Page 1 of 2

Firefox

Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:52 am
by Luke
Anybody know any html bugs that will make a page hideously horrible in firefox but normal in ie?

Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 12:05 pm
by shiznatix
if you have that problem then you are probably going to have to post the code but there are some bugs in firefox, i just cant remember what they are, and maybe they where fixed by now.

Re: Firefox

Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 12:22 pm
by Roja
The Ninja Space Goat wrote:Anybody know any html bugs that will make a page hideously horrible in firefox but normal in ie?
It depends on your definition of "A page". Seriously.

Firefox renders *compliant html* according to the standard virtually 99% of the time (statistic drawn from April 1st, posteriors of intellect magazine). If you are looking for the 1%, you'll need to get more specific to find them. While there are fantastic lists of IE bugs (the quirksmode page is a treasure chest of joy!), the Firefox bugs are generally fixed almost as fast as you can document them.

However, if you mean a non-compliant 'page' of tag soup, in many cases, IE will work around your mistakes better than Firefox will. Of course, making a non-compliant page of tag soup means that every other browser will also have problems with it, including Safari, Konqueror, cellphones, Opera, and so on.

If you have a compliant page that FF displays incorrectly, I personally would love to know. I've opened a few bugs in the bugzilla for Firefox, commented on dozens, and I'm happy to help with the process if we find one. It's amazingly cool to be able to follow a bug from finding it to fixing it, and the decisions behind it. With Opera and Microsoft, it all happens (for the most part) in the background, with little feedback. (Opera is actually getting better at it, and has always been somewhat better than Microsoft, but Firefox's process is 100% open).

Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 12:28 pm
by Luke
I'm sorry I should have elaborated a bit...

I want to make a site that comes up perfect in IE, but fails miserably in firefox because I would like to prove a point to somebody, so if anybody knows ways to do that... let me know.[/quote]

Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 12:29 pm
by Luke
haha you should hear how your name sounds in opera's voice dealy thing. it sounds stupid.

Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 12:43 pm
by Bill H
If you have Front Page, just use it to create something with hover buttons and some "fanciness" in it. IE will typically display it okay where FF will not.

Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 12:46 pm
by sweatje
The Ninja Space Goat wrote:I'm sorry I should have elaborated a bit...

I want to make a site that comes up perfect in IE, but fails miserably in firefox because I would like to prove a point to somebody, so if anybody knows ways to do that... let me know.
[/quote]

So... the point your making is that if you search long and hard enough it just might be possible to find a page that renders worse under FireFox? :?

Perhaps try googling for "this page best viewed in IE"... pages, surly there are some that are malformed enough to suit your needs :)

Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 1:13 pm
by Luke
sweatje wrote: So... the point your making is that if you search long and hard enough it just might be possible to find a page that renders worse under FireFox? :?

Perhaps try googling for "this page best viewed in IE"... pages, surly there are some that are malformed enough to suit your needs :)
My boss won't let me use firefox because he can't spy on me when it is open... I am a webdesigner. I need to be able to test sites in all browsers. I could wait a month for complaints to roll in that sites aren't coming out right in firefox, or I could just show him now. I haven't searched long and hard. I asked one question at one site. I hate IE I want to use firefox. Don't look for negative in everything. Just answer the damn question or don't post in my thread.

Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 1:18 pm
by Roja
The Ninja Space Goat wrote:I'm sorry I should have elaborated a bit...

I want to make a site that comes up perfect in IE, but fails miserably in firefox because I would like to prove a point to somebody, so if anybody knows ways to do that... let me know.
I just want to be clear that being trained in debate, I can always take the other side in an argument. As a result, if you want a page that doesnt work in FF, you want non-standard code.

Use the scrollbar color attributes (IE-only), the marquee tag (IE-only), use a pile of javascript that only detects the object model IE uses, and you are all set to prove that IE renders that "page" correctly, while FF doesn't.

The counter argument is that if your page actually followed the standards, the page would render correctly on both, but you've chosen proprietary (single-vendor) non-html elements. :)

Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 1:24 pm
by Roja
The Ninja Space Goat wrote:My boss won't let me use firefox because he can't spy on me when it is open... I am a webdesigner. I need to be able to test sites in all browsers. I could wait a month for complaints to roll in that sites aren't coming out right in firefox, or I could just show him now. I haven't searched long and hard. I asked one question at one site. I hate IE I want to use firefox. Don't look for negative in everything. Just answer the damn question or don't post in my thread.
HUH!?! If you want to use Firefox, you'd want to show the opposite of what you are asking for - that Firefox renders things correctly, while IE *doesnt*.

