Slashdot Mirror
IE7 Compatibility a Developer Nightmare
yavori writes "Internet Explorer 7 has kicked in at last on all MS Windows OS running PCs because of the fact M$ decided to force it's users to migrate through update. In fact this has started a IE7 Web Developers Nightmare. The article actually explains that most of the small company B2C sites may just fall from grace because of IE7 incompatibility. One of the coolest thing IE7 is unable to do is actually processing form data when clicked on an INPUT field of TYPE IMG... which is pretty uncool for those using entire payment processes with such INPUT fields."
I'm gonna grant the author a free pass on the writing since it's obvious English is not his first language. But the rest of the article seems to be vague hand-wavy FUD and anecdotal complaints. To take two of the more cohesive statements:
The truth is that standards were not the first priority of IE7 (they are an evil mega-corporation after all), but they did do an awful lot of work on them. Just take a look at the list of CSS improvements over at the IEBlog. They acknowledge that there's a lot more work to do, but it's clear from this that they've solved a lot of headaches for CSS developers.
I'm assuming the author means forms won't submit with an <input type="image"> tag. Without even testing it, I can't believe for one second this is true. This is a major backbone of HTML going back to at least HTML 2, and used in millions of websites. If this were broken it would have been fixed during beta. Microsoft may not care that much about web standards but they do care about backwards compatibility, and a lot of their decision making process has centered around not breaking things that worked in IE6.
It's likely IE7 is going to be a headache for web developers, but this article doesn't do anything to support that argument. As a web developer IE7 hasn't really taken any of my time. So far it's been more reliable than IE6, and I look forward to the day when IE7 is the standard and IE6 is an afterthought for picky clients.
Pretty unprofessional to use the "M$" moniker in a submission. But whatever. Also it probably should not say that people were forced since they have to agree to the install and don't need to do it at all. But whatever. Typical biased press you get here from some of the folks. Many folks can be more balanced but lately we hear from a lot of "slashtards".
Isn't there a better write-up of this anywhere? This 'article' is just an incoherent rant with very little useful information.
The developer could use a bit of javascript to hide the submit button, show the wanted image. Then an OnClick event on the image submits the form as per usual. This way it'll also degrade properly when javascript is disabled, seeing as the non-image submit is defaulted to.
Indeed!
It would be nice to see examples of failing code, for instance. I've not tried it myself yet. The author's English skills leave a lot to be desired, to the point of making his complaints a bit vague.
The upside to this is that the same "forced" upgrade procedure MS are using to roll out IE7 can also be used to roll out bigfixes without user intervention, if IE7 was originally installed transparently anyway.
Anyway, I can't say it a big surprise that IE7 has its own foibles. IE6 was also a developer's nightmare, with the DOM and JS environment behaving differently from Firefox, Opera etc, so it's just another workaround. I'm only disappointed that Microsoft didn't make more of an effort to bring it inline with the competition so we could avoid yet another set of JS and CSS hacks. It's not like they have limited resources!
sig:- (wit >= sarcasm)
And the MOST killer thing was the DISability of IE to submit data through "input type img"
Maybe I'm not understanding what the claim is, but it's easy to demonstrate that this is not true. I just tried with IE7 to submit data on a form that uses an input type of image and see that it works fine.
This article has almost no information and it seems the only reason it was posted here is to stir up anti-Microsoft antagonism. (Now someone will say, "You must be new here.") :-)
In my experience, IE7 is much better at supporting standards than IE6. A huge improvement in CSS support, so that now as I design in Firefox 2.0 and occasionally verify things in IE7, I see that they are very, very close. Most of what I'm doing is working with WordPress blogs so it's very possible I'm not using things that are now broken, but if anything Microsoft should be given some credit for improving their browser.
There's plenty of reason to not like Microsoft, but this article doesn't supply much (if any) ammunition, and it doesn't do the free software crowd much of a service to engage in our own unsupported FUD.
As some have pointed out, this appears to be an incomprehensible rant. The "article" referenced says little and backs up that little with less.
I also notice the "submitter" seems to be the same person as the blogger for the article. Not saying this shouldn't happen, but this usually shouldn't happen... If it's good enough to get "published", it's good enough to be published by someone other than the author.
You are totally spot on, and yet got modded -1 Troll. Figures. Why exactly are the editors here if they leave such childish name calling like "M$" on the front page?
Somehow I doubt if I submitted a story calling Linux "Linsucks" it would be accepted. It's almost pathetic how long lasting the Microsoft hatred has lasted. The editors are in their thirties now for chrissakes. Grow the fuck up.
"...to all of its developers"
No, MS has sent the FU to its customers and partners. I'm happy to see it.
This is just fucking ridiculous. This little rant is not only incoherent, but it's 100% wrong. See for yourself.
Jesus, do Slashdot editors actually *do* anything? Seriously. Do any of them actually *read* the articles they're posting, or is it all about pageviews and keywords?
why did the EU have to settle for just Windows Media player?
Enjoy Every Sandwich
The editors must be desperate today, or else they don't read these things before they post them. I can't find any good reason why I should trust anything this guy is saying on his blog: maybe he has run into a major issue with IE, or maybe he just does not know how to code JavaScript correctly. If his JavaScript is anything like his grammar, error is a high probability.
...En að Besta Sem Guð Hefur Skapað Er Nýr Dagur
It still won't parse the DOM. Stuff that is simple in Firefox, will never work in IE 7.0. I gave up trying to get some features to work.
For instance, I have this js based terminal emulator. I don't want to edit that package, but just use js to read some fields. This is sexy in Firefox, but no chance in IE 7.0.
if (document.Form1.tsprog.value == 'fibfm' || document.Form1.tsprog.value == 'FIBFM'){
var pwrap = document.getElementById("pbsiwrap");
var cells = pbsiwrap.getElementsByTagName("span");
var item = cells[12].textContent;
document.getElementById ("headspot").innerHTML = '';
}
Developers now have to support IE5, 6 and 7. There's more work to do. So how does your argument apply? Standards are what the market demands, not what developers do. IE still owns the market and its the de facto standard, like it or not. Just because some academics came up with a "standard" doesn't mean there's a law that says that everyone needs to follow it. They should be called "suggestions".
