with it! I'm talking solely UI here but where the hell are the REAL page layout apps? The ones that feel like illustrator instead of word? I should be able to use a wysiwyg ONLY app, drop in graphics of any format I choose, enter text at will and basically never have to think about how search engine friendly or standards based the mark up is. I don't care, I never did, it's not why I became an artist. The app should generate exactly the style sheets, div tags, and javascript that a perfect web site needs. I can say this because it seems we are finally starting to standardize what perfectly compatible is. Perfect meaning works in all browsers, is spider friendly and is still your original vision.

Don't get me wrong, I love writing code to solve complex tasks, but only for the work people can see. It's hard to explain to your boss that you need to take a couple weeks to make the page look exactly the way it already does.

HTML is almost unique in that it has more than one parser. Flash has Flash (even though its an open fileformat), Java has Java and so on. There are hundreds of web browsers that all interpret and parse HTML their own way. If HTML (and js, css and so on) only had one parser (web browser), then it would all be fine, and nobody would complain. People would wait anxiously for the next release of 'the Internet', speculate on what new features it would have and we would see photoshopped screenshots.

[Edit] I completly agree with you! CSS is the worst language I have ever used. It has so many limitations, not because different browsers parse it differently, but because of the standards. All new CSS users try to put together things that can't be put together. For example, you have a div with 2 divs inside, one is the menu and the other is the main content. What do you do? you float the menu to the left, the content to the right and put a black border and blue background in the containing div. It makes sense to do this, but it wont work. Simply getting two divs to float to the right needs work done on the html side, because the first div will be floated furthest to the right.

There should be an alternative, a stylesheet that is logical, with simpler commands. Width should be the width of the box, the borders should come on the outside, and the padding on the inside. You can place it relative to the parent element and set its size to expand as much as possible. It should contain a scale-9 property, so you can give it rounded corners using 9 simple commands and no nested divs. If you want to help me with this stylesheet (called commonsense stylesheet, csss), send me a pm!
[/rant]

Flash has flash

I will never understand the animosity flash is treated with even at flashkit.
It's consistent thru in thru out (with the exception of macromedia/adobe's poor performance with mac players)

Dom compliancy with all browsers still has irregularitlies although admittedly has gotten better. The Browser giveth and the browser taketh away.

When Northcode gets that F9 player embedded I may never come back to web based flash. It's getting rediculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by admedia

Are we entering a dark ages of the web browser?

---

I believe its more than that. The flawed model of having a standard and expecting multiple platforms with various motivations, capabilities and every other characteristic is just getting slowly closer to death. I believe critical mass was reached when myspace came out. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Genesis F5

This is why I'm not a proponent of full AJAX / CSS sites. With Flash, it's one plugin. All browsers use the same plugin. There's only one standard: the one Adobe sets. All designs are completely self-contained. A Flash file will display the same through Firefox as it will in Opera, IE, handheld browsers, console browsers, and just about everywhere else.

---

I couldn't agree more. There was a major resistance to plug-ins (for very valid reasons at the time) that has simply resonated too far and been largely exaggerated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Genesis F5

I can't understand why it's so hard for browsers to adhere to a single standard.

---

Imagine the sometimes chaotic atmosphere of any technology production shop with dead-lines, office drama, good and bad managers, too many meetings, too few meetings, etc. and I think its easy to understand how they arrive at different interperetations. Additionally, people cling too much to the idea that W3C is some grass roots for the people anti-corporation che guevara organization. They take money from all of the major browser companies or "members" as they call them. They actually continue to exist because of browser reliance. If they really wanted to fix the problem, they could develop a W3C plug-in (call it a love-in if it will make the hippies happy) that would be the same in all browsers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frets

I will never understand the animosity flash is treated with even at flashkit.

---

me neither. but, its good to have diversity of platform. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frets

Flash has flash

I will never understand the animosity flash is treated with even at flashkit.

