[quote]websites get designed for browsers--so by using any form of Netscape you're putting yourself at a disadvantage.<hr></blockquote>
Dumb designers (or hapless designers with dumb bosses, to be fair) design for browsers.
There is a uniform standard for rendering HTML which all competent web designers adhere to. IE is just as guilty of ignoring and deviating from it as NS is (JSCript, anyone?).
[quote]I'm not going to pay for a stinkin' browser. They've been free for years.<hr></blockquote>
Only because MS wanted to undermine Netscape. Prior to that, it was not uncommon for them to be sold on the same shareware model that OW is.
There's no such thing as "free." Web browsers have become huge, complicated applications that cost real time and money to develop. They tend to be designed to serve the interests of whoever's paying for them. In IE's case, that's MS. In NS' case, it's AOL. In OW's case, it's the user. I prefer to use a browser designed for me.
CSS support in 4.1 is coming along nicely. OW's engineers have promised full standards compliance in version 5, and at the rate they're improving OW, I wouldn't be surprised.
I'll give iCab honorable mention. I use it when I'm in OS 9, because it's small and fast and (for a browser) stable. Unfortunately, I'm not in OS 9 much anymore, and the OS X version isn't up to par with OmniWeb or Mozilla.
Finally, a shout-out to Lynx, which I fire up when I want real speed. :cool:
<strong>There is a uniform standard for rendering HTML which all competent web designers adhere to. IE is just as guilty of ignoring and deviating from it as NS is (JSCript, anyone?).
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hell yes there is. Thank goodness it (and the W3) exists, or the web would be madness. But does any single browser out there fully and completely adhere to its guidelines? Does any browser choose to adhere only to those standard guidelines? Mmm, nope.
Overall, even though Microsoft has added a few of it's own tags to IE, Netscape has chocked in far more useless shit through the years, which has caused far more problems than even the worst IE issue. Webdesigners know this--NS being a steaming pile of shit has been old news, for years, even. Mozilla isn't making up for that, to put it bluