or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Safari 3.1 sees improved form support in latest beta
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Safari 3.1 sees improved form support in latest beta - Page 2

post #41 of 92
I'm using Safari 3.0.4, in OS X 10.5.2, with an Intel iMac, and I've had literally none of the problems listed in this thread.

As recently as a month ago, I was using Safari 3.0.4, in OS X 10.4.11, on a G4 tower, and I had ALL of them, all of the time.

On the new machine with Leopard, Safari is by far the fastest, most stable browser around. On the old one with Tiger it was a nightmare.
post #42 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I think you're screwed. I can't thing of a single way to make Safari copy the styles, but not the formatting.

Dang, best go jump off a cliff then...


Quote:
Originally Posted by bsenka View Post

I'm using Safari 3.0.4, in OS X 10.5.2, with an Intel iMac, and I've had literally none of the problems listed in this thread.

As recently as a month ago, I was using Safari 3.0.4, in OS X 10.4.11, on a G4 tower, and I had ALL of them, all of the time.

On the new machine with Leopard, Safari is by far the fastest, most stable browser around. On the old one with Tiger it was a nightmare.


...no, wait, hold off on that...
post #43 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xian Zhu Xuande View Post

It is frustrating, but the problem here is poor site design. This is probably one of many websites which were originally designed and tested only for Internet Explorer by inept coders, or it has been patched up over time based on really old code. Even then, the problems with the menu are likely poor JavaScript or CSS.

The problem with the weather site seems to be that the site is coded by someone using Microsoft's toolset and off the shelf components yet they have little knowldege to hand code CSS or HTML or Javascript and quite frankly don't seem to care about it either. They're one step up from designing websites in Word.

The menu they use comes from http://www.asp.net/CSSAdapters/Menu.aspx and works in Safari just fine there as is. The problem stems from the 'designers' then cramming that perfectly reasonable and even well written component into their site with little regard for the rest of the design. I'd look for where it breaks but it's a freaking mess.
post #44 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I can duplicate your Macworld.com mainpage issue when I use a text size that is one above normal, but this doesn't carry over to the benchmarks page.

I can break the Macworld layout by changing font size in either Safari or Firefox. The problem is the layout is using pixel sized containers and not allowing for text flow or overflow. eg. the top navigation bar text is 130px wide which at normal fonts sizes means two lines of text. Increase it just one size in Safari, and two in Firefox (since it doesn't render fonts the Apple way) and it splits onto three lines of text forcing the navigation menu below to move.

This isn't a Safari bug, it's a designer getting it wrong, not thinking that people change font sizes. To be somewhat charitable to Macworld, they do say it's still a BETA version of the site although they have said that for a while.

edit: furthermore they use pixel spacing for line-heights so lines of text overlap. Nice design spoiled by poor attention to details.
post #45 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by funkfeend View Post

lntellicast weather

Until last week's site redesign, WSI's Intellicast was a mess. I'd had it out with them several times, and it was not a Safari issue, it was an issue of coding for IE6.

Now it seems to work, especially after one last tweak late in the week.

The menus are a bit twitchy as you need to move across vertically thin secondaries, but given the ads they need to put up, it's better than before. You don't have to scroll to see actual content.

For more on the mess MS has made of rendering, and the brilliant plan to "fix" it, see this:

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/22/1837244
post #46 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpellino View Post

For more on the mess MS has made of rendering, and the brilliant plan to "fix" it, see this:
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/22/1837244

Though small, there is a light at the end of the tunnel for widespread compliance. MS announced yesterday that compliance mode will be enabled by default on IE8.

PS: MS states that IE8 will be Acid2 compliant, while WebKit, and Safari, have not passed Acid2 on refresh for several months.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #47 of 92
I gave up on Safari, and, at least temporarily, switched to Firefox Beta 3. I haven't yet found a perfect browser, but up until recently Safari on the whole seemed to suit my needs best. However, Safari's autofill and Keychain support is seriously bugged on both my step father and my machines. Sometimes both work, and sometimes they don't.

Take for instance a popular education Site: Blackboard. Safari refuses to remember or even ask if I want to remember the user name and password. Firefox remembers this information no problem.
post #48 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

Yep, I really miss the stability of Safari 2. I hope they really fix the constant crashing issue when opening multiple tabs.

Ummm...I think you might want to check your system. I've been running Safari 3 since November of 2007 religiously and it hasn't crashed once. I find Safari 3 to be remarkably stable. Whether I have one tab or multiple tabs open, Safari 3 with the Saft plugin, SafariBlock and inquisitor rocks!
Switching From Windows on Nov. 30th 2007
-------------------------------------
MacBook Pro 13" 2011
Reply
Switching From Windows on Nov. 30th 2007
-------------------------------------
MacBook Pro 13" 2011
Reply
post #49 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

I gave up on Safari, and, at least temporarily, switched to Firefox Beta 3. I haven't yet found a perfect browser, but up until recently Safari on the whole seemed to suit my needs best. However, Safari's autofill and Keychain support is seriously bugged on both my step father and my machines. Sometimes both work, and sometimes they don't.

Take for instance a popular education Site: Blackboard. Safari refuses to remember or even ask if I want to remember the user name and password. Firefox remembers this information no problem.

Ive had issues with Keychain, even outside of Safari, with Leopard. Even after a clean install the problem persists, but only after I sync with .Mac.

The one thing I wish Safari would add, but probably never will, is the ability to Restore Session after a crash like Firefox does. Not that Safari crashes or hangs often. In fact, It's my most stable browser, but the option would be nice.