---

3 words. No Back Button. (without the use of a weak hack and frames)
Between that and vague screen reader stats, trying to build something indexable can make you hate the thought of flash. And lets face it, unless you can afford banners on youtube and myspace, there's not much point it making a site that isn't indexable.

traditional desktop applications have survived just fine for many years without back buttons. its an expectation that users have developed by using browsers to view an antiquated model of information. many highly intuitive UIs dont need them or can incorporate their own. to me, relying on an external back button for navigation just becomes a weaker argument each year as more browser-removed applications are connected to the internet in some way.

the current indexing for search engines is also dated, imo. i rarely use it to find contextual information anymore because theres such a sea of bad information and manipulated hit-results to go through. instead, i use it just to find out the exact domain for an already well-known product ( like a movie title ). for information, more controlled sites like wikipedia do a better job than shotgun-blast search engines of delivering info. i believe that searching will become more generic and separated from "engines" as everything becomes more connected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

traditional desktop applications have survived just fine for many years without back buttons.

---

Such as? There are quite few application that deliver content the same way as internet browsers. Different applications such as word processing would be unusable without undo buttons at this point. Things like this are expected from users because they are so useful that they should be there.

I don't understand the mentality that ALL web sites should behave the same inside of a web browser or that ALL internet users want some kind of homogenious internet where all web sites are created to function exactly the same.

I agree that sites such as e-bay and Amazon benefit greatly from familiar mass accepted and understood features such as the almighty back button. So their designers are wise to adhear to those practices.

What about people like me who like the occasional web site that is designed to entertain? What about a browser based application that might actually benefit from multiple windows of various sizes and styles that interact with one another? There are a many reasons why a developer might want to excercise greater control and flexibility over browser windows and behaviors.

I just miss the days of mass Flash experimentation... I don't mind seeing 100s of bad attempts in the name of innovation. Things are looking awful watered down lately imo no thanks to browser issues.

PS, If a back button doesn't do what you wanted can't you just undo it by hitting the forward button?

I use CTRL+Y and CTRL+Z for undo and redo. I don't have any apps with a glaring back button. I do have apps with undo and redo buttons. I don't think of them as the same thing.


You can use anchors in flash I blame mozilla for not implimenting the process corrently not IE for handling it correctly.

I fully agree with admedia. I think that the toned down appearance of flash in design theses days is a detriment not an asset. People are using the least of what it can offer as opposed to the most sacraficeing form and function for bland appearance.
It's more then a medium of prepackaged textural content.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yasunobu13

Such as? There are quite few application that deliver content the same way as internet browsers. Different applications such as word processing would be unusable without undo buttons at this point. Things like this are expected from users because they are so useful that they should be there.

---

I dont consider the back button in browsers the equivalent to 'undo'. Activating undo, for instance, does not bring up the last gamma slider panel you had open in adobe or the last spreadsheet you were working on in excel.

I don't think (and didn't say) that the back button as a concept is useless. My point is that it's, imo, not a very strong criticism of flash and in an oop design sense, awkward to put outside of the application itself, expecting it to alter content. If a back button will be useful for the content, it belongs within the design of the content, not on a 3rd party frame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by admedia

I don't understand the mentality that ALL web sites should behave the same inside of a web browser or that ALL internet users want some kind of homogenious internet where all web sites are created to function exactly the same.

---

There's basically the crowd that pushes for conformity of development against the crowd that pushes for a system that conforms to users/client demand. The success of flash is evidence that the current standards system does not meet all of the demands we collectively have on the technology.

Naturally, businesses want to do something to stand out. To express their uniqueness or offer something nobody else does. Additionally, what is on-line is rapidly growing out of a "web" context. So, the demand for portability is increasing since most businesses dont want to pay for a web team, a cell phone team, a product display team and tiers of management above. Rather, they want a technology that allows for all platforms in one piece of content without the given that all platforms will be web-browsers and have back buttons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by admedia

I just miss the days of mass Flash experimentation... I don't mind seeing 100s of bad attempts in the name of innovation. Things are looking awful watered down lately imo no thanks to browser issues.

---

I think the experimentation is going on quite a bit still. A lot of the really interesting stuff is actually going on away from the web.