I'm sorry to sound like a dick, but isn't this what the massive beta testing period is for? Microsoft release beta versions well in advance so websites can be changed BEFORE everyone starts having forceful upgrades. If you wait until these upgrades to do your porting, YOU are at fault, not Microsoft.
TFA was written by a guy who only recently has started porting sites to Firefox, so it's not really surprising he's finding this to be a pain.
Really, the only people this will bite are people who didn't care about standards compliant cross-browser support before, and now are annoyed because IE7 != IE6.
For the first time ever, I was actually appreciative of IE7 today when I noticed a bug in IE6 was fixed in 7. My site (link's above) just posted "Pass The Mic", a record label feature. I used some CSS to display a div and set background images etc for the headings on each page. On Firefox, if any of the content in my main column is wider than the layout allows, it simply overlaps horizontally. On IE it bumps everything down to below the content in the other columns. IE7 doesn't do this which makes my life a hell of a lot easier (until I come to redesign the site again, argh).
The GUI is still absolutely awful, though.
With easily 50% of the replies to this story in favor of Microsoft and their standards compliance (never thought I'd say that), I feel it's safe to announce that Hell has, in fact, frozen over.
I sold a bunch of ebooks created with ebook software that used IE, and has worked with every version of IE since Internet Explorer 4+. The first book I sold after the IE 7 update, wouldn't work. Which means that every person who upgrades to IE 7 that I have sold an ebook too, will not be able to read their books.
;)
Yes, I know the dangers of going with a proprietary solution, and I would love a cross-platform solution that "just worked," but I chose the software because it not only did everything I needed security wise, but was incredibly easy for the end user (e.g. just download it and double-click it).
Emails to the creator of the program have gone unanswered, too. So chalk this up for one more reason to use open source!
On the bright side, I did sell enough ebooks to just about break even on the cost of the software...and it really was an excellent program while it lasted.
Transporter_ii
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
The only thing worse than clients never updating their software is them upgrading to inconceivable excrement 7 and then calling you, their designer, in the wee morning hours with a heated berating for screwing up their website.
I'm up to 3 now.
The biggest problem I've seen so far is the nasty tendency to word-wrap table cells when the overall content text space taken up is greater than what the browser anticipated.
You end with something like this:
Home | Something | something | something more |
last
Developers now have to support IE5, 6 and 7.
No, not necessarily. Web Developers are advised to test against all browsers with more than a 3% market share for their site. If your site has 3% share of IE 5, 6, and 7, then you've got your work cut out for you. Most others don't have that problem.
Just because some academics came up with a "standard" doesn't mean there's a law that says that everyone needs to follow it. They should be called "suggestions".
The wonderful thing about standards, when done correctly, is that everyone can support the standard and get essentially the same result.
In all honestly, if your website can't function fine with the minor variations between browsers, then you've got a bad design. (And let's not even get into how bad your site will look in mobile devices, or without images, or for the blind.)
...so I can fill in the incomprehensible parts with things I would dearly love to be true. Facts are annoying when they run counter to beliefs.
How about "recommendations"? Anyway, for IE's implementation to be considered an actual standard, and not a buggy mess of badly implemented features, Microsoft would have to publish the details of how their rendering engine works. How am I supposed to code to an undefined standard? Trial and error only gets you thus far.
Don't forget they also have to support non-IE browsers.
DAMN those people who use non-IE browsers, just making developers lives harder...
(Sarcasm, if you can't tell.)
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
FTA: "I recently needed to rewrite a web site so it works on firefox too..."
I'd take what this guy has to say with a large grain of salt if this is how he treats his sites.
> Standards are what the market demands, not what developers do
... ...
I think it is clear what standard means. But, since there is apparently some doubt about it, here's a dictionary reference:
Main Entry: 1standard
Pronunciation: 'stan-d&rd
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French estandard banner, standard, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English standan to stand and probably to Old High German hart hard
3 : something established by authority, custom, or general consent as a model or example : CRITERION
4 : something set up and established by authority as a rule for the measure of quantity, weight, extent, value, or quality
versus:
Main Entry: suggestion
Pronunciation: s&g-'jes-ch&n, s&-'jes-, -'jesh-
Function: noun
1 a : the act or process of suggesting b : something suggested
2 a : the process by which a physical or mental state is influenced by a thought or idea b : the process by which one thought leads to another especially through association of ideas
3 : a slight indication
Okay, firstly, I'd be bloody amazed if the pages in question validate. The guy goesn't give any link to the site, though, so I can't tell.
Secondly... if you're using lots of client side Javascript to make a site work, you're asking for trouble. Google can do this, because they have massive dev and QA teams. If you don't have the manpower to do enough testing (for example, in the beta period) and fix problems, maybe you should make your site simpler.
Every single web application I work on, worked perfectly in IE 7. Even, yes, the ones that use Javascript. This is achieved by:
I'm a professional web developer, and I stopped worrying about IE 5 about a year ago. None of my clients seem to have noticed or cared. They're happy as long as IE 6 works (and Firefox if I'm lucky, and soon IE7, though they're generally not there yet).
My web stats aren't showing much if any IE 5 traffic either.
And who's the authority? A group of academics who've never developed commercial software in their lives? I cede no authority to them.
This is just a fucking whiny blog post. Give me a break.
Why even bother supporting Microsoft's newer products?
the fact M$ decided to force it's users to migrate through update
While I personally think MS Windows is lame, I do have a work laptop with XP installed. It is simply untrue that an IE7 upgrade is forced. It may be true that most users will end up with it installed because of their upgrade policies or habits, but IIRC it was as simple as not agreeing to the EULA to avoid its installation.
Anybody want a peanut?
If, despite the assertions in this thread that the article is pure FUD, developers that built their software on MSIE did indeed get their software broken by the forced upgrade to IE7, it's still no big deal. These developers built their software on a single implementation, and then that implementation changed. Well, it happens. Now they just have to update their software to work with the new implementation. There is no faulting Microsoft for this. If, instead of developing for IE, they had developed against some _specification_, it would be a different story.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
I thought Internet Explorer had been a compatibility nightmare for years...
