1. While you are free to lurk, we welcome you to register for a (free) account so that you will be able to participate in forum discussions.


Discussion in 'Web Browsers' started by toradrake, Dec 13, 2014.

  1. ducklord Member


    @Billy Heh, yeah, a new HDD could cost half of what a med-spec laptop would - and it would come with a HDD, so... :)

    I've never had a "hardware accident" such as yours, but my former co-worker did something like that. When in a fight. With his wife. In rage, he grabed the first thing he found in front of him and started smashing it on the nearest wall and then jumping on it. When he calmed down he realized it was the laptop he bought two weeks ago :-D

    Billy likes this.
  2. Billy New Member


    Thank god I don't have a temper like that. That would really suck.

    Yeah, I looked online and the prices for the HDD were far too expensive to put into a laptop that was over 3 years old. I went out and bought a brand new one that was so much faster for under $400.

  3. ducklord Member


    @Billy He, neither does he (usually), but in that case he had months to "let of steam" and he reached a point of Hulk-ish-ness. "Hulk SMASH". And he smashed :-D

    As for the HDD, well, the only problem is that HDDs may be a bit expensive, but they're always a cheaper solution IF you have a relatively new laptop and its disk is borked. In that case, a new HDD would set you back $50 - $150, depending on what you get, and would be better than the one a new laptop would come with. Problem is, if your laptop was old-ish, after a while you'd also have to replace its battery. Add another $50 - $100 to the mix. On some laptops, after a while, you'd also have to change the cable connecting the monitor to their main body. Add another $10 to $100, depending on if you could do the whole procedure yourself. Later... blah-blah-blah...

    And it's at this point where a new laptop seems a better choice :-D

    Billy likes this.
  4. Billy New Member


    Yeah, it was a crappy laptop (emachines- low end) so in a way it was a blessing because I bought myself a much faster laptop which saves me a lot of time when I need to do something that hogs up a lot of resources. I couldn't believe how much faster the new one was, it was so nice to be able to load a game in a few minutes, with the emachines laptop I had to get up and leave the room while I waited.

  5. jblogger New Member


    Talking about browsers I might be wrong but I think that if you test on Chrome, Firefox and the latest version of IE and the site works (and looks good) you can be sure it will work pretty much anywhere. Unless of course you have a client like the one @SimplySidy talked about earlier who wants a responsive site on IE6. The reason I'm saying this is because Firefox uses Gecko as a render engine, Chrome uses Webkit and IE uses... whatever IE uses, and that's it. Safari and Opera also make use of Webkit, and don't know what other browser uses Gecko, but those are pretty much all the render engines in use today. I never bother testing on anything else than Chrome, Firefox and IE 9+.

  6. SimplySidy Member


    I am unsure about the recent versions of IE but yes, the older generation used their own tags and had a few of their own elements. While dealing with that client, I did a read and found that actually the ruby elements, datafield (and some more) elements of today's HTML 5 existed as proprietary Tags for IE back in the days of HTML4.

  7. ducklord Member


    @jblogger Yes, but not exactly. I'm not proficient enough in their nooks and crannies, but from what I know, to test a site properly, it's wise to do it on:

    Firefox (Desktop)
    Firefox (Nightly - to be sure "it will still work after 2-3 versions and probably forever in the future")
    Chrome Canary (Same reasons as Firefox Nightly)
    Internet Explorer - Latest (for the reasons you and SimplySidy mentioned)
    Internet Explorer 6 (It was the version with most incompatibilities and problems, half of which were passed over to the next version, and so on, and so on, as well as the default coming with older versions of Windows - and many users still use ancient PCs, with those very "older versions of Windows", without having manually upgraded their browsers - some don't know how to do it, others are forced to use it in their work environment).
    Safari ('cause Apple, and it's not WebKit - WebKit as we meet it in Chrome)

    After those, you check:

    Android browser (it's not-exactly-Chrome)
    Safari on iOS (you should, I can't, I don't have an iDevice)
    Chrome Mobile

    ...and that basically covers 90% of your possible users. The others may see some inconsistencies or problems in your pages (for example, when using some not-so-popular browser on Linux, like Konqueror), but if you don't try to pull off many tricks in your pages, they probably there won't even see one single stray pixel.

