So hopefully there will be US and non-US versions of IE (and Mozilla, Opera, etc) but in this case the US version will be the one with the crippled functionality.
I do hope this happens *simply* to highlight the stupidity of these kinds of patents. Obviously the majority of Americans would still use the fully-functional version but Corporates would be forced to use the limited one and it will cost them shit loads to "fix" their intranet apps.
This happens incredibly infrequently, especially considering the amazingly large amount of systems that run Windows.
Whilst I'm not completely disagreeing with you, and one risk vs. another, running Windows Update is probably best, it *does* seem to cause problems sometimes. E.g. I've got an old RedHat 7 box running Samba that I used to be able see from my Windows 2000 Pro box... except I no longer can. I know I didn't change the RedHat config. (I hardly ever power the machine up!) so I'm kind of thinking its probably due to MS's tinkering with the SMB protocol (as they do).
So yeah, running Windows Update is best from the perspective of security, but you do still have to run tests first. This increases cost. And thus it ain't as simple as just running Windows Update.
I believe that the plan is to used a shared GRE between apps. When installing a new app, it wil either use the existing GRE or replace it with a newer one.
Remember that Mozilla Firebird and especially Mozilla Thunderbird are not yet at version 1.0! The fact that they are as good as they are at this stage does say something about the commitment of the developers!
In the meantime, you can use Mozilla App Suite which is more stable. Its your choice!
Or hunt down the people who actually "buy" the products we're all being spammed with?
I've heard recently that there are a lot of sales being made through spam. Prior to that, I just thought that no one could possibly be stupid enough to buy any of the "products" being pushed.... sadly, its seems there is!
All that should be a concern is using valid HTML. Nothing more should be needed to assist anyone. It should be up to the user and their user agent to render the delivered HTML appropriately.
Nope! Its a good idea to using valid markup, since rendering is more predictable but it isn't the most important thing, and it certainly doesn't, on its own, do all that much for accessibility.
You *do* need to create markup that gives meaning to the content... so the main heading in a page should be a H1 for example. This allows the users web client to interpret the structure of a page and deliver that content in a form that the user can deal with.
No developer should ever be required to compensate for any persons disability. The developers responsibility is to deliver valid HTML to the user.
Oooh a tad blunt! You don't work in politics do ya?! I think I understand where you're at - and you're correct that it isn't your job to sort out everyones disability. BUT, it is your job to communicate a message and to facilitate this, it is a good idea to try and markup your site in a way that makes it possible for people of all abilities to navigate and understand your site.
Not to mention how absurd it is to assume that developers know about or understand the special needs of people. We are devlopers, not therapists or doctors.
True. But thats what the W3C guidelines are for - so you don't have to understand. Just read the docs and try to broadly understand to goal (structure and semantic meaning) rather than thinking about specific disabilities (although role-play might help you understand).
Overall though, I'd say don't get too stressed about it. Read the guidelines, and try to make your site accessible as best you can!
I would like to see designers have to do usability testing with something attached to their chairs that delivered shocks if they couldn't find it fast enough, and then give them a variety of browsers and corrective lenses and other handicaps to simulate what their users go through. But I'm a sadist.
Is that to help improve their web design, or just a general "designer-torture" thing?!
Code for standards and *then* make the site work in IE 5+
Thats what I do anyway. If a client wants specific browsers to work then I'll do it but it'll cost - to which they tend to agree with me!
Selling points are that:
1). The site will be accesible, thus more people will be able to access the site,
2). The client is less likely to be singled out as not caring for people with "special needs" (and yes, I do understand that I'm using FUD to sell!)
3). The site will continue to be accessible with *any* future browser. It might look screwy mind, but it will be accessible!
Myself, I really hate having to bastardise my lovely clean code to make it work in the various flavours of IE, but thats a commercial reality. I haven't thought up a way to sell sites that don't work in IE yet!!
The sad thing is that its not the fact that the script broke, its that there isn't a "fall-back". Desiging a site to work even when JavaScript isn't available isn't that difficult.
I guess when encountering such sites, we should all email/phone and complain. I s'pose the site owners get suckered into believing what the site "designers" have said about hardly anyone using anything other than IE.
Personally, I'd much prefer a simple extention of the current sytem to support other gui input controls, like, say, combo boxes.
Thats a solution to a different problem.
XForms probably won't help you in the immediate future. It will help a huge amount once everyone is using clients that understand XForms..... so 5 years time?
Its far bigger than just being able to manage clients. Since it allows automated validation, you could in fairly simple instances do away with much of the middle tier. I'll explain but start at the top...
