Slashdot Mirror
W3C On How To Fix Browsers
kellan1 writes: "The W3C has published a note Common User Agent Problems, aka why do web browsers suck, and what can you do about it?"
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Keep the TEXTAREA, add a new one <FORMATTEXT> , or something similar.
Just a quick correction: Use TEXTAREA, but add an option to it, eg. <TEXTAREA FORMAT=HTML>. That way old browsers still support it, only the formatting is missing. Also the format would be extensible.
I doubt, therefore I may be.
"This user violated our Acceptable Use Policy and has had their account terminated. The page you are looking for is gone for good."
In that case, the proper status code would probably be 410 Gone
im a web designer currently living up in san jose. on my way to work at our clients site, i pass netscape's headquearters every day.
we take great joy in yelling a different fix for their broswer every day out our window;
"how about rendering tables correctly?!"
"how about filed widths being consistent?!"
id be happy to yell any fixes anyone would like to see implemented.
oh the headaches of netscape. keeps me with a job though.
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
--
Would be immensely more useful, in spite of the abyssmal formatting, if it was larger than 50 characters by 10 lines. I don't know if this puny size is a conspiracy to keep comments short and pointless or some vague attempt to keep it "useful" for Lynx or 640x480 display resolutions. Either way, it just seems kind of ridiculous.
I guess it's biting and insightful then, because Netscape6/Mozilla have better support for the basic W3C standards (HTML, CSS, DOM) than WinIE. Check out www.richinstyle.com or some other independent site if you don't believe it.
You're wrong for a number of reasons.
There is no definition of how tags are supposed to be rendered. That is explicitly left open by the HTML standard, and for good reason. CSS specifies more of that, but it's still not complete, and again, there are good reasons not to fully specify the rendering.
It is simply not true that the rest of the work is "a piece of cake", not when you're dealing with something as complex as the W3C standard definitions and all their interactions. If you don't believe it, try writing a browser yourself.
But the biggest problem is that despite the fact that HTML 3.2 and 4.0 are specified, it doesn't matter because Web page authors DO NOT stick to the standards. They write buggy pages which more or less render OK in the browser they happen to be using, and then they're done. There are almost no pages which adhere strictly to the W3C definitions, and that's why results vary from one browser to the next.
When the user agent clicks on a broken link, return the user to their current page and inform them of the error. How many times have I clicked the BACK button because nobody has put this in? How hard can it be?
The W3C does have a tool you can use to see if web pages are compliant with their html specifications. Which, of course, almost no one's are.
As far as I am concerned, if this guy's web page is not html compliant, I am not going to worry if mine isn't.
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
the behaviors described are not protocols officially accepted by MS. (just look at the behavior of the browsers)
Given the dominance of MS in the market, is this document even relevant? [even though it is brilliant, insightful, and written by people who care about what is going on]
I am just glad we haven't progressed to the point where Microsoft "red" is a shade between black and blue.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
I know, I wish Slashdot had the same type of WYSIWYG editor that my weblog does. It uses Manila, from Userland, to allow WYSIWYG in IE 5+ for Windows, at least. I know that isn't the Slashdot audience, but I'm betting 30% of the hits here come on IE...
---
When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout. --Robert A. Heinlein
1. Have the web browser render correct pages correctly, as the #1 priority.
;) or at least know that the reason the page looks bad is because of the web page being poorly done, and not a browser issue.
2. Have the web browser try to compensate as well as possible for mistakes, as long as doing so doesn't interfere with #1, above.
I.e. follow the Internet maxim, "be conservative in what you do, and liberal in what you accept"
3. Issue a web page quality feedback to the user so if a site has bad HTML, the user knows, so she can fix the site if it is hers, let the web master know if someone else is responsible for the site, know that a company can't do web pages right (great if you are browsing a web page design company's site!
A good implementation would be, for example, an icon which shows quality, and when clicked shows any errors in the page. E.g. if the page is good there would be a smiley face and a tool tip would say "No errors - high quality page", and if the page was bad there would be a frown face and when you clicked it you'd get a window opening with a list of the errors in it. A really good implemenation would have a whole site of icons for perfect, good, ok, bad, and horrid HTML. Of course, the lower the quality, the more likely there are to be problems rendering the page...
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Browsers started going to hell in a handbasket when they forgot why HTML was around in the first place - to make a platform-independent system for sharing information. Thus, a web page in Netscape *should* look different than a web page in IE, *however* the content should be the same.
The DTD merely says that this text is in a paragraph. Unfortunately, most browsers have embraced and extended this to assume that all browsers have the exact same layout. Thus, changing font sizes or types in your browser makes the page look just plain wrong.
Back when the DTD was being followed, *everyone* built web browsers, and all was good with the world. The content was similar, and no matter what the platform, you could still browse. Then came . And . And and all hell broke loose.
Now we're in an IE world. One browser for everyone. Netscape is flailing, Mozilla is close, but MS has free run of the DTD.
If you really want browser wars to heat up, you have to make usre that the browser followed the DTD properly so the display is not driven by the content, but is driven by the end user, as it should be.
There are many reasons why two correctly-functioning browsers will display the same page differently. The <p> tag, for example, without style information, just means "paragraph" - there's no reason different browsers might not have (compiled-in or user configured) different default fonts, default spacing between paragraphs, default paragraph indentation, etcetera. Even with style information, the user can override the author's preferences.
Web pages are not Postscript or PDF documents. HTML authors who try to make pages that look exactly the same in all browsers Just Don't Get It.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Here I am, typing into a <TEXTAREA> , a widget so abhominably broken, it only understands the barest rudiments of text editing (hit key, print letter), and they're worried about broken or missing <A> tags.
