irihapeti Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 is the same issue on Windows 8.1 and metro browser 11.xx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freya Mokusei Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Perrie Juran wrote: As for me I have clear and tangible reasons I use Firefox for the Web and Firestorm for SL that I can clearly articulate. And actually I think I am part of a majority, not a minority. Quoting Perrie but responding to both. I too don't understand the logic that there's no tangible difference between render engines. There was maybe a time when browser choice was Pepsi/Coke Intel/AMD saber-rattling - back during IE 4-7 where most offerings were poor anyway. Trident vs. Gecko (to reduce the options) nowadays isn't a contest - Trident lost. Using IE because MSFT made it seems entirely nonsensical, since the WWW wasn't built for Windows. It's a mistake to draw any analogy between SL viewers and web browsers for this exact reason - LL is a central authority, MSFT is not. Web developers have no incentive to coddle the users of Windows or any other operating system - people will view the Web in whichever way works for them - despite anyones attempts to use them as hostages (be it Google, MSFT, Mozilla or anyone else). Phil, you have a clear problem that has a clear solution. It's entirely possible that whichever developer was responsible for the change (whether they work at Lithium, LL, or Amazon) will revert it, but the reality is that in this case IE is the singular browser with this fault. The choice is between continuing to use a browser that cannot correctly interpret CSS that every other major browser can interpret, or hope that every website developer of every website you use will coddle your divergent, bottom-end-of-the-market experience. One expectation is more realistic than the other. I don't understand the intention of turning a performance issue into a political one but it's not a shift I've any interest in. Browsers can be installed alongside each other no problem - the experience has more value than the name in the title bar. While all rendering engines parse CSS slightly differently, there's only one that can't balance margins and padding properly. Anyway, posting this more as a bump with a bit more content than my contributions yesterday. I'm not here to fight, and don't enjoy Pepsi/Coke arguments. I didn't really want to steal focus away from any other possible fixes to IE - if it's the only browser you choose to enjoy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted November 11, 2014 Author Share Posted November 11, 2014 irihapeti posted that the same problem occurs with the metro browser, whatever that is. Anyway... The only clear cut solution is to change browsers, and I've no intention of doing that after 16 years of using it. I can live with the fault. However, I do think the comparison of browsers and viewers is very valid. Many people use 3rd party viewers because someone told them that another was better than the one they downloaded when they joined SL, and many Windows users use browsers other than the one supplied with Windows because someone told them another was better. It's a very exact parallel. In each case, it can be rightly said that people changed from the 'default' application because someone told them that different applications were better. Freya Mokusei wrote: The choice is between continuing to use a browser that cannot correctly interpret CSS that every other major browser can interpret, or hope that every website developer of every website you use will coddle your divergent, bottom-end-of-the-market experience. Every website developer should "coddle" IE, regardless of me using it, because IE is the default browser for the most widely used operating system. It's a simple as that. Any website developer, who creates websites for other people/companies, fails if s/he does not "coddle" IE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freya Mokusei Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Phil Deakins wrote: The only clear cut solution is to change browsers, and I've no intention of doing that after 16 years of using it. I can live with the fault. That's what I figured, and is completely fine by me. Metro browser is the built-in fullscreen browser in Windows 8/8.1. It's the only other browser to use the Trident engine besides IE (because it's Microsoft-made). Your comparison between browsers and viewers is not valid - and I'll try again to explain why. There are practical reasons to use a browser than recommendations received by word-of-mouth, and again MSFT had no discernable part in designing the WWW as we know it today. MSFT is - through various laws in multiple jurisdictions (I can't highlight this enough) - no longer allowed to say IE is the default Windows browser for the WWW. It has to offer a 'fair' selection. All of these reasons make the comparison powerfully different from viewers in SL, where LL owns, operates, regulates and controls all traffic within the entire platform. In Second Life, LL will always have final say - this has never ever been true for Microsoft, who only build an operating system. Phil Deakins wrote: Every website developer should "coddle" IE This seems political again - and Microsoft have shown willingness to use their users as hostages in this fight. I would say it's equally fair to say that an Operating System developer fails if the user believes IE is the only choice for viewing the web under Windows. I see no value in telling people what they should do. The reality is that if it takes even 5 minutes longer to build a page correctly for