MSIE has actually lost some market share in the past couple of months to Opera and Firefox. This is being driven predominantly by security flaws in MSIE. MSIE is still well over 90% by every measurement I've seen. My own stats show 92-93%, but there's definitely movement especially with power users.

Firefox and Opera both stick very closely to W3C standards. MSIE is very liberal in it's interpretation. Consequently a page that looks good in MSIE may be broken in the other two. In fact, it seems that all 3 have minor differences in how they interpret table tag alignments, widths, etc. Simple designs are unimpacted, but really high end complex designs can be off slightly, especially if you rely on tools like ImageReady.

How many of you are currently previewing your pages in all 3 browsers and coding to make them look good?

It's like 1997 when netscape and msie were 50/50 all over again....unfortunately a lot of today's designers were in high school (or earlier) during this era.

I'm banking on a really good virus to target firefox and scare the crap out of all the users who moved as it was "virus safe" so we dont have to worry.

Why cant they just make it forgiving of non-perfect html like IE?... It's a crappy browser anyway... I hope it dies and soon.

Fucking Hooper

according to our stats, 96% are still some sort of IE
and the rest, really don't matter :)
we do optimize for netscape for the most part, so that takes care of the additional 1-2%
the rest can just go suck it.

I don't see what the problem is. All of my websites are cross browser compatiable. It's not hard. Just in some cases you have to add more attributes to the tags that IE defaults to. That's about it, really. Personally, i think it's great. It encourages people to build webpages properly.

Aaargh.. Damn I hate that argument!!!!!!

Why does anyone care if people "code right" ... oh thats right.. no one does care apart from a bunch of geeks in an argument filled Open Source project that's never even got close to building a better browser than MS since IE4 was released.

This is the real world.. people dont write html the "right way", they never have and definitely never will... no matter what the geeks want.

IE has always been forgiving.. as far as I know Opera has been just as forgiving in most versions.. why the fuck does netcape/mozilla have to continue to insist everyone codes html badly..... rather than seeing that their browser is too stupid to work properly on the "real world" of the internet.

IE being forgiving is just a way of saying "Microfloss likes bad code".

I switched to firefox, which is shipped WITHOUT java, and without any of the plugins. You install an actual real version of Sun Java, and guess what, all those stupid IE downloading hacks don't work anymore.

The gonzo thread, guess what, I clicked it - without fear. Nothing on my machine.

Alex

Aaargh.. Damn I hate that argument!!!!!!

Why does anyone care if people "code right" ... oh thats right.. no one does care apart from a bunch of geeks in an argument filled Open Source project that's never even got close to building a better browser than MS since IE4 was released.

This is the real world.. people dont write html the "right way", they never have and definitely never will... no matter what the geeks want.

IE has always been forgiving.. as far as I know Opera has been just as forgiving in most versions.. why the fuck does netcape/mozilla have to continue to insist everyone codes html badly..... rather than seeing that their browser is too stupid to work properly on the "real world" of the internet. [/b][/quote]
Just wait until XHTML is the norm. It's going to be so fucking strict, and it won't matter what browser you're using. Plus, i don't know about you, but 1 out of every 20 visitors being able to see my website properly is encouragement enough for me. But hey, you can piss away 5% of your business just because you're lazy. No skin off my nose. :)

I also find that when i am editing HTML, i find it much easier to see what's going on whent he code is written and tabbed out properly. Uncomplete code is a huge fucking mess to work with, especially when you start getting into embedded tables and whatnot. Personally, i think proper HTML code is just way more simple than the slack approach.

That's the exact reason there seems to be a slight momentum shift already. It hasn't hit the masses yet, it's not showing in stats, but lots of people i know, talk to and do business with day to day have switched to either Opera or Firefox just to avoid the toolbar slams and such.

Microsoft has always promoted sloppy code at every level. Forget about html for a moment. Take a programmer who cut his teeth on Microsoft C+ and C++ compilers and drop a project that requires ANSI C+ or ANSI C++ and watch the results. He'll never get all of the warnings out of the compile...if he gets it to compile at all. Makes for a friendly compiler for Microsoft, but the guy who learned C+ and C++ correctly can code on any platform.

If you code correctly to begin with, you wont have many problems. A good example is the "valign" command on table cells. If you do not specify one, MSIE defaults to "top". Opera and Firefox default to "middle" per W3C. If you dont specify valign but depend on top alignment, your page will not look right in anything other than IE.