I think your attempt would prove why you should use IE, not FF.

Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 1:30 pm
by Luke
Roja wrote:
The Ninja Space Goat wrote:My boss won't let me use firefox because he can't spy on me when it is open... I am a webdesigner. I need to be able to test sites in all browsers. I could wait a month for complaints to roll in that sites aren't coming out right in firefox, or I could just show him now. I haven't searched long and hard. I asked one question at one site. I hate IE I want to use firefox. Don't look for negative in everything. Just answer the damn question or don't post in my thread.
HUH!?! If you want to use Firefox, you'd want to show the opposite of what you are asking for - that Firefox renders things correctly, while IE *doesnt*.

I think your attempt would prove why you should use IE, not FF.
I see what you are saying, but my point is not that FF is better, but that if I can't use FF, I can't test sites in FF. If I made sites that render fine in IE, but not in FF, customers who use FF will have bad experiences with our websites. This is inevitable since I cannot test sites in ff, and do not always use complient code.

Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 1:38 pm
by Roja
The Ninja Space Goat wrote:I see what you are saying, but my point is not that FF is better, but that if I can't use FF, I can't test sites in FF. If I made sites that render fine in IE, but not in FF, customers who use FF will have bad experiences with our websites.
AH. Interesting approach. Now I see the logic. I don't quite agree thats the best way to convince the boss, but I'm not in your shoes. Good luck!
The Ninja Space Goat wrote:This is inevitable since I cannot test sites in ff, and do not always use complient code.
No reason not to. If you always use compliant code, you'd have far fewer problems. Not to mention, if you are doing it for work, the pages *probably* need to be accessible, so they need to be compliant.

(*nitpicker note: Accessibility doesn't require html compliance. However, most of the items it requires are easily accomplished by creating compliant code.)

Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 1:40 pm
by Grim...
Make a page using relative divs with padding.
IE includes the padding in the width, FF doesn't (or visa versa, I can't remember).
Make the formatting fall apart by making a list of (say) menu buttons of a width that fits in IE but not in FF.

Does that make any sense?

:?

Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 1:40 pm
by Luke
Roja wrote:
The Ninja Space Goat wrote:I see what you are saying, but my point is not that FF is better, but that if I can't use FF, I can't test sites in FF. If I made sites that render fine in IE, but not in FF, customers who use FF will have bad experiences with our websites.
AH. Interesting approach. Now I see the logic. I don't quite agree thats the best way to convince the boss, but I'm not in your shoes. Good luck!
The Ninja Space Goat wrote:This is inevitable since I cannot test sites in ff, and do not always use complient code.
No reason not to. If you always use compliant code, you'd have far fewer problems. Not to mention, if you are doing it for work, the pages *probably* need to be accessible, so they need to be compliant.

(*nitpicker note: Accessibility doesn't require html compliance. However, most of the items it requires are easily accomplished by creating compliant code.)
Well I am moving towards that... it is a goal of mine, but complient code takes time, and time isn't something I have since my boss thinks a website should take 2 hours as it is.

What would be your approach to changing his mind on this? Keep in mind he has no idea what he is talking about when it comes to web design. He thinks FrontPage is good.

Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 2:03 pm
by Roja
The Ninja Space Goat wrote:Well I am moving towards that... it is a goal of mine, but complient code takes time, and time isn't something I have since my boss thinks a website should take 2 hours as it is.

What would be your approach to changing his mind on this? Keep in mind he has no idea what he is talking about when it comes to web design. He thinks FrontPage is good.
This is tricky for me to answer, because I can't claim I code in non-compliant code, and spend the time converting it. I don't. I always develop html-compliant code.

However, my response to that claim is that if you want a site in 2 hours, thats fine. Maintenance, however, or expansion, modification, or really, any form of scripting is a totally different issue. Non-compliant code is *provably* harder to maintain, modify, or script against (javascript is much easier with proper id's/classes).

Make it an easy choice for him, by factoring in the costs correctly. Start describing pages as compliant or non-compliant, and for non-compliant pages you are asked to maintain, add a 50% increase in time, and attribute it to compliance problems. Then he will begin to associate "non-compliant" with "harder to maintain", and eventually, he will recognize that he will save money in the long run by making the code compliant in the first place.

He may even end up asking for it by name!

On a sidenote, Frontpage is actually a decent GUI-based webpage editor. The code it produces is crap, but the layout, rendering, and ease-of-use? Its pretty good. I prefer NVU now, but I used to use Frontpage.