IE than it does for Chrome, you're going to get some people (maybe developers, maybe supervisors, the end result is the same) deciding the development cost can't be justified for for the investment. Most users will still get the experience correct - not because of MSFTs ability to blackmail developers - but because users have the freedom to choose their perspective to one that doesn't force developers to jump through hoops. Join us, Phil, in the path of least resistance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coby Foden Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Phil, I have noticed that you do like "default" stuff. Be it a browser, or a viewer and its default settings. :matte-motes-big-grin: What I have noticed is that the "default" definitely is not always the best meal in town. Why not give up your love for the default and try something else for a change? You are a smart man, surely you can learn something new, don't you? :matte-motes-big-grin: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted November 11, 2014 Author Share Posted November 11, 2014 Freya Mokusei wrote: Your comparison between browsers and viewers is not valid - and I'll try again to explain why. There are practical reasons to use a browser than recommendations received by word-of-mouth, and again MSFT had no discernable part in designing the WWW as we know it today. MSFT is - through various laws in multiple jurisdictions (I can't highlight this enough) - no longer allowed to say IE is the default Windows browser for the WWW. It has to offer a 'fair' selection. All of these reasons make the comparison powerfully different from viewers in SL, where LL owns, operates, regulates and controls all traffic within the entire platform. In Second Life, LL will always have final say - this has never ever been true for Microsoft, who only build an operating system. I have to disagree. The comparison of the two is extremely vaild. in this debate, for the reasons I stated above. I won't go through them again because it would be just repetition. You don't agree. That's fine. We do agree that MS was not involved in the development of the web as we know it today. Neither was Google (Chrome), and the makers of the other browsers. So all the browsers are on the same footing in that repsect, and that is a non-point of yours. No disagreement there either. My use of the word 'default' did not suggest that IE is the default browser for the web. I said it's the default browser for the most widely used operating system - Windows. It really doesn't matter who owns what. By making the comparison, I wasn't even alluding to who owns what. I was, and still am, saying that a huge reason why many or most people use the applications they do is because someone told them that <application> is better, regardless of whether it is or not. In the case of viewers, better than LL's viewer, and, in the case of browsers, better than the default one that came with the operating system. The comparison is about why people change what they use, and it's a perfect comparison to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted November 11, 2014 Author Share Posted November 11, 2014 Coby Foden wrote: Phil, I have noticed that you do like "default" stuff. Be it a browser, or a viewer and its default settings. :matte-motes-big-grin: What I have noticed is that the "default" definitely is not always the best meal in town. Why not give up your love for the default and try something else for a change? You are a smart man, surely you can learn something new, don't you? :matte-motes-big-grin: I'm relearning to play the piano at the moment, and that's enough learning to be going on with for now To be perfectly honest, Coby, I do have a bit of an attitude about why people use 'other' applications instead of the one they were given. In the case of browsers, the web forums I've used through the years contain an untypically high perecntage of people who are anti-microsoft on principle. The principle relating to monopolies or greed. "Untypically" because it doesn't reflect the general web population, who don't even think about such things. The effect is that other people in those communities decide to go along with the anti-MS person's view, and change to a different browser - usually the one that the anti-MS person suggested. They in turn pass that view onto others, for no good reason other than some amti-MS person said it's good, and so on. It's all unrealistic but it happens. So I'm anti-anti-microsoft. Especially since we are all using such high quality computers that would never have happened so quickly were it not for Bill Gates. And I do see a parallel in why people change from the default LL viewer to 3rd party ones. I've used 3rd party viewers - I still do for my alt. Some include two features that I use as a creator, but those features are no good to the bulk of the population because they are not creators. They only use 3rd party viewers because they were told they were better. Word of mouth. The silly thing is, they'll actually believe they are using the better viewer without ever having given the default one a run. Apart rom those two small features (one of which has been done away with, anyway), I see nothing better about 3rd party viewers. perhaps those who are into restrained life (whatever that is) need a 3rd party viewer. That would be a perfectly good reason to change, of course. Yep. I do have a bit of an attitude about changing from defaults wihtout a good reason, other than someone suggested it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freya Mokusei Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Phil