I realize that what is meant here is probably compatibility between versions of IE, rather than compatibility between IE and other web browsers, but still. Seeing how badly IE does in the latter, I would not be surprised to see it did badly in the former, too.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
I've been prompted 3 times to download Internet Explorer 7, and if I didn't read the update itiniary carefully, I would have been tricked into it. I even checked the "don't ask again" box, but it made no difference; they kept on comin'. It was very disconcerting. The checkbox was a lie (or sloppy bug).
That's okay, I run two browser brands anyhow. If one zarks up, I try the other brand.
Table-ized A.I.
Seriously, I have no freakin' clue why, but if you hit http://ninja250.kingston.net/ex250f-torque.html, it crashes HARD. I just had a user point this out to me last night (seldom used page), so I haven't investigated why yet.
.csv file with the MS-proprietary tabular data control (TDC.ocx) and uses data binding to display information on the screen. The information may then be manipulated by JavaScript which can convert foot-points to newton-meters, and apply various filters to the data.
.csv and work with it on a non-net-connected laptop eons ago, and never updated. It will work as far back as IE4. ....but I don't understand why it doesn't work with IE7. I mean, sure, I can see them dropping support for MS-proprietary extensions.. but using them shouldn't cause the browser to crash. ARGH!
The page loads a
It was written this way so that I could take the source
(If only there was a w3c way to do data binding!!)
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
"And let's not even get into how bad your site will look ...for the blind.)"
;)
I'm guessing it'll look like a series of dots.
... and the final straw had been reached for bushboy, as he confirmed the deletion of one of his longest standing bookmarks, slashdot.org ...
So long, thanks for the good times, time to move on, can you digg it ?
A slashdotting - you get the stick first and then the carrot !
Perhaps some people will care because (a) they have the slightest grasp of economics, (b) they don't support breaking the law and not compensating someone fairly for their work, and/or (c) they're not so blinded by the letters DRM that they can't see it's the people who have paid good money for the e-books who are being screwed the most and not the person who supplied them?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Kind of a stupid article. You can't fault them for upgrading something. Pretty ridiculous this made a headline.
Am I missing something here? surely IE7 has been available for months now, and we all knew that eventually it would replace IE6. Myself and pretty much everyone else I know in the industry have been working to IE7 as a matter of course since at least late last year, so I'm not too sure how people can suddenly be shocked by this "news".
Apparently TFA is just a bogus rant, but I can imagine many of the brain-dead monkeys that design for IE-only would be up in arms about this new version of IE. IE 6 was released all the way back in 2001, many of these folks probably "grew up" on IE 6 and never knew or cared about anything else. Now they are finally being reminded that the web is an ever changing place.
And to me the funniest part is that this not only affects actual web content, but also locally installed HTML, help files, and apps that stupidly embed IE.
Oh really? I still have IE6, although I never use it except when forced to. Who are these people who have been "forced" to upgrade?
Our brick and mortar business went through exactly the same thing. Henry bloody Ford and his evil empire released their latest and greatest product on consumers and it really screwed us businesses that had hitching posts and stables.
One of the worst things about "Model T" was that it belched out carbon monoxide. Seriously! Compare this to a horse where the worst you have to worry about is methane! For brick and mortar store owners who didn't want to pay once again to upgrade from barns for their customers, this caused all kinds of ventilation issues. People could actually die from this stuff!
Some people say that keeping up with the times is part of the cost of doing business. But where will it end?!
Actually, it's more of a big "FUCK YOU" to small business. Big business had solutions in place before these things left beta. It's a major BOON for developers who now get to fix old apps for contractor rates.
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
First question: Do you have Internet Explorer 7 installed?
Remove it.
Second question: Do you have Windows Live Messenger installed?
Remove it.
Customer: Everything works fine now.
Thanks Microsoft.. once again single handedly reviving the tech industry! What would we do on tech support if we didn't have your help?
I'm not anti-social, I'm anti-idiot.
Compare the amount of spyware, adware, malware, badware, annoyware, and whateverthehellelseware to the amount of actually decent software written for IE6 and I think it's pretty obvious that making it harder to work with is a good thing because it will make it a lot harder for the bad people. And as for the good people...they can write firefox plugins cuz all the cool people who want plugins use that (until they wanna buy something or do anything complicated or secure, then they use IE)
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
I host a website that uses INPUT TYPE=IMG extensively and have no problems with form submission using IE7, Firefox, Opera, et. al. I'm not sure where this "rumor" came from.
Ah but is that a standard dictionary? ;-)
(A Collins COBUILD man here...)
I see the $ as referring not to capitalism but to Microsoft's heritage as a developer of BASIC language interpreters, from Altair BASIC through Applesoft BASIC, GW-BASIC, QBasic, and Visual Basic to VB.NET. Line numbered BASIC dialects used the $ sigil on string variables:
In this way, saying M$ to refer to "random BASIC vendor" is no different from saying $PHB to refer to "random out-of-touch manager" (as described in Jargon File: Hacker Writing Style).
Using M$ in Slashdot comments' subject lines has another advantage: it abbreviates "Microsoft" to save seven bytes out of the 50 permitted in a subject, without inviting comparison to multiple sclerosis.
So do something like: var x = document.createElement("div"); document.getElementsByTagName("body")[0].appendChi ld(x);
Do this right after the body tag and viola, IE7 starts having problems.
It does not render the page ( unless they have fixed this ). Instead it tells you that you have a possible network error. Then, IE7 thinking that the network is down, wont access any more sites, except pages that are in your history. You then have to restart IE7. Funny thing is that even though this is a coding error and the appendChild should be done on the onload event, IE7 does not treat this as a script error, but it treats it as a network error. I spent hours trying to debug this, and firefox it worked fine.
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
For those of you who don't like babel fish:
Because M$ decided on a forced upgrade migration path, Internet Explorer 7 has finally kicked in on all of their MS Windows OS running PCs. In theory, there isn't much wrong with this, but IE7 has failed to comply with many fo the standards it was supposed to.
