| 3:12 pm on Jan 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
| 3:14 pm on Jan 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
why use border colour to match background colour? why not set border to zero and use cellpadding and spacing?
| 3:24 pm on Jan 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Firstly, did you get the PR toolbar from update.mozilla.org or from another source? Best method is to go to Tools > Extensions > Get more extensions.
As for your site, well at least you know now how an increasing number of visitors to your site are seeing your layout. The problem is almost certainly with your markup. Does your site validate [validator.w3.org]?
| 3:31 pm on Jan 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
fair point, reason, self taught hand coder etc. Too many pages on too many sites to change.
The main point here is why does FF seem unable to deal with what must be the most basic of vanilla html coding which works perfectly well with every other browser I have seen?
Just been surfing with it and it seems very much slower than IE as well
Verdict so far el crapo!
| 3:44 pm on Jan 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
did download from Mozilla, after installing the error message read (roughly trying to recall) only compatible with versions 8 and 9 I think it said mine was 9.01.
Will stand corrected on the above.
Just tried the validation link and indeed it throws up errors (I'm not surprised) but surely the bigger issue is should I have to change 1000's of pages on several sites to be FF compliant when in every other browser they work perfectly.
Surely the onus is upon them to make their browser capable of handling the many millions of sites that don't pass the latest validation.
| 4:05 pm on Jan 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|when in every other browser they work perfectly |
Does your site work perfectly in Netscape 4, Netscape 7.1, Safari, Konqueror, Opera, or just every other version of IE?
Firefox usually handles "tag soup" very well, but the simple fact is that there is no specification for dealing with invalid markup, so each browser has its own methods. Also, Microsoft introduces a swathe of proprietary, IE-only tags which may or may not be supported in other browsers - when dealing with multiple browsers, such coding practices are best avoided.
| 4:13 pm on Jan 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
hmmm... if coding is bad then it might be worth sorting it out. Spiders might have a problem if is bad as well.
Maybe a content mananage system is what you need then, you'd only have a couple of templates to look after.
Plus, with new templates ditching your nested tables and using CSS and DIVs effectively you should get some really lean code and boost your search engine rankings.
| 4:21 pm on Jan 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Does your site work perfectly in Netscape 4, Netscape 7.1, Safari, Konqueror, Opera, or just every other version of IE? |
Yes to all the above apart from Safari and Konqueror as I have never tried those.
The only problem I can find is the table colour issue otherwise all works OK. Have changed all my index pages to border 0 as suggested (many thanks for the tip) cured the problem so at least the homepages do not look like a train wreck.
Re the validation, I will of course try to ensure any new site is compliant but I cannot see it being an issue for older sites.
I was just checking other peoples sites for my key areas and cannot find one, as yet, that validates!
| 4:28 pm on Jan 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
the coding is OK, I just do somethings outdated I suspect. All pages are prepared on the latest version of FP so presumably roughly OK.
|effectively you should get some really lean code and boost your search engine rankings |
OK here too, the 6 main sites all Google top 3 for main keywords 1000's of #1's for internal pages. Also all sites rank #1 in msnbeta for the most relevant keywords.
Thanks for the border 0 tip
| 9:26 pm on Jan 11, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|All pages are prepared on the latest version of FP so presumably roughly OK. |
Very roughly! ;) (No offense, from a guy who used to use FP too.)
I'm surprised you found FireFox slower than IE. For me it's way faster right out of the box, and these tweaks [webmasterworld.com] help even further.
| 8:26 am on Jan 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Firefox has the largest band wagon ever, but it's because people were hurt when M$ killed Netscape. I prefer Opera over all browsers but I like Mozilla better then Firefox. It really bothers me that you can't set a lot of preferences in Firefox. In the end though it really doesn't matter who's better, it seems everyone is obsessed with browser market share these days. I mean people are watching the numbers like they have stock invested in this open source project or something.
The funny thing is that the browser wars are over, Microsoft won. Don't you guys remember that the browser wars were about who could make new HTML Standards the fastest?
This new browser war is people who hate M$ vs nobody. Why do people think that a silly little free browser can dethrone Microsoft? You guys are funny! Even if Firefox had 99% of the browser market share MS wouldn't care, because there is no more money involved only donations! Remember how Netscape used to charge? Remember how Microsoft under cut them and yelled to everyone we make a free browser why pay? Doh! Just think M$ makes more money in one day then all the donations Firefox has collected, sad but true.
| 8:46 am on Jan 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
well I'm back on IE I'm afraid, it was not just slightly slower but very much slower also too many oddball things happening.