This basically boils down to who you believe control should be driven by - you or the user. Proponents of standards and accessibility believe it should be the user that controls their own usage. Why would you ever want to force a user to do something? What is that saying to the user?

Does that mean you can't use Flash in inventive ways? No, not at all. There's still just as many, if not more with its increased power and prevalence of broadband, uses for Flash. But just let the user know what you want to do with them before doing it, and basically ask their permission to do it. That's all.

For all the multimedia applications online, and entertainment possibilities, the Internet is still used primarily for the same reason it was started: information. Hence the importance of standards and accessibility. Those in areas where broadband is the norm (which is not true still for much of the world) might forget that from time to time. I, at the moment in Kenya, cannot. Currently if I come across a Flash site on my 56k connection, I either hit the "back" button or walk away to make a sandwich or something for half an hour. Not very beneficial for doing much work or learning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

Naturally, businesses want to do something to stand out. To express their uniqueness or offer something nobody else does. Additionally, what is on-line is rapidly growing out of a "web" context. So, the demand for portability is increasing since most businesses dont want to pay for a web team, a cell phone team, a product display team and tiers of management above. Rather, they want a technology that allows for all platforms in one piece of content without the given that all platforms will be web-browsers and have back buttons.

---

And what is most important for business? To reach potential consumers and give them what they want - not force something down their throat.

Actually, here I'm a little confused as to what you're actually arguing. 'Cos by following standards, it makes it a whole lot easier for businesses to deliver their content across multiple platforms. That's one of the fundamental reasons for standards - one version of content being able to be delivered across multiple platforms with their various requirements. By following standards this is easier, not harder.

Quote:

---

I think the experimentation is going on quite a bit still. A lot of the really interesting stuff is actually going on away from the web.

---

And just as much "interesting stuff" is happening online. You don't think there's some amazing entertainment Flash being done? And intelligent Flash applications (versus done in Flash for the sake of Flash) are on the increase too.

Experimentation will happen across all media all the time. You think documentary makers being forced to a "standard" to deliver their work on TV or on film has stopped them being able to experiment? Of course not, it's simply added to the challenge of beinging their idea to fruition. That's what art is about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo

And what is most important for business? To reach potential consumers and give them what they want - not force something down their throat.

---

Increasingly, flash delivers "what they want". I'm also not sure what you're arguing either by saying that something is being forced? Being forced not to have a back button?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo

Actually, here I'm a little confused as to what you're actually arguing. 'Cos by following standards, it makes it a whole lot easier for businesses to deliver their content across multiple platforms. That's one of the fundamental reasons for standards - one version of content being able to be delivered across multiple platforms with their various requirements. By following standards this is easier, not harder.

---

What "multiple platforms" means is changing. To standards, it is generally a web context. Multiple platforms means multiple web browsers and under various configurations so that the information degrades graceful. However, things are changing rapidly, multiple platforms can now mean a display on your refrigerator that is connected to the internet so that you can see whats in it on your cell phone while at the grocery store. My point is that the current W3C model that the standards are based on is bad oop. Content should be more self-contained and be far less coupled with browsers whose actual function will never be predictable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo

And just as much "interesting stuff" is happening online. You don't think there's some amazing entertainment Flash being done? And intelligent Flash applications (versus done in Flash for the sake of Flash) are on the increase too.

Experimentation will happen across all media all the time. You think documentary makers being forced to a "standard" to deliver their work on TV or on film has stopped them being able to experiment? Of course not, it's simply added to the challenge of beinging their idea to fruition. That's what art is about.

---

Indeed. Theres a ton of cool stuff going on on the web too (in flash AND ajax or standards based circles). I dont think I expressed myself well on that point. Just wanted to point out that flash is being used in some radical new ways away from the web. It may still be on-line but not intended to be viewed on web sites.

Quote:

---

the Internet is still used primarily for the same reason it was started: information.

---

Information is a relative term. Somehow I don't think youtube would have the appeal it does if the information was a text based.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

Increasingly, flash delivers "what they want". I'm also not sure what you're arguing either by saying that something is being forced? Being forced not to have a back button?