IE7 is a nightmare of crossbrower compatibility. I recently needed to rewrite a web site so that it works on firefox... and surprisingly enough, when testing the new and the old site on IE7 I discovered that many elements do not function as expected. And "not function as expected" doesn't really cover it, it was more a question of not working at all.
I found some pretty large incompatibilities in their JavaScript submission systems. While I can understand the behavior migration, some functions did not pass parameters correctly etc.. The worst thing was that they disabled submitting data through "input type img" (which in this case was the entire sites data)... I don't blame the programmers for setting things up this way, but I do blame IE for not keeping with standards again.
So with IE7 we come to a new era of "web developers nightmare." It will cause many smaller websites to need to be rewritten, and therefore will crush some of the associated small companies' business.
And a final tip from me! Try to avoid writing JavaScript without testing it 100% on all of the major web browsers: FireFox, IE7, Opera and Safari.
Just a clue:
According to W3C, the web browser market share of IE7 for the previous month is: 7.1%
and for IE6 is: 49.9%
So with a bit of analyzing as well as some math we can say that IE7 will show a market share of about 60%... which isn't the best picture for us, the developers.
And for those that do like babelfish... English via Italian.
The Internet Explorer 7 has given of soccer to within in end on all the OS of MS Windows that ago to work the PC because of determined the M$ fact in order to force it is customers to migrare through the modernization. The sink really is not much evil with the this here but IE7 has been supposed to more join the champions who what in effects is not to align. IE7 is a cavalla of night for the greater part of the sviluppatori that try to join to the champions for crossbrowsing. Recently I have had to rewrite a Web site so as to it works to firefox equally... and the surprise element was that when examines the new and old place on IE7 I have uncovered that many things does not work as previewed and "the function poichè previewed" it is not the just word for it, it was more one issue than operation at all. I have found that submiting with the Javascript it has some graceful things of uncool that incolpo of the IE but some functions really did not work when no-go gage all the parameters and therefore via. And the GREATER PART of the thing of the assassin was the incapacity of the IE in order to introduce the data through "the type img of the input" that really it was the entire data of the places... Really not incolpo of the programmatori that have made it therefore but of the IE not to still maintain with the champions. Therefore really with IE7 we come to one new was "of the incubus of the sviluppatori of fotoricettore" poichè will demand the EVIL and perhaps DEFECTIVE places therefore of fotoricettore will not be rewritten and this with crushing some of the commerce of the small enterprises. And a final TIP from me! Tests to avoid the Javascript of writing without to verify it 100% on all the browsers used main of fotoricettore like FireFox, IE7, the work and the safari. As soon as for having an indication: According to W3C the percentage of the market of web browser of IE7 for the previous month is: 7.1% and for IE6 are: 49.9% Therefore with a little analyzing to the situation and the facts therefore as to make a sure one for the mathematics we can say that IE7 will show a percentage of the market of approximately 60% according to W3C... which is not the better image for we the devs.
The ______ Agenda
The many standards for web browsers (of which HTML is just one) is laid out by the World Wide Web Consortium, not by a lofty group of "some academics". And guess what, Microsoft is a member of the consortium. So why has MS done such a horrible job at supporting the standards that they had (or at least could have had) a hand in developing?
You know something is very wrong.
No, developers only have to support the real standard. The official one, published by the W3C. If Microsoft have been ignoring that and trying to set their own standards, that's Microsoft's problem. All Open Source web browsers support the W3C standard. Even the closed-source abomination that is Opera supports the W3C standard.
In the meantime, and precisely because the Open Source browsers support the W3C standard, developers can support those browsers because they support the W3C standard; and all users can begin using W3C standards-compliant browsers because they're open source.
It's a poke in the eye for Microsoft, but it's no more than they deserve for trying to ignore standards in the first place.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Microsoft's first major product was a BASIC interpreter, where a postfix $ designated a string variable. FSF's first major product under its GNU label was a text editor that included a Lisp interpreter, where every subexpression needs a pair of parentheses. Thus, your insult might be (f (s (f))) or (g (n (u))).
Doesn't this involve buying a separate computer on which to run each web browser, which might be prohibitive for smaller shops? Sure, Firefox and Opera will run on anything, but can IE 5, IE 6, IE 7, Konqueror, and Safari share a computer?
Hey! What is wrong with you! I do not hate MS... well a bit but what they do good sometimes is good. And I am very neutral to software companies if they do their jobs well. About the IE issue I already commented that it doesn't still work for me... here is what I found on google: /a co-developer of mine has reported this to be an IE7 problem after searching that day sorry for not able to find what he did then/
http://www.quirksmode.org/bugreports/archives/expl orer_56_windows/index.html
it says:
When using input type=image as a submit button, only Firefox sends the name-value pair to the server.
There's an unobtrusive JavaScript fix included, which makes Opera, Firefox and IE6 behave the same (not tested in other browsers).
Human Knowledge Belongs To The World
IE has a problem with: <input type="img" name="button" value="hitme">
I don't understand how this is a problem NOW, as IE has had this problem for a long time. What the above snippet gets you is not "button=hitme", but instead "button.x=15, button.y=10" or something similar. IE returns you the coordinates where you clicked on the image, but not the value!!! Right. There is no value. Who would need that anyway? Doh.
Don't remember exactly when I ran into this bug, a few years ago at least. One fix at that time involved creating names of a certain structure which could then be matched by regexes so you can extract the value from the name(!). If there is a most ugly hack I ever made, this has to be it. Luckily my memory regarding this topic is blurry as I do not do webdesign anymore.
For further insight see this more recent blogpost.
The modern solution to this is obvious:
- Don't use type="img"
- Style your buttons with CSS instead
Thanks for reading and understanding.Meme of the day: I browse "Disable Sigs: Checked". So should you.
Can you please tell me what ISP you work for? I want to make sure I never accidentally use it.
Why should developing commercial software be a prerequisite for developing standards and Free/free software that supports validation against standards? Besides, the Perl, PHP, Python, Ruby, or Java code behind a web site can be proprietary commercial software as well.