What I'm finding is a lot of designers we've used depend on things like ImageReady and the code these packages produce is tailored to IE and not W3C.

I'm checking new pages closely to save potential pains down the road.

There is a standard of html coding set by the WC3. I dont think there is a problem with browsers like MSIE being more 'forgiving', but I do think its a cop out to blame MS when html dosen't work on other browsers. That really has to do with inexperienced html coders. Html really isn't that hard, and more importantly, if you DO code it correctly, according to the WC3 standard, you won't have any problems on ANY browsers.

For anyone interested, I personally use www.browsercam.com to check any site I design on multiple browsers and configurations. It's invaluable, you would be suprised how different your site can look even on different operating systems.

You can say that over 90% of your traffic comes from MSIE so fuck the rest, but when you consider how easy it is to code decent HTML from scratch to accomidate for the other 10% of browsers, isn't that worth it?

Aaargh.. Damn I hate that argument!!!!!!

Why does anyone care if people "code right" ... oh thats right.. no one does care apart from a bunch of geeks in an argument filled Open Source project that's never even got close to building a better browser than MS since IE4 was released.

This is the real world.. people dont write html the "right way", they never have and definitely never will... no matter what the geeks want.

IE has always been forgiving.. as far as I know Opera has been just as forgiving in most versions.. why the fuck does netcape/mozilla have to continue to insist everyone codes html badly..... rather than seeing that their browser is too stupid to work properly on the "real world" of the internet. [/b][/quote]
:wnw: :wnw: :wnw:

WELL SAID!!!!

HP ...
>>>It's like 1997 when netscape and msie were 50/50 all over again....

HUH??!?! how is 4% of users the same as 50%?!?!?! I think you are delusional about the 'market saturation' of your pet browser!!!!

This desire to code 'properly', like opti said, is a geek obsession that takes up more time than the pissy small market its for deserves.

As a designer who owns my own business, my time is more valuable than sitting there coding something by hand ... I've written sites in notepad when i started, used homesite for years - i don't need to prove anything to myself - i can write neat html if i want to - BIG DEAL!!

At the end of the day, the only people it impresses is other geeks but I'm about 5 times faster at building sites than the average designer ... When every minute counts towards whether we are profitable or not, I don't have time to be predantic.

I'd rather build 5 sites and lose 5% than build 1 site and lose 0% ... Just like working traffic, its a numbers game and you have to weigh it up ....

I had an employee a while ago, yug you know him, and he was so anal about code and getting every bit right - in 3 months he built PRACTICALLY NOTHING. He'd start building something and spend the rest of the day researching whether it was going to work rather than just DOING IT. He cost me a fortune and was absolutely useless ... but his code was really neat, and that's all i have to show for the 1000's and 1000's of dollars i paid him. wtf am I supposed to do with pages of neat code that don't do anything?!?!?

This argument has been going since the first copy of frontpage was released ... while I agree that frontpage is a bitch slut motherfucker and it totally messes with the code, the middle ground is dreamweaver ... small negatives - it doesn't remove unused font tags and certain programming languages are impossible to work with - but using it I can do a beautiful stylesheeted cellspaced table layout in minutes.

Pick on my code all you like ... in the time it takes you to pick it apart, i'll have built another site that works in 90% of browsers :moon:

Hahahaha, yup, I know him, he used to pick apart my code as well, still does come to think of it :awinky:

I guess when it comes down to it, this is the adult industry. Its very easy to knock up another porn site in the time it takes to consider the html behind it, which works in MSIE.

I suppose its really only an issue for corporate sites where they 'need' to be acessable to all people in the market, or when they only have the one corporate website.

I suppose my statement that its not that hard to abide by the WC3 standards of html don't really hold up unless you are coding the entire site in scratch anyway. Although I will talk about horror stories of html pages being megs in size just because of careless dreamweaver usage where the person had hundreds and hundreds of empty font tags ... funny stuff right there.

Aaargh.. Damn I hate that argument!!!!!!

Why does anyone care if people "code right" ... oh thats right.. no one does care apart from a bunch of geeks in an argument filled Open Source project that's never even got close to building a better browser than MS since IE4 was released.