---

"Forced" is taking away browser control without my okay. A little like taking away my ability to control the volume on my TV. If you want me to experience something then let me make the choice to do so.

Quote:

---

What "multiple platforms" means is changing. To standards, it is generally a web context. Multiple platforms means multiple web browsers and under various configurations so that the information degrades graceful. However, things are changing rapidly, multiple platforms can now mean a display on your refrigerator that is connected to the internet so that you can see whats in it on your cell phone while at the grocery store. My point is that the current W3C model that the standards are based on is bad oop. Content should be more self-contained and be far less coupled with browsers whose actual function will never be predictable.

---

Content should not be "self-contained" at all, content should be separate from the presentation medium. That's what standards is all about. Make something self-contained in Flash, too bad if someone doesn't want to install the plugin, is on a slow internet connection, or just happens to be in a hurry to get to the actual content not the wrapper. Or wants to use the content somewhere else.

One major project I was involved in a few years back was the redevelopment of the Toyota Australia website. One of the major features was all the car info that was a direct feed from their national database - ie. one DB of content to update for all mediums. Website, outlets, kiosks, brochures, TVCs ...etc. That's the beauty of the main drive for standards.

Quote:

---

Indeed. Theres a ton of cool stuff going on on the web too (in flash AND ajax or standards based circles). I dont think I expressed myself well on that point. Just wanted to point out that flash is being used in some radical new ways away from the web. It may still be on-line but not intended to be viewed on web sites.

---

Flash IS being used in some radical new ways. That's why I don't really understand this whinging about how annoying standards are. High quality work is high quality work and will - or should - be delivered in the most effective methods available. And for many (perhaps most) things that means standards compliant, imho. For others it doesn't.

And in the end, why is anyone here the one's complaining? Surely as with most things the final outcome will be market driven. If the market appreciates the needs for standards and so is willing to pay extra for those developers who can deliver that (which currently in many markets they are) then that will prevail. And good luck to those intelligent or hardworking enough to learn what's required. And if not then something else will drive the market instead, and standards will become less important.

So why whinge? If the market wants to pay for standards compliancy then learn the skills and reap the rewards is what I say!

If the markets sees the value. If the value has value.
However...
The browser is the medium not the w3c

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. One can have a very satisfied customer with the appearance. One may even have that satisfaction quantified by hits.
However the quantification does not equate to the quality of experience for the user.
Those whom akin web content to print content do both a disservice. It is what can be found on the web that is not readily available on television or at a library which drawas and sustains interest in the web.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subway

Then I boycott the internet and become a gardener. ;)

---

whatever will you grow? :rolleyes: :mrpimp:

Cactuses, they can be used to "attack" the browser devs and they can make you high. ;)

Fredi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo

"Forced" is taking away browser control without my okay. A little like taking away my ability to control the volume on my TV. If you want me to experience something then let me make the choice to do so.

---

I don't believe that it's a good model that the browser ever had any control over navigating internal content. In fact, when flash is viewed in a browser, the back button continues to work, in the only context that i believe it should, between locations, not content within the site. [It seems to me that the only forcing being done is by the standards model which says that all presentations must utilize the back button, however microsoft and mozilla implement it, to navigate your content.]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo

Content should not be "self-contained" at all, content should be separate from the presentation medium. That's what standards is all about. Make something self-contained in Flash, too bad if someone doesn't want to install the plugin, is on a slow internet connection, or just happens to be in a hurry to get to the actual content not the wrapper. Or wants to use the content somewhere else.

---

This is a misunderstanding. I agree that content, as assets, copy, etc. should be separate from the presentation. In fact, I've found that much easier to accomplish using flash over other technologies. My point was that with standards technologies, the presentation layer itself is entirely dependent on the browser. So, to re-phrase, the presentation layer (and any software required to view it) should be self-contained.

That people might not install a plug-in is another indicator of how the standards/browser relationship negatively affects users. It seeks to eliminate options rather than embrace/streamline them. That all flash requires a fast internet connection is also a false cliche.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo

One major project I was involved in a few years back was the redevelopment of the Toyota Australia website. One of the major features was all the car info that was a direct feed from their national database - ie. one DB of content to update for all mediums. Website, outlets, kiosks, brochures, TVCs ...etc. That's the beauty of the main drive for standards.

