Boston Globe to Blogger — "Stop Using Opera"

PetManimal writes "Mac Daniels of the Boston Globe weighed in on a prickly debate involving the updated local mass transit website. The Globe's advice to one complainer named 'derspatchel': Stop using Opera. Derspatchel's response is to go medieval on Daniels' ass, and ask the question: Why should Opera users give up their browser? Quoting: 'I don't give two whoops about the "percentage of the Internet population" or whatever. I don't care if a website works on someone else's choice of browser; I care if it works or not on my choice of browser. It's a modern browser, it's in active development, and it's free. Once dev stops on the Opera browser and the last version becomes outdated and unable to support newer Web innovations, then I'll "stop using it." How's that, Chuckles?'" After a day the transit authority took the new site offline to "improve performance," reverting to the old version.

Comments

Protected blog, full text of post

[TheSpoom]

I posted on his blog that he was about to be Slashdotted and he protected the post, probably so he wouldn't receive an assload of comments, which is fair. For context, though, here's the full post as I got there before it was protected:

Apparently my last post about the problems I experienced with the new MBTA web site punched some people in the goolies or something. Apparently my complaints about the site aren't valid because I like using the Opera browser. Apparently I shouldn't be using Opera because, as someone on the Universal Hub said, "Opera is only .6% of the internet population. Opera is also known for being buggy." (Firefox is known for memory leaks; IE is known for being susceptible to exploits. What's your point?)

And Mac Daniel, who apparently gets paid to blog for the Globe, has this apparently helpful pearl of wisdom for me, nicely writ up with the Imperial First Person Plural:

Then there's this guy who uses the Opera browser and doesn't like things one bit. Our suggestion? Stop using Opera.

Wow! Awesome! Thanks for that helpful nugget of advice there, chief! That kind of knee-jerk bullshit response is about as annoying as the zealots on certain tech boards who answer every question about a Windows problem with "INSTALL LINUX, PROBLEM SOLVED." Basically it means "I have nothing helpful to contribute, but I just thought I'd act like a douchebag anyway."

Not that I've ever had any experience with that before.

So, uh, got any more advice for me, Mac? You were so helpful with the technical problems I wonder if you can help me out with other things in my life. Should I wear the black pants, or the brown? Which Law & Order series should I follow? Should I put the 60-watt bulb in this lamp, or go for the 75-watt? What wine would you recommend with this steak? I have dropped my glass of water on the floor (I am terribly sorry), what should I do? Is that strange high-pitched buzz coming from the fluorescent lighting, or something outside?

I don't give two whoops about the "percentage of the Internet population" or whatever. I don't care if a website works on someone else's choice of browser; I care if it works or not on my choice of browser. It's a modern browser, it's in active development, and it's free. Once dev stops on the Opera browser and the last version becomes outdated and unable to support newer Web innovations, then I'll "stop using it." How's that, Chuckles?

I've been following the development of this browser since 2001. I found its interface clean, it was the first browser I saw that featured tabbed browsing, and I enjoy some of its more interesting navigational features (mouse gestures are somewhat helpful, but using mouse button combinations to move back or forward a page is just great.) I've tried Firefox before. I've tried it at several times during its development cycle, actually, from when it leaked memory like a sieve to when it merely dripped memory like a leaky faucet. It looked okay, but it wasn't for me. I didn't want to have to search through acres of plugins to find the ones that would make Firefox do what Opera already did out of the box.

Let's get back to the point: I think the MBTA website redesign has a lot of great new features. It's a far cry better than the version they had up before. The Google map integration is excellent, and I like the detailed information on the stations and stops (with all connections listed and stuff.)

The site just doesn't play well with all browsers. Sure, you can't guarantee your new website with up-to-date features will work well with every browser (You'll notice Adam Gaffin tried the site in lynx before I got the chance to) but I'm sorry. Opera is a valid, "modern" browser. Just because you don't use it doesn't mean nobody should.

Ron Newman has no problems with the site when he views it in Opera (are you using a Mac or PC, Ron?) so there's hope there. Maybe there's a problem with the XP version. Maybe there a

Re:Protected blog, full text of post

[TheGavster]

The primary issue seems to be a set of Javascript menus at the top of the site. The divs they're on are supposed to be hidden until the mouse hovers on the title, and they're not. This is a fairly common problem to have with sites in Opera, but by no means is there no easy way to implement this feature (ATI's site, for example, works fine). Funky menus is really the only bug I run into on a regular basis with Opera (apart from it simply not working with Google Calendar). It's gotten a lot better over the years (it even passes Acid2 now). I think that the devs acknowledge that it's not that popular a browser to test on; it comes with a big package of site-specific tweak settings so that more popular sites at least work right out of the box.