This is the real world.. people dont write html the "right way", they never have and definitely never will... no matter what the geeks want.

IE has always been forgiving.. as far as I know Opera has been just as forgiving in most versions.. why the fuck does netcape/mozilla have to continue to insist everyone codes html badly..... rather than seeing that their browser is too stupid to work properly on the "real world" of the internet. [/b][/quote]


HTML guys are artists!

We only code for IE, though I use firefox and if Isee something that does not work they fix it because the boss has to see it!

B)

What does WC3 have to do with running a business?!

NOTHING!

The point is that nobody notices that your code is perfect except for that 5% who otherwise might have seen some misaligned graphics or a stylesheet not working right ... all that extra effort you've put in over the years, even if its only 20% more time to do it that way, adds up to a LOT of wasted hours for yourself and/or your employer/s ...

Yug, I've used dreamweaver for 2+ years now, and probably designed on average of 2 sites per week .... NOT A SINGLE html page was 'megs', even before i cleaned up the extra font tags ... that's one of those exaggerated horror stories used to justify hanging onto standards that have long been thrown out by most business people. :rolleyes:

It comes down to this ... do you want to make money and be able to spend it and enjoy it, or perfect code which nobody appreciates but a few fellow geeks?

Lol, actually was a mate of mine with no clue about website coding or design at all. He basically went through every font while testing it on all his text, everytime choosing something, he would create a new font tag. This is of course just an example of someone who dosent know what they are doing, by no means am I implying that dreamweaver creates these kind of mistakes, people make mistakes, and that was on a very early version of dreamweaver.

I use dreamweaver myself, but tend to work in the homesite html view just as much. You're probably right however, that its the inner geek in me that holds onto the fact that if i can tab all the tags neatly into place, it will make a difference :lol:

When it comes down to time and money, especially in this industry, it dosent really make a difference how the html is coded, just as long as it works.

CJ,

For me personally it comes down to this. I'm using Firefox and Opera because I'm tired of having sites try to Hooperize MSIE. And if I look at my own sites and they dont look right, I cant fucking stand it, so I fix it. I'm not Gonzo, if there's a big red x in the middle of my page or a table is out of alignment, it drives me batshit. :biglaugh:

What I'm seeing so far is people who hand code (myself included) usually get it right. Pages produced by designers who rely on software generated code are looking a little funny.

And you're right the percentages are small, but I sense a momentum shift....I'd rather have pages I build today be "right" than perhaps have to recode 6 months worth of work if AOL were to suddenly switch to Mozilla in Q4 and raise that percentage.

Look I have an easier solution for you coding your pages


Just put a big enter link on everypage to my pharma site , better still server side redirect them ;-)))

Save you all the worry ;-)))

The spam I get for dick pills looks great in all 3 browsers!

For those who just hate Netscape surfers, by all means, feel free to re-direct all of your Netscape users to my sites please...email me lance@buildpage.com and I'll even give you the code.

The spam I get for dick pills looks great in all 3 browsers! [/b][/quote]
And your continuing purschases are very welcome.

;-))))

Imageready is the cause of most of your complaints there ... its a lazy way of cutting up paysite tours which i took up about a year ago and have never looked back. By now though, I know what to look for and try to do a quick cleanup before i put the site live.

but if not, its not as big a project as you'd think to correct something when you know how to do it ... if any of those browsers picks up a market share greater than 10% then i'll start looking at it - or selling my traffic of that 'niche' to someone else :okthumb:

I don't normally hop on a soapbox, but this is a pet peeve of mine... sort of the flip side of the coin.

I like nice code. It's easy to edit, etc... I also like to hop around various sites done completely with CSS. All very nice... for a personal site or weblog... I like Mozilla for the tabbed browsing and cool plugins, BUT these guys and their W3C "validated code" buttons make me want to puke.

IF 90% OF SURFERS ARE USING IE, THEN CHECK YOUR FUCKING WORK IN IE DAMNIT!

I can't tell you how many times I have gone to site that looks perfect in Mozilla, and an absolute mess in IE. I don't give a rats ass if Mozilla is better at rendering than IE. I don't care if tables are actually meant for "tabular data" and not images... If your site looks like shit in IE, then you HAVE to change your code. Awww, I'm sorry you can't validate with the W3C, but you have to allow 90% of the people looking at your site to actually SEE it.

There. I feel better now. :)