Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft's New Multiple-Browser Tester

Z80xxc! writes "Microsoft recently announced a new product called Expression Web SuperPreview, which lets developers view their web pages in any browser installed on their system, as well as in different versions of IE, all from the same interface. The product has one genuine innovation — a built-in tool for overlaying the rendering from one browser over another to compare (referred to as 'onion skins'). There are also HTML debugging aids and other helpful tools for web developers. A beta version is available for download. However, the current build only has support for IE — it will compare rendering in IE6 with either IE7 or IE8, whichever is installed. An internal build shows Firefox and Safari on Windows as well. The final product will appear as part of MS Expression Web Studio 3 when it is released later this year. (It will not be available in the Expression Mac suite.)"

15 of 221 comments (clear)

  1. Browsershots by Snowblindeye · · Score: 5, Informative

    There is a free service that does the same thing: browsershots.org

    1. Re:Browsershots by larry+bagina · · Score: 4, Informative

      Queue estimate: 3 minutes to 1 hour, 12 minutes

      It's only free if your time is worth nothing.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    2. Re:Browsershots by RichardJenkins · · Score: 4, Informative

      Overlay? Interactivity? Real time results?

      Last time I checked browser shots didn't provide that for free.

      This sounds like the first new MS product that's interested me in a while.

    3. Re:Browsershots by ericlondaits · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I do web developing professionally and can say that a service with a 3 hour queue is only marginally useful. When your site has a rendering bug under some browser it takes quite a bit of trial and error while fiddling with CSS until you come up with a different way of expressing the same layout that is compatible across the board. IE6, particularly, has numerous rendering bugs that sometimes call for this "do the same, but differently" route and some bugs that require hacks to be put in place. While looking for the rendering bug you also need to find out what exactly is going on... for instance, IE6 will double an element's margin in some cases, but you need to find out which element first, which can be done with a bit more of fiddling with the CSS. ... So anything but an interactive solution is worthless in this cases. A service like browsershots is useful to check the state of a site, but once you find it has errors, you probably need something else.

      I have a single VMWare VM with side-by-side installations of IE3 through 6, and IE7 in my main OS, along with Opera, Safari and Firefox.

      --
      As a Slashdot discussion grows longer, the probability of an analogy involving cars approaches one.
    4. Re:Browsershots by wkurzius · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do you also not mind waiting 45 minutes in between adding each ingredient?

  2. Web standards by nightglider28 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Tools like this, while helpful, should never have been necessary. If MS, owner of the dominant browser, wasn't among the poorest in W3C compatibility, stuff like this wouldn't be needed. Web pages should render the same in any browser, on any OS. The only difference should be in resolution.

    1. Re:Web standards by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Oh, very much not true. Webkit (either Chrome or Safari, take your pick) and Gecko render things very differently. Especially in regard to fonts. Not even Chrome and Safari render fonts the same way.

      There's also some weirdness related to boxes, but that should come as no surprise to anyone.

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    2. Re:Web standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      No they don't. Not relative to the differences between Trident and most other engines.

      There may be some differences, but they're nothing when compared to IE's awful rendering engine. Just look at the broken box model, or the hasLayout flag for example.

      For around the last five years my Web design job has always revolved around making things look right in standards compliant browsers, then hacking for IE. Look at the code of most sites these days and you'll see an IE-specific style sheet.

    3. Re:Web standards by causality · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No they don't. Not relative to the differences between Trident and most other engines.

      There may be some differences, but they're nothing when compared to IE's awful rendering engine. Just look at the broken box model, or the hasLayout flag for example.

      For around the last five years my Web design job has always revolved around making things look right in standards compliant browsers, then hacking for IE. Look at the code of most sites these days and you'll see an IE-specific style sheet.

      Imagine the sum total of the economic cost to Web designers worldwide, if such a figure could be accurately assessed. I wonder just how large this number would be? To me this sort of unnecessary and deliberate incompatibility is very much like spam; it's a business practice that causes others to bear its costs. If the total cost to Web designers everywhere could be known, I really would have no problem with fining Microsoft for that amount, accompanied by the legal use of government police power to seize assets if this is necessary to pay the fine.

      If that sounds drastic, I say that the only thing more absurd is the idea that we should have to put up with this kind of shit and shouldn't use any means available to discourage it, within the bounds of the law of course. I really believe that the only reason why Microsoft gets away with half of the things that they do is because of the general public's ignorance and lack of technical understanding. If not for that then I would expect at least some type of backlash against it, much like what Sony experienced due to their rootkit DRM.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    4. Re:Web standards by slimjim8094 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No no no no no.

      That thought is breaking the Web.

      HTML is a markup language. It was NEVER designed to give a pixel-picture representation of content. EVER. That would break mobile browsing, not to mention different resolutions, and everything else.

      What you're looking for is called PDF, and it works great. That makes the guarantees you want - every pixel is in its proper place.

      Too many designers, used to working in pamphlets where they had complete control, moved to web design. They just aren't the same!!

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
  3. IETester by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    IETester ( http://www.my-debugbar.com/wiki/IETester/HomePage ) will let you test rendering in IE5.5, IE6, IE7 and IE8 on the same machine - you're not limited to whichever of IE7 and 8 is installed.

  4. Ain't technology great? by noidentity · · Score: 5, Funny

    Isn't it great how modern technology can do things like this? Back in the old days, we had to make do with defining a standard and ensuring that everything displayed things according to it. But now, we don't need the stifling constraints of consistency; browsers can be creative in their interpretation, and every developer can use a tool like this to see the amount of expression browsers put into rendering. I foresee a future where this innovation will be carried to things like simple desk calculators, where 2+2 is no longer shackled to equal 4, where one will have a "multi-calculator" that gives a range of results. I can't wait!

  5. Re:Age of the browser? by benwaggoner · · Score: 5, Informative

    Exactly. The problem isn't that IE6 was a bad browser for its era. The problem is that lots of people haven't upgraded to a more recent version, which is typical of the corporate managed desktop market.

    IE7's been on the market for, what 2.5 years now? How many people are still running 2.5 year old versions of Firefox or Safari on thier personal desktops? Not many. And that's not something about IE in particular, but of some markets where IE is dominant. I don't imagine many avid gamers on Windows are running IE6, as a counterexample.

    Had Windows bundled Netscape instead of IE, it'd be Netscape we'd be griping about today. But the real issue is how slow corporate desktops are to get updated for ANYTHING not required for security or line-of-business.

    Windows Media Player 9, which was released back in 2003, has only become standard in corporate America in the last year or so, and there are some holdouts even there.

  6. Dreamweaver by PktLoss · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Adobe did a demo of their next Dreamweaver release last fall at their Adobe Max conference. Similar feature there, except a bit better. Using a render farm your page is rendered in pretty much every browser, on each OS (rather than just what you have installed), including the "Onion Skin" feature shown in Expression Web. They even used the same name for the feature.

  7. Gee, thanks Microsoft by nysus · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is a lot like someone kneecapping you and then expecting you to be thankful when they offer you crutches.

    --

    ---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.