Every time I look at these forums for example all the columns etc keep resizing till it seems to get it right.
Looks like I'm M$ through and through!
| 8:54 am on Jan 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|The main point here is why does FF seem unable to deal with what must be the most basic of vanilla html coding which works perfectly well with every other browser I have seen? |
Well, the issue here is that you are using non-standard HTML that is ONLY supported in Internet Explorer. So the other 10% of the world will see it as you do now in Firefox.
You may want to try using padding and cell backgrounds instead of colored table borders if you're staying with table layouts. Or you could give DIVs a shot :)
| 9:12 am on Jan 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Testing in the 'big 3' main browsers would have highlighted the IE-only code problem. Whatever you design, always test it in Firefox, Opera and IE6. Also consider IE5, IE5.5, and if you can, IE5/Mac and Safari. Plus other browsers available as well.
Border colours only work in IE. Remember too that there are a lot of new areas the web is moving into (away from the desktop and IE6) such as mobile phones and TV. Border colours won't work there either, so my advice is to ditch any IE-only code completely.
Use divs and CSS for the maximum cross-browser compatibility, or tables if you need to.
| 9:15 am on Jan 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Well, the issue here is that you are using non-standard HTML that is ONLY supported in Internet Explorer. So the other 10% of the world will see it as you do now in Firefox |
This does indeed seem to be the problem.
Encyclo has checked some code for me from FP and says it only works with IE.
All too much for me I'm afraid
[edited by: phantombookman at 9:42 am (utc) on Jan. 12, 2005]
| 9:32 am on Jan 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|All too much for me I'm afraid |
Sadly, the days when you could design a webpage to work for just one browser with no regard for standards is over.
But getting a page to work in the browsers used in the marketplace is not difficult.
It starts with writing standards compliant code. It can (depending on the complexity of the pages and your tolerance for non "pixel-perfection") require some knowledge of cross-browser compatibility issues.
The web designers who did not assume that IE would last forever have little work to do. The rest have to play catch-up.
| 9:41 am on Jan 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Should I dump FP and use Dreamweaver?
I have now also notices the style script to remove hyperlink underlines and add it on hover also does not work
What a bloody nightmare!
| 11:28 am on Jan 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
(Side topic: If you're looking at changing from FrontPage I'd recommend you consider Namo Web Editor which is about the same price).
The Mozilla browsers are *very* standards compatible, but may not necessarily work as expected with non-standard techniques. As a bare minimum you should beck in IE and Mozilla or Firefox (I use Mozilla).
Market share for Firefox may only be around 5%-10% for now, but it's definitely growing. Now is a good time to sort out any major problems with your site before it starts to impact on a larger proportion of visitors.
| 12:41 pm on Jan 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Why do people think that a silly little free browser can dethrone Microsoft? You guys are funny! Even if Firefox had 99% of the browser market share MS wouldn't care, because there is no more money involved only donations! |
I'd say MS already cares about FireFox's growing market share. Have you read some of the Microsoft blogs lately? They appear to be outright incensed that anyone would dare to challenge their browser. From the heightened attention MS is giving FireFox, I'd say they're already noticing - and hating and combating - its trend of popularity.
| 12:51 pm on Jan 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Even if Firefox had 99% of the browser market share MS wouldn't care, because there is no more money involved |
there is money to be made, as long as people use browsers to search then there is money to be made from the default search engine - some users at least will always use it.
| 1:07 pm on Jan 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
My rule of thumb when testing is: If a page renders "right" in IE but badly in FF, then there's a problem with my code. If a page renders right in FF but badly in IE, it's a problem with IE.
This rule of thumb holds true 99.99999999% of the time.
Testing in FF will help you become a better web developer.
| 1:17 pm on Jan 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|there is money to be made from the default search engine - some users at least will always use it. |
And that's where we are today - watching the start of the Search Engine Wars. Google has risen, now Microsoft want to take a piece of the action. And don't forget Yahoo too. Funny how everyone is introducing desktop searches now. What one does, others may follow.