Come on, people... one of the most common uses of the web these days is to post messages on a weblog-type site (like, oh, Slashdot) -- and there isn't a widget that we can use other than the <TEXTAREA> so normal people can type text in, highlight a few words, and hit a BOLD button? They have to learn to use <B> tags? What is this, 1983?
I'll tell you what -- when there is a web browser that is isn't brainsick, then I'll care about the UI implementation of broken <A> tags...
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
I remember old browsers used to display information like:
The trend I've seen in modern browsers simply say "Loading" or "Opening" without telling me what's happening. Having the extra information would help when troubleshooting what section of the content isn't loading.
I don't think I'm the only one that finds it quite annoying to have to exit and restart my browser in order to make it forget my HTTP authemtication information. I believe Netscape and IE both have this problem.
All your dangifiknow are belong to us.
More flexibility in caching algorithms - for example, cache images but refresh content would speed many browsers. IE5 caches based on time periods, which are either too long or too short for many sites. Allow users to define behavior of typing in a name into the url text box. Some browsers assume that this means that you want to search, or go to a database such as realnames. Defaulting to www..com (or .org or whatever) would simplify and speed browsing.
These days, your browser is a tool you use with your computer, in the same way a text editor or ftp client has been for a while. This is especially true for many users of free software, since the documentation is, by and large, on the web. Browsers, on the other hand, have grown much like a microsoft product -- more complex, more bloated, and with more features rather than simple and functional. I would love to see a browser with the html rendering abilities of mozilla or internet explorer, but without all the other functions. Such a browser might still need frames support, and possibly javascript, but it wouldn't need to be your chat program, your html editor, or your kitchen sink. It seems like most browsers fall on either end: lynx which is stable but which can't see many of the sites which are written these days, and mozilla which takes up a lot of RAM and does everything you'll ever need to do on your computer.
-thinmac
Narrative
What makes browsers suck now? Everyone who makes a browser is very reluctant to follow the path of the ones who won the war. I can think of a few examples - specifically a few that IE introduced to CSS standards that Netscape rejected, Mozilla implimented then broke or removed, and no other browsers will do. I'm referring to the :hover property. Is this feature a bad thing? Absolutely not! Better than making a big hacky JavaScript solution to do the same thing. But will any other browsers support this? No. That's just stupid - and it's not the only example.
Well, this post may jump around a lot and lack consistency, but I'm rushing to the point and I think the point is clear. Browsers suck because web developers want to use new technologies being developed by companies who build web browsers that introduce them. Then the other browsers refuse to adopt the new technologies - in several cases simply because the authors hate the company *coughMicrosoftcough* that introduced them. That's just stupid.
is that so many browsers don't render pages correctly.
- There is a clearly articulated definition of what tags are supported
- there is a clearly articulated definition of what the tags are supposed to do and how they are to be rendered
My question is why do so many browser not render correctly? What is so hard? One of the hardest parts of programming is requirements definition for the software being written, and getting the customer/boss to clearly articulate what they want the software to do and how it should perform. Once you have the iron-clad requirements written down, the rest of the work is a piece of cake - it is implimentation and testing against the requirements.
In the case of HTML, where there are clear definitions for 3.2 and 4.0, a list of what is deprecated and what is supported, if web page authors stuck to the STANDARD and not use browser specific tags, then there is no reason that the page should not display identically on each persons browser. I find it unfathomable that this is not the case.
"Microsoft has made computing accessible to a population who would otherwise not be able to use computers" - B. Kernigha
This attitude about Web design is one of the reasons the Internet went broke. (another one is lame, hopelessly flawed business plans)
Web designers need to remember that Web design is not print. Documents will be changed by users and users should have that freedom. Worry more about information architecture, it's the content that ultimately matters. Design shouldn't just be decoration that viewers have to conform to, design should help viewers to better comprehend the information they're seeing.
What about handicapped users? Or those who need larger type to see? What about celphone browsers? PalmOS? WebTV? Crappy WindowsCE appliances in the airport business lounge?
Web design extends traditional design towards architecture and engineering. Good Web design is flexible. It doesn't matter what the building looks like if it falls on your head.
Strict adherence to standards is the best thing we've got. Letting go of the bells and whistles is better for your clients, your audience, your bottom line and your sanity.
What I dont understand is why browsers don't have better support for downloading and resuming of files. Why do programs like GetRight and Gozilla have to exist, catching clicks in browsers and downloading for us? And it would be twice as good if the browser could crash, and your download window keep downloading. I personally run mozilla and I'll use wget for huge files and resuming. It would be nice if I could do it right in mozilla.
Braille? How's that supposed to work? Little pimples raise up on the screen?
...pimples on a screen reader, actually. Most screen readers plug in the serial port and display one or two horizontal lines of text. Linux supports this for the console, in fact SuSE 7 automatically runs its installer in text mode if it detects a braille screen reader.
More advanced software for Windows writes what line is currently under the mouse pointer, provided it's text and not a graphic.
Does my bum look big in this?
It's dangerous to second guess the web designer. The 404 page may contain useful information for the user. Sure, most pages unhelpfully state "404 File Not Found" and little more, but it's possible for a page to be much more helpful. A site could have their 404 page automatically do a search to find the requested resource. Here is a good example at Wizards of the Coast. A site could present a list of resources the site does, since one of them is likely to be helpful. Perhaps the page is gone because the client's account was terminated. I'd like to receive a message like "This user violated our Acceptable Use Policy and has had their account terminated. The page you are looking for is gone for good."
Search 2010 Gen Con events
I found section 1.3 interesting (``Allow the user to retrieve Web resources even if the browser cannot render them''). In my experience, it's often not the fault of the browser maker, but the site designer. How many times have you tried to view a video or audio clip, only to be diverted away because the javascript on the web pages can't tell if your browser has a plugin for the media type (as if you really need a plugin in the first place...)
--