Lets say I'm building a web based app. to allow users to create/update/delete records. I create a database table to store these records in. I use SQL to do this. I write documentation detailing the table layout, field types and sizes.
I write some script on the web server to perform the SQL create/update/delete and to squirt suitable (X)HTML at the user. I also have to include data validation here, which involves knowledge of the database layout... no problem, I've got my documentation!
Oh, and I want to include some validation at the client end so the user doesn't have to wait for the round-trip to be told that they've missed some information or something. So thats a little JavaScript, again involving knowledge of the DB layout.
And bingo! Its done.
But then the boss says they want to add some extra fields to the "record", so I've now got to:
Modify the database schema
Update my documentaiton
Modify the web server script to create/update/delete the new field *AND* validate it!
Modify the HTML to include the new field
Modify the client JavaScript validation
Its a lot of maintenance work, and a lot of places for things not to work right. Lots of potential for errors/SQL injection vunerabilities.
Now just with that lot, you could use XSchema to describe the data record *once* and use that to update the database, update the documentation (okay, generate docs from the XSchema) and build server and client side form validation.
You'd then just be left with updating the HTML to include the extra field.
But beyond that I imagine there should be a way to submit the form directly to the database server maybe? Certainly, the amount of coding required at the web server should at least be negligable - and completely automatable.
A product that allows you to describe data *once* and easily, visually, build forms would make it childs play for an unskilled, non-programmer type to create database applications.
I do hope that Mozilla/OpenOffice/mySQL or someone does some joined up thinking with all this, because otherwise Microsoft *might* be about to roll out a complete end-to-end solution based on their own proprietary crap!
NOTE - This is pure speculation as I don't know much about InfoPath. It *might* be fully open standards based!! However, if it isn't, then it will still be a compelling product, and more worryingly, a product that would very much tie an organisation into MS software.
Opera is a bit faster than Firebird. However, I like Firebird and find it is fast enough!
Opera is more pedantic with regard to web standards. It is correct of course, but I find from a practical perspective, Gecko based browsers work better.
Opera is standards compliant, but it *is not* perfect. Nor is any other browser, but Opera propaganda does imply that it is the most standard compliant. This is not true - I've built a CSS based menu system that works fine in Moz and *nearly* works in Opera, but unfortunatly Opera has a problem with Mouse-over events preventing it from working correctly, so I have to use some JavaScript "glue" to make it work.
I do like Opera though - it does its own thing, its own way. Its a commercial web browser flying in the face of advercity. Its available on the SonyEricson P800 and Opera software have always strived (striven?) to innovate.
I'm just glad we have a choice *and* a choice between such great (but different) products!
Saying all that, Opera doesn't process XSLT -- so yeah, I guess it does suck! (joke!)
I think IE has been okay-ish for standards when compared with the competition up until about 2 years ago. However, it really is lagging now and is hindering standards based development.
I'm currently building a "mostly-standards-based" site. I can now forget about NS 4.x which is a god send, but what slows me down is workign around the different CSS bugs in win-IE5, win-IE5.5, win-IE6 (although this one isn't too bad) and mac-IE5.1.6
As much as Mac users have shouted about how great Mac IE is compared with its Windows counter part, for me, its just *another* quirky browser... with different bugs! I'd sooner it was just as buggy as win-IE5 and then I'd have less to worry about!!
I'd imagine that a company such as Opera would have already spotted the problem banks would have and would already be pitching to supply browser solutions?
I'm hoping that since IE will not exist in a stand-alone form in the future (or on Mac at all), then organisations such as banks will need to supply their customers with an alternative. The obvious choice would appear to be something Mozilla based since this covers a lot of platforms.
But really, anything is good if it breaks the hold that MS IE has, and allows web site design to be more standards based.
I think the point is that the pilot cannot stick the plane in a position that might cause the airframe to fail. Thus, they can build a physically weaker plane that is lighter and therefore more fuel efficient.
Slashdot Mirror
So hopefully there will be US and non-US versions of IE (and Mozilla, Opera, etc) but in this case the US version will be the one with the crippled functionality.
I do hope this happens *simply* to highlight the stupidity of these kinds of patents. Obviously the majority of Americans would still use the fully-functional version but Corporates would be forced to use the limited one and it will cost them shit loads to "fix" their intranet apps.
This should bring presure to change this law!!
One can only hope!
Use Mozilla Firebird.
;)
Upgrade now!
NOW DAMN IT!!!!
You mean DirectX right? (I know others do it, but I've had that one trick me with its lies just recently!)
This happens incredibly infrequently, especially considering the amazingly large amount of systems that run Windows.
