| 9:39 pm on Nov 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Great news -- and I don't say "great" casually. This is a major achievement for the Safari and WebKit contributors. I noticed in the article that the preview release of Opera 9 has only one bug left to fix, and then it can be the second member of this elite club,
| 10:13 pm on Nov 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
This really is a breakthrough. Congrats to the Safari team, and can't wait until Opera 9 is public.
| 10:19 pm on Nov 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
sure is good news.. nice to see a benchmark gaining some recognition..
Go ALL new releases from now ~ and big congrats to Safari!
| 10:24 pm on Nov 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
This is the first I've heard of the Acid2 Test. (That's a bad thing right.)
All I can say is WOW does IE butcher that image or what!
Firefox looks to be about 90% so I guess that explains why I can't get one layout to work in Firefox.
| 10:33 pm on Nov 1, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Worth noting -- the IE team has already stated that IE7 will NOT pass the Acid2 test.
Although, to their credit, the MS team is paying attention and moving (now) in a standards-compliant direction. It's just that their focus in IE7 will be more about security and interface improvements.
| 9:39 am on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Has anyone tried Acid2 on Firefox 1.5rc1?
| 10:06 am on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The acid test link is good news for more than Safari - I wasn't aware that Opera was making a real effort to improve, but now that I am I've renewed interest in their application; I'd stopped trying to add "fixes" for them long ago. Yet another "tester" browser for my dreamweaver browser list, but if all browsers passed the Acid test its length would only be... one.
But happy to be yet one step closer!
[edited by: Josefu at 10:26 am (utc) on Nov. 2, 2005]
| 10:09 am on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
amznVibe: It's better, but not fixed yet. A lot of the Firefox work is being help up by some serious refactoring of the graphics layer which should make it a lot easier to do certain methods of layout.
| 12:15 pm on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|but if all browsers passed the Acid test its length would only be... one. |
I don't think this is necessarily true is it? Just because (if/when) everyone passes Acid2, doesn't mean everyone will display everything the same. Or will it?
| 12:45 pm on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Just because (if/when) everyone passes Acid2, doesn't mean everyone will display everything the same. Or will it? |
Well, that is a major point of the test.
Of course, whether or not it's true is hard to predict.
Why there can't be just one rendering engine used by all I don't know.
| 4:04 pm on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
don't know much about mac and acid2 tests, but i can say one thing after testing with safari (i assume the new version is not altered in this instance):
they implement their own form fields with their own size (too big), borders (too big, not changeable), font type/size (dictated) and colours (not changeable) to make it look os x like, thereby rendering my webpage design to a complete mess.
to push ones understanding of form design against free creativity of webmasters is not what i want from a good browser. shame on safari!
my 2 cents
| 8:08 pm on Nov 2, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I wasn't aware that Opera was making a real effort to improve |
With Hakon Lie as the CTO at Opera, support for CSS standards is bound to be important, I'd think. He was the original force behind CSS. Also, check out the opera.com website. "Look, Ma, no tables!" And it's valid XHTML 1.0 strict as well.
| 9:21 pm on Nov 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|to push ones understanding of form design against free creativity of webmasters |
Every browser uses it's own form fields. If you want to control this to the pixel, you can use Flash to design your forms. (You can even add custom fonts, little sound effects and animations to your form fields, if desired.)
Now, my $0.02 here would be a brief statement about usability, user expectations, and some goal analysis for when you are soliciting user data, but I won't step on the toes of creativity. ;)
| 10:12 pm on Nov 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
But certain browsers, like Firefox, allow you to restyle form elements. You can even add background images to drop-down menu options!
| 10:49 pm on Nov 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I tried it with the most recent version of Safari and while it seems to work perfectly it's not exactly the same as the reference rendering. The nose is a tiny bit smaller in the Safari rendering vs the reference rendering. Noticed this when I had both open in different tabs and switched back and forth. Everything else seems to be exactly the same.
| 11:46 pm on Nov 3, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I believe the nose is done with collapsing borders. Opera had to rejig the order in which borders are drawn to get the same rendering.
| 6:46 pm on Nov 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
So does this mean I've discovered that it doesn't really pass the test ;) I'm using 2.0.2 (416.12)
| 8:28 pm on Nov 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Every browser uses it's own form fields. If you want to control this to the pixel, you can use Flash to design your forms. |
conventional style methods are absolutely sufficient in this instance.
firefox and ie have their own form fields, but firstly they are pretty similar and secondly they allow much more restyling than safari without forcing the web designer to accept the settings.
website usability and user expectations is imho for sure responsibility of the web designer, not the browser programmer.
speaking of creativity, form data security is certainly an important point, but ie and firefox handle it without this much inconvenience for the web designer.
only case that i can think of in this context is the upload field in firefox, that can't be styled explorer-like (problems with border, size and font). they did this in order to avoid webmasters tricking users into submitting data.
i think constraining webmasters in the way safari does, is not the way to go. at this point, apple really annoys me.
| 10:39 pm on Nov 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I have a different approach to content creation and web development. "If it ain't portable, it's wrong." That's what the web is all about: portability across different operating systems and browsers. And so standards -- any standards, no matter how limiting -- are better than any conceivable extensions, no matter how cutesy. Because standards are indispensable for porting content, and "cutesy" is dispensable like used toilet paper.
If you want liberation from artistic constraints, use a different medium. This medium is designed (well and successfully designed!) to be NOT what you want. It's designed to be usable by severely visually handicapped or even blind surfers; it's designed to be used on display devices of all different kinds, including devices that do not render any graphics other than ASCII letters. And it does that well. What it doesn't do -- is left for the creators of some other medium to achieve.
| 11:56 pm on Nov 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
well, as far as this is a response to my statements (which i almost doubt), then advising me to stay off the internet is cute - to put it nicely.
we're not talking about artistical fuss. i'm not really a web designer, rather a part-time website programmer.
i was talking about form fields that are rendered like mess on safari.
i was also not talking about portability. this is a completely different area.
i was talking about visibility, where apple sets its own "standards" in the case of form field display.
of course this could be expanded to a more general perspective, but that was not the point. no use for an in-depth discussion for me here.
| 3:23 am on Nov 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Why there can't be just one rendering engine used by all I don't know. - jazzle |
This has to do with the freedom of choice and the (now revitalized) spirit of competition! :)
From my PC only perspective the KHTML and Opera teams have been making some really big strides in improving their rendering engines.
Firefox still has a few things to work out and Gecko 1.8 is of course not going to go live via Firefox 1.5 and pass the test. Anyone take a look at the step ny step instructions and find anything they are using live that Firefox doesn't support?
| 11:19 am on Nov 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The problem with form element formatting isn't that Safari is styling them using Aqua but that in Explorer and other browers the default elements are so blocky and ugly that people feel they need to be styled. If they all had something like Aqua (or the Silicon Graphics equivalent) then we could throw out all form-related CSS and be happy.
Having said that, you should realise that there are NO standards for how form elements appear as they are (or used to be) supplied by the operating system and not by the browser itself. That's why MSIE(Mac) uses Aqua for radio buttons and checkboxes, though not for other elements.
You'll be happy to hear that the Safari team have announced that they're introducing the option of having your buttons Aqua-styled OR CSS-formattable starting from the 'dull grey square' look that you're familiar with. Check out the Surfin' Safari blog for details ;)