Bottom line: If you define standards by the otherwise unspecified behavior of proprietary commercial software, then how is one supposed to test on multiple versions of IE as well as Safari without buying a Macintosh brand computer along with multiple Windows licenses, one for each version of IE? Or should only those people with enough capital to purchase and maintain multiple machines develop web applications?
IE still owns the market and its the de facto standard, like it or not.
1999 called and asked for it's ignorant flame bait.
At best, they have 60% of browsers. The 40% they don't own comes from the growing Linux and Mac crowd and huge M$ Firefox crowd. IE 7 is unlikely to rob much of the M$ Firefox base because it's still insecure and buggy. I know one person who bought a Mac over the forced move, and I'm sure others will follow. Most M$ users just want their computers to work - the force was designed to move people to new computers and Vista but it's going to backfire. The IE 7 share will peak at 60% and drop from there along with the M$ desktop share.
Now, what commercial site do you know that's going to throw away 4/10 dollars? Really, there's more to lose because the Firefox, Linux and Mac crowds are more likely to spend than the others. Commercial sites would much rather develop to real standards and reach 100% of the market. Microsoft's breaking standards, especially their own broken ones, is anti-social and a burden to every web developer.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
It's called greed. They have a monopoly to preserve. Cooperation with other browsers is simply not part of the plan. You can argue that it shouldn't be and I'd agree. But neither should poisoning the water, which is essentially what they do.
Why on Earth are you using JavaScript for something as simple as pushing a SUBMIT button? It's a personal pet peeve of mine that so many sites insist on using JavaScript for simple, basic HTML functions. HTML has a perfectly functional SUBMIT function. Use it! There is no good reason to replace it with "javascript:form1.submit();"
[Engaging Rant Mode ... Rant Mode Engaged]
In fact, I am sick and tired of sites that need JavaScript just to provide any level of basic functionality. I've seen sites that need JavaScript just to give me an "Enter This Site" link. Even worse, I've seen sites that need JavaScript just to show me some Flash just to give me an "Enter This Site" link. I've seen sites that need JavaScript just to provide menus that aren't completely non-functional. I turn JavaScript off for a reason! Don't make me turn it on again without an equally good reason! And your incompetence with basic HTML tags like <INPUT> and <A> doesn't count!
[Disengaging Rant Mode ... Rant Mode Disengaged]
Yes:
http://tredosoft.com/Multiple_IE
(link on that page for standalone IE7, too)
All our developers at work have this installed, plus all the other windows browsers, plus a Mac with a few relevant browsers. In fact if they weren't devout Windows/Linux developers I'm sure they could do the whole thing on a mac using parallels.
"You people"?
It's just Slashdot's version of the Two Minute Hate.
Nope! It's here!
Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
Agreed, and I do refer to W3C's recommendations when developing web sites. But the behavior of commonly available products tends to reflect errors in their developers' interpretation of the HTML, CSS, and DOM specifications, and it also tends to reflect the fact that specifications have been revised since the products went gold. Now in addition to my computer running Firefox 2 (primary browser) and IE 6 SP1 and Gran Paradiso (for testing only), I have to buy more computers to run IE 7 and Safari.
While standard browsers like Firefox keep gaining ground, IE7 is lacking some fundamental features and standards and is already considered obsolete. Who had thought that a year ago when Microsoft started hyping it. Long live Firefox et al.
We have a webapp that was built for our call centers. It started out in IE 4 and then later we did some updates for IE5. IE6 came out and there were a few JavaScript things to fix-up (nothing huge) but by then we had ditched almost all of the non-standard code and moved from table layout to pure CSS layout. When IE7 came out we didn't need to make a single change to the JavaScript, CSS, or HTML. All 200+ pages just work.
Everyone was worried that because of our choices and how heavily we rely on CSS and JavaScript that we would be in for a nightmare. Luckily, not so. However, two of the products we purchased for time tracking and for defect reporting both DIE because they have user agent checks built into their javascript. When they run into the unknown IE7 string they just chirp back a warning message and don't even try to load up. How many times do web developers need to be told "browser detection is bad use object/feature detection" before they'll get it.
I don't think that I've had any problem with any of the normal sites that I use when using IE7 over the last couple of months (banking, news, mail, social). I get the feeling that the author of this article just doesn't know what he's talking about.
"Do not be swept up in the momentum of mediocrity." - anon
But can home businesses doing web development on the side, such as developing the business's own web site, necessarily afford a Vista-ready PC plus a Macintosh computer?
Well, there's the fact that they barely improved actual W3C compatibility while making itself incompatible with previous versions.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
Yes, actually, they can. And, it's free (as in beer).
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway. -- Andrew S. Tanenbaum
I know IE5 and Safari can, because that's what was on one of the machines I tested my last project with — a Mac with an old release of OS X (.2, I think). Which turned out to be good, because the site worked all right with Safari 1.3, but not 1.0, which is what I had on the test box. So I got to add pre-1.3 Safari compatability (w00t...). FWIW, I also had NS6, 7.1, and 8.0 installed on my machine, along with FF1.5 and IE6. IE7 came out just a couple of weeks before we released, and when we found out that it wasn't compatible with our stuff, our solution was "recommend that users either find another computer to use to sign up, or have them install FireFox". From what I've heard, over 80% of the users elect to install FF (after they find out it's free) ;).
And while we're on the subject, mad props to the FireBug team. Not nearly as klunky as Venkman, and unlike IE's script debugger, it actually gives informative error messages (not "unable to perform operation on line 211")!
Just junk food for thought...
You recommended VMware as a solution to run multiple proprietary web browser products on existing PC hardware. But can VMware run Mac OS X? If not, then how else should one test a web site on Safari? And how can the fact that VMware itself is gratis make licenses to run newer versions of Windows within VMware more affordable? Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional cannot run IE 7, whether or not it is running inside a virtual machine. And it takes a lot of RAM to run the host OS and the guest OS simultaneously, so you might as well buy a new PC anyway.
