I have to agree with you on this one buddy. MP3, as "outdated" as it is, sure beats carrying around a stack of cds.
Also, what's this guy doing in a radio thread? He can't stand to use obsolete technologies like MP3, yet he listens to a format that has about 3 decibels of dynamic range and an outrageous signal-to-noise ratio that was invented 100 years ago.
I agree, the 95% figure is way off, but he has a point. And most of the sites you are talking about (or at least the ones I've seen that resemble what you are talking about) are just old. It's not due to poor design, though. It's because they were made in an "era" when there was the IE way to do it or the Netscape 4.7 way to do it (layers) and neither way was standard but it was the only way to do it. Now Mozilla and Netscape 7 come along and don't support (or fix the support) of the Netscape 4.7 DHTML/CSS model and thus, the sites don't look right. But since IE still supports a lot of its older, IE-only stuff, the sites still look OK. I don't know if I agree that Mozilla should support "IE's DHTML model," but the problems aren't caused by poor site design, because the sites weren't poorly designed at the time.
There are obvious exceptions to this so please don't give me a big list.
I'm just saying, it's not an accident the sites worked in any browser. It's most likely that they worked in only one at the time because it was the only way to do it. Or the only feasible way to do it; who is going to write 38 lines of this-browser-only code when "this.hide" works in what 98% of the traffic is using? Probably not many people.
FX does this as well with whatever "FX Original Movie" they are currently pushing (RFK at the moment) and it lasts for about 10-15 secs after the return from commercial. It takes up a big chunk of the screen in the lower right-hand corner and gets in front of my X-Files reruns.
Slashdot Mirror
Is that the long way of saying "just use Mozilla" ?
I have to agree with you on this one buddy. MP3, as "outdated" as it is, sure beats carrying around a stack of cds.
Also, what's this guy doing in a radio thread? He can't stand to use obsolete technologies like MP3, yet he listens to a format that has about 3 decibels of dynamic range and an outrageous signal-to-noise ratio that was invented 100 years ago.
I agree, the 95% figure is way off, but he has a point. And most of the sites you are talking about (or at least the ones I've seen that resemble what you are talking about) are just old. It's not due to poor design, though. It's because they were made in an "era" when there was the IE way to do it or the Netscape 4.7 way to do it (layers) and neither way was standard but it was the only way to do it. Now Mozilla and Netscape 7 come along and don't support (or fix the support) of the Netscape 4.7 DHTML/CSS model and thus, the sites don't look right. But since IE still supports a lot of its older, IE-only stuff, the sites still look OK. I don't know if I agree that Mozilla should support "IE's DHTML model," but the problems aren't caused by poor site design, because the sites weren't poorly designed at the time.
There are obvious exceptions to this so please don't give me a big list.
I'm just saying, it's not an accident the sites worked in any browser. It's most likely that they worked in only one at the time because it was the only way to do it. Or the only feasible way to do it; who is going to write 38 lines of this-browser-only code when "this.hide" works in what 98% of the traffic is using? Probably not many people.
Next thing you know, someone will be trying to patent hyperlinks or something.
FX does this as well with whatever "FX Original Movie" they are currently pushing (RFK at the moment) and it lasts for about 10-15 secs after the return from commercial. It takes up a big chunk of the screen in the lower right-hand corner and gets in front of my X-Files reruns.