You're clearly not selling the design for your forum: if I asked my designer why the website had errors and they said "they're minor and easy to fix" I'd be kinda curious as to what the hell he thought he was being paid for. It's not a finished design. That's fine for yourself.
You say it doesn't affect the users, you test all browsers on all platforms? No. What you mean is it doesn't AFAICT affect users or it only affects a few and I can live with losing their custom.
The only real thing most web devs care about is 'does my site/application run as required in the browsers I need it to?' If the answer is 'yes, if you don't follow the standard', then the standard is ignored.
Personally I code for standards compliance. That means that most of the time I only need to check in FF, Op, Konq, Saf, Opera Mobile emulator. But then I need to work my way down IE8, IE7, IE6 making whatever fixes to ensure that IE doesn't barf all over the website. If I designed it to IE then it would most likely fail in other browsers - eg on handhelds.
The point of standards is that of the thousands of browsers available in many versions on thousands of systems you can only test a few but if the browser devs and the website devs code to the same markup standards giving a useful presentation then the web works.
complete standards compliance should always be low on the web because this is a sign of a HEALTHY internet, because it means nonprofessionals are contributing content.
Presumably you think that the number of car crashes should be high because that's a sign that non-professional drivers are using the roads. Or the level of food poisoning should be high to show that people are cooking at home.
Just because you're not a professional doesn't mean you can't do it properly.
For those that don't want to learn to code/markup properly there are plenty of ways to contribute to the internet that don't require you to directly code your website. How many CMSs are there? Bloggin' apps, wikis? How many fora? There are plenty of point and click interfaces, designed by professionals, that you can use (often free with web space). These sorts of apps should produce standards compliant output.
Why can't the web stick to something simple? 95% of the sites I use, would be fine with just plain simple HTML 2.0. Instead, we've got javascript, CSS, XHTML, and other buzzwords. Which in the end, take control of how a web page looks from the user's hand.
Why can't actors stick with something simple - 95% of films I see could be performed in the round without sets or ornate costumes. Instead we have special effects and costumes and makeup, specialist lighting, post production colouring, fancy-smancy cameras, stuntmen and other needless hollywood stuff. These in the end take control of imagination out of the user's hands.
---
In the end it's both an informational, entertainment and advertising medium and anything used in other media gets it's version in this one.
It's up to me as a user to choose where a url opens, especially since we are all using the tabbed paradigm now.
User agents currently do not allow the user to submit a form into a new window or tab. This is the nearly nine-year-old bug 17754 on bugzilla.mozilla.org with 99 votes.
I presume you mean submit the form and have the form page stay open and the submission complete page show in a separate tab/window. Not sure how useful that is (you can page back to view a forms submitted content in FF) but it sounds more like a feature request than a bug.
You're obviously not a web designer.. IE which version.
Pages that render perfectly in any one version are by no means guaranteed to render properly (or even usably) in any other version. Possibly with the exception of IE7 and IE8 when in IE7 rendering mode; but not fully tested that assumption yet.
I don't think closing tags were required up to HTML 4.0, but I don't really recall as when I started to design commercially I went in for XHTML1.0 transitional.
It's not a standard it's a compromise used by website designers that can't/won't code properly - be that through technical or temporal (ie financial) restrictions.
It's fine to make a design decision that says screw the standards 70% of visitors can view it as I intended and the customer won't know any better. That's up to the individual "designer" (by which term I include Frontpage-monkeys).
But trying to suggest that this is adhering to web-standards, outside of an intellectual exercise in breaking the boundaries of the semantics of the English language, is rediculous [sic].
1) "What are the new features in this version as compared to the previous version?"
It's got hypermiling with inflation inhibitors and a new "works first time" system to avoid discombobulation.
2) Or, "We want to compare the new release to the previous release. How can we get a copy of the previous release?"
It's not available there are no copies left from production runs.
3) Or, "We'd like to contact current users of the package. Can your company provide a list of current customers whom we can contact?"
We're interested in your security.. we put our clients first and that's why we can't share private business details between clients.