Deakins wrote: We do agree that MS was not involved in the development of the web as we know it today. Neither was Google (Chrome), and the makers of the other browsers. So all the browsers are on the same footing in that repsect, and that is a non-point of yours. You're misunderstanding. It's not the developers of the browsers that matter - it's the layering underneath. CSS is one example of a language that needs correct interpreting to render pages in the way they were designed to display by the webpage author (this is also a high-level problem, there's many standards below this as well but those are for even nerdier conversations where I have anything invested). Microsoft's Trident engine intentionally breaks the CSS standard. Pages designed toward W3C compliance do not display the same when using Trident. That's a decision Microsoft made, and that's why your experience currently suffers. Microsoft are not in the position to demand that the CSS standard changes - they're at the bottom of the chain with Chrome and Firefox. Creating these breakages intentionally cripples Microsoft's product, and blaming outside web developers for this is silly. When other people use browsers that do not break CSS standards, they're not doing it to spite Big Business - they're doing it to see the Web as it was designed. For some reason you're seeing this behaviour and deciding it's whimsical or based purely on peer pressure - this is a mistake that typically shows high levels ignorance of the deeper problem. In SL (to try and use your analogy) we call this understanding of how the world should appear the 'Shared Experience', and LL doesn't approve when TPV developers break it. Microsoft's IE is a Third Party Viewer as far as the Internet's concerned (not a default viewer) and intentionally breaks this Shared Experience. Your mistake is claiming that IE has any place as a default or standard. It's not, and never has been despite the proliferation of Microsoft's other products. Also, it's not even the default browser for Windows. Again, the law prevents that from being true. It's produced by the same company, but ANY BROWSER that you choose to install via the Microsoft Browser Choice system is a 'default' Windows browser. You're confusing the common name 'Microsoft' for authority over product that doesn't exist. Anyway - like I say this is nerdy stuff that doesn't matter. Keep on doin' your thing - just don't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted November 11, 2014 Author Share Posted November 11, 2014 Freya Mokusei wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: We do agree that MS was not involved in the development of the web as we know it today. Neither was Google (Chrome), and the makers of the other browsers. So all the browsers are on the same footing in that repsect, and that is a non-point of yours. You're misunderstanding. It's not the developers of the browsers that matter - it's the layering underneath. CSS is one example of a language that needs correct interpreting to render pages in the way they were designed to display by the webpage author. Microsoft's Trident engine intentionally breaks the CSS standard. Pages designed toward W3C compliance do not display the same when using Trident. That's a decision Microsoft made, and that's why your experience currently suffers. Microsoft are not in the position to demand that the CSS standard changes. Creating these breakages intentionally cripples Microsoft's product, and blaming outside web developers for this is silly. In SL we call this understanding of how the world should appear the 'Shared Experience', and LL doesn't approve when TPV developers break it. Microsoft's IE is a Third Party Viewer as far as the Internet's concerned (not a default viewer) and intentionally breaks this Shared Experience. Your mistake is claiming that IE has any place as a default or standard. It's not, and never has been despite the proliferation of Microsoft's other products. Also, it's not even the default browser for Windows. Again, the law prevents that from being true. It's produced by the same company, but ANY BROWSER that you choose to install via the Microsoft Browser Choice system is a 'default' Windows browser. You're confusing the common name 'Microsoft' for authority over product that doesn't exist. If I misunderstood what you meant, it's because you weren't clear about it. You simply said "[...] the web as we know it today", and I didn't mean the developers of browsers when I replied to that, except to say that none of them were instrumental in developing the web as we know it today. No browser breaks the CSS standard, because there is no CSS standard. There are CSS recommendations, of course, but that doesn't make them standards, and no browser complies with them all, so it's no good picking on one to say that it doesn't comply with a particular part of the recommendations. Contrary to what you said, I haven't blamed anybody for the flaw that I see. You may be referring to the bit I said about website designers failing in their job if they don't write to accomodate IE, but I'm totally right about that. Nobody can possibly disagree - given a modicum of thought, that is. No website designer in his/her right mind would fail to make sure that his/her pages work in the second most popular browser in the world, unless its useage was minimal, which it's not. You are not even reading what I write. Is there any point in me writing anything? I NEVER said, or even even hinted, that IE "has any place as a default or standardI". If you would care to read what I wrote, you'll find that I said IE is the standard/default browser