Whilst I'm not completely disagreeing with you, and one risk vs. another, running Windows Update is probably best, it *does* seem to cause problems sometimes. E.g. I've got an old RedHat 7 box running Samba that I used to be able see from my Windows 2000 Pro box... except I no longer can. I know I didn't change the RedHat config. (I hardly ever power the machine up!) so I'm kind of thinking its probably due to MS's tinkering with the SMB protocol (as they do).
So yeah, running Windows Update is best from the perspective of security, but you do still have to run tests first. This increases cost. And thus it ain't as simple as just running Windows Update.
Just my 0.02 GBP
What the one you [ahem] left [ahem] a few weeks back?!
;P
Funny thing is, he saw the advert for the lawyer on his "coming soon" page!!
I believe that the plan is to used a shared GRE between apps. When installing a new app, it wil either use the existing GRE or replace it with a newer one. Remember that Mozilla Firebird and especially Mozilla Thunderbird are not yet at version 1.0! The fact that they are as good as they are at this stage does say something about the commitment of the developers! In the meantime, you can use Mozilla App Suite which is more stable. Its your choice!
Or hunt down the people who actually "buy" the products we're all being spammed with?
I've heard recently that there are a lot of sales being made through spam. Prior to that, I just thought that no one could possibly be stupid enough to buy any of the "products" being pushed.... sadly, its seems there is!
Wine
Is
Not an
Emulator!
So no, it should run just fine!
All that should be a concern is using valid HTML. Nothing more should be needed to assist anyone. It should be up to the user and their user agent to render the delivered HTML appropriately.
Nope! Its a good idea to using valid markup, since rendering is more predictable but it isn't the most important thing, and it certainly doesn't, on its own, do all that much for accessibility.
You *do* need to create markup that gives meaning to the content... so the main heading in a page should be a H1 for example. This allows the users web client to interpret the structure of a page and deliver that content in a form that the user can deal with.
No developer should ever be required to compensate for any persons disability. The developers responsibility is to deliver valid HTML to the user.
Oooh a tad blunt! You don't work in politics do ya?! I think I understand where you're at - and you're correct that it isn't your job to sort out everyones disability. BUT, it is your job to communicate a message and to facilitate this, it is a good idea to try and markup your site in a way that makes it possible for people of all abilities to navigate and understand your site.
Not to mention how absurd it is to assume that developers know about or understand the special needs of people. We are devlopers, not therapists or doctors.
True. But thats what the W3C guidelines are for - so you don't have to understand. Just read the docs and try to broadly understand to goal (structure and semantic meaning) rather than thinking about specific disabilities (although role-play might help you understand).
Overall though, I'd say don't get too stressed about it. Read the guidelines, and try to make your site accessible as best you can!
I would like to see designers have to do usability testing with something attached to their chairs that delivered shocks if they couldn't find it fast enough, and then give them a variety of browsers and corrective lenses and other handicaps to simulate what their users go through. But I'm a sadist.
Is that to help improve their web design, or just a general "designer-torture" thing?!
Code for standards and *then* make the site work in IE 5+
Thats what I do anyway. If a client wants specific browsers to work then I'll do it but it'll cost - to which they tend to agree with me!
Selling points are that:
1). The site will be accesible, thus more people will be able to access the site,
2). The client is less likely to be singled out as not caring for people with "special needs" (and yes, I do understand that I'm using FUD to sell!)
3). The site will continue to be accessible with *any* future browser. It might look screwy mind, but it will be accessible!
Myself, I really hate having to bastardise my lovely clean code to make it work in the various flavours of IE, but thats a commercial reality. I haven't thought up a way to sell sites that don't work in IE yet!!
The sad thing is that its not the fact that the script broke, its that there isn't a "fall-back". Desiging a site to work even when JavaScript isn't available isn't that difficult.
I guess when encountering such sites, we should all email/phone and complain. I s'pose the site owners get suckered into believing what the site "designers" have said about hardly anyone using anything other than IE.
Note: Windows is by no means my primary OS. I use Linux extensively, as well as Mac OS X, and am typing this from my Mac
;)
Like that lets you off the hook!
Personally, I'd much prefer a simple extention of the current sytem to support other gui input controls, like, say, combo boxes.
Thats a solution to a different problem.
XForms probably won't help you in the immediate future. It will help a huge amount once everyone is using clients that understand XForms..... so 5 years time?
It will do.
But not just yet.... wait a few years for better coverage.
Lets say I'm building a web based app. to allow users to create/update/delete records. I create a database table to store these records in. I use SQL to do this. I write documentation detailing the table layout, field types and sizes.