PS: I'd also like Apple to add anti-phishing. I'm starting to become weary of disgraced Nigerian princes.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #50 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Apple this month continues to plug away on a small but significant update to its fledgeling Safari web browser, most recently making improvements to the application's handling of web forms and faulty Javascripts.

Safari fledgeling? Its at version 3. That's no longer a fledgeling. It a full blown bird.

I have a problem with RSS feeds. It's broken. Even though I have Safari set to check for new articles every 30 minutes, it doesn't. And if by some chance it does identify new articles and displays a number, lets say 5, it doesn't mean that that site only has five new articles. It could be more. That wouldn't be so bad, but when I select that site to display these 5 articles there may be 30 more. So what does Safari do, it displays the first 5 articles, resets the number to 0, displays the remaining 30 articles and displays the number 30. There is no way short of quitting and restarting Safari to zero out that number. After all the site no longer has 30 new articles to give me.
What goes online stays online. What is online will become public.
Reply
What goes online stays online. What is online will become public.
Reply
post #51 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by aresee View Post

I have a problem with RSS feeds. It's broken. Even though I have Safari set to check for new articles every 30 minutes, it doesn't. And if by some chance it does identify new articles and displays a number, lets say 5, it doesn't mean that that site only has five new articles. It could be more. That wouldn't be so bad, but when I select that site to display these 5 articles there may be 30 more. So what does Safari do, it displays the first 5 articles, resets the number to 0, displays the remaining 30 articles and displays the number 30. There is no way short of quitting and restarting Safari to zero out that number. After all the site no longer has 30 new articles to give me.

Have you tried using Mail's RSS reader or a 3rd party app.I prefer RSS Menu but Mail comes in as a close second, only because I don't have to access Mail to see my feeds.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #52 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Have you tried using Mail's RSS reader or a 3rd party app.I prefer RSS Menu but Mail comes in as a close second, only because I don't have to access Mail to see my feeds.

I don't like the idea of using Mail to read RSS feeds either. To me that would be just adding to the Spam bucket that Mail already is for me.* Besides I use RSS as a quick way to pursue web sites such as AppleInsider. If I see an article that catches my interest I will click on the title and go to the actual article and read it as it was actually posted. Why would I use Mail as a gateway for Safari anyway? -- Third party apps? I'll have to investigate. But dammit, RSS was working just fine in the previous version.

* I just moved from Entourage to Mail with my recent update to Leopard. I still haven't gotten my rules and Spam filter set up. I don't need the complication of RSS at this time.
What goes online stays online. What is online will become public.
Reply
What goes online stays online. What is online will become public.
Reply
post #53 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by aresee View Post

Third party apps? I'll have to investigate. But dammit, RSS was working just fine in the previous version.

I personally like RSS Menu. The simple menu bar icon telling me how many unrad articles and tehn telling me how many many unread articles from each source are available is the fastest, most efficient method I know of.

The software has been quirly in the past, but I don't recall a single client side issue for a good year. It's free.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #54 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Endymion View Post

As someone already mentioned, the site's broken because you have your font size increased. Try resetting it with View-->Make Text Normal Size.

If I increase the font size in Firefox it starts to break also. Some sites are designed to scale up the fonts well, clearly Macworld is not.

To check if you're running a custom stylesheet, go to Preferences-->Advanced-->Style sheet:

No, that's not the problem. You think I didn't first try that?

The line spacing changes, but the font size remains the same, except for body type. That's where part of the problem is coming from. The other problem of the column width being hidden under the side frame has nothing at all to do with type. Somehow, the column width isn't being seen.

The font scaling problem does NOT happen in Firefox. I don't know where you get that idea from.
post #55 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

I can break the Macworld layout by changing font size in either Safari or Firefox. The problem is the layout is using pixel sized containers and not allowing for text flow or overflow. eg. the top navigation bar text is 130px wide which at normal fonts sizes means two lines of text. Increase it just one size in Safari, and two in Firefox (since it doesn't render fonts the Apple way) and it splits onto three lines of text forcing the navigation menu below to move.

This isn't a Safari bug, it's a designer getting it wrong, not thinking that people change font sizes. To be somewhat charitable to Macworld, they do say it's still a BETA version of the site although they have said that for a while.

edit: furthermore they use pixel spacing for line-heights so lines of text overlap. Nice design spoiled by poor attention to details.

It's not the same thing in Firefox. The box boundaries change improperly, but that isn't nearly as bad as the fonts themselves moving. And the columns display properly.
post #56 of 92
I tested the speed of browsers in loading pages and I say that Firefox and Safari renders page about the same time (usually one win another by a few seconds). IE on the other hand is the slowest but ironically, Google search shows that IE is the fastest to generate search result (usually around 0.0X second) where as Safari and Firefox took 0.XX second.

I found it very ironic that IE generate Google result faster then Firefox and Safari although if you compare the page load side by side, its obvious IE generate page slower.
Apple is a hardware company, dont believe me? Read this Article!. For those who understand my message, help me spread this info to those who dont get it.
Reply
Apple is a hardware company, dont believe me? Read this Article!. For those who understand my message, help me spread this info to those who dont get it.
Reply
post #57 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

No, that's not the problem.

Font scaling is handled differently by different browsers and there aren't really any universally applied standards that go about telling browser makers how to do it. The problem here seems to be the container in which Macworld stores the links to the right of 'More Products'. It has probably been floated with CSS but doesn't have a static width. When Safari tries to increase the font size the container grows too big and therefor no longer fits in the small space given. It wraps down to the line below but conflicts with the topics container, which appears to have been placed with fixed positioning (a bad idea when combined with relatively positioned elements).

The fault here lies in the hands of Macword's site designers. A web designer needs to understand a few things about text scalability and can take some basic steps to make sure their CSS will not break when the font size is increased (even if it means scooting content down and wrapping the second menu down to the next line -- an easy task if they stuck with relative positioning).