for Windows, which it is. If you want to start another discussion on whether or not IE should be considered the standard browser for the web, we can do that, but I haven't said anything even remotely similar to that. Isn't it still provided with Windows? If it isn't, fair enough. If it's not, then that must be down to cry-baby browser makers who wanted to get a look in lol. Anyway, please reply to what I actually write instead of what I don't write. Thank you ETA: Accodring this this page IE is the default browser for Windows 8, and, as a built-in app, it looks like it's supplied with Windows 8, so your comment was another non-point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freya Mokusei Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Phil Deakins wrote: No browser breaks the CSS standard, because there is no CSS standard. There are CSS recommendations, of course, but that doesn't make them standards, and no browser complies with them all, so it's no good picking on one to say that it doesn't comply with a particular part of the recommendations. I'm happy to disagree on whether or not the breaking of margin and padding are as damaging as the other changes to CSS rendering made by Google and Mozilla. That's subjective (to a point where I'm biased, having had to waste many hours coding explicitly for IE), and rendering is difficult. My opinion is just that no browser flies quite so against the wishes of CSS as IE does - but that's the call I make on the PCs and web connections that I control. The reason I've come to make this call is that whenever I install IE on someones machine, I get complaints that certain things don't work or look right (gasp, shock, etc.). I guess I have no idea what you're talking about with regards to the rest - I have no idea why you give IE any authority at all, it's just a browser (usage and dependancy on the OS doesn't matter, if people hate it they'll move). Like I said at the beginning - if you're happy using a divergent browser and you understand the risks (which you do), then do as you please. It doesn't matter what defaults and standards exist - and whether a standard is a standard or just a language that everyone expects to work a certain way. I don't plan to defend every lazy web developer - I actually agree with you that LL should support IE. I'm bored of suggesting new users swap to an LL-approved browser just to get AJAX properly triggered and to avoid all the nonsensical divisions that keep most secondlife.com pages mixed content. Again, my position is that I have to exist in reality, and can't expect people to do things just because they should. I'm not equipped to discuss anti-trust and monopoly-based legal judgements, but would suggest you learn more about the Browser Selection process in Windows. Apologies for the lack of links and slow updates to my posts, today I am only getting very occaisional access to a display, with the rest of my day spent in the dark. ETA: It's probable that I took your words from your analogy - that IE was equivilent to the LL Viewer while other browsers were TPVs (my inference was that IE was viewed as authoritive and the others are non-authoritive). Tried to warn you there - it's an error to confuse the product MSFT want you to use with the product that's designed for correct use of the Web. In reality of course, it doesn't matter what operating systems do or what they ship with. Operating Systems don't have anything whatsoever to do with the Web. This is demonstrated clearly, since most websites operate on Linux/Unix arcitectures. P.S. Congrats on the piano! It's a skill I love making use of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coby Foden Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Phil Deakins wrote: I'm relearning to play the piano at the moment, and that's enough learning to be going on with for now That's great Phil. :matte-motes-smile: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madelaine McMasters Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Coby Foden wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: I'm relearning to play the piano at the moment, and that's enough learning to be going on with for now That's great Phil. :matte-motes-smile: I agree Coby. Phil, your happiness is just around the corner... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted November 11, 2014 Author Share Posted November 11, 2014 Freya Mokusei wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: No browser breaks the CSS standard, because there is no CSS standard. There are CSS recommendations, of course, but that doesn't make them standards, and no browser complies with them all, so it's no good picking on one to say that it doesn't comply with a particular part of the recommendations. I'm happy to disagree on whether or not the breaking of margin and padding are as damaging as the other changes to CSS rendering made by Google and Mozilla. That's subjective (to a point where I'm biased, having had to waste many hours coding explicitly for IE), and rendering is difficult. My opinion is just that no browser flies quite so against the wishes of CSS as IE does - but that's the call I make on the PCs and web connections that I control. The reason I've come to make this call is that whenever I install IE on someones machine, I get complaints that certain things don't work or look right (gasp, shock, etc.). I guess I have no idea what you're talking about with regards to the rest - I have no idea why you give IE any authority at all, it's just a browser (usage and dependancy on the OS doesn't matter, if people hate it they'll move). Like I said at the beginning - if