Microsoft is a predator - it watches the competition, then when it gets too big, moves in for the kill. Or they swallow smaller prey who live in a market they want to dominate. Netscape was easily crushed - they thought the browser could be forgotten about after that. But like a rebel resistance movement, others (Mozilla) have taken up the challenge again. Now Microsoft is worried (slightly). So they announce a fresh interest in browser development.
If Firefox takes over from IE, it's Microsoft's fault. They stopped improving it, stopped fixing bugs, stopped introducing new features. It wouldn't be so bad if they had finished the job of implementing all HTML and CSS 2. (Not to mention full XHTML and PNG graphics.) All praise to other browsers for doing the job properly, not coding what they think their customers want (the Microsoft policy!), but as much as they can.
| 1:49 pm on Jan 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Are Firefox doing their job properly if their browser cannot read simple coding produced by FP, which is presumably the worlds most popular software for creating websites?
I can understand problems with something very innovative or complex or oddball but unable to read a border colour!
If they want to compete with MS then surely they need to be able to view a simple page that works perfectly for 90% of the world.
| 2:08 pm on Jan 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
border-color is Microsoft's own code extension and is not part of the html/css standards.
FF handles valid, standards-compliant css-styled border colors just fine. Learn the standards, and code to the standards, and you won't have this problem.
FP may be the "world's most popular software for creating websites" (or it may not, I don't know) but it writes a lot of Microsoft-specific code that only displays properly in Microsoft's browsers. You're developing web pages for the World Wide Web, not the Microsoft Wide Web. Use the standards. Then your pages will work for everybody.
| 2:29 pm on Jan 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Use the standards. Then your pages will work for everybody. |
I had hoped/presumed, incorrectly it seems, that by using the latest version of FP that I would be using accepted standards.
I also bought Dreamweaver MX 2004 which I just created a table in that also used the bordercolor instruction.
Is this also a non starter?
Is it just me or does it seem ridiculous that I spent a considrable sum of money on the 2 most famous software packages only to find they apparantly produce non standard code?
| 2:37 pm on Jan 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Seems ridiculous to me that these two "giants" in the WYSIWYG world can't produce valid code. I mean, it's a simple change to make this border color stuff (and other issues) work cross-browser. Why wouldn't they make the change? I can understand FP wanting to maintain proprietary code, but you'd think DreamWeaver would be willing to create cross-browser code.
| 2:46 pm on Jan 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Rod, kudos to you for outing your self as a FF hater slash MS lover and exposing yourself to the bashing and ranting. ;)
Anyway, here's my rant: The FF team has done a splendid job with emulating MS idiosyncracies and at the same time adhering the standards as no other browser does.
> If they want to compete with MS then surely they need to be able to view a simple page that works perfectly for 90% of the world.
True, but in cases where there is a conflict between the IE emulation and standards compliance, it is better to sacrifice the emulation. Your border problem might be such a conflict.
I'm more of an early adopter, especially with open source software. I guess your're a little more hesitant. But if you have some spare time, give FF another try. Just don't expect it to happen without some adjustment on your behalf. FF is designed to offer a user experience similar to IE's. The things that are different, are different for a reason. What might appear confusing at first, will turn out to be a clever improvement.
| 3:04 pm on Jan 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Unless you do a lot of layouts in WYSIWYG mode, you're best off coding by hand. (Shock! Horror!) Those of us who have learnt the joys of a simple text editor need never fear invalid code being dumped in our pages by programs that do not adhere to the standards fully.
Only what I type in goes into my pages. That way I can keep them clean. FrontPage was reknowned for adding tons of junk into the code (though I believe the latest version is better). Obviously it's a Microsoft product, so will be likely to do things the Microsoft way. (Read: non-standard.)
May I also highlight the usefulness of validating. It will often show up any invalid code, such as border colours (I assume).
Borders are best done with CSS because they are styles. Only markup should really go in the HTML file. But that's another lesson for another day...
| 3:11 pm on Jan 12, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Well, I just finally got around to spending 5 minutes with it and ran into a few annoyances:
Is there a way to turn off Flash (ads) with one key? Java?
Can you de'css a page with one key? Graphics?
Did the mouse gestures hack ever get finished?
Is there any way to turn the shift-click into a open in new tab? and shift-ctrl-click in an back tab?
How does one zoom images with the text?
How do you turn off annoying gif animation - I just don't see it?
| This 43 message thread spans 2 pages: 43 (  2 ) > > |