Are you talking about IE 5 for Macintosh or IE 5 for Windows? The two web browsers had completely separate code bases. I will assume you are talking about IE 5 for Macintosh, because a Mac running Mac OS X 10.2 has a PowerPC CPU, and it took Virtual PC to run Windows on PowerPC based computers. And how can a small business obtain access to a lot of machines with minority browsers to test on?
our solution was "recommend that users either find another computer to use to sign up, or have them install FireFox".Good for B2B web sites. But in the case of B2C web sites, will users in internet cafes, work break rooms, and public libraries have this option?
Of course, a business that specializes in web development would likely have newer computers that run Microsoft Windows XP Professional Service Pack 2, but a business that just uses its web site to sell other products and services may only own a computer that came with Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional Service Pack 4.
There is a difference between a company that makes its money designs web sites for clients and a company that designs its own web site in order to sell other products and services. Can the latter category necessarily afford a $3,000 expense every three years to buy a commodity PC with a newer Windows OS and the newer hardware it requires and a Mac with a newer Mac OS X and the newer hardware it requires?
First, I'm not an IE user and I'm not defending it, but...
Using images instead of input type="submit" is a usability flaw. I also believe if you use it you will use your WCAG compliance.
this is horrible thing to post on slashdot. whoever decided to post this obviously has no experience with web design/programming. it was one critism of ie7, which wasnt very well thought out, and implied further problems without any evidence.
/.
shame on
So I'm not the only one who thinks he talking out of his ass then?
Just junk food for thought...
Not to come across pro M$ as I'm not, but this web standards thing is a bit too much for me. Frankly, M$ has 90% market share, but as far as I can tell they don't get much respect when trying to contribute to the standards process. E.g. their vector graphics extension just withered and died, but then apple's suddenly becomes vogue. If the official standards people are anti-M$ and M$ sets the defacto standard, can you blame M$ for feeling like being a little evil?
Here is a little history to back this up. M$ introduced one of the most useful extensions to the DOM: the innerHTML property. Instead of writing hundreds of lines of slow DOM code you can just assign a short HTML string which browsers are very fast at interpreting. This brilliant trick has been ignored by the standards people even though every browser implements it, and I can't help but think this is because it was M$'s idea and not theirs.
Again, the browser wars were hell and set the web back by years, and M$ is partially to blame for that. (Netscape implemented non-standard and incompatible stuff at the same time.) But I can't help but think that if the standards people would be a little less idealistic and be more willing to standardize *common practice* in the form of IE's extensions things would be going a little more smoothly.
-- http://thegirlorthecar.com funny dating game for guys
This is flat out wrong. IE7 only runs on winXP and newer. So all the people running win2000, NT, 98 and 95 are stuck with IE6. Likewise pre-XP users are stuck with the 'old' media player version 9.0. Later the article implies that the current 49% of IE6 users will migrate to IE7. This shares the same flaw mentioned above. Anyway, people who don't want IE7 can either decline the install, or set a registry value to opt out forever. Or just don't use IE7; any product they give away for free has some ulterior motive.
Some people have posted here and on the article that the img submit buttons do work, and then extend that into the author clearly must be wrong. Anyone that has done any web development, especially development with IE, knows that bugs can show their ugly little heads often as a result of completely unrated code. For example, perhaps the img inputs don't function when nested a certain way within other elements on the page, even though there is absolutely nothing technically wrong with the page's structure. IE has had similar issues pretty much forever. Tags would work when nested a certain way, but not when nested in a different, completely proper way. As a web developer, I always develop in the more-standards-compliant browsers, such as Firefox, and then as a final step try to figure out how to get the sites to show up properly in IE. This process generally adds an extra day or so to development. Unfortunately my clients have to pay for this, when in reality Microsoft should probably suppliment some of these charges due to a fairly pervasive lack of competence. When IE7 was first released, my company did a review of every site we handle and provided an issues list to our clients so that they have a choice whether or not they want to pay to have them fixed. There were many CSS issues, but one of the more annoying issues that I remember is that clicking on a link to a PDF document caused the browser to simply crash. This occured across several documents on many sites, including ones that we did not develop. Linking to a PDF document is a pretty basic thing on the web, so clearly IE7 is not ready for primetime... and is especially not ready for their users to be cajoled into using it.
As an anti-Microsoft, pro-Linux, Mac-using, pro-Firefox web developer that works for a University and thus has to cater to IE users, this writer was pleasantly surprised when he experienced very few issues even during his first IE7 compatibility tests. As none of the issues he did encounter were show-stoppers, he has been forced to conclude that IE7 is a huge leap forward, and the rapid replacement of IE6 with just about anything, Microsoft or otherwise, can only mean good things for the web as a whole.
/usr/games/fortune
Hey, that's nothing. In my day, I had to walk 14 miles through the snow, uphill, just to get to Slashdot. It's actually easier to get to now that it's gone downhill!
FTFA:
... IE7 was supposed to comply more with the standards what in fact isn't true ... IE7 is a night mare ... standards for crossbrowsing ... many things does not function as expected and "not function as expected" isn't the right word for it ... I found that submiting through JavaScript has some pretty uncool things which I don't actually blame IE but some functions did not work when not passing all the parameters and so on ... And the MOST killer thing was the DISability of IE ... the whole sites data... I don't actually blame the programmers that they did it so but IE for not keeping with standards again ... and this with crush some of the small companies business
IE 7 has kicked in at last on all MS Windows OS
Jar Jar Binks, you're in big doo-doo this time. How many times have we told you: web development is not for Gungans!
Notice he had the task of making a IE-only site work in Firefox. You can imagine the kind of code he was working with, no wonder it was breaking in IE7.
And this is just brilliance:
And a final TIP from me! Try avoiding writing JavaScript without testing it 100% on all of the major used web browsers like FireFox, IE7, Opera and Safari!
As a professional web developer this is completely new to me. I mean, actually test in the browsers we deploy?! It's all Microsoft's fault, I tell you!
If all you need to do is test websites, you don't need the latest and greatest hardware. Get a cheap $300 PC. It'll have the latest version of Windows. It won't run nifty games, but it'll handle IE7 fine. Buy a Mac Mini for $600. Get a KVM switch (a one-time expense) so you can share the keyboard, mouse and monitor. Now your expenses are more like $900 every three years.