you're happy using a divergent browser and you understand the risks (which you do), then do as you please. It doesn't matter what defaults and standards exist - and whether a standard is a standard or just a language that everyone expects to work a certain way. [...] I'm not equipped to discuss anti-trust and monopoly-based legal judgements, but would suggest you learn more about the Browser Selection process in Windows. Apologies for the lack of links and slow updates to my posts, today I am only getting very occaisional access to a display, with the rest of my day spent in the dark. ETA: It's probable that I took your words from your analogy - that IE was equivilent to the LL Viewer while other browsers were TPVs (my inference was that IE was viewed as authoritive and the others are non-authoritive). Tried to warn you there - it's an error to confuse the product MSFT want you to use with the product that's designed for correct use of the Web. In reality of course, it doesn't matter what operating systems do or what they ship with. Operating Systems don't have anything whatsoever to do with the Web. This is demonstrated clearly, since most websites operate on Linux/Unix arcitectures. You mean the recommendations of W3C, who have no authority either. We don't so much disagree on it. We have different views about those recommendations, that's all. You seem to take them as rules, though you may not use that word, and I take them as merely recommendations, which is exactly what they are. I don't give IE any authority. Again you are not reading what I write. I say that IE is the default browser for the most widely used operating system. I also said that any competent website designer caters for it or they fail to do their job properly - unless they are just making a website for themselves, of course. I don't intentionally use a "divergent browser". I use the one that is supplied with the most widely used operating system, which is one that, according to a chart that was posted in this thread, is the second most used one on the web, with a very significant market share. I'm reminded of Netscape adherents. If you want a "divergent browser" remember Netscape 4. I did learn more today, as a direct result of you appearing to say that IE is no longer supplied with Windows 8, and that a range of browsers of offered instead. I learned that IE is in fact still supplied with Windows 8, and the range you linked to is on another website altogether. I've no idea if that site connected to MS or not, but I do know that IE is the default browser for Windows 8. You completely misunderstood the parallel I drew between browsers and viewers. You still don't seem to have grasped that I drew the parallel between WHY people change them. It's a perfect parallel that seems to have eluded you while you focus on ownership. The rest of your paragraph following the part I highlighted in purple tells me that you haven't yet grasped it. "the correct use of the web"? Really! Surely you wrote that with your tongue in your cheek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perrie Juran Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Phil Deakins wrote: ETA: Accodring this this page IE is the default browser for Windows 8, and, as a built-in app, it looks like it's supplied with Windows 8, so your comment was another non-point. That is a misnomer on that page. IE is the browser MS offers for use by default. You can at will change what your default browser is. As an example I recently bought a new tablet. The Manufacturer has a business relationship with Google. When I turn on the tablet on the home page they display Chrome for my choice of browser. But not every tablet mfr has Chrome as the default choice. There are other Web Browsers for tablets. That page also states: "Internet Explorer 10 lacks some common browser features that you may expect, including support for add-ons and plug-ins. Only certain websites are allowed to use Flash by default." We can only guess at why they are choosing to not include common features. I'm almost tempted to call it a crippled browser. But if you want to limp ahead with it that is your privelege. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freya Mokusei Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Will grant that W3C have no authority, but it seems a bit like denying the rise of the tide considering the state of the Web today. You're granting IE authority on the basis that it is connected to Windows. I don't know why that matters to you but it's irrelevant as to what's used on the Web. As someone who works in deploying PCs for private and commercial use I can guarantee you that people evaluate browser selection based on a range of valid concerns. Reducing this to "what someone says to use" is not helpful. I don't think you've learned enough yet - the website I linked is the first presented to you when you install a copy of Windows beyond XP SP 2 - it's owned by Microsoft, and viewing is a legal requirement within all countries of the EU (and others) because bundling a browser with an operating system was ruled to give users a negative experience. Sources exist, I am rushed. (ETA Thanks Perrie!) Your analogy continues to be faulty because you're reducing the reasons that people change browsers. Ownership and authority is a far more significant issue, and your analogy clouds this from view by imagining IE to have a legitimacy that it's never had. And yeah I'm short on time, better words exist and no intention on arguing over more semantics. Promise that I'm trying my best under the conditions available. The parallel I meant to draw was that at this point