This is something that should be brought to their attention. It can probably be fixed by making a few minor edits to their style sheet.

(And you would think Safari would be a major testing concern of theirs...)

Quote:
Originally Posted by wheelhot View Post

I tested the speed of browsers in loading pages and I say that Firefox and Safari renders page about the same time (usually one win another by a few seconds). IE on the other hand is the slowest but ironically, Google search shows that IE is the fastest to generate search result (usually around 0.0X second) where as Safari and Firefox took 0.XX second.

Make sure you are measuring pages based on when the rendering finishes. It doesn't help if a browser tosses content on the screen early if it only has to go back and redraw it a few times because elements later in the page didn't fit with the browser's width assumptions. This is the flaw of a very common 'speed hack' people apply to Firefox. They reduce the page rendering wait time to 0 which causes content to spring up immediately (making it feel fast) but it actually slows everything down due to reloads.

Check Webkit Nightly if you haven't already done so already. It is faster even on sites which use no JavaScript.
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good.
  Samuel Johnson
Reply
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good.
  Samuel Johnson
Reply
post #58 of 92
I haven't seen 3.1 yet (where can I get it?) but I hope they added buttons to open a new page and a new tab, instead of having to use the drop down file menu or keystrokes.
post #59 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by ebolean View Post

I haven't seen 3.1 yet (where can I get it?) but I hope they added buttons to open a new page and a new tab, instead of having to use the drop down file menu or keystrokes.

You have to be an Apple ADC member. The good news is that it's free to signup. Then go to the downloads section. There are no new tab or new page buttons, but you can use the keyboard shorts which are are faster: Command+T and Command+N. There is a new option to double-click on the Tab bar create a new tab, so you can think of that as a really long button.
https://connect.apple.com/
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #60 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

You have to be an Apple ADC member. The good news is that it's free to signup. Then go to the downloads section. There are no new tab or new page buttons, but you can use the keyboard shorts which are are faster: Command+T and Command+N. There is a new option to double-click on the Tab bar create a new tab, so you can think of that as a really long button.
https://connect.apple.com/

Thank you for the information. double clicking on the toolbar sounds like a step forward to me.
post #61 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xian Zhu Xuande View Post

Font scaling is handled differently by different browsers and there aren't really any universally applied standards that go about telling browser makers how to do it. The problem here seems to be the container in which Macworld stores the links to the right of 'More Products'. It has probably been floated with CSS but doesn't have a static width. When Safari tries to increase the font size the container grows too big and therefor no longer fits in the small space given. It wraps down to the line below but conflicts with the topics container, which appears to have been placed with fixed positioning (a bad idea when combined with relatively positioned elements).

The fault here lies in the hands of Macword's site designers. A web designer needs to understand a few things about text scalability and can take some basic steps to make sure their CSS will not break when the font size is increased (even if it means scooting content down and wrapping the second menu down to the next line -- an easy task if they stuck with relative positioning).

This is something that should be brought to their attention. It can probably be fixed by making a few minor edits to their style sheet.

(And you would think Safari would be a major testing concern of theirs...)

]

You are correct in what you're saying about this. The problem is that the browser should be able to detect these problems, and push the rest of the page down to accommodate them.

I've brought these problems to Macworlds' attention several times, but no fix has been forthcoming.

The bigger problem in my mind is the column with error in Safari, which seems to not addressed by most people here. Fonts are something that can be resolved by changing sizes, but nothing can be done about the hidden right side of the column. That's much more serious, as information is hidden, and can't be retrieved.
post #62 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

]You are correct in what you're saying about this. The problem is that the browser should be able to detect these problems, and push the rest of the page down to accommodate them.

This is exactly the sort of problem that slows down browsers with bloat. This is the [well, a] reason why Internet Explorer has been messed up for so long, and why it has so many rendering problems (hopefully to be addressed more in IE8). When the browser has to check for poor design or coding it has to do it routinely while browsing, and all of this adds up. This is why most modern browser developers refuse to do much of this at all (be it Webkit or Mozilla).

There's another snag to worry about here... if Safari corrected this they would be causing CSS to behave in a nonstandard way. It may work great at Macworld but on other sites would certainly lead to unexpected behavior which would, in turn, be reported as browser bugs (and rightfully so). If you set a float element as relative and it becomes too big it is supposed to kick down to the line below. If there's an item there with a static location, the two overlap. I'm not sure how the engineers could program around that without causing other problems.

It is too bad Macworld ignores the issue. Maybe if more people wrote them?

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

]The bigger problem in my mind is the column with error in Safari, which seems to not addressed by most people here. Fonts are something that can be resolved by changing sizes, but nothing can be done about the hidden right side of the column. That's much more serious, as information is hidden, and can't be retrieved.

CSS gives the author complete control over these things -- and the ability to mess them up, too. Some of these problems are hot discussion topics among web designers, but the problem is these things aren't really discussed in college. Web design is more than knowing code and cross-platform compatibility, but companies either don't realize this, or aren't willing to pay the right fees to retain a true professional.

What's sad is that it shouldn't take more than an hour to fix a problem like this, depending on familiarity with and quality of the style sheets that already exist. If they've got someone working in-house -- which they probably do -- they should be able to address this without much trouble.