4) Or, "Please provide a list of all of the service packs and patches released for the previous version, the time from when the problem was identified to when the update was made available and whether the update resolved the issue."
All complaints are dealt with by our first rate support teams ensuring everything is fixed immediately and without delay. All products have bugs of course [smile, shrug, light chuckle] but our industry beating QC process ensures ours don't impact your bottom line.
Eventually, it all unravels although current management may be under the impression that they can take the money and run before they're found out.
Of course you can pay now. Do you want to take out product defect insurance - it's only available until the end of the day and will ensure that should the worst happen you'll be covered every step.
If she had been around when I found the clock, I'd have never been permitted to take it apart, even though it wasn't being used. She didn't believe that kids like me were smart enough to handle something that she couldn't understand, not even when the teachers kept telling her how smart I was.
Or perhaps she believed what the teachers said but felt that she didn't want you to waste your intelligence on being a clock and watch repairman?
Exchange was never meant to be just a web-mail server believe it or not.
So what is Microsoft's solution for users trying to access their email while travelling?
Exchange. It was designed to support web mail, but it isn't the primary purpose.
Surely it was designed to support Microsoft Internet Email, not web mail. I'm always keen to make this distinction - as a web designer/programmer I feel that a site that isn't designed to web standards is not a 'web site' but something else. Of course if they're using graceful deg./progressive enhanc. to provide a different experience based on ability of the browser, that's fine so long as they're using web standards.
In short if it's not using web standards compliant code, it is not a website and in this case it is not webmail.
Everything else has tabs nowadays, perhaps splitable tabs will come next in the form of tab views. You could have different zooms as tabs or different docs have have multiple tabs showing as a split view - then you could edit docs side by side which would be great for refactoring.
Also, in case you didn't realise, PDF export from Word is available as a freebie plug-in from MS in Word 2007, and it doesn't have all the font bugs OO Writer has! (See my earlier posts in this discussion for details.)
I think it's a bit much to laud over us the "freebie plug-in" for Word (200UKP on its own, or for "Microsoft Office 2007 Professional for PC" it is 449UKP, that's not the most expensive version either).
Look at issue 43029.[...] it's a complete showstopper for using most professional grade fonts with PDF export.
Why obscure the situation, why not mention that this is only with "CFF-flavour OpenType fonts (*.otf)". How many people, not using DTP packages, are that fussy about the font they use that they won't accept a near analogue TTF font. Does it real make that much difference if people reading your text do so in Times.otf versus Times.ttf - like I said for professional print jobs you can be fussy but OOo is not a professional print production application (though it can be used as one).
This bug has become the standard counter-example in on-line discussions to all the OSS advocacy [...]
Such an important bug only has 12 subscribers - ie people that care enough to get notified when it is fixed. Doesn't seem like a major bug to me. I'd go with the classification as enhancement - a specific font file format support (not the font per se but a specific file format for the font) seems like something that doesn't actually stop anyone writing documents. FWIW. It will be a good enhancement to add as OTF is on the rise, but it's only really kicking off as of this year IMO and so OOo isn't so far behind the game on this.
How did we become a society of people who believe that the only ones who can solve our problems are the government, worse, the federal government? Have we no self reliance anymore?
Government by the people for the people means that government should work in your favour - the question is why set up a group to represent all the citizens and establish a standardised privacy policy system when you have a group (called Government) that is perfectly placed to be the focus for such work already, and which already employs experts in this field, and which can pass legislation to help both the uptake of the system and the enforcement of the system (to the benefit of citizens)?
"We will collect your information to provide product recommendations for you while logged in at this site.
We will sell your details to spammers and identity fraudsters if you ever log in.
We will not share your personal information with any third party without your permission as demonstrated by going to your user profile and opting in for information sharing.
Ha-ha we tricked you to sign in to have your info shared by using an off-screen checkbox/ quadruple negative written in Farsi/ just saying that if you look at our site you've opted in.
We promise to take every reasonable measure to ensure that your personal information, while stored by us, is inaccessible to hackers and other potential identity thieves."