in the Web's evolution, you can either use a browser that displays webpages as they were designed as a fluke, or by design. I defend your right to choose your browser for the same reason that powers far greater than I defended your right to use an operating system that wasn't/couldn't be locked to a single browser. Aside: I am interested if Metro Browser cannot be uninstalled (in the same way IE can't be). I've never tried, but my assumption is that Metro is a cool way of avoiding the legal mess of packaging the two products (Windows, IE) separately. I gotta run for today, will see about tomorrow. Best of luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted November 11, 2014 Author Share Posted November 11, 2014 Coby and Maddy: I had 5 years of piano lessons when I was a boy. I made progress in the first 4 years but then I lost all interest and didn't progress any further. Some time later, I joined the army and was eventually posted to a regiment where some guys had a pop group going. I eventually joined the group as an organ player and basically had to learn from scratch. I knew the keyboard but that was about all that was useful from the piano lessons. I figured chords out for myself because I wasn't taught chords. They were very patient with me Some years, and several groups later, I left the army and became a professional singer/organist, and I had a drummer. I stopped doing that after some years but I took it up again in the 90s and made my living at it until the end of '98, but this time with a guitar, and a keyboard on the side. Within the last year I made a friend who is taking piano lessons (and he's 80 years old!), and that inspired me to get a piano again. It arrived 10 days ago. I found that it's much cheaper to download music than buy the paper versions, so I downloaded the last piece I was learning as a boy but didn't get very far into - 'The Dambusters March' from the film, 'The Dambusters' - and that's what I am on with now. It's easier now because I immediately recognise chords in the piece, which helps me to remember what to play. That's an advantage I didn't have as a boy. Dunno if all that was of any interest to you, but I thought I'd tell you anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted November 11, 2014 Author Share Posted November 11, 2014 lol - "limp ahead". Actually, I don't limp with the browser at all, and this thread was started about the only flaw I've come across. I'll take your word for it if IE is merely recommended rather than included. I was only going by what it says on that page. BUT, if it actually included, then I stand by what I've written about it about it. Is it not included on the Windows CD? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted November 11, 2014 Author Share Posted November 11, 2014 Freya Mokusei wrote: Will grant that W3C have no authority, but it seems a bit like denying the rise of the tide considering the state of the Web today. You don't have to grant me any such thing. It's a fact, that's all. So many times I have seen people write words to effect that W3C create rules for browsers, when they don't. I've seen you appear to say the same thing in this discussion. The only "tide" I see rising is that of Chrome. I don't see any tide concerning CSS. You're granting IE authority on the basis that it is connected to Windows. I don't know why that matters to you but it's irrelevant as to what's used on the Web. As someone who works in deploying PCs for private and commercial use I can guarantee you that people evaluate browser selection based on a range of valid concerns. Reducing this to "what someone says to use" is not helpful. I don't grant IE any authority whatsoever. Not even for the Windows OS.. Either you're still not reading what I write, or you don't really undertsand what I write, or you're intentionally making up things that you claim I said. I don't believe you to be guilty of the first or third, so I'll assume it's the second. Or perhaps it's something completely different. Whatever the reason, you keep arguing against things I don't say. You may well deploy PCs but I still say that it's word of mouth (plus Google's advertising) that cause a vast number of people to change browsers. Remember that all we are discussing is the reason why people change browsers and viewers. That's all. Tell me something. When you deploy a PC, say for a private person, do you suggest which browser to install, or do you leave that choice entirely to the customer without any input from you. I suspect, you steer them to your choice of browser (word of mouth), but that's only a suspicion. If you do suggest a browser, for whatever reason, you may defend by saying that the person hasn't changed browsers because it's their first one, but that would be just semantics I don't think you've learned enough yet - the website I linked is the first presented to you when you install a copy of Windows beyond XP SP 2 - it's owned by Microsoft, and viewing is a legal requirement within all countries of the EU (and others) because bundling a browser with an operating system was ruled to give users a negative experience. Sources exist, I am rushed. (ETA Thanks Perrie!) Ah. Ty for that piece of information. So IE is definitely not provided with the Windows OS. Right? Your analogy continues to be faulty because you're reducing the reasons that people change browsers. Ownership and authority is a far more significant issue, and your analogy clouds this from view by imagining IE to have a legitimacy that it's never had. IF IE is not provided WITH Windows, then I withdraw my parallel. I can say with confidence though that not many