One thing many sites do when there are menu elements which would break if resized is offer in-page resizing capabilities (ala wired.com and others). This gives the site author control over how resizing works and what is actually resized, thus allowing large font sizes to be displayed without breaking anything. This would require much more dedicated work, though, and possibly a site redesign if Macworld is depending on old code or HTML for too much presentation.
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good.
  Samuel Johnson
Reply
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good.
  Samuel Johnson
Reply
post #63 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xian Zhu Xuande View Post

This is exactly the sort of problem that slows down browsers with bloat. This is the reason why Internet Explorer has been messed up for so long, and why it has so many rendering problems (hopefully to be addressed more in IE8). When the browser has to check for poor design or coding it has to do it routinely while browsing, and all of this adds up. This is why most modern browser developers refuse to do much of this at all (be it Webkit or Mozilla).

There's another snag to worry about here... if Safari corrected this they would be causing CSS to behave in a nonstandard way. It may work great at Macworld but on other sites would certainly lead to unexpected behavior which would, in turn, be reported as browser bugs (and rightfully so). If you set a float element as relative and it becomes too big it is supposed to kick down to the line below. If there's an item there with a static location, the two overlap. I'm not sure how the engineers could program around that without causing other problems.

It is too bad Macworld ignores the issue. Maybe if more people wrote them?

The difficulty here is that many web developers will NEVER bother to correct these problems. If Macworld can't check to see if Safari is having a problem, then who else will bother?

Because of this, I, as a user, don't give the traditional rats' ass how much trouble it is for the browser programmers. I want to have a good experience, and damn the work. That's what they're paid for.

The problem with standards is that if everyone doesn't adhere to them, they aren't standard.

If Firefox gets around most of these problems, then Apple's product should be able to as well. Many times Apple modifies their OS to work with certain programs, they can certainly take a look at these problems, and fix them. We know it can be done.

Quote:
CSS gives the author complete control over these things -- and the ability to mess them up, too. Some of these problems are hot discussion topics among web designers, but the problem is these things aren't really discussed in college. Web design is more than knowing code and cross-platform compatibility, but companies either don't realize this, or aren't willing to pay the right fees to retain a true professional.

What's sad is that it shouldn't take more than an hour to fix a problem like this, depending on familiarity with and quality of the style sheets that already exist. If they've got someone working in-house -- which they probably do -- they should be able to address this without much trouble.

One thing many sites do when there are menu elements which would break if resized is offer in-page resizing capabilities (ala wired.com and others). This gives the site author control over how resizing works and what is actually resized, thus allowing large font sizes to be displayed without breaking anything. This would require much more dedicated work, though, and possibly a site redesign if Macworld is depending on old code or HTML for too much presentation.

I won't argue this, but as I said, firefox handles it without a problem, so there's no reason why Safari couldn't.

It's far better for the user to expect that their one program can render the thousands of sites they visit, properly, than to expect those thousands of sites to fix their problems.
post #64 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

The difficulty here is that many web developers will NEVER bother to correct these problems. If Macworld can't check to see if Safari is having a problem, then who else will bother?

Sadly, many sites which don't even deploy for an OS X userbase do a much better job. Macworld's poor approach to this matter should not be considered representative of the whole.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Because of this, I, as a user, don't give the traditional rats' ass how much trouble it is for the browser programmers. I want to have a good experience, and damn the work. That's what they're paid for.

It has nothing to do with how much work they put in. It has to do with quality of product. You, the user, do care about how fast your browser is, and you will care when patchwork breaks another of your favorite sites.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

The problem with standards is that if everyone doesn't adhere to them, they aren't standard.

1) You're talking about two different meanings of the word here. A standard is presented and people may choose to adhere to it, but simply because one group choses to ignore it (frequently Microsoft), that doesn't mean it isn't a standard.

2) You can ask all you want for people to do this sort of thing, but unless you are willing to educate yourself in the mechanics behind what is happening here -- and admittedly, it takes more than an evening of study to understand CSS2 -- you're not going to be in a good position to dictate terms to experienced engineers. This is like telling Apple to patch OS X to expect certain major bugs because a software developer can't be bothered to update their software. It just doesn't work that way.

I want Macworld to work great too. It doesn't, though, and it is because they can't be bothered to put some small effort into correcting their site. That content has to go somewhere, though, and the choices are:

1) Don't resize the text.
2) Overlap horizontally (good luck).
3) Overlap based on standards (what is happening here).
4) Override style sheet instructions and move static elements (bad idea).
5) Let people mess up their own web pages (also something that is happening here).

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

If Firefox gets around most of these problems, then Apple's product should be able to as well. Many times Apple modifies their OS to work with certain programs, they can certainly take a look at these problems, and fix them. We know it can be done.

Firefox doesn't come out much better, looking at it now. It survives the first font size increase but things get ugly after two. The spacing is inconsistent and it is tough to identify the source of a problem like that. The code would have to be studied. At least the overlap isn't anywhere near as bad.

What it boils down to, though, is that you are asking the webkit developers to address an obscure issue which relies primarily on the site designer(s). If this particular problem was widespread they should indeed consider their approach, but if it is not we should not expect much from them.

If this really bothers you and you must have your font size increased at Macworld you might consider getting members here to write them or starting a petition. Or, everyone bothered by this can start going to that page, duplicating the problem, and clicking on the bug report button in Safari to send a screenshot and description to the developers behind Webkit/Safari. If they identify a solution relative to their own code which does not require breaking standards they'll likely fix it up. But they're probably not going to give it much thought if it isn't reported to them. I'll submit my report to them now to do my part.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It's far better for the user to expect that their one program can render the thousands of sites they visit, properly, than to expect those thousands of sites to fix their problems.

