I can see VH1 or other music sites doing that with making Windows Media-only streams and files (which they all love to do for some reason
yeah, i don't get this, either. you figure most of their design content is being made on macs, and they've certainly got a budget to AFFORD supporting the mac platform from their respective websites.
also, if you're trying to get people to buy stuff (which, remember, is the whole reason for their existence -- to sell music and adjunct stuff to that music to the masses), wouldn't it make sense to cater to those people who a.) are willing to shell out extra and take a risk on more expensive technology -- i.e. they have the disposable income and the willingness to approach new technology differently and with acceptance -- plus some extra disposable income and b.) the native platform for the hyper-popular ipod?
Right on, rok! Seriously, Apple has 75% of all MP3 player sales!
They should consider making Quicktime streams and files as well because it's just good business sense. Us Mac users want in, dammit.8)
Last time I looked at streaming server software, Quicktime was also by far the cheapest too, as it's free. On the other side, Microsoft's and Real's solutions weren't.
IE sucks the nuts off a squirrel, but Safari still has more problems than Firefox. I'm not "in the know" as to why this is, but...
Simple.
Crap web designers.
First they get it working on Internet Explorer on Windows.
Then if someone complains, they tweak it to work on Firefox on Windows.
That's as far as they go usually.
They may even do something silly like put in some javascript to detect the browser and tell you to download IE or 'Netscape' if your browser wasn't one of the small list they used. So called browser sniffing scripts go out of date very quickly and clients will rarely pay you to update it.
Good web designers design for web standards so you design on Firefox/Safari first and get no problems on either. Then you fix the design for IE compatibility. Usually that's less work than the other way around and after a while you know which bits don't work in IE anyway and avoid them through instinct. It's not rocket science but it's still beyond the comprehension of some so called professionals.
First they get it working on Internet Explorer on Windows.
Then if someone complains, they tweak it to work on Firefox on Windows.
And even given all of Firefox's pros, it still isn't fully standards compatible. Safari is the only browser to pass the Acid2 test.
I was flicking through a Linux magazine and caught sight of the face and read the little snippet. They were comparing how different browsers showed the face. IE failing, Firefox not so much, but still failing. For some reason they didn't show how Safari did...
And even given all of Firefox's pros, it still isn't fully standards compatible. Safari is the only browser to pass the Acid2 test.
I was flicking through a Linux magazine and caught sight of the face and read the little snippet. They were comparing how different browsers showed the face. IE failing, Firefox not so much, but still failing. For some reason they didn't show how Safari did...
The Acid2 test really isn't very significant to web designers since it's testing mostly how some evilly convoluted CSS fails in an appropriate way. Most of the standards it addresses are future standards that aren't used today. It's become a cause célèbre amongst geeks and web browser developers but it's importance is minimal for designers. It just shows that the developers care about standards more than anything else.
Firefox and Safari are close enough with web standards compliance to almost not bother testing one or the other provided you keep within compliant code. 99.9% of the time a website designed in Safari will be identical in Firefox. And if they aren't identical you know at least you can raise a bugzilla report and have it fixed.
The differences mostly come down to IE compatibility. Both Firefox and Safari are encumbered with the entirely pragmatic approach of having to present pages 'just like IE' in the event they are given badly designed pages and it's there that they differ. They do this because if they didn't, dumb people would just presume the browser was broken, not the website, and go back to using IE. IE did the web a huge disservice by being extremely slack in allowing any old crap to render and now we have to support those old sites that work just fine on IE by introducing the same support for bad sites in other browsers.
However, if you come across a site that doesn't work in Firefox or Safari then please tell the web designer. Some of us do care that our work doesn't work on all browsers.
Comments
Originally posted by Mac_Doll
I can see VH1 or other music sites doing that with making Windows Media-only streams and files (which they all love to do for some reason
yeah, i don't get this, either. you figure most of their design content is being made on macs, and they've certainly got a budget to AFFORD supporting the mac platform from their respective websites.
also, if you're trying to get people to buy stuff (which, remember, is the whole reason for their existence -- to sell music and adjunct stuff to that music to the masses), wouldn't it make sense to cater to those people who a.) are willing to shell out extra and take a risk on more expensive technology -- i.e. they have the disposable income and the willingness to approach new technology differently and with acceptance -- plus some extra disposable income and b.) the native platform for the hyper-popular ipod?
i mean, really...
They should consider making Quicktime streams and files as well because it's just good business sense. Us Mac users want in, dammit.8)
Originally posted by Mac_Doll
Right on, rok! Seriously, Apple has 75% of all MP3 player sales!
They should consider making Quicktime streams and files as well because it's just good business sense. Us Mac users want in, dammit.8)
Last time I looked at streaming server software, Quicktime was also by far the cheapest too, as it's free. On the other side, Microsoft's and Real's solutions weren't.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
QuickTime free?
Aegisdesign said it was free for streaming servers. I know where you're coming from though.
Originally posted by SpamSandwich
IE sucks the nuts off a squirrel, but Safari still has more problems than Firefox. I'm not "in the know" as to why this is, but...
Simple.
Crap web designers.
First they get it working on Internet Explorer on Windows.
Then if someone complains, they tweak it to work on Firefox on Windows.
That's as far as they go usually.
They may even do something silly like put in some javascript to detect the browser and tell you to download IE or 'Netscape' if your browser wasn't one of the small list they used. So called browser sniffing scripts go out of date very quickly and clients will rarely pay you to update it.
Good web designers design for web standards so you design on Firefox/Safari first and get no problems on either. Then you fix the design for IE compatibility. Usually that's less work than the other way around and after a while you know which bits don't work in IE anyway and avoid them through instinct. It's not rocket science but it's still beyond the comprehension of some so called professionals.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Simple.
Crap web designers.
First they get it working on Internet Explorer on Windows.
Then if someone complains, they tweak it to work on Firefox on Windows.
And even given all of Firefox's pros, it still isn't fully standards compatible. Safari is the only browser to pass the Acid2 test.
I was flicking through a Linux magazine and caught sight of the face and read the little snippet. They were comparing how different browsers showed the face. IE failing, Firefox not so much, but still failing. For some reason they didn't show how Safari did...
Originally posted by danielctull
And even given all of Firefox's pros, it still isn't fully standards compatible. Safari is the only browser to pass the Acid2 test.
I was flicking through a Linux magazine and caught sight of the face and read the little snippet. They were comparing how different browsers showed the face. IE failing, Firefox not so much, but still failing. For some reason they didn't show how Safari did...
The Acid2 test really isn't very significant to web designers since it's testing mostly how some evilly convoluted CSS fails in an appropriate way. Most of the standards it addresses are future standards that aren't used today. It's become a cause célèbre amongst geeks and web browser developers but it's importance is minimal for designers. It just shows that the developers care about standards more than anything else.
Firefox and Safari are close enough with web standards compliance to almost not bother testing one or the other provided you keep within compliant code. 99.9% of the time a website designed in Safari will be identical in Firefox. And if they aren't identical you know at least you can raise a bugzilla report and have it fixed.
The differences mostly come down to IE compatibility. Both Firefox and Safari are encumbered with the entirely pragmatic approach of having to present pages 'just like IE' in the event they are given badly designed pages and it's there that they differ. They do this because if they didn't, dumb people would just presume the browser was broken, not the website, and go back to using IE. IE did the web a huge disservice by being extremely slack in allowing any old crap to render and now we have to support those old sites that work just fine on IE by introducing the same support for bad sites in other browsers.
However, if you come across a site that doesn't work in Firefox or Safari then please tell the web designer. Some of us do care that our work doesn't work on all browsers.