--not a shill, just a satisfied user

Not Opera

[Southpaw018]

At least 3 other people using Opera 9.0+ comment on the complainer's blog to say they have no problems. Now, that's still no justification or reason for saying "don't use Opera," but I don't think this problem is really with Opera in the first place.

Sorry for the serious comment in an "It's funny. Laugh." story ;)

Re:Not Opera

[Yvan256]

Really? 0.6% marketshare? Can I complain because it doesn't render properly in Lynx?

Take my comment as flamebait if you want to. But I have much bigger things to complain about on the web. Like webpages that won't work without Javascript. Or webpages that use stupid flash interfaces. Or how about webpages that aren't dialup friendly? I suspect there's more dialup users out there then Opera users. Don't see anybody on /. jumping up to defend them.

If the website is coded properly (i.e. XHTML+CSS, structured content, etc), the website should work on pratically everything that supports HTML 3.2 and up, even without javascript, java, plugins or images. So yes, Lynx should also work (i.e. you can access the content and navigate). If it doesn't, there's a problem.

Of course, we're not asking to have Google Maps working on Lynx, evidently.

Re:Not Opera

[Salmar]

That's it. I've heard it 5 too many times only TODAY:

I've never used Opera and I couldn't care less if it exists. Fixed.

Re:Not Opera

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an American thing - after WW2 or thereabouts the meaning of the phrase was inverted (more info on Google). You wanna talk standards compliance with a culture that swaps linguistic meaning for no good reason? Good luck!

Firefox

[Anonymous Coward]

To address the inevitable:

Yes, Firefox can be plugged up to do everything Opera does (password fill, voice browsing, mouse gestures, tab thumbnails, comprehensive download management, RSS/etc feeds, two-click privacy management/delete data, on-the-fly presentation modes (change styles, backgrounds, tables, links, images from toolbar in User/Author mode), image gallery jumpthrough, keyboard zoom, and all the rest.

However, Opera provides a standard setup out of the box, on any computer. I can download it and be up and running in seconds, without spending time configuring plugins, and no annoying autoinstalls. It will also look and behave the same on your XP laptop as on my *NIX box, as on your 98 workstation.

And unlike Firefox, Opera will not be using 2GB of swap if you leave it running overnight with Gmail open!

With that in mind, Opera is at the level, or better than Firefox, meaning that it is way better than Internet. Not supporting it is just idiocy.

Re:I gotta agree

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"It is an adware-infested web browser that is actually slower than Firefox."

Wrong on both counts. I'd go into detail, but a cure for your ignorance is only 4.7 megabytes away.

Uh, hi there.

[Spatch]

I'm derspatchel. I took the entries and the pictures out of circulation. I don't need the comments and my admin doesn't need the bandwidth overages. I kept saying the last thing I wanted to do was start a goddamn browser war, but it looks as if I didn't really have any choice in that matter. I kicked a rock and it rolled downhill from there.

My original complaint was written as I was viewing the revamped website, and just couldn't believe the nav problem I had seen. Nearly half a million dollars went into the redesign and it seemed like they'd really goofed. The second complaint was written when Mac Daniel threw a little jab in his writeup on the debacle, while I was sussing out the nav problem with Ron Newman. Is it a coding thing? Is it an OS thing? Is it a configuration thing? Is it an enduser thing? I dunno. Then the MBTA reverted to the previous version so I couldn't play around with it any further. And then my knee-jerk reaction to Mac's knee-jerk reaction just led to more knee-jerk reactions. Okay, I gotta stop typing 'knee-jerk' because it's beginning to look weird.

I stand by my opinion that if a browser is in current development and it's W3C compliant, then it should by all rights be considered a supportable browser and a browser to be supported. That's all. If I had been crying that the MBTA site wasn't viewable on Netscape Navigator 4.0, say, then I could see why there'd be a problem and why the advice to change browsers would come pouring in.

All I wanted was to be able to use the website with a current, up-to-date, standards-compliant web browser. I also said I'd be happy to use another supported browser to view it, but it would be nice if I didn't have to, and it'd be much nicer if I weren't told to.

Re:Uh, hi there.

