<rant>

After 8 hours of work today tweaking CSS so it conforms to IE's BRAIN DEAD state, I have decided that I will code pages for FireFox/Mozilla, since they mostly work correctly with CSS. I'll do my best to make IE look good, but JESUS...don't they ever fix ANYTHING at Microsoft?

I'll answer my own question. NO. They throw software out to the public that is darn near useless. Buggy as hell and so full of security holes that they will never fill them, not to mention only supporting standards as they see fit...since THEY BELIEVE THEY ARE THE FRIGGIN STANDARD!

Since Microsh*t won't release anything worth a damn, I'll be moving all my computers (with the exception of 1) over to Linux/FreeBSD. I can at least secure those.

Disgusting. :angry:

</rant>

No argument from me.

But what were you trying to tweak? Maybe someone's dealt with a similar problem and can help (Lord knows, I've got TONS of this type of stuff hanging around myself). Post a URL?

don't they ever fix ANYTHING at Microsoft?
No, they release half-baked crap and drop all further development efforts. I constantly point out the IE6 is nearly four years old, and it is by far the oldest of any browser made widely available in any platform. I shudder to think of what IE7 is going to look like when they release Longhorn on the world next year...

Originally posted by the_pm
No argument from me.

But what were you trying to tweak? Maybe someone's dealt with a similar problem and can help (Lord knows, I've got TONS of this type of stuff hanging around myself). Post a URL?

I've been teaching myself all about positioning boxes. Kinda aggravating trying to get all the browsers to behave. IE is the worst.

I am re-designing my website, so the pages are not online yet. But here's the basic idea:

5 boxes.

1 on top.
3 in center of page.
1 on bottom of page.

Just getting all the boxes to display like I want them to is a pain. IE thinks that it should place the 2 outside boxes 2-3 pixels higher than the center box. All the other browsers are displaying it like I want it to. What a pain.

Yep - for three columns, I stick with tables. A lot of people are surprised when I say this, but the movement away from tables, while noble in nature, is impractical at the moment. Even in five years when all browsers are using CSS properly, that tables site you create today will function the way you expect it to. It may not be the most efficient method at that time, but it will work today and it will work tomorrow and it will be valid, something CSS columns cannot claim as of yet.

I agree. It was worth a shot though.

The one good thing is that I learned alot about CSS today. I tried and did things today that I had never thought of before. I can say...it was aggravating, but fun.

Originally posted by the_pm
No argument from me.

But what were you trying to tweak? Maybe someone's dealt with a similar problem and can help (Lord knows, I've got TONS of this type of stuff hanging around myself). Post a URL?


No, they release half-baked crap and drop all further development efforts. I constantly point out the IE6 is nearly four years old, and it is by far the oldest of any browser made widely available in any platform. I shudder to think of what IE7 is going to look like when they release Longhorn on the world next year...

Let's have a non emotional debate about this

Internet Explorer 4 innovated the Internet, you cannot argue against this. Netscape 3 and 4 were quite simply useless and terrible in comparison to Internet Explorer 4. It's DHTML addition was wonderful plus it's support for CSS1 (which Netscape 4 never supported properly).

Netscape 6 wasn't much better either, and by that time Microsoft had moved on to IE 5.

The problem then remained that because Netscape, Mozilla, et al were so deep into re-writing that Microsoft had the market and consequently they didn't really do much work on IE and version 6 wasn't really much different to 5 and 5.5 (in fact 5.5 had some HORRIBLE bugs in HTTP content-disposition and image scan lines).

However a IE lead developer in his blog appears to have confirmed a ground up re-write of IE complete with proper DOM support. Surely that can only be GREAT news.

A standard is only what we make it. Contrary to popular belief the W3C do NOT make the standards, they may recommendations and it is up to the software developers to group together and make that the standard. When Microsoft have 90% of the browser market... yes they DO define the standard whether everyone else likes it or not. All we can do is put pressure on them to change.

I do take issue with this next quote however

After 8 hours of work today tweaking CSS so it conforms to IE's BRAIN DEAD state, I have decided that I will code pages for FireFox/Mozilla, since they mostly work correctly with CSS. I'll do my best to make IE look good, but JESUS...don't they ever fix ANYTHING at Microsoft?


I sincerely hope that you aren't designing a corporate website with that. If you design a site to only work in Mozilla kiss goodbye to 90% of your possible customers. Users do NOT CARE about web standards, they just want the sites they visit to work in whatever browser they choose to use... so therefore as the developers WE have to take the duty of care to support them, regardless of whether they work the same or not.

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe IE is the best browser out there, however I don't have too many CSS layout issues with IE because I know how to work around many of the bugs. I've designed probably 3 CSS only sites, but I still prefer tables.

Again, you'll get no argument from me. When Microsoft was still pushing to gain market share on browsers, they had the best, most innovative product out there. NS4 was an especially disappointing browser, and IE4, while not perfect, was, in comparison, a far superior browser.

It was right around that time that the browser balance saw its most dramatic flip from NS to IE. Coincidentally, it's right around that time that Microsoft appears to have forgotten how to make a browser. Was NS much better? Well, in terms of technology, yes - a bit (NS7 was quite good).

Now, I hate NS just as much as I hate IE, and you'll never hear me speak of or recommend someone using that piece of crap either. The main reason I don't like it has to do with its insistence on installing AOL-ware all over your computer. Regardless of how many ways you tell it not to install anything but the basics, you end up with AOL in your programs menu, on your desktop and in your favorites folder in IE (yeah, that's an IE bug - dummies). As far as I'm concerned, NS is inches from being a virus. I've written some pretty harsh, long and indepth rants about NS on other forums, and I've been pleasantly surprised at how well they were received.

Also, the W3C statement is very true, though AFAIK at this point all major browser writers/distributors have publicly accepted the W3C specifications for development purposes. You need something (imagine creating Web pages with no browser standard - the horror is unthinkable), and while the existing standards are at times faulty and vague, they're the best we've got, and frankly, they're not all that bad. CSS2.1 was a big step toward sorting out some of that vagueness. I'm anxious to see how CSS3 pans out once it's complete. We'll probably know when the last of the major browser company accepts the standard (who might that be? :rolleyes: ); I'm guessing around 2010 or so.

I have to believe dunnaway was being facetious when (s)he said no more IE. We all know that's not practical. But I feel his/her pain, and yes, I too lessen the pain considerably by using tables when CSS-only layouts are simply unpractical. The problem with working around bugs is that if Microsoft makes good on its promise to release a good browser, all those sites with all that code meant to work around IEs issues will need to be changed.

*sigh* - No one ever said we chose an easy industry in which to work.

Paul H

I assume your devoloping a site for Mozilla people, I assume this isn't a professianal site or a site your working on for a business. Web design is nothing both compromise, when doing stuff for businesses. Straight graphic design is so much less stressfull. ha. Well good luck.

Originally posted by Rich2k
Let's have a non emotional debate about this
Internet Explorer 4 innovated the Internet, you cannot argue against this.

I agree, you can't argue with that at all.

[B]
However a IE lead developer in his blog appears to have confirmed a ground up re-write of IE complete with proper DOM support. Surely that can only be GREAT news.

That is good news. I haven't heard that.

When Microsoft have 90% of the browser market... yes they DO define the standard whether everyone else likes it or not. All we can do is put pressure on them to change.

I agree, when one company has 90% of the market, they do set the standards. However, shouldn't they be taking the recommendations of the W3C and integrating them into their browser? If they decide that since they have so much of the market, they don't have to follow anyone's recommendations, what use then is the W3C?


I do take issue with this next quote however
I sincerely hope that you aren't designing a corporate website with that. If you design a site to only work in Mozilla kiss goodbye to 90% of your possible customers.

If you noticed, I said that I would do my best to make everything look good in IE. However, after considerable thought on this matter, I'll just have to continue using tables and css together. BTW, this was for my own personal family site. For businesses, I would of course code for all browsers possible.

Users do NOT CARE about web standards, they just want the sites they visit to work in whatever browser they choose to use... so therefore as the developers WE have to take the duty of care to support them, regardless of whether they work the same or not.

And that's why web development is such a pain sometimes. :)


however I don't have too many CSS layout issues with IE because I know how to work around many of the bugs. I've designed probably 3 CSS only sites, but I still prefer tables.

Like I said, I learned alot about CSS from this. I just wish that Microsoft would go ahead and fix IE's issues. Hopefully, the next version of IE will correct a majority of the issues we are facing today.

Originally posted by the_pm
The main reason I don't like it has to do with its insistence on installing AOL-ware all over your computer. Regardless of how many ways you tell it not to install anything but the basics, you end up with AOL in your programs menu, on your desktop and in your favorites folder in IE

I thought that AOL was the virus... :rolleyes:

I have to believe dunnaway was being facetious when (s)he said no more IE. We all know that's not practical. But I feel his/her pain, and yes, I too lessen the pain considerably by using tables when CSS-only layouts are simply unpractical. The problem with working around bugs is that if Microsoft makes good on its promise to release a good browser, all those sites with all that code meant to work around IEs issues will need to be changed.

Yeah, I was being quite sarcastic in most of that post. I tend to get that way when I'm highly aggravated...too many years in the Navy I guess.

As far as working around the different browser bugs with CSS, I mostly use CSS for minor layout issues when designing for a client. That way, no matter what, the page will look the same 10 years from now.

BTW, I'm a he. :D


*sigh* - No one ever said we chose an easy industry in which to work.

Isn't that the truth. My favorite line from a client so far is:

"I've changed my mind, let's go with what you had initially shown me."

This was after 3 weeks of almost non-stop work. This client's site was mostly php/mysql. And the really funny part of this, is that when I delivered the site to him (he wanted it on a CD -- not uploaded to his site), he stuck the CD in a drawer...and it's still there. His comment:

"We decided to go in a different direction..."

Well, at least he paid. :)

Originally posted by Rich2k
However a IE lead developer in his blog appears to have confirmed a ground up re-write of IE complete with proper DOM support. Surely that can only be GREAT news.

Unfortunately, the new IE will only be available if one upgrades to the new OS. I hate all current browsers. Such a simple concept, so painfully botched all the way around!

I've designed probably 3 CSS only sites, but I still prefer tables.

Hear, hear! I am just getting back into web design and am tickled pink (see review) (http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=293447) with a particular editor, which uses XML, XSLT, and CSS - to generate table-based pages! (If one so desires, which I do!) :)

Originally posted by BigBison
Unfortunately, the new IE will only be available if one upgrades to the new OS. I hate all current browsers. Such a simple concept, so painfully botched all the way around!


Maybe, maybe not. That was before they renewed their IE product team and decided the re-write the entire thing from the ground up.

At least we have a bit of a lull in "language" development for browser companies to play catch up. HTML has been set in stone for five years now, so there's no possible way IE can get it wrong again. And CSS2.1 was almost entirely a corrective spec - it gave CSS1/2 further clarification (based on popular use, a dramatic turnaround for them!) rather than declaring new elements. Everyone else has come close to "standards" perfection, if not right on the money. So if people have chosen not to ignore W3C specs, the latest IE should not contain many surprises.

Now, once CSS3 hits, we'll see something similar to what we have now. We'll have about a dozen browser companies working on implementing the spec into their latest releases. They will all get it wrong the first time, but within a half-year and seven or eight releases later, they'll have it implemented. Sometime around 2010, MS will bring a team together and get the ball rolling too. It'll be five years between releases this time around - no reason to believe it will happen otherwise in the future.

I coded quite a few sites in XHTML Strict with CSS, IE is by far the first to display what I planned. I don't understand how you said IE is the worst in displaying things "correctly."

If your code is right, (validated through w3.org) then IE and other browser should display it with no problems.

IE is the most widely used browser, if it does not have the largest of error tolerance then no one will use it.

Originally posted by nmluan
I coded quite a few sites in XHTML Strict with CSS, IE is by far the first to display what I planned. I don't understand how you said IE is the worst in displaying things "correctly."

I've validated every page I've written. I was just frustrated with getting 3 columns to display correctly using only div and CSS in the 4 browsers I was testing it in. IE displayed the page incorrectly every time. Mozilla, Firefox, and Opera all displayed the way I wanted it to.

No biggie...I just went back to tables.

IE is the most widely used browser, if it does not have the largest of error tolerance then no one will use it.
Users don't care about error tolerance, but designers use it as a crutch. The problem has as much to do with the fact that IE6 is very, very old, and the rest of the browser industry, in its normal development cycle, has gotten increasingly better about supporting standards (yes, there are no "legal" standards, but all major browsers have accepted W3C as their authority). Microsoft didn't care about going down the same path because it had market share. That was good enough for them. Shameful, IMO.

So the result is sites that are "optimized for IE, using ####x#### resolution, on Windows XP, using a broadband connection, on Sundays and Tuesdays in all states starting with the letter 'C'." Newsflash - these are not Web sites. The Web languages are universal. These are proprietary Web-based applications. They happen to use something similar to HTML/CSS/etc., but they are not Web sites.

Originally posted by the_pm
Microsoft didn't care about going down the same path because it had market share. That was good enough for them. Shameful, IMO.

And hence my initial rant.


So the result is sites that are "optimized for IE, using ####x#### resolution, on Windows XP, using a broadband connection, on Sundays and Tuesdays in all states starting with the letter 'C'." Newsflash - these are not Web sites. The Web languages are universal. These are proprietary Web-based applications. They happen to use something similar to HTML/CSS/etc., but they are not Web sites.

There are so many sites that are optimized for IE its almost crazy. It makes me wonder if some designers ever test their site in a different browser. For example take a look at equivity.com's site. Looks pretty good in IE, but not in FireFox. I'm not picking on Equivity...just giving an example.

i agree with most of you. the webdesigners that i frequent always use IE as the standard, and it's driving me nuts! i just told 'em straight off, "you have GREAT design, but BAD code!" sometimes they just don't care and chuck in the usual phrase "most people use IE and it works".

it's just such a wrong mindset.

i'm determined to make a change. i'll do my bit as others do theirs. i want to make sure the sites i see if compliant, can't say much when it's just a little bit of tweaking, right?!

the difference between xhtml and html is so minimal it just made me laugh everytime i think 'bout it. lol

i can't wait to grab on XML next. lol :D

Originally posted by ktwilight
i agree with most of you. the webdesigners that i frequent always use IE as the standard, and it's driving me nuts! i just told 'em straight off, "you have GREAT design, but BAD code!" sometimes they just don't care and chuck in the usual phrase "most people use IE and it works".

it's just such a wrong mindset.

i'm determined to make a change. i'll do my bit as others do theirs. i want to make sure the sites i see if compliant, can't say much when it's just a little bit of tweaking, right?!

the difference between xhtml and html is so minimal it just made me laugh everytime i think 'bout it. lol

i can't wait to grab on XML next. lol :D

Umm XHTML already is XML and XHTML 2 is a modular version.

XML by itself won't replace HTML, just a form of XML as XHTML.

If you say that it only takes a little bit of tweaking to make a site compliant on IE, Mozilla, Firefox, Safari and Opera then you obviously haven't tried to convert many complicated designs to work on all of those browsers in XHTML/CSS without serving up different style sheets.

Sure for the most part you can quite easily but there is always that really stupid bug that occurs between the W3C recommendations and how IE renders it.

Don't even get me started on IE on a mac!

Don't even get me started on IE on a mac!
Well, you won't have to worry much about this one in the near future...

Originally posted by Rich2k
Don't even get me started on IE on a mac!
Now WHY would you want to do such a silly thing as use IE on a Mac of all things!!!!!!!
I've got to say that in the past year or so I've found this or that absolutely frustrating with IE, and NOT just css. As a designer, I find that IE is, well, it's the most INCOMPATABLE browser that I've ever seen in my life:

Case in point:
In designing a CMS, I had some issues with forms. Well, Opera understood them, Mozilla understood them, hell, even Firefox understood them. IE, however, no luck. Wonder why?

In designing the SAME cms, I've found a few issues with stylesheets. Not the stylesheets themselves, but the way IE renders them. Mozilla, Opera, all that, AGAIN handled them fine, but IE? No way in hell. I had to actually rewrite the whole damn stylesheet JUST for ie *grr*

Yet, the stats (http://www.linux-tech.net/stats.php) show (http://olc.wolfstream.net/stats.php) that the average user uses IE over a real browser. Maybe these people should get their heads examined.

hell, even Firefox understood them
FireFox is arguably the most compliant browser made. Moz held that title for a while, but FF is developed by the same group and I believe at this point it is going to receive the bulk of future development efforts.

Yet, the stats show that the average user uses IE over a real browser.
It is true that IE is the dominant browser, but despite the fact that your source claims 100% accuracy, it is a little less dominant than those stats would lead you to believe. This is due to the degree of UA String spoofing that takes place in an effort to get real browsers past lame browser-sniffing techniques that force non-IE browsers out.

I had a long drawn-out discussion with the technical director at Getty Images about their new site and the non-supported browser message that shows up if you're not using IE or NS/Moz (yes Mac users, Safari is not supported - steller move for a stock photography site!). I also got PhotoDisc/gettyimages.com added to Dan's Web Tips Hall of Shame - http://webtips.dan.info/brand-x/useragent.html - go about halfway down into the list and you'll see my entry. <sarcasm>It's my pinnacle career achievement</sarcasm> :D

Originally posted by Rich2k
Umm XHTML already is XML and XHTML 2 is a modular version.

XML by itself won't replace HTML, just a form of XML as XHTML.
i kinda understand the purpose of XML. but i still don't see why XML can't replace HTML. maybe i just haven't play around with it much to say anything further.
Originally posted by Rich2k
If you say that it only takes a little bit of tweaking to make a site compliant on IE, Mozilla, Firefox, Safari and Opera then you obviously haven't tried to convert many complicated designs to work on all of those browsers in XHTML/CSS without serving up different style sheets.

Sure for the most part you can quite easily but there is always that really stupid bug that occurs between the W3C recommendations and how IE renders it.
quite true. sorry, i haven't done enough complicated designs to say. the only problem i've come across is positioning and extra bits left here and there. nothing major once ya know the hacks IMO. as well for other problems.

maybe i haven't come across all issues, but i doubt there's more than the number of fingers we have. so once ya know 'em, wouldn't it be easy to tweak?

sounds like an inexperience n00b eh? lol pardon me... *bows*

Originally posted by wolfstream
Now WHY would you want to do such a silly thing as use IE on a Mac of all things!!!!!!!

Because if you ever design sites that the media will access you'll soon realise that an awful lot of them still use Mac OS 9 with IE. In actual fact I left a friend alone with my OS X 10.3 the other day for a few mins to check his email. Safari was in the dock but he navigated the HDD to find IE, just because that's what he knew was the browser (first time he ever used OS X)

XML is a method of carrying data. XHTML IS is XML and so to that end HTML is already in XML.

XML itself without any form of modules and DTD support to tell it what to do is just data. For instance XSL is another form of XML for changing XML to another type of XML. XHTML is a type of XML to send display information to a web browser.

despite the fact that your source claims 100% accuracy

As far as accuracy, I know it's impossible to detect the Spoofing stuff. That's not what I meant, what I meant was more of the accuracy of the hits, not the browsers. I know there's a bit of work to be done there ;).

Originally posted by dunnaway
I've validated every page I've written. I was just frustrated with getting 3 columns to display correctly using only div and CSS in the 4 browsers I was testing it in. IE displayed the page incorrectly every time. Mozilla, Firefox, and Opera all displayed the way I wanted it to.

No biggie...I just went back to tables.

This is why I don't use <DIV> tags, because IE is too stupid to know how to display them the right way, rather than just how it feels like it.

This is why I don't use <DIV> tags, because IE is too stupid to know how to display them the right way, rather than just how it feels like it.
<div>s are just generic containers, and every browser displays them identically. It's the styling elements applied through CSS that can cause trouble. You start getting into bugs once you get into more complex/newer CSS and CSS still in the working draft phase (CSS3). But <div>s are immensely useful - invaluable in fact. I would consider learning more about how to implement them to your advantage.

Paul H

I agree. <div>s are highly useful. I tend to use them a lot, especially since I'm now getting used to using CSS.