And if you really don't want to buy new computers, there are sites like BrowserCam, , Browsershots, and iCapture that will at least test layout on other platforms.
Two comments about that statement. First, w3c standards weren't just made up by academics. If you take a look at the member list, all of the major players are there - IBM, Microsoft, Sun, Intel, Mozilla, etc. There's a long process of debate and editing that goes into those standards.
Second, though true that there isn't a law that everyone needs to follow, there are laws that apply in some countries. How widely it applies depends on the country, but many laws either directly or indirectly reference WCAG guidelines - one of which states: "Use W3C technologies when they are available and appropriate for a task and use the latest versions when supported."
Was that an obscure Red Dwarf reference, or just plain weird?
Apologies for being off topic. Deactivating Karma Bonus
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
Author should learn how to write better sites. IE7 works jsut fine - as far as or so poor small businesses go - they are choke full of absilutely horrid sites that did not work well in any browser. It seems the site in question belongs to that category.
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
Now watch me get modded down with alacrity.
But you, you get an "interesting" mod.
Only here can someone take something so retarded and stupid as creative spelling and attempt to actually rationalizate it.
That's the best laugh I've had all day!
:-)
Thanks
I am artificially intelligent.
yeah, that "article" was a rant... a pretty lame one at that.
What the lil' fella probably ran into was a website geared towards IE 6...that IE 7 can still pull off (Sites that used ie conditional statements fare better in ie7). cant count how often i ran into a website riddled with css errors/hacks that were done to accomadate IE 6, that never took into account other browsers in the first place.
I am no fan of IE, and actually wish MS would really force the upgrade on users and do away with 6 altogether, 1 problem child to contend with is better than 2. IE7 is an improvement, but its still the most problematic browser for me...the experience is still that of trying to adjust the antennas on an old tv trying to get a good signal.
Yeah this nailed me for a few minutes until I found that MSIE 6, 7, Firefox, etc will all pass the X-Y locations of where you pressed a button. Not as elegant when looking at source nor is it as easy but it works.
Firefox passes a descrete X and Y value. MSIE passes submissionlabel_x and submissionlabel_y.
The Microsoft guys have been talking a lot about that in their blog. As a Linux and Firefox user I haven't been able to use Internet Explorer 7 yet but I've been using conditional comments and graceful degradation for years. A well thought site shouldn't have any problems. Anyway, as a responsible web developer I'm looking forward to installing Internet Explorer 7.
Alexis Bellido
For testing purposes, a system with 512MB of RAM should be able to run Windows XP in VMWare on another windows box, if that is what you need. As for Safari, KDE is working on porting back all the changes Apple made to konqueror, at some point in the next year or two Safari and Konqueror will probably be close enough to identical. e.g. Some Mac specific stuff (automatic installers and such) might be different, but if you need to test those features, you are targetting Mac and can probably buy one. For that matter the $500 or so needed to get a Mac test box should not be that tough for a business.
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
Now how the hell was that posting a troll? The story was about IE 7 causing problems and I posted a comment on the upgrade to IE 7 ... causing problems.
/. way...
Just another example of getting modded down if you don't goose-step the
Meta Moderators...please do your job!
Transporter_ii
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
Getting pretty tired of the Slashdot "know-it-alls". I come here to learn, but pricks like you two sure spoil it.
I'm not anti-social, I'm anti-idiot.
I will explain you how - you are a dumb mofo who does not know how to do his job and just posts absolutely unsubstantiated BS on Slashdot.
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
Much as I despise Microsoft, fixing IE7's rendering (at least partially) was a good move. Not only did it move closer toward the standard, but it *broke* a bazillion web pages that were non-compliant but displayed as intended on IE6 or earlier.
Previously, if you told those lazy web developricks, "Hey, your web site doesn't display properly on Firefox, which is a whopping 4% of the market!" then they would answer, "Works fine with my computer --your Firefox must be broken." Well, guess what? Now it doesn't display properly on the latest IE either, and with Microsoft forcing IE7 down everyone's throats, it's not just going to be some insignificant minority who complain. More considerate developers who slave away at making those IE-specific adjustments can now say, "You need to get the latest version of IE in order for the web site to work," and then wash their hands of maintaining any more IE6-or-earlier hacks. IE7 will have a beneficial effect even for those of us who never use MS products, because it will have a profound effect on the WWWeb.
And those poorly designed websites mentioned in TFA, which will have to be redone to be IE7 compatible thus driving small businesses to bankruptcy? Well, cry me a river. Reminds me of the early days of the web when people just cut'n'pasted other web pages to cobble together their own Frankenstein[1] of a web site, which displayed perfectly on Netscape 3.1 but whose source code was an abomination.
You know when the Slashdot community bitches about Microsoft, and some MS supporter always asks, "You guys are never satisfied! What's Microsoft gotta do to make you admit that they are doing something *good*"? Well, fixing IE7 numbers among the answers (right under "Open up the MS Word format"). Keep up the good work, Microsoft, and someday your product might be as good as Firefox.
_____
[1] Yeah, I know Frankenstein is the creator of the monster, not the monster itself, but I'm using the term in the popular culture sense.
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
Agnosticism is a decision to refuse to make a false choice.
It was probably something else in the author's code that was causing things not to work. For example, leaving the ; off the end of a javascript statement can have different effects in different browsers. But just claiming that <input type="image"
If anything, what could cause problems in IE7 is if all if the "IE only" hacks that were used to make IE6 behave itself still work and with odd results (since IE7 did fix much bad behaviour). That said, I personally haven't encountered that problem. It seems like it would happen, theoretically.
blah blah blah
I wrote some realy slick server controls for our web app that used Javascript/DHTML to provide a series of panels that you could expand, and it would load the content dynamically.
Basically, you would click on a menu, and it would expand a panel below the menu (in a cool sliding fashion) before finally resizing the panel based on how large the dynamic content was.
Well, if you have the Phishing Filter turned on, this would process would spike the CPU, and the "cool sliding action" was reduced to a super super slow crawl.
This happened even though our site was a "Trusted site".
We even found that if you disable the phishing filter when you install IE, you have to still go manually disable it later. So retarded.