    If you want to keep it as simple as it gets, then you test in Chrome Canary - Firefox Nightly (notice: both experimental versions, you SKIP the normal ones) and IE6, since whatever works there will work in their other versions as well, but ONLY in combination with another rule: no-tricks-at-all in CSS. Everything done "properly", no using of fancy transparencies, animations or other effects, no negative margins. If you go simple and test in this Holy Trinity, as I like to call it, you're good.

  8. jblogger New Member


    According to the site modern.ie Internet Explorer 6 Countdown the total usage of Internet Explorer 6 all over the world stands for just 0.96%. I don't know what's the exact way they came with that number but if it's true then there's no point on testing our sites against IE6. In fact that number should be true because the site is from Microsoft.

    Last edited: Jan 9, 2015
  9. SimplySidy Member


    Maybe they are telling the stats for today's users. XP was one of the most powerful and popular Single PC OSes from Microsoft and almost everyone using a PC had it. Now when they upgraded IE to 7 and later 8 there were less takers - I know many (including me) who did not upgrade their IE as the steps to upgrade were a little complex - it was not one single click to download and install IE7 or 8.

    Now officially, XP is dead and with no support from MS, people have migrated to Windows 7 and 8 (or higher) and as such, the IE 6 is dying out.

    Hoewever, I am certain that the 0.96% that still use IE6 are still on XP (like me) as the latest IE will not install on XP.

  10. jblogger New Member


    I'm sure those using IE6 are still hanging on Windows XP, but as it no longer has any kind of support (no updates from Windows and also some third party developers are slowly dropping support for their software on it) it doesn't makes sense to keep using it.

    One reason to still being using Windows XP can be not being able to upgrade because of hardware reasons. Not all Win XP machines support Win 7 or Win 8. But still, if Microsoft has its number right there's no point for us to still focusing on IE6 when designing a new site.

  11. mr_bucks New Member


    I assume you are talking about css libraries like bootstrap. If you are poking around in the code of the library, you are not using the library correctly. The same holds true for javascript libraries.

    If the code isn't crossbrowser compatible a bug report should be filed stating under what circumstances the bug is occuring.

    Theoretically all of the layout should be done by css. The html generated should be minimal.

    Saying all that I worked mainly in development, and designers where those annoying people I had to talk to sonetimes.

  12. ducklord Member


    @mr_bucks I guess what SimplySidy means is that it's harder applying "browser compatible hacks" when you use a CSS framework. Let's say you're using the 960 grid-what-ya-call-it. With it you "set up" your site by using predefined vertical columns of specific width, and each element you've got has a width that is defined by using those very columns. And then, you decide to "break the grid" and add an element that doesn't follow it. Well, such a "hack" can break havoc on your page, if you override one rule your CSS library had set, you thought was applied to the one element you're tweaking, only to find it was also used "for those boxes in your contact page" or something.

    When you don't know how the underlying code is inter-connected, it's harder also breaking free from it ocassionally. You either have to fully "play by its rules" or be prepared for lengthier troubleshooting.

    I'd like to ask you what you mean by "...the layout should be done by CSS. The html generated should be minimal"... since I'm mostly a designer and only a noob webdev: your page elements are always set in HTML and styled in CSS. How can you "do the layout in CSS" without HTML? Am I missing something?! And how do you "generate minimal HTML"?! The HTML is the HTML - the content and its markup. How can you present the same content with "more" or "less" HTML?!

  13. mr_bucks New Member


    For the browser compatable hacks with layout like the gridsystem you described look into bootstrap. That is where it shines. There are other similar libraries to bootstrap.