[Spatch]

Actually, the post linked here on Slashdot was the second post in this ongoing drama. The first post was an annoyed look at how the new website was rendered on my home XP box running Opera. It featured links to about 10 or 12 full-size screenshots of the drop-down menus all staying open and preventing me from accessing other parts of the UI. I wasn't actually ranting with a full head of steam at that point; I was just cranky at the T. I've seen the MBTA's quality steadily decline in the past 10 years, devolving into a transit system plagued with cost overruns, maintenance issues, horrible customer service and an amazingly botched roll-out of a brand new smart-card fare system. For example, on its first day of official use, the networked vending machines refused "CharlieCards" to those paying with credit or debit cards -- but charged them anyway. There were reports of folks trying three or four times to purchase a CharlieCard, and getting charged three or four times in quick succession. It's a minor inconvenience if you're trying to purchase one or two rides, but some of these people were buying monthly passes at around $40 a pop or higher, and a few days before the first of the month when rent's due.

Boston deserves better, especially since we're due for a fare increase at the end of the month. Given this stellar track record, finding that the T's brand-new website that refused to play well with my browser (or is it the other way around?) wasn't much of a surprise, but a real annoyance. I was worried that if the site wasn't working correctly on my browser, how many other people were having troubles and had any disabled users encountered accessibility problems with the UI too?

I got responses from Opera users on other platforms who said they weren't having problems, and I did get one response from a blind person using a screen reader who said sie could use the site actually better than expected, but a text-only or lite version would have been a better alternative.

Mac Daniel of the Boston Globe picked up on the post after it was featured on Universal Hub, and posted a quick one-liner in his "Starts & Stops" MBTA/Boston travel blog. He's not a T employee, he's not a representative of the MBTA, he's a contributing writer for the newspaper and I've been reading his stuff for quite some time now. The post quoted at the top of the comments was a knee-jerk, heated reaction to his knee-jerk, one-shot reaction, written without counting to ten. I'd been trying that day to figure out the problem between my browser and the new website, because I really wanted to get the site to render properly (and if it was a problem on my end, fix it up right.)

Once the T site reverted to its previous version I couldn't continue to play around with it, which was frustrating, and Mac's comment unfortunately just pushed the right buttons at the wrong time. I flew off the handle and I freely admit that. Who hasn't done similar in times of annoyance? I hadn't wanted to start a browser war when I was pointing out the problems I was having with the T site, but the curt "Don't use Opera" dismissal stuck in my craw and we all know how much fun it is when your craw has something stuck in it.

Suffice to say, however, the subsequent snowball effect has been a major ego check right into the boards, and yesterday morning I had a heapin' helping of a Morning After Remorse along with my breakfast. So it goes. You shoots your mouth off, you deal with the cleanup. So I'm cleaning up, making my peace, etc.

I didn't think the giant cartoon fight cloud would've reached Slashdot, but some of the points being raised right now in the midst of the typical digressions, AC shenanigans and car metaphors are pretty valid. How far should a web developer go in the name of compatibility? What standards should web design be held to? What constitutes a compliant web browser if W3C and MSIE's design standards don't get along? Is the MBTA, as a government agency, beholden t

Re:I gotta agree

[Danga]

Opera should be deprecated. It is an adware-infested web browser that is actually slower than Firefox. The Internet will be better off if websites permanently ban this Scandinavian piece of shit.

You are an idiot. Opera has been ad free for a LONG time and it does not install any adware. Opera 9 is also faster than Firefox 2, it kicks Firefox's ass quite handily:

http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/browserSpeed.html

Why should a browser that is still being actively developed and used be deprecated? Please try to post something relevent next time.

If you want it to work in your browser

[technicalandsocial]

you're a lot better just asking for W3 compliance than "support $my_browser because I use it". If it follows the W3 standard, we can all use it, and if we can't, it's because of our browser. Run the site through http://validator.w3.org/ and send them the URL as well as their list of errors.

Call your self a browser? Support standards.

[rHBa]

I don't use Opera, but from what I've heard it's a decent browser that supports standards. I can't be bothered to check out this web page but if it applies standard (w3c) html then Opera *should* display the page well enough to use it. If the page is unusable in a standards compliant browser then it is, yet another, badly designed web page.

A properly marked up web page should work in every standards compliant browser, who cares if the browsers interpretation of the 'box model' or whatever is different, it should still be usable.

Re:Call your self a browser? Support standards.

[vtcodger]

Did anyone like actually feed the new web page to the W3C HTML validator? The old web page is currently back up, and it's clear that the MBTA web site designers don't consider standards compliance to be a priority.

Result: Failed validation, 40 errors (This is just the home page, not the whole site.)

Address: www.mbta.com

Encoding: utf-8 (assumed, there is no encoding specification in the header)

Doctype: (no Doctype found) -- the 40 errors assumes HTML4.01 Transitional. My guess is if there is no Doctype line in the header, the Web site designers probably have no clue that there ARE standards for HTML documents.

It's true that not every site needs to be standards compliant. Google's home page doesn't validate either. But Google's HTML actually works in a diverse collection of browsers.

My opinion FWIW -- If the site doesn't validate, the first step is to fix the site. If the site still doesn't render then, and only then, does it become reasonable to question whether the browser might be a problem.

Re:No...

[zxSpectrum]

Unless you are doing a lot of Ajax it isn't hard to support Opera. The only reason is because you are lazy.

I'll start with the disclaimer first: I work at Opera Software, with Web applications. Then I'll continue with an honest-to-god question, as I have more of an interest in understanding why people's sentiments are as they are:

Where does the misconception that Opera can't do "a lot of Ajax" come from? Because it clearly can, for instance, see Aida, the Ajax phone -- a rather massive Ajax framework and appplication running on top of Opera Platform (a runtime which provides access to certain aspects of the device, such as battery status, connectivity, message stores and such).

The guy didn't phrase it very well

[Anonymous Coward]

But I have to agree.

The MBTA site doesn't support standards. The lazy bastards didn't do their jobs.

Some dude had problems with a standards compliant browser.

He was then told "stop using your standards compliant browser" by an idiot who really deserves to be kicked in the balls.

The point is the idiot had nothing valuable at all to contribute. The site is broken, and the idiot was saying "Fuck it if the site is broken, use a browser that will handle the shitty code." The first guy could have come up with that solution all by himself.

Re:Get a life

[shmlco]

"The sad part is that there is no point in bitching about it."

If you disagree then make your point and back it up with facts (if you can). Then accept the final decision and do your absolute best to implement it. That's called being a professional.

med school apps suck

[oneplus999]

https://services.aamc.org/AMCAS2_2007/

says

Unsupported Browser

AMCAS supports only the following web browsers for Windows:

        * Internet Explorer 5.5
        * Internet Explorer 6 Get it here
        * Netscape 7 Get it here
        * Firefox 1.0.2
        * Firefox 1.5 Get it here

If you try to use anything else, even firefox 2.0, it won't let you in :'(

Did anyone try the Mask feature?

[Frank Dreben]

I've not seen anyone say whether or not they tried to "mask" Opera. I can't now since they have switched back to the old site. While on the offending web site, right click and select "Edit Site Preferences" and at the the bottom of the "Network" tab is the ability to have Opera mask it self as another browser. Every time I have tried this I have found that the offending web site works just fine and the web site developers have blocked Opera out of ignorance.

BTW, Mask is different than "Identify as..." in Opera. If you change the "Identify as.." setting then Opera will give a string that still includes the word "Opera" whereas Mask will not give a clue that you are really running Opera.

The Mask option is a per-site setting.

IE compatability with ":hover" is the real problem

[rednip]

The real trouble is IE compatibility forces people to figure out how to make things work like ":hover" would if you could use it like "div#myMenuItem:hover {...}", as it doesn't properly implement it. BTW I haven't tried the linked technique, but it looks interesting.

Re:Entitelment mentality... idiots.

[toriver]

Why the fuck should the website have to cater to every possible browser out there.

Because: "Under Section 508 (29 U.S.C. 794d), agencies must give disabled employees and members of the public access to information that is comparable to the access available to others."

If the information isn't accessible in Opera it sure as hell isn't in any disabled person's browser.

See http://www.section508.gov/ before your ignorance spreads.

Re:I gotta agree

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

I can understand being annoyed by that. I would be, too. That's not what I've got a stick up my butt about, though. Opera hasn't had ads since version 8. In version 7, they had Google text-ads. In version 6, they had animated .GIFs and they flirted with Flash ads. I can sympathize with annoyance over that. For a week or so, there was an ad coming through Opera that had sound to it. Only... you couldn't turn it off. There was some stupid ad with a guy talking and you had to close and re-open Opera to get it to cycle to another ad. They almost lost me there, but people complained and the company that makes Opera pulled the ad. After that, there were no more audible ads. As far as I'm concerned, the 'adware crap' problem died when 7 came out with their switch to Google's text-ads. But I realize that's still a problem with some people... fine... but 8 came out well over a year ago and had no more ads in it. In other words, it's old news.

Suppose I said "I won't use Linux because it doesn't support USB." There was a time that was true. My annoyance over a bad experience with it, though, was not enough to explain my self-imposed ignorance of the current state of it.