We'll do anything that doesn't cost money. Basically, nothing. We'll claim to use the latest security measures but really we're selling the details on eBay; or you could just pick up one of our company laptops - they all have all your account details in plain text on the Desktop.
That's why they disguise it with lawyer speak.
---
As others have said they should have a graded privacy system from A1 (we immediately throw away ID info and in any case all our systems run on a private network on Mars), A2, A3 to B1, B2 (we use ID details with industry best practice security)... to C1, C2, C3 (we store your details in plain text and post bills with your details in Time Square). The system would be defined by Gov. in collaboration with industry and public; would be enforceable by imprisonment of persons responsible for breaches; would be required by all companies handling data on people whether [they think it is] identifiable or not.
Legalised drugs just cause other problems.. witness the most widely used recreational drugs (except caffeine) - nicotine and ethanol. They don't exactly shine as examples of why drug use should be extended. You can argue personal choice, but those who do not wish to live in an anarchic system and instead maintain social structure and cohesion tend to prefer that drugs are illegalised [I think I made that word up].
One other issue is that with free supply it's likely that drug production would push out food production in many areas where that would cause a calamity. Again you might argue that the increased income from selling drugs would pay for food - but those [in the developing world] that produce the drugs at the moment get a very small cut and with the price pushed down...
Imagine if school children were getting addicted to opiates, as they mature think how that is going to impact society as a whole. Free [libre] availability of drugs arguably destroyed Chinese society in the late 19th Century. Drugs (whether legal or not) tend to bring moral decay if you think society can cope with a large degree of moral decay I guess is the question.
Slashdot Mirror
You're clearly not selling the design for your forum: if I asked my designer why the website had errors and they said "they're minor and easy to fix" I'd be kinda curious as to what the hell he thought he was being paid for. It's not a finished design. That's fine for yourself.
You say it doesn't affect the users, you test all browsers on all platforms? No. What you mean is it doesn't AFAICT affect users or it only affects a few and I can live with losing their custom.
The only real thing most web devs care about is 'does my site/application run as required in the browsers I need it to?' If the answer is 'yes, if you don't follow the standard', then the standard is ignored.
Personally I code for standards compliance. That means that most of the time I only need to check in FF, Op, Konq, Saf, Opera Mobile emulator. But then I need to work my way down IE8, IE7, IE6 making whatever fixes to ensure that IE doesn't barf all over the website. If I designed it to IE then it would most likely fail in other browsers - eg on handhelds.
The point of standards is that of the thousands of browsers available in many versions on thousands of systems you can only test a few but if the browser devs and the website devs code to the same markup standards giving a useful presentation then the web works.
complete standards compliance should always be low on the web because this is a sign of a HEALTHY internet, because it means nonprofessionals are contributing content.
Presumably you think that the number of car crashes should be high because that's a sign that non-professional drivers are using the roads. Or the level of food poisoning should be high to show that people are cooking at home.
Just because you're not a professional doesn't mean you can't do it properly.
For those that don't want to learn to code/markup properly there are plenty of ways to contribute to the internet that don't require you to directly code your website. How many CMSs are there? Bloggin' apps, wikis? How many fora? There are plenty of point and click interfaces, designed by professionals, that you can use (often free with web space). These sorts of apps should produce standards compliant output.
Why can't the web stick to something simple? 95% of the sites I use, would be fine with just plain simple HTML 2.0. Instead, we've got javascript, CSS, XHTML, and other buzzwords. Which in the end, take control of how a web page looks from the user's hand.
Why can't actors stick with something simple - 95% of films I see could be performed in the round without sets or ornate costumes. Instead we have special effects and costumes and makeup, specialist lighting, post production colouring, fancy-smancy cameras, stuntmen and other needless hollywood stuff. These in the end take control of imagination out of the user's hands.
---
In the end it's both an informational, entertainment and advertising medium and anything used in other media gets it's version in this one.
It's up to me as a user to choose where a url opens, especially since we are all using the tabbed paradigm now.