    Functions in code are supposed to be a "black box", as in you are not supposed to know how it works. You stick something into the black box magically it transforms into what you want it to. If the black box does not do this that means you are either putting the wrong things into the black box or the black box is buggy.

    HTML or XHTML is related to XML. Assuming you have a bookstore and wanted a list of books in the store, the xml would look like this (stolen from the net)

    <book category="CHILDREN">
    <title>Harry Potter</title>
    <author>J K. Rowling</author>
    <book category="WEB">
    <title>Learning XML</title>
    <author>Erik T. Ray</author>

    This xml could be stored on a flatfile or maybe it is generated from a database. Lets say it is a search query.

    To translate into HTML, <bookstore> would probably describe the entire html page. So the <body> tag maybe or a main <div> inside the body. It should be styled with css.

    Each <book> would be a div then title,year,price would either be a div or a span. Each of those should be styled and positioned with css. (ideally).

    So with css you could make the titles appear horizontally across the screen, vertically etc.

    The developer would then inject this info into the template. Since the template is styled and postioned with css, theoretically it should never need to be changed by the developer.

    So of the designer wanted to change the layout he just switches the css file.

  14. ducklord Member


    @mr_bucks I'm sorry, I'm not writing this as an attack or to offend you in any way, but for someone who calls himself a developer (or at least "having worked mainly in development"), what you're saying is a) at the very best basic knowledge and b) irrelevant to what was mentioned.

    You corrected SimplySidy by saying that "he isn't using the libraries correctly" and yet you seem to not understand that, in some cases, you HAVE to "hack" what's already offered by a system like Bootstrap. I don't even know how to begin to explain that to you in a real world scenario, but I'll try, and keep it as simple as I can. For that, I'll use the 960 grid system as an example, since it's easier to explain what's the problem with "systems" like this.

    Let's say you're designing a site for a client. NOT yourself, NOT your friend, a client who pays you real money to do it. The 960 grid system was created mainly for designing sites with 960 pixels width. It can do more than that, but let's stick with this for the moment and say "it only does that". As its name implies, it's a grid system: it sets ups pre-defined functions and values you can use to more easily create sites and themes, without having, as you said in another reply of yours, "re-invent the wheel". But that places restrictions upon you as well: there's a grid. You SHOULDN'T "break free" from it. There are some pre-defined settings. You SHOULDN'T play around with their code if you don't know exactly what you're doing.

    Now, the way you define "the size of things" with systems like 960, is by using multiples of its columns - the grid system itself. It divides the horizontal space you've got to, say, 12 columns, each 960 pixels / 12 wide = 80 pixels wide.

    So, let's say you used it, you set up the site and you show it to your client. And he says "I want the logo 10 pixels to the right, but at exactly that size". That's it: you're borked. He just pushed your logo ten pixels OUTSIDE your columns, set by your grid system. How do you do it? You either tell him it can't be done - and lose the job - or you add a hack in CSS. With an "!important" margin. And then you check and re-check (and check once more) that it didn't bork anything. In ALL browsers.

    THAT'S what the problem is with such systems - and why we're talking about how ugly "hacks" can get with them in a multi-browser environment. 'cause in most projects you don't have to just move only the logo 10 pixels to one side, but to change and poke at many-many elements according to your clients wishes.

    As for your explanation of "how HTML should be structured", I still don't get what's "minimal" in what you mentioned. What you've posted is just normal, proper HTML code, as it would be marked up by 99,9% of devs on the planet, on any project. I wouldn't call that "minimal", but "normal" :)

    I must stress I'm not writing all of this as an attack, but to explain to you why hacks are a necessity (that can get ugly, fast) in many cases. Hey, you say you're a dev, you should know better than me about that - and I'm sure you'll have many stories of webdev hell to share with us! And maybe offer a hand to us (me and SimplySidy) in one of our endeavour's we were talking about some days ago, where we'll (try to) create a new, basic but publicly available and free WP theme, while documenting the process here.