Are there thousands of sites breaking like this in Safari when font sizes are increased but not breaking in other browsers? That is the question to ask here. There are thousands of sites out there breaking when font sizes are increased but this is due to the difficulties of designing a complicated commercial site with support for universal font size increases. The only sure-fire solution to this is page zooming (as done on the iPhone and in Opera).
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good.
  Samuel Johnson
Reply
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good.
  Samuel Johnson
Reply
post #65 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xian Zhu Xuande View Post

Sadly, many sites which don't even deploy for an OS X userbase do a much better job. Macworld's poor approach to this matter should not be considered representative of the whole.

Unfortunately, Macworld is far from being the only offender. If it were, I wouldn't even bother to mention it.

Quote:
It has nothing to do with how much work they put in. It has to do with quality of product. You, the user, do care about how fast your browser is, and you will care when patchwork breaks another of your favorite sites.

We've all had our quality of product woes over the years with Safari. It seems stable now, but it isn't the only stable browser out there.

Quote:
1) You're talking about two different meanings of the word here. A standard is presented and people may choose to adhere to it, but simply because one group choses to ignore it (frequently Microsoft), that doesn't mean it isn't a standard.

2) You can ask all you want for people to do this sort of thing, but unless you are willing to educate yourself in the mechanics behind what is happening here -- and admittedly, it takes more than an evening of study to understand CSS2 -- you're not going to be in a good position to dictate terms to experienced engineers. This is like telling Apple to patch OS X to expect certain major bugs because a software developer can't be bothered to update their software. It just doesn't work that way.

I understand two things.

1 What a "standard" is. But, you have to understand that if a standard isn't being applied across most systems, it isn't really a standard. It doesn't matter how many bodies give their approval. Like it or not, IE's "standards" have been the web's standards as well, as most sites hewed to them. When something is not defined as a standard, but is used as such, then it is the defacto standard, like it or not.

2 I understand what is happening here. That doesn't mean that I either like it, or agree with it.

Sometimes, in the course of events, decisions must be made that lead to a non "pure" system, because of factors that are beyond your control. This is one of those cases. It rarely pays to be alone, wandering in the dark, simply because you think you are right, as Apple often does.

Quote:
I want Macworld to work great too. It doesn't, though, and it is because they can't be bothered to put some small effort into correcting their site. That content has to go somewhere, though, and the choices are:

1) Don't resize the text.
2) Overlap horizontally (good luck).
3) Overlap based on standards (what is happening here).
4) Override style sheet instructions and move static elements (bad idea).
5) Let people mess up their own web pages (also something that is happening here).

Unfortunately, some of that only works for some elements, and others aren't under our control at all.

Quote:
Firefox doesn't come out much better, looking at it now. It survives the first font size increase but things get ugly after two. The spacing is inconsistent and it is tough to identify the source of a problem like that. The code would have to be studied. At least the overlap isn't anywhere near as bad.

Yes, you have go to more extreme settings before the problem sets in. That means that it rarely does set in.

Quote:
What it boils down to, though, is that you are asking the webkit developers to address an obscure issue which relies primarily on the site designer(s). If this particular problem was widespread they should indeed consider their approach, but if it is not we should not expect much from them.

If this really bothers you and you must have your font size increased at Macworld you might consider getting members here to write them or starting a petition. Or, everyone bothered by this can start going to that page, duplicating the problem, and clicking on the bug report button in Safari to send a screenshot and description to the developers behind Webkit/Safari. If they identify a solution relative to their own code which does not require breaking standards they'll likely fix it up. But they're probably not going to give it much thought if it isn't reported to them. I'll submit my report to them now to do my part.


Are there thousands of sites breaking like this in Safari when font sizes are increased but not breaking in other browsers? That is the question to ask here. There are thousands of sites out there breaking when font sizes are increased but this is due to the difficulties of designing a complicated commercial site with support for universal font size increases. The only sure-fire solution to this is page zooming (as done on the iPhone and in Opera).

It's a widespread issue. Not every site has the problem, but many do. As I said, if it were only Macworld, I would only bother them.

But, as I also said, that's an annoyance, but not a major problem. It's the problem with the columns that constitutes the real problem, as nothing I have ever done has been able to correct it, other than to go to Firefox.
post #66 of 92
I have to agree with everyone else: Safari 3 is much worse than Safari 2 in terms of stability. I've actually switched back to Firefox more than half the time!!!! It crashes WAY too much. And when are they going to add features? They haven't added anything since 0.8 except Tabs, RSS, and now WebClips (which is pretty cool.) Maybe I'm missing something but it just seems like the development is glacial.

I mean how many more years is going to take for a History and Downloads window that are actually useful, can catch up to IE from oh say almost a DECADE ago. It's, well, embarrassing. Safari is the application I use or used to use the most. This is probably true for a lot of other people. I feel like Apple is devoting a lot less people to it than they could or probably should. When it came out it was like hey the Bookmarks library is awesome! But the crashing, slow performance, bugs, and incompatibility continue to be present and in fact have become much worse in 3. I hear 3.1 has a ton of improvements in these areas and I actually have high hopes for 3.1, and I hope I can replace Firefox with Safari once again in my Dock.
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #67 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquatic View Post

I have to agree with everyone else: Safari 3 is much worse than Safari 2 in terms of stability.

I feel bad for everyone's stability issues. I use the Safari betas and WebKit nightly builds and rarely have a crash.

Are you all using Unsanity and other such things with Safari?
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #68 of 92
The only time Safari 3 has ever crashed on me is when my CS3 package got messed up. Whenever I tried to download a PDF Acrobat failed to launch properly and Safari locked up when things didn't pan out. Aside from that, it has been great.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

1 What a "standard" is. But, you have to understand that if a standard isn't being applied across most systems, it isn't really a standard. It doesn't matter how many bodies give their approval. Like it or not, IE's "standards" have been the web's standards as well, as most sites hewed to them. When something is not defined as a standard, but is used as such, then it is the defacto standard, like it or not.