years ago my parallel would have been perfect. The interesting question is, how do people access that website without a browser? Does the installation do it? I don't know, but I'd like to know. And yeah I'm short on time, better words exist and no intention on arguing over more semantics. Promise that I'm trying my best under the conditions available. The parallel I meant to draw was that at this point in the Web's evolution, you can either use a browser that displays webpages as they were designed as a fluke, or by design. Still your choice. I'm sorry that you are so against the 2nd most widely used browser. I guess you prefer websites to cater solely for Chrome and, if other browsers display it properly, it's all to the good. It reminds me of my attitude to Netscape - especially NS4. I am more than happy to use IE and, if the odd website has been made so badly that it doesn't display properly in IE, I'm happy with that. I haven't come across any flaws until the one here, so it's not so bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freya Mokusei Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Oh! Spare minutes! Pedantry engaged Phil Deakins wrote: this thread was started about the only flaw I've come across. This thread is being hosted on a platform that includes multiple dynamic stylesheets, but to copy some elements from the source... margin:2px 15px 0 15px; /* FOR IE6 - DBL FLOAT MARGIN BUG */#masthead #sl-logo span>a { margin:2px 30px 0 30px; /* FOR EVERYTHING ELSE */ } /* Position relative breaks the dropdowns in IE6/7 - don't do that // position: relative; display: block;*/ Source - just some of the hacks necessary to create what looks like a 'universal' experience, when in fact Windows-built browsers (to include Metro) are the only outlier. I could fill pages and pages with similar hacks all necessary because of IE's negative influence on the development process. You're welcome to search for Chrome hacks. Phil Deakins wrote: Is it not included on the Windows CD? Surely you know Windows has been distributed via online and DVD methods only for some time? I'll try and get to the rest tomorrow - the short answer (to address your question quickly) is that IE is still included, because of course people expect to view websites (such as Browser Selection, MSFT love irony) out-of-the-box. This expectation (and the bundling) lends zero credibility to IE. Please also understand that I'm not promoting Chrome. Never have. All browsers should only promote sensible behaviour that renders pages in an identical, predictable fashion that works for both viewers and developers - anything less and the WWW does not function as it should. It's not up to the browser to determine the intent of the page author during rendering - only to present markup in the fashion it was designed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coby Foden Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Phil Deakins wrote: Coby and Maddy: . . . . . Some years, and several groups later, I left the army and became a professional singer/organist, and I had a drummer. I stopped doing that after some years but I took it up again in the 90s and made my living at it until the end of '98, but this time with a guitar, and a keyboard on the side. Within the last year I made a friend who is taking piano lessons (and he's 80 years old!), and that inspired me to get a piano again. It arrived 10 days ago. . . . . . Dunno if all that was of any interest to you, but I thought I'd tell you anyway It was interesting. Thanks for sharing. :heart: :smileyhappy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perrie Juran Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Phil Deakins wrote: I'll take your word for it if IE is merely recommended rather than included. I was only going by what it says on that page. BUT, if it actually included, then I stand by what I've written about it about it. Is it not included on the Windows CD? It's the only one they offer you when you install Widows. Nothing compells them to include and or recommend any other browsers. But Widows also has other apps when you install it. An image viewer. A media player. Notepad. There is a fair sized list actually. You can get along pretty admirably with just what MS offers when you install Widows. But of course they are only going to promote their own products/programs. That's business. They set IE up as the default Browser but actually no one ever never needs to use it. I can install another Browser and never have to use IE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted November 11, 2014 Author Share Posted November 11, 2014 Perrie Juran wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: I'll take your word for it if IE is merely recommended rather than included. I was only going by what it says on that page. BUT, if it actually included, then I stand by what I've written about it about it. Is it not included on the Windows CD? It's the only one they offer you when you install Widows. Nothing compells them to include and or recommend any other browsers. But Widows also has other apps when you install it. An image viewer. A media player. Notepad. There is a fair sized list actually. You can get along pretty admirably with just what MS offers when you install Widows. But of course they are only going to promote their own products/programs. That's business. They set IE up as the default Browser but actually no one ever never needs to use it. I can install another Browser and never have to use IE. Yes, that's always been the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perrie Juran Posted November 11, 2014 Share Posted