Netscape - Back from the dead?

[Neil Jones]

I'm not sure quite what Microsoft have done wrong though.

Well basically my main reasons are thus.
1 - until SP2 it was impossible to remove the barnicles such as Norton's toolbar from IE, I like tidyness, I'm fussy. Firefox doesn't have an uninstall button for extensions yet and I quite happily uninstall the entire thing and reset just to clean the single line of text from the list.

Is there no right-click and "remove this" type option then or in Norton or somewhere like that? I'm sure Mr Norton knows better than to put something there permantely, that is the work of spyware and what not to make it impossible to remove but Norton should know better.

2 - popups - yet again solved in SP2 although if I'm not mistaken windows can still reorder themselves

Two words - third party.

3 - stability, IE used to go down on my ME machine all the time, it's probably stabler on XP but by that time I hadn't used it in ages.

I have yet to see any issues relating to stability in Internet Explorer under Windows XP with all patches and what not installed. It is known that Windows ME is essentially complete crap compared to Windows 2000 though.

4 - rendering, for some reason many sites look "flat" to me in IE now. Mozillazine.org is a particular example of this.

New glasses?

5 - tabs and little things like "Find as you type" in Firefox, can't live without them anymore.

One problem which users may encounter with the tabbed issue:

Under IE close top right, gets get rid of current window only. Do so under Opera or whatever and get rid of them all. I reckon that's enough to put most people off it and who shall not adapt.

CSS is far from perfect, I threw a hissy fit the other week when trying to get something to vertically and ended up trying the most ridiculous hack, which them totally buggered up in IE5.

So don't "get something vertically" then, whatever it is you are doing... (vertical text alignment?)

Plus on the subject of the "dreadful standards". If IE supported PNG properly there would be a lot less need for so many annoying filters. I was going to give the link to a lovely CSS based design I saw the other day but I've lost the liink to it, I'll find it later and put it up.

"PNG properly"? I can see PNG files, or am I missing something?

As to the CSS based design and losing the link to it - ooh you'll never sleep tonight will you?

[Pete]

Is there no right-click and "remove this" type option then or in Norton or somewhere like that? I'm sure Mr Norton knows better than to put something there permantely, that is the work of spyware and what not to make it impossible to remove but Norton should know better.

I've never found one myself. You can disable it with right click from IE but it's THERE on the menu and therefore it evil.

2 - popups - yet again solved in SP2 although if I'm not mistaken windows can still reorder themselves

Two words - third party.

Prevention is better than cure.

One problem which users may encounter with the tabbed issue:

Under IE close top right, gets get rid of current window only. Do so under Opera or whatever and get rid of them all. I reckon that's enough to put most people off it and who shall not adapt.

I'm not that careless, plus Firefox 0.9 will have a little warning box and you can already get that feature with some of the extensions for FF.

]Plus on the subject of the "dreadful standards". If IE supported PNG properly there would be a lot less need for so many annoying filters. I was going to give the link to a lovely CSS based design I saw the other day but I've lost the liink to it, I'll find it later and put it up.

"PNG properly"? I can see PNG files, or am I missing something?

As to the CSS based design and losing the link to it - ooh you'll never sleep tonight will you?

I will now, http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile=057%2F057%2Ecss

IE does not support alpha transparency on PNG files, this prevents lovely little fade effects on sites from working and also prevents the background on my website from working properly.

[Neil Jones]

I will now, http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile=057%2F057%2Ecss

IMO, I don't like it and I particularly despise sites, including that one, that insist on plastering the "your browser is crap, use this one instead" spiel in a prominent place.

I think that if BBC Online displayed a message like that on the homepage, there'd be loads of complaints along the lines of "my browser is not crap, I can see your site, get what I want and so what's your problem?".

IE does not support alpha transparency on PNG files, this prevents lovely little fade effects on sites from working and also prevents the background on my website from working properly.

Do take note that if the end user turns all images off anyway then it matters not any longer. Why don't we extend the same idealogy to WebTV or text-only browsers for the visually impaired? They don't support alpha transparency either.

[DJGM]

One problem which users may encounter with the tabbed issue:

Under IE close top right, gets get rid of current window only.
Do so under Opera or whatever and get rid of them all. I reckon
that's enough to put most people off it and who shall not adapt.

It's just as well Mozilla (both Firefox and App-Suite) displays this warning . . .



. . . when you try to close a browser window with more than one tab open.

I think it's safe to say that the forthcoming new Netscape will also have this.

[MarkN]

I particularly despise sites, including that one, that insist on plastering the "your browser is crap, use this one instead" spiel in a prominent place.

I agree with you on this point - the message shown on this CSS Zen Garden site gives the message it wishes to deliver in the wrong way.

I think that if BBC Online displayed a message like that on the homepage, there'd be loads of complaints along the lines of "my browser is not crap, I can see your site, get what I want and so what's your problem?".

Again, I agree with this 100%. Ironically enough, it's messages like this that go against the spirit of the web. Even though sites have been designed using web standards, it does not mean that a person who has chosen to view the site in Internet Explorer should be what seems to be mocked for using this browser. Which web browser a person uses is their choice. I would never laugh at a person who used Netscape 3, if that was the browser that they wished to use, although I would advise them - a message like the following in the footer would be, IMO, ideal:

"This content of this site has been designed to be accessible by as many people as possible, regardless of browser type or platform. However, people using visual web browsers may like to upgrade to a browser supporting CSS if they wish to see the visual enhancements implemented by the web designer. Please remember that there is no obligation to do this to view the site's content."

