So I took Tom’s suggestion and downloaded Firefox so I could play with it’s integrated RSS features. First of all, let me say that for someone who has been a loyal IE user for God knows how long, it’s a little strange using something else. But the interface is cool, the easy subscribe to RSS is interesting (though I’m not sure why I might use it over Bloglines) and the fact that it remembers the last login and password you used has already made editing through the Website sites a lot faster.
Aye, but here’s the rub…first of all, this site looks like GARBAGE in Firefox. (And I am so done with tweaking templates for a while.) Second, for some reason, none of the formatting buttons come up when I use the HTML editor in Manila. That’s a deal breaker for me unless somebody can fix it, because I have always found Manila’s WYSIWYG editor to be too flaky to deal with. (Guess it’s another example, as Tom says, of how stuff doesn’t work on a basic level…)
5 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
In defense of Mozilla type browsers I think it works best on basic levels, especially when dealing with standards based CSS and XHTML (both of which are core to future web design). What is troubling about Mozilla is that it keeps to the standards so well that it will break sites designed for Explorer (60-80% of user base) which do not always comply with standards. If you take a look at Typepad or Blogger (for example), the extra WYSIWYG features (bold, underline, etc.) do not show up in Safari but do well in Mozilla and IE.
As a Windows user, I have totally switched to Firefox (Mozilla’s standalone browser) and I’m really happy with it. The main reason being the future of web development and the movement towards standards compliant browsers. Some sites like Yahoo! Launch or Threadless I end up returning to IE, but I believe they will eventually start coding correctly for all of us Moz folks. Even Microsoft redesigned their site to work with standards and CSS (sort of) recently.
You might want to have a look at Thunderbird as well. The latest version includes RSS feeds. You subscribe and they look and act like a news server feed or e-mail account. It puts all of my stuff in one place. I do find that the feeds don’t seem to update all that quickly for some reason but am attributing that to being the first time it’s been included. (And Thunderbird is only at v0.8 in development.)
There’s a reason most pro-web develop-/design-ers test first in a Mozilla-like browser. Once the design is to their liking, they then test in IE and fix those things the IE botches. If the reverse is true, there’s often just too many problems, as - well know fact as it is - IE is buggy.
Too bad you have to give up significant security enhancements, speedy performance, and standards compliance for a site design that a buggy browser says look fine.
In the early days of the web it was all too common to see those ridiculous “Looks best in…” badges on web sites. I got so sick of IE ruining the display of validated xhtml and css that I’ve just simply given up on even trying to support such a buggy, dangerous browser. So what if it’s still the largest? It’s also still the worst at rendering correctly formed xhtml. Standards. If your code doesn’t comply with it, then your information isn’t worth my time–except for the time to send a complaint to the admin about fixing buggy html.
Why haven’t a seen a badge yet that says something like “Looks like cr** in IE…”?
Your site doesn’t look too bad in Safari, Mozilla or Firefox. I use a Mac, so I don’t have IE. It seems strange that you write about tech issues and shy away from using a modern browser because your site only works in an old browser. I would suspect that your target audience is fairly technically savvy and more likely than average to used advanced browsers.