November 11, 2014 Phil Deakins wrote: Perrie Juran wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: I'll take your word for it if IE is merely recommended rather than included. I was only going by what it says on that page. BUT, if it actually included, then I stand by what I've written about it about it. Is it not included on the Windows CD? It's the only one they offer you when you install Widows. Nothing compells them to include and or recommend any other browsers. But Widows also has other apps when you install it. An image viewer. A media player. Notepad. There is a fair sized list actually. You can get along pretty admirably with just what MS offers when you install Widows. But of course they are only going to promote their own products/programs. That's business. They set IE up as the default Browser but actually no one ever never needs to use it. I can install another Browser and never have to use IE. Yes, that's always been the case. So when all is said and done, the place this complaint (or observation if you are not complaining) really belongs is Microsoft's Web Site. Why is IE failing to properly display content that most everyone else has no problem with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted November 11, 2014 Author Share Posted November 11, 2014 Freya Mokusei wrote: Oh! Spare minutes! Pedantry engaged Phil Deakins wrote: this thread was started about the only flaw I've come across. This thread is being hosted on a platform that includes multiple dynamic stylesheets, but to copy some elements from the source... margin:2px 15px 0 15px; /* FOR IE6 - DBL FLOAT MARGIN BUG */#masthead #sl-logo span>a { margin:2px 30px 0 30px; /* FOR EVERYTHING ELSE */ } /* Position relative breaks the dropdowns in IE6/7 - don't do that // position: relative; display: block;*/ Source - just some of the hacks necessary to create what looks like a 'universal' experience, when in fact Windows-built browsers (to include Metro) are the only outlier. I could fill pages and pages with similar hacks all necessary because of IE's negative influence on the development process. You're welcome to search for Chrome hacks. It's some time since I created websites, and I remember necessary CSS hacks to cover quite a number of browsers, not to mention previous versions of browsers. Are you now saying that IE is the only one these days that needs such hacks? From my past experience, my inclination is not to believe it. If it's true, then it may be that all the main browsers, except IE, have changed to copy the sub-set of W3C recommendations that Chrome uses, since Chrome is apparently the most widely used browser these days, and that catering solely for Chrome does perfectly well for those browsers. If that's the way it is, not only is there still no excuse for any web designer to not cater for the 2nd most widely used browser, AND it places a self-inflicted limitation on which of the W3C recommendation a browser can use. W3C might as well just let Google handle CSS and the other will follow. Phil Deakins wrote: Is it not included on the Windows CD? Surely you know Windows has been distributed via online and DVD methods only for some time? No I don't. I've only installed Windows once in recent years, and that was not very long ago. It was on an optical disk. I'll try and get to the rest tomorrow - the short answer (to address your question quickly) is that IE is still included, because of course people expect to view websites (such as Browser Selection, MSFT love irony) out-of-the-box. This expectation (and the bundling) lends zero credibility to IE. So IE is supplied with Windows, and no other browser is supplied with it. That makes it the default browser for Windows. Where's the argument? I have to say that it does seem to me that you're trying to lead me up the garden path with snippets of information that seem to say things that aren't true. Please also understand that I'm not promoting Chrome. Never have. All browsers should only promote sensible behaviour that renders pages in an identical, predictable fashion that works for both viewers and developers - anything less and the WWW does not function as it should. It's not up to the browser to determine the intent of the page author during rendering - only to present markup in the fashion it was designed. So which browser do you suggest to people when you put a computer in? Or do you just install one of your choice and don't ask the customer's preference? Either of those means that you are the one who is responsible for the customer using a non-IE browser with Windows, and the customer didn't make a personal choice. That does tend to skew the figures on which browsers people choose to use. As I said earlier, this fault is the only one I've seen, and I don't consider it a deal-breaker - not since it's just one specific page. But tell me something else. All these little CSS rules that you've mentioned for IE - why are they necessary? Is it because IE uses its own CSS versions? Or is it that it implements less or more of the W3C recommendations than the others do? Or what? I'm genuinely curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Deakins Posted November 11, 2014 Author Share Posted November 11, 2014 Perrie Juran wrote: So when all is said and done, the place this complaint (or observation if you are not complaining) really belongs is Microsoft's Web Site. Why is IE failing to properly display content that most everyone else has no problem with? That's right. But it wasn't a complaint. It was a question to find out if it's only me or if others are also seeing the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now