I write some script on the web server to perform the SQL create/update/delete and to squirt suitable (X)HTML at the user. I also have to include data validation here, which involves knowledge of the database layout... no problem, I've got my documentation!
Oh, and I want to include some validation at the client end so the user doesn't have to wait for the round-trip to be told that they've missed some information or something. So thats a little JavaScript, again involving knowledge of the DB layout.
And bingo! Its done.
But then the boss says they want to add some extra fields to the "record", so I've now got to:
- Modify the database schema
- Update my documentaiton
- Modify the web server script to create/update/delete the new field *AND* validate it!
- Modify the HTML to include the new field
- Modify the client JavaScript validation
Its a lot of maintenance work, and a lot of places for things not to work right. Lots of potential for errors/SQL injection vunerabilities.Now just with that lot, you could use XSchema to describe the data record *once* and use that to update the database, update the documentation (okay, generate docs from the XSchema) and build server and client side form validation.
You'd then just be left with updating the HTML to include the extra field.
But beyond that I imagine there should be a way to submit the form directly to the database server maybe? Certainly, the amount of coding required at the web server should at least be negligable - and completely automatable.
Which I'd guess is what MS InfoPath is all about?
A product that allows you to describe data *once* and easily, visually, build forms would make it childs play for an unskilled, non-programmer type to create database applications.
I do hope that Mozilla/OpenOffice/mySQL or someone does some joined up thinking with all this, because otherwise Microsoft *might* be about to roll out a complete end-to-end solution based on their own proprietary crap!
NOTE - This is pure speculation as I don't know much about InfoPath. It *might* be fully open standards based!! However, if it isn't, then it will still be a compelling product, and more worryingly, a product that would very much tie an organisation into MS software.
Been there, done that, produced the inferior proprietary clone!
/. !
See Info Path.
NB: It might not be inferior. I just said that 'cos this is
Basically, my idea was that each person's file swapping client would only make/accept connections to/from people that you trust: friends, family, etc.
;)
Yeah, and then if the CyberDicks(TM) do catch up with you, then you'll have all your friends and family in prison with you too!
Opera is a bit faster than Firebird. However, I like Firebird and find it is fast enough!
Opera is more pedantic with regard to web standards. It is correct of course, but I find from a practical perspective, Gecko based browsers work better.
Opera is standards compliant, but it *is not* perfect. Nor is any other browser, but Opera propaganda does imply that it is the most standard compliant. This is not true - I've built a CSS based menu system that works fine in Moz and *nearly* works in Opera, but unfortunatly Opera has a problem with Mouse-over events preventing it from working correctly, so I have to use some JavaScript "glue" to make it work.
I do like Opera though - it does its own thing, its own way. Its a commercial web browser flying in the face of advercity. Its available on the SonyEricson P800 and Opera software have always strived (striven?) to innovate.
I'm just glad we have a choice *and* a choice between such great (but different) products!
Saying all that, Opera doesn't process XSLT -- so yeah, I guess it does suck! (joke!)
I think IE has been okay-ish for standards when compared with the competition up until about 2 years ago. However, it really is lagging now and is hindering standards based development.
I'm currently building a "mostly-standards-based" site. I can now forget about NS 4.x which is a god send, but what slows me down is workign around the different CSS bugs in win-IE5, win-IE5.5, win-IE6 (although this one isn't too bad) and mac-IE5.1.6
As much as Mac users have shouted about how great Mac IE is compared with its Windows counter part, for me, its just *another* quirky browser... with different bugs! I'd sooner it was just as buggy as win-IE5 and then I'd have less to worry about!!
Thinking about it for 5 seconds longer...
I'd imagine that a company such as Opera would have already spotted the problem banks would have and would already be pitching to supply browser solutions?
And Netscape/AOL.
Does anyone in the know, know?
I'm hoping that since IE will not exist in a stand-alone form in the future (or on Mac at all), then organisations such as banks will need to supply their customers with an alternative. The obvious choice would appear to be something Mozilla based since this covers a lot of platforms.
But really, anything is good if it breaks the hold that MS IE has, and allows web site design to be more standards based.
"That video wall used in Doha, Qatar where the big briefings by Franks and others was run by an SGI Irix box..."
Yeah but I don't think anyone would want to use that -- I mean, *everyone* could see how you're voting!!
I think the point is that the pilot cannot stick the plane in a position that might cause the airframe to fail. Thus, they can build a physically weaker plane that is lighter and therefore more fuel efficient.
Isn't the Boeing 777 also fly-by-wire?