---

And so do many of my flash projects use a database to store data. There is nothing standards related about that. As I mentioned, I've found it easier by folds to use external data in flash than according to the existing standards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo

Flash IS being used in some radical new ways. That's why I don't really understand this whinging about how annoying standards are. High quality work is high quality work and will - or should - be delivered in the most effective methods available. And for many (perhaps most) things that means standards compliant, imho. For others it doesn't.

---

I'm not whining about standards (I use them). Nor do I think they should go away. They are an excellent model for many projects. I just think that the powers that be dont allow for some adjustments that are over-due and that their peanut gallery are often unfairly anti-flash.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheOriginalFlashDavo

And in the end, why is anyone here the one's complaining? Surely as with most things the final outcome will be market driven. If the market appreciates the needs for standards and so is willing to pay extra for those developers who can deliver that (which currently in many markets they are) then that will prevail. And good luck to those intelligent or hardworking enough to learn what's required. And if not then something else will drive the market instead, and standards will become less important.

So why whinge? If the market wants to pay for standards compliancy then learn the skills and reap the rewards is what I say!

---

Im not complaining, for the very reason you describe! Standards-based anti-flashism has created a tremendous demand for flash and thus, great market/pay. I hope they keep it up.

We've been over this, the question is not "why use flash?" It's, "With the freedom of layout and transition that flash gives, why would you ever use html?" Any web app that uses the term 'wysiwyg' is FK'ing kidding themselves... except flash. An _x and a _y coordinate are just that (within scope) in all cases and no extra fiddling with vague concepts like float and clear are required.

There's been way too much acceptance of the hoops we're forced to jump through when getting the vision in our head into the browser. It was brand new territory and no one really knew how a browser should work because no one had ever done it before. Now I can pretty much say I hate web design. Most neat things I've learned have been canceled about by a higher need. I'd prefer to have control over the presentation during a page transition. The way things leave and re-enter the page. But virtually every person who've I watched test such a site has instinctively tried to use the browsers back button to go back which brings them to the last page they were looking at. 100%, everyone. Further more, if you wanted google to accurately categorize your content, you have to change the URL anyway. At this point things are already unacceptable but to fuel the fire, a cumbersome workaround (such as hiding history in frames) to solve one problem will almost always make another (seo) problem worse.

All I'm saying here is that even Final Fantasy had a back button. All the browser industry would have to do is agree to have their back buttons check for an onBack() javascript function. If one existed, it would react to the return value, otherwise it would act normally. External Interface would allow me to take full advantage of that and provide the experience intended. That and if adobe and google would just sit down and workout a proper method of optimizing flash I'd be back on the bandwagon. That's why we of all people are complaining, we're the only ones who know what the user is really missing out on.

I have no problem creating labels in swishmax and using them as anchors.

I'm sure you flash users can do the same thing,

they work great in IE ,,, mozilla is the one that they don't work in.
For that blame mozilla.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frets

I have no problem creating labels in swishmax and using them as anchors.

I'm sure you flash users can do the same thing,

they work great in IE ,,, mozilla is the one that they don't work in.
For that blame mozilla.

---

2advanced back button works good in Mozilla here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

Im not complaining, for the very reason you describe! Standards-based anti-flashism has created a tremendous demand for flash and thus, great market/pay. I hope they keep it up.

---

Just as standards-based coding demand was raised the market pay.

So then why this thread, and others like it? If people are earning more across the board then what's to complain about? Jesus, when has the web/browsers EVER been consistent across all? If it had been, there wouldn't have been such a demand for "standards".

I think we took the original subject into a bit of a tangent.

The question was why browsers are getting worse.

To get back to that subject, in a nutshell, i think it's a design by comittee problem. Too many interests and hands on them and the result is one of the most convoluted and bastardized developing environments ive ever seen. I believe that a more plug-in based solution could clean a lot of it up.