IE's behavior hails back to the days of IE vs. Netscape in which there were no standards. Nobody who remembers the consequences of that could ever hope for it to return. Since then, IE has done very little to support unified features across browsers. In fact, when Netscape died IE development screeched to a crawl and they hardly even bothered to progress with new features. It was only when things got ugly that they got off their behinds again and got to work.

I cannot see how you can call that a standard by any stretch of the word.

Websites were jacked up because people designed only for IE (why bother when they had a 90%+ market share?) and left everything else to its own devices. Microsoft worked hard to make sure all sorts of broken code worked in their browser. The Web Standards Project, and other initiatives, helped to turn this around, and helped to bring alternatives like Firefox into prominence. This is a good thing, and so is change.

And in the world of the internet, you've never been able to please everyone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Sometimes, in the course of events, decisions must be made that lead to a non "pure" system, because of factors that are beyond your control. This is one of those cases. It rarely pays to be alone, wandering in the dark, simply because you think you are right, as Apple often does.

Decisions like this are made all the time. A web author, for example, can have browsers clean up after their mistakes by leaving out a doctype. That places browsers in quirks mode, slows them down, and prompts them to look for mistakes that need to be cleaned up. When a designer includes a doctype it tells the browser how strict it should be with rendering, speeding it up in the process. That doesn't apply directly to this problem as it is more a matter of poor code (on that note I checked Macworld's code, and it is indeed poor) but it is representative of the efforts these people try to make.

Back to the discussion at hand, there is no browser which zooms in this way which does it elegantly of pages designed to fit in static confines. Some pages fail more gracefully in one browser than the other (anyone remember what used to happen at Roughly Drafted when you zoomed in using Firefox?) but it is tough to say which browser fails on more. It is something that could be considered. I think the only reasonable expectation we could make of the engineers behind our beloved Apple browser is that they continue looking for ways to make their zooming technology a little more graceful across the board.

But under no circumstance does this forgive a page designer for producing bad code.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Unfortunately, some of that only works for some elements, and others aren't under our control at all.

I should have specified. I was outlining the software engineers' choices.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Yes, you have go to more extreme settings before the problem sets in. That means that it rarely does set in.

If we're to entertain a valid discussion about this we have to identify a failure which Safari is making consistently across pages that Firefox, for example, is not. The way in which Macworld fails is not going to be of much use to us as it is the result of bad design. And there's no sense in asking the Safari engineers to 'do it like Firefox does'.

Are you really noticing more problems in Safari than Firefox?

I just went to a bunch of sites I know well -- including many which I know a lot about -- and the failures were pretty consistent across both browsers. The only times I see major failures tend to be in cases where there is a glaring mistake or oversight in the site design or code.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

But, as I also said, that's an annoyance, but not a major problem. It's the problem with the columns that constitutes the real problem, as nothing I have ever done has been able to correct it, other than to go to Firefox.

Do you know a little bit about CSS2? Or floats? You could jot a note in your user style sheet to fix it up pretty darn fast. Unfortunately that's about all we could hope to do short of getting them off their behinds.
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good.
  Samuel Johnson
Reply
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good.
  Samuel Johnson
Reply
post #69 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xian Zhu Xuande View Post

If this really bothers you and you must have your font size increased at Macworld you might consider getting members here to write them or starting a petition. Or, everyone bothered by this can start going to that page, duplicating the problem, and clicking on the bug report button in Safari to send a screenshot and description to the developers behind Webkit/Safari. If they identify a solution relative to their own code which does not require breaking standards they'll likely fix it up. But they're probably not going to give it much thought if it isn't reported to them. I'll submit my report to them now to do my part.

Or we could just fix the Macworld.com CSS and send them a fixed stylesheet.

I had a brief look though and they're just making a couple of basic assumptions wrong which trickle through and cause problems when font sizes change.

One of the features I've always wanted in Safari is site by site CSS substitution so I can redesign existing sites. You can probably do it with a Firefox plugin but I really can't stand Firefox - it's just not a good OSX citizen.

Mel, the reason it takes two font size changes to create a similarly large problem in Firefox is because Firefox renders the font smaller in the first place as they don't use Apple's system wide smoothing and kerning for text. They also substitute the wrong font when the real font is available and don't pick up on font hints. It's one of the things that drives me potty with Firefox and why I won't touch the thing professionally until testing rounds. At that point I may find Firefox renders things subtly differently to Safari but that's their loss. IE on the other hand can still be a major pain in the arse and I'll fix for that, but rarely do I try to match Firefox up exactly, pixel for pixel with Safari.
post #70 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

Or we could just fix the Macworld.com CSS and send them a fixed stylesheet.

That's an option.

I messed around with it for a moment. A better solution could be devised to solve the red bleed-down under the black-background links (rather than overflow) and there is probably a better solution for the descriptive paragraph up there near the top than to give it a fixed width, but this is a start at least:

(It would really be easy for someone familiar with their style sheet.
I didn't even look at it -- I just applied some patches.)

Code:

#wrapper #navigation #linkContainer #contentLinks ul li {
padding-right: 0 !important;
height: 33px !important;
}

#wrapper #navigation #linkContainer #contentLinks ul li.search {
padding-left: 3px !important;
padding-top: 5px !important;
}

#wrapper #navigation #linkContainer #contentLinks #productLinks {
overflow: hidden;
}

#wrapper #navigation #linkContainer #hotTopics {
font-size: .9em !important;
}

#wrapper #navigation #printLogo + p {
width: 140px !important;
}


This lets you zoom in a level without anything breaking. If someone sat down with the style sheet, figured out how it worked, and edited it, they could easily fix not only the immediate issue of things breaking so quickly, but they could also make it so the second menu dropped beneath in an attractive way without breaking the site at all. And they could maintain that level of compatibility across all browsers.

Melgross, save that as a user style sheet (blah.css) and load it in Safari. See how easy it is for the designer of this site to make a few tweaks, thus making all the difference in solving a problem like this? If they were to implement a fix they wouldn't have to be anywhere near as specific in their style sheet as I was here (I did it to make sure this wouldn't interfere with other sites as a user style sheet). They could find ways to solve problems without conflicting with other browsers (should be easy) and they could do their browser testing -- but this really isn't complicated. It just requires a site designer who actually cares about their product.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

Mel, the reason it takes two font size changes to create a similarly large problem in Firefox is because Firefox renders the font smaller in the first place as they don't use Apple's system wide smoothing and kerning for text.

I think you pegged it on the head here.
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good.
  Samuel Johnson
Reply
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good.
  Samuel Johnson
Reply
post #71 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


Are you all using Unsanity and other such things with Safari?

No, but I've been accused of it.
post #72 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xian Zhu Xuande View Post

The only time Safari 3 has ever crashed on me is when my CS3 package got messed up. Whenever I tried to download a PDF Acrobat failed to launch properly and Safari locked up when things didn't pan out. Aside from that, it has been great.


IE's behavior hails back to the days of IE vs. Netscape in which there were no standards. Nobody who remembers the consequences of that could ever hope for it to return. Since then, IE has done very little to support unified features across browsers. In fact, when Netscape died IE development screeched to a crawl and they hardly even bothered to progress with new features. It was only when things got ugly that they got off their behinds again and got to work.

I cannot see how you can call that a standard by any stretch of the word.

Websites were jacked up because people designed only for IE (why bother when they had a 90%+ market share?) and left everything else to its own devices. Microsoft worked hard to make sure all sorts of broken code worked in their browser. The Web Standards Project, and other initiatives, helped to turn this around, and helped to bring alternatives like Firefox into prominence. This is a good thing, and so is change.

And in the world of the internet, you've never been able to please everyone.


Decisions like this are made all the time. A web author, for example, can have browsers clean up after their mistakes by leaving out a doctype. That places browsers in quirks mode, slows them down, and prompts them to look for mistakes that need to be cleaned up. When a designer includes a doctype it tells the browser how strict it should be with rendering, speeding it up in the process. That doesn't apply directly to this problem as it is more a matter of poor code (on that note I checked Macworld's code, and it is indeed poor) but it is representative of the efforts these people try to make.

Back to the discussion at hand, there is no browser which zooms in this way which does it elegantly of pages designed to fit in static confines. Some pages fail more gracefully in one browser than the other (anyone remember what used to happen at Roughly Drafted when you zoomed in using Firefox?) but it is tough to say which browser fails on more. It is something that could be considered. I think the only reasonable expectation we could make of the engineers behind our beloved Apple browser is that they continue looking for ways to make their zooming technology a little more graceful across the board.

But under no circumstance does this forgive a page designer for producing bad code.


I should have specified. I was outlining the software engineers' choices.


If we're to entertain a valid discussion about this we have to identify a failure which Safari is making consistently across pages that Firefox, for example, is not. The way in which Macworld fails is not going to be of much use to us as it is the result of bad design. And there's no sense in asking the Safari engineers to 'do it like Firefox does'.

Are you really noticing more problems in Safari than Firefox?

I just went to a bunch of sites I know well -- including many which I know a lot about -- and the failures were pretty consistent across both browsers. The only times I see major failures tend to be in cases where there is a glaring mistake or oversight in the site design or code.


Do you know a little bit about CSS2? Or floats? You could jot a note in your user style sheet to fix it up pretty darn fast. Unfortunately that's about all we could hope to do short of getting them off their behinds.

Again, I'm not disagreeing with what you say should be done, you are definitely correct, and you do agree with me about IE, though you don't realize it. You made my point.

Unfortunately, what do end users do? They (we) have little, or no control, over these problems.

I used to design web pages at my company, but not for the past three years, or so, since we sold it, and I've retired. I'm familiar with most of the coding, but am not up to snuff, so to speak. I don't really want to get back into the trenches. When I did my own work, I would have agreed that the designers should all do it correctly, all of the time, and not act in a hurried, or lazy manner, but I have always seen that that isn't and won't ever be, true for too many.

There is pressure on these people, just in every business. Deadline loom, and the code must be finished, so shortcuts are taken. Clumsy as it may have been, IE was good at reading sites with problems.
post #73 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign View Post

O

Mel, the reason it takes two font size changes to create a similarly large problem in Firefox is because Firefox renders the font smaller in the first place as they don't use Apple's system wide smoothing and kerning for text. They also substitute the wrong font when the real font is available and don't pick up on font hints. It's one of the things that drives me potty with Firefox and why I won't touch the thing professionally until testing rounds. At that point I may find Firefox renders things subtly differently to Safari but that's their loss. IE on the other hand can still be a major pain in the arse and I'll fix for that, but rarely do I try to match Firefox up exactly, pixel for pixel with Safari.

Perhaps, but the font sizes are the same and I'm seeing, right now, that Safari has already started to overlap, and Firefox hasn't. If I move up one more size, Safari is almost unreadable, and Firefox has just started to overlap on the box.

I admittedly don't pay attention to whether the proper font is being used, because as long as it works, I don't care much. I'm willing to believe that most others would agree.

Ars used to have the same problem with columns for the articles, but with the site re-design, it's been fixed.

My whole point is the question of why users should have to be concerned about this?