Using comments like "this design requires" and/or "your current browser does not make the cut" is as bad as using "This site designed for Internet Explorer" or similar a few years ago. The World Wide Web is about choice, and web standards are there to ensure that people retain that choice.

IE does not support alpha transparency on PNG files, this prevents lovely little fade effects on sites from working and also prevents the background on my website from working properly.

Do take note that if the end user turns all images off anyway then it matters not any longer. Why don't we extend the same idealogy to WebTV or text-only browsers for the visually impaired? They don't support alpha transparency either.

Although web designers would love everyone to see the site as they intended, they must learn to realise that this will never be possible. A good design is nice, but web designers must focus on the accessibility of the site by as many people as possible. People must remember this: "Designing for the World Wide Web is not the same as designing for print!"

[Neil Jones]

I particularly despise sites, including that one, that insist on plastering the "your browser is crap, use this one instead" spiel in a prominent place.

I agree with you on this point - the message shown on this CSS Zen Garden site gives the message it wishes to deliver in the wrong way.

They have a point, they just go about putting it across wrongly. It's like they're saying "use Mozilla to view me or go away". Amazon will never dream of saying such a thing.

I think that if BBC Online displayed a message like that on the homepage, there'd be loads of complaints along the lines of "my browser is not crap, I can see your site, get what I want and so what's your problem?".

Again, I agree with this 100%. Ironically enough, it's messages like this that go against the spirit of the web. Even though sites have been designed using web standards, it does not mean that a person who has chosen to view the site in Internet Explorer should be what seems to be mocked for using this browser.

Of course. Heck, if its done relatively properly it should at least be usable in some old browser. It won't look pretty but one should at least be able to have a general idea of what's going on through, say, Netscape 4.x even if it does look particularly offputting in that browser.

Which web browser a person uses is their choice. I would never laugh at a person who used Netscape 3, if that was the browser that they wished to use, although I would advise them - a message like the following in the footer would be, IMO, ideal:

"This content of this site has been designed to be accessible by as many people as possible, regardless of browser type or platform. However, people using visual web browsers may like to upgrade to a browser supporting CSS if they wish to see the visual enhancements implemented by the web designer. Please remember that there is no obligation to do this to view the site's content."

Using comments like "this design requires" and/or "your current browser does not make the cut" is as bad as using "This site designed for Internet Explorer" or similar a few years ago. The World Wide Web is about choice, and web standards are there to ensure that people retain that choice.

I will admit that I did use those comments in my younger uninformed days before I knew better. The use of "requires" is misleading because you don't "require" Internet Explorer at all. "Designed for Internet Explorer" is an overhang from the days when the Office Suite sprouted web page publishing capabilities that produced output that only worked in, yes, Internet Explorer. And then Frontpage Express came along.

IE does not support alpha transparency on PNG files, this prevents lovely little fade effects on sites from working and also prevents the background on my website from working properly.

Do take note that if the end user turns all images off anyway then it matters not any longer. Why don't we extend the same idealogy to WebTV or text-only browsers for the visually impaired? They don't support alpha transparency either.

Although web designers would love everyone to see the site as they intended, they must learn to realise that this will never be possible. A good design is nice, but web designers must focus on the accessibility of the site by as many people as possible. People must remember this: "Designing for the World Wide Web is not the same as designing for print!"

I absolutely agree. HTML is a formatting language and was never originally intended to be a layout language. Indeed, the table specification was only set out in HTML specification version 2, and the the Cascading Style Sheets stuff was only introduced in version 4 and most of the CSS stuff that the site Hyma links to above does (a CSS only page layout) is the so-called "second generation" level of CSS. That's all relatively modern stuff. I just hope it degrades gracefully in older browsers.

[MarkN]

I absolutely agree. HTML is a formatting language and was never originally intended to be a layout language. Indeed, the table specification was only set out in HTML specification version 2, and the the Cascading Style Sheets stuff was only introduced in version 4 and most of the CSS stuff that the site Hyma links to above does (a CSS only page layout) is the so-called "second generation" level of CSS. That's all relatively modern stuff. I just hope it degrades gracefully in older browsers.

Here's the page without a stylesheet:

here

[Neil Jones]

I absolutely agree. HTML is a formatting language and was never originally intended to be a layout language. Indeed, the table specification was only set out in HTML specification version 2, and the the Cascading Style Sheets stuff was only introduced in version 4 and most of the CSS stuff that the site Hyma links to above does (a CSS only page layout) is the so-called "second generation" level of CSS. That's all relatively modern stuff. I just hope it degrades gracefully in older browsers.

Here's the page without a stylesheet:

here

Excellent. As I was saying, not as pretty but still as functional

[MarkN]

Precisely. Functionality is what counts!

[Cheese Head]

I finally got my laptop wired to internet, and the only browser there was Netscape 4. It didnt display one thing right, or visible for the already fucked up settings. So I downloaded some expired version of IE (3 I think) and it presents it alot better than Netscape. But it doesnt help when my display is stuck on 16 colors.

[cat]

To be honest, I am just about the least techincally savvy/geeky/entertained you are likely to come across. However, having experienced Netscape 7 (though now use Mozilla) I just don't want to use Internet Explorer because it's doesn't seem to be very good.

If I'm doing research or needing about 10 articles open, as well as a word processor to write presentation, email to distribute drafts to people, BlackBoard to bemoan the difficulty of writing a 8000 word essay to other students, Winamp to calm me down, my music folder to randomly select things from... you get the picture... having all of my internet stuff in one window is fantastic.

It's not a geeky thing, nor about being "alternative" (I mean, I hate goths) but it's just about it being easier to use.