IE7's tabbed browsing sucks. AvantBrowser did a better job of this long ago.
including my sister, whose work recently won awards for degrading nicely.
Does she know you're telling people this?
We are all just people.
If MS were to scrap IE and start on a new browser and they chose the Mozilla Firefox as a new starting point. How long would it be before they completely ruined it?
If you must!
Nice mozillascript there, almost as good as slashdot's. If you write mozilla only code, it will only work on mozilla. This is not suprising or unexpected.
Yeah, OK - an exaggeration. But you get the point.
I'm not implying that MS don't have limits just like the rest of us, but IE is pretty much the killer app these days, at least a far as (about) 85% of users are concerned.
Clearly, they've got to plan and budget, but if Opera can do it as a third-party software house and fewer resources, Microsoft can damn well make their own flagship browser work right! I'm actually getting quite angry about this, the more I think about it. It's kind of like Ford manufacturing cars with square steering wheels and going "What? What's the big problem? You can drive it, can't you?" when people notice. Everyone else makes circular ones - even tiny little Lotus, and it's about treating both the mechanics and the drivers well.
(Please don't flame me for the stretched analogy!)
sig:- (wit >= sarcasm)
That only signifies that people hate stupidity (the linked article, the editors who posted it, etc) more than they hate Microsoft. In general.
Comment of the year
Oddly enough, I was ranting about exactly the same problem the other day to a colleague. Did it not, do you think, occur to anyone on the IE7 team that fixing the hacks without fixing the bugs might be a problem?
Way to go and break millions of sites simultaneously, huh?
sig:- (wit >= sarcasm)
Posting anonymously to preserve anonimity - having worked on a bunch of standards groups, including several at W3C, I am actually surprised that anything that we have done is actually useful. Steering a committee towards sanity is hard. Microsoft is far from the worst problem there, they are actually quite helpful.
From my parents' home in Wyoming, I stab at thee!
I really like the tagging beta thing. It's a really neat way of moderating the editors, and once again it's spot on: wrong, fud.
A voice of reason on Slashdot. Incredible. Moderate this up.
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
Brilliant tricks are not always a good standard. Standard has to worry about inner consistency that is appropriate for many more systems then the few leading browsers.
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
First: that the/> does not work in IE7 isn't true, i work on many different desktops (different Windows Versions) with IE7 next to the other both FF and Opera and should have noticed it yet, if it doesn't works. Well here it does.
Second: It's true that the behavior of MS products isn't very helpfully for developers to become the same result on every system (*nix, Windows *, others) with different browsers, but when it would be easy, where would be the need for us?
If with software like Adobe GoLive or Dreamweaver standard compliant next to as well compliant browsers everybody could create his own website with ease - that would become certainly a nightmare for us. Not only we developers become job-less and companies loose income, the most aweful designs would overwhelm the internet. Of course it's the goal to become an easy and standarized internet, but everything has 2 sides.
I prefer to see a result on every system with every browser available like i want to see it, and can be proud of my work, then to see many others realizing their bad tastes in design.
From the subimtted summary: M$ decided to force it's users
"its".
IE7 is a CSS compatibility NIGHTMARE and should scrapped. Even my banking got hosed forcing me to use firefox for it online! I am friends with the guys who originally developed the Unix version of mapster, of which this is an example http://www-heb.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/maps/maps-data_e. htm All I can say is that I have become tired of trying to please the MS crap code side of the ".NET"
Unbelieveable, as the first post in this thread said. There's no way that INPUT TYPE=IMG doesn't work, it's always worked, and they wouldn't break it.
.. but IE 6 didn't support that properly.
That said, the better way of doing it, however is:
[BUTTON][IMG][/IMG][/BUTTON]
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
Amnesty International
Since when did IE7 install on anything but XP SP2 (and comes built in with Vista?)
My email addy? should be easy enough.
Have your tried making a bigger site that requires javascript? It malfunction bigtime between the diffrent browsers.. And even soo after I got a book explaining how _every statement_ in javascript works in the diffrent browsers. "WebProgramming" shouldnt be allowed, andd if it is, it shouldnt be allowed on any project with more then 10000 lines of code.
No, the electronics in computers came down in price. Enough so home users could afford computers. This is what made the PC industry take off. There is no way in hell I would've had a computer as a kid if they were $100k(us), but a price of $125(us) made it possible.
Oops, page doesn't validate...
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
I had a couple of sites I made that worked fine in IE6, Firefox, and Opera (as in, exactly the way I expected them to), but are now totally borked in IE7. Flash isn't showing up properly, divs are misaligned, etc. Basically it's 100% illegible. I've been too busy to look into what's wrong, hopefully just the Javascript is being screwy, but honestly that wasn't something I expected to happen. I do still believe that if it works as expected in Firefox and Opera then it ought to be good-to-go :-/ So, yeah, IE7 might well end up being a total nightmare for me, especially if I'm trying to keep my site IE6-friendly, since that means using hacks that IE7 may be displeased with.
I like basketball!!1!
anyone noticed that in the IMG tag, height=".."
will not work but, instead, it requires the
error spelling heighth? in what non-english
speaking land was this crap written?
On /. there's no way to be sure. If it is a Red Dwarf reference, this guy's only about four or five FIRST TROUTs away from doing his funny little dance and fainting. One troll down, aleph-null to go.
Apologies for being off topic. Deactivating Karma BonusDon't worry. It appears the moderators have deactivated it for you. Next time, post anonymously. Burn, karma, burn!
sounds like he is bashing IE 7 for becoming more compliant while dropping support for IE hacks/work-arounds at the same time... maybe he has a point that hacks and work-arounds should be supported iniitally to aid conversion process but still it seems unfair to bash M$ for becoming more standard compliant...
ies4Linux is still supporting IE7 installation only in beta. You have to use the --beta-install-ie7 command-line option when installing. I have seen some issues, notably with transparency support (GIF and PNG), but I primarily use IE7 to test layout positioning. The transparency issues are apparently a problem with wine.
.... if GNU had anything to do with either Communism or World Peace, but we kind of get your point....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Slashdot.. home of fanboys and fucktards