    SimplySidy likes this.
  15. mr_bucks New Member


    @ducklord I was talking about how libraries should theoretically be used. Reality and theory are two different things.

    The 10 pixels to the left or right nonsense is what you have to put up with when you deal with clients. They don't really care about how the program works, just that it looks pretty. If the website is selling a product, I highly doubt 10 pixels will make a difference. That is why I moved into another line of work

    For the bootstrap problem with the logo, according to google there is a way to float the div outside of the framework. I don't know if it works, I only played with bootstrap a few times, and used it for very basic stuff.

    In the old days you did not need to rely on 3rd party libraries as much. If you have to hack a 3rd party library, what will you do when the library is updated ?

  16. xTinx New Member


    We can never really predict for certain but even the browsers that are currently popular now won't be there for forever. That's basically how the dynamics between human beings and the Internet work. It's been so long since I used Internet Explorer. I can't really use it now because my laptop lags every time I try to open it. Moreover, I have set my default browser to Firefox.

  17. SimplySidy Member


    @mr_bucks : Please also read my earlier response wherein I was citing my problems with a client who needed me to deliver a responsive website on IE 6. The response on which you based your reply was in a way related to that too. :)

    Anyways, here is my opinion - and I mean no disrespect to what you say, on the contrary, I agree with you.

    Yes, it should. But if you look on the pages of Bootstrap or Foundation, they make it explicitly clear about what Browsers and what versions of Browsers they support. Now, in such a situation, do you think your putting up a Bug Report that the framework doesn't work on IE 6 will be entertained? Also, do you say that such issues are bugs ? These are not bugs or issues with the frameworks. Some things are made better and in the process they do need to sacrifice some older unsupported stuff.

    Consider this - A non-responsive website will never show perfectly and never allow the ease of use a responsive website provides on a smart phone. Now, is the website buggy or the smartphone ? None. It is just that the website was not meant for being viewed on a Mobile device.

    Of course, that is what the specs and standards of today say.

  18. SimplySidy Member


    Definitely reminds me of two of my ex-clients (2012-3) who were pixel crazy. And without hacks or whatever you can call them, their requirements could never be fulfilled. Right that it is what I have to deal with, but then, this can get nasty too if done wrongly. Glad that you moved on into another line of work :) . Unfortunately, I and many cannot.

    Unless you are using the CDN/provider-hosted versions, do you really go out chasing your ex-clients that the libraries be updated? Just curious.

  19. Scorp Member


    As far as browsers go, Firefox is my Love!

    Chrome, we're friends.

    Internet Explorer, meh, good only for downloading Firefox after formatting windows :D

    As far as websites and their compatibility in how they appear across different browsers, I hate that! lol

    I have this nice 5-level drop down menu that's made up of CSS and HTML that I found once upon a time, and took many hours to master. Now I can manipulate it, style it, edit it, do anything I want with it to perfection.

    And so I implemented it on my website and played with styling and margins and shadows and made it look awesome...

    But then I check it on Chrome, and suddenly the letters on the tabs are somewhat smaller for some reason. Then I go check it on a friend's lap top, and the whole nav bar seems to go about 20 pixels on the right, not positioned where it should be.

    And then I can just imagine when we go into Safari, Opera, the super-problematic Internet Explorer. It's such a vast "issue," I feel.

    That's one of the things I should - but don't wanna - read about and learn how to use CSS so that every browser and even mobile device can show my CSS-styling perfectly without the issues I face today.

  20. Billy New Member


    I've always wondered who actually uses Internet Explorer. I can only imagine that it's people who are new to computers or at least used IE in the early days and weren't ever exposed to anything else. I'm not sure what it is about the browser, but I just don't like it, and I don't know anyone at all who uses it either. It's pretty weird.


Share This Page