Someone should look at the problem and try to solve it at the local level, that is at the one point where many problems can be solved at once, and that place is the browser.

I know the arguments against it, they won't go away, and in a perfect world, everyone would do the correct thing.

But, Xian made a suggestion to me that I should write my own code to solve a problem that I shouldn't see in the first place. It's no solution to tell a user to write their own code to solve these problems.

This remindes me of a problem I had years ago with Powerpoint, I don't remember the version offhand.

MS put out the upgrade, which most everyone quickly went to. The problem with it, as it turned out, was that it screwed imagesetters and film recorders, both of which we had. I thought it might only be my machines. When I called MS, I found that it affected everyone!

MS's response was that the manufacturers would have to re-write their drivers. That would be dozens, if not hundreds of machines. Impossible!

We all went back to the older versions until they finally decided to fix it.

Unfortunately, we can't do that here.
post #74 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

But, Xian made a suggestion to me that I should write my own code to solve a problem that I shouldn't see in the first place. It's no solution to tell a user to write their own code to solve these problems.

There are too many variables for them to control rendering on this level. I suppose it simply comes down to the two of us disagreeing about how web browser development should be conducted. It sounds like you support the old method of browsers taking extra time and facing extra bugs in favor of trying to render around mistakes and oversights of designers and developers, as opposed to the movement (which was in full swing while you were coding) for standards, fast rendering, fewer bugs, and cross-browser compatibility.

Problem here is that this doesn't even really come down to that argument. I don't see how they could program a browser to anticipate a problem like this without creating ten new problems for every problem solved. They would have to instruct CSS to behave in a way it is not meant to behave. And after 'fixing' it above, it really did come down to a matter of pixels. It isn't really that Safari is doings things very differently from Firefox in this case, it is just that they render anti-aliased text differently and, thus, text takes up different amounts of space.

I guess there's no use fussing about it. The engineers behind Webkit would be no more interested in programming around designer mistakes than the folks of Mozilla would be (if you've read their bug reports and responses you know how they handle it). Fortunately, awareness of these problems and expectations are becoming more and more important in browsers today.

(And a deadline is no excuse for this oversight. It would have taken ten minutes to fix during initial development.)
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good.
  Samuel Johnson
Reply
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good.
  Samuel Johnson
Reply
post #75 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xian Zhu Xuande View Post

There are too many variables for them to control rendering on this level. I suppose it simply comes down to the two of us disagreeing about how web browser development should be conducted. It sounds like you support the old method of browsers taking extra time and facing extra bugs in favor of trying to render around mistakes and oversights of designers and developers, as opposed to the movement (which was in full swing while you were coding) for standards, fast rendering, fewer bugs, and cross-browser compatibility.

Problem here is that this doesn't even really come down to that argument. I don't see how they could program a browser to anticipate a problem like this without creating ten new problems for every problem solved. They would have to instruct CSS to behave in a way it is not meant to behave. And after 'fixing' it above, it really did come down to a matter of pixels. It isn't really that Safari is doings things very differently from Firefox in this case, it is just that they render anti-aliased text differently and, thus, text takes up different amounts of space.

I guess there's no use fussing about it. The engineers behind Webkit would be no more interested in programming around designer mistakes than the folks of Mozilla would be (if you've read their bug reports and responses you know how they handle it). Fortunately, awareness of these problems and expectations are becoming more and more important in browsers today.

(And a deadline is no excuse for this oversight. It would have taken ten minutes to fix during initial development.)

But, I've said that I agree with you that it should be done properly at the web site level. No argument there.

The problem is that is isn't being taken care of there.

It's like saying that all roads should be perfectly flat and smooth. Since that's the standard, car makers shouldn't make shocks to take care of all those roads that aren't, because it's not up to the car makers to try to fix a problem that rightly should be taken care of by the construction companies making the road. And by doing so, cars are more complex, and will break down more often, as well as cost more.

That's all true, but cars still need shocks.
post #76 of 92
If Macworld.com just used percentages and ems instead of fixed px sizes, they'd not have a lot of the problems they have, plus adding background images that are big enough to scale when the font increases.

All fairly basic stuff that anyone with a copy of Zeldman would understand. It just looks like they rushed a design based on slicing up a photoshop of how they wanted it.

Speaking of Zeldman, and fonts, here's his complaints with Firefox's font rendering...

http://www.zeldman.com/2006/11/27/safari-beats-firefox/
post #77 of 92
Quote:
Are you all using Unsanity and other such things with Safari?

Nope, plain vanilla 10.5.2, just installed it in fact. It was also unstable (perhaps even more so) in 10.4.11, again, plain vanilla.
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #78 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I feel bad for everyone's stability issues. I use the Safari betas and WebKit nightly builds and rarely have a crash.

Are you all using Unsanity and other such things with Safari?

Man, I am getting tired of people always blaming Unsanity for matters. Are you an Apple employee?
post #79 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by CREB View Post

Man, I am getting tired of people always blaming Unsanity for matters. Are you an Apple employee?

I'm not blaming Unsanity. When I used it I had no such issues with it, then again, I've never had any Safari issues. But I've seen it cause issues in the past. And as one would expect from the added complexity in the way APE interacts with Safari. It's not hate, just a logical question based on my experience of users asking for assistance over the years.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #80 of 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Safari's autofill and Keychain support is seriously bugged on both my step father and my machines. Sometimes both work, and sometimes they don't.

Take for instance a popular education Site: Blackboard. Safari refuses to remember or even ask if I want to remember the user name and password. Firefox remembers this information no problem.

See for example http://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16027#c10

> security change in Safari 3

Security may be the reason for Keychain support not offering itself in some circumstances.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Safari 3.1 sees improved form support in latest beta