User agents currently do not allow the user to submit a form into a new window or tab. This is the nearly nine-year-old bug 17754 on bugzilla.mozilla.org with 99 votes.
I presume you mean submit the form and have the form page stay open and the submission complete page show in a separate tab/window. Not sure how useful that is (you can page back to view a forms submitted content in FF) but it sounds more like a feature request than a bug.
You're obviously not a web designer .. IE which version.
Pages that render perfectly in any one version are by no means guaranteed to render properly (or even usably) in any other version. Possibly with the exception of IE7 and IE8 when in IE7 rendering mode; but not fully tested that assumption yet.
I don't think closing tags were required up to HTML 4.0, but I don't really recall as when I started to design commercially I went in for XHTML1.0 transitional.
Tripe.
It's not a standard it's a compromise used by website designers that can't/won't code properly - be that through technical or temporal (ie financial) restrictions.
It's fine to make a design decision that says screw the standards 70% of visitors can view it as I intended and the customer won't know any better. That's up to the individual "designer" (by which term I include Frontpage-monkeys).
But trying to suggest that this is adhering to web-standards, outside of an intellectual exercise in breaking the boundaries of the semantics of the English language, is rediculous [sic].
1) "What are the new features in this version as compared to the previous version?"
It's got hypermiling with inflation inhibitors and a new "works first time" system to avoid discombobulation.
2) Or, "We want to compare the new release to the previous release. How can we get a copy of the previous release?"
It's not available there are no copies left from production runs.
3) Or, "We'd like to contact current users of the package. Can your company provide a list of current customers whom we can contact?"
We're interested in your security .. we put our clients first and that's why we can't share private business details between clients.
4) Or, "Please provide a list of all of the service packs and patches released for the previous version, the time from when the problem was identified to when the update was made available and whether the update resolved the issue."
All complaints are dealt with by our first rate support teams ensuring everything is fixed immediately and without delay. All products have bugs of course [smile, shrug, light chuckle] but our industry beating QC process ensures ours don't impact your bottom line.
Eventually, it all unravels although current management may be under the impression that they can take the money and run before they're found out.
Of course you can pay now. Do you want to take out product defect insurance - it's only available until the end of the day and will ensure that should the worst happen you'll be covered every step.
If she had been around when I found the clock, I'd have never been permitted to take it apart, even though it wasn't being used. She didn't believe that kids like me were smart enough to handle something that she couldn't understand, not even when the teachers kept telling her how smart I was.
Or perhaps she believed what the teachers said but felt that she didn't want you to waste your intelligence on being a clock and watch repairman?
Everyone knows all janitors are savants, with preponderous intellectual acumen, in disguise.
Exchange was never meant to be just a web-mail server believe it or not.
So what is Microsoft's solution for users trying to access their email while travelling?
Exchange. It was designed to support web mail, but it isn't the primary purpose.
Surely it was designed to support Microsoft Internet Email, not web mail. I'm always keen to make this distinction - as a web designer/programmer I feel that a site that isn't designed to web standards is not a 'web site' but something else. Of course if they're using graceful deg./progressive enhanc. to provide a different experience based on ability of the browser, that's fine so long as they're using web standards.
In short if it's not using web standards compliant code, it is not a website and in this case it is not webmail.
Everything else has tabs nowadays, perhaps splitable tabs will come next in the form of tab views. You could have different zooms as tabs or different docs have have multiple tabs showing as a split view - then you could edit docs side by side which would be great for refactoring.
Also, in case you didn't realise, PDF export from Word is available as a freebie plug-in from MS in Word 2007, and it doesn't have all the font bugs OO Writer has! (See my earlier posts in this discussion for details.)
I think it's a bit much to laud over us the "freebie plug-in" for Word (200UKP on its own, or for "Microsoft Office 2007 Professional for PC" it is 449UKP, that's not the most expensive version either).
Plenty of money has been paid for that plug-in.
Just use a universal screwdriver, aka "hammer". For extraction, YMMV.
It's especially frustrating since some of the best free fonts out there are OTF fonts.
What fonts in particular? I'm curious.
Look at issue 43029.[...] it's a complete showstopper for using most professional grade fonts with PDF export.
Why obscure the situation, why not mention that this is only with "CFF-flavour OpenType fonts (*.otf)". How many people, not using DTP packages, are that fussy about the font they use that they won't accept a near analogue TTF font. Does it real make that much difference if people reading your text do so in Times.otf versus Times.ttf - like I said for professional print jobs you can be fussy but OOo is not a professional print production application (though it can be used as one).
This bug has become the standard counter-example in on-line discussions to all the OSS advocacy [...]
Such an important bug only has 12 subscribers - ie people that care enough to get notified when it is fixed. Doesn't seem like a major bug to me. I'd go with the classification as enhancement - a specific font file format support (not the font per se but a specific file format for the font) seems like something that doesn't actually stop anyone writing documents. FWIW. It will be a good enhancement to add as OTF is on the rise, but it's only really kicking off as of this year IMO and so OOo isn't so far behind the game on this.
Depending what you're wanting to do it may be helpful to note that Inkscape has a pdf importer.
i lol-ed, v funny
How did we become a society of people who believe that the only ones who can solve our problems are the government, worse, the federal government? Have we no self reliance anymore?
Government by the people for the people means that government should work in your favour - the question is why set up a group to represent all the citizens and establish a standardised privacy policy system when you have a group (called Government) that is perfectly placed to be the focus for such work already, and which already employs experts in this field, and which can pass legislation to help both the uptake of the system and the enforcement of the system (to the benefit of citizens)?
Translations inline:
"We will collect your information to provide product recommendations for you while logged in at this site.
We will sell your details to spammers and identity fraudsters if you ever log in.
We will not share your personal information with any third party without your permission as demonstrated by going to your user profile and opting in for information sharing.
Ha-ha we tricked you to sign in to have your info shared by using an off-screen checkbox/ quadruple negative written in Farsi/ just saying that if you look at our site you've opted in.
We promise to take every reasonable measure to ensure that your personal information, while stored by us, is inaccessible to hackers and other potential identity thieves."
We'll do anything that doesn't cost money. Basically, nothing. We'll claim to use the latest security measures but really we're selling the details on eBay; or you could just pick up one of our company laptops - they all have all your account details in plain text on the Desktop.
That's why they disguise it with lawyer speak.
---
As others have said they should have a graded privacy system from A1 (we immediately throw away ID info and in any case all our systems run on a private network on Mars), A2, A3 to B1, B2 (we use ID details with industry best practice security)... to C1, C2, C3 (we store your details in plain text and post bills with your details in Time Square). The system would be defined by Gov. in collaboration with industry and public; would be enforceable by imprisonment of persons responsible for breaches; would be required by all companies handling data on people whether [they think it is] identifiable or not.
Also, it makes Woody Allen look like someone who is 90.
Which is pretty amazing for someone who must be at least 110.
Beautify Each & Every Rank'un ?
Legalised drugs just cause other problems .. witness the most widely used recreational drugs (except caffeine) - nicotine and ethanol. They don't exactly shine as examples of why drug use should be extended. You can argue personal choice, but those who do not wish to live in an anarchic system and instead maintain social structure and cohesion tend to prefer that drugs are illegalised [I think I made that word up].
One other issue is that with free supply it's likely that drug production would push out food production in many areas where that would cause a calamity. Again you might argue that the increased income from selling drugs would pay for food - but those [in the developing world] that produce the drugs at the moment get a very small cut and with the price pushed down ...
Imagine if school children were getting addicted to opiates, as they mature think how that is going to impact society as a whole. Free [libre] availability of drugs arguably destroyed Chinese society in the late 19th Century. Drugs (whether legal or not) tend to bring moral decay if you think society can cope with a large degree of moral decay I guess is the question.
I don't want to do that experiment.
and witnesses, obviously, can't refuse to testify.
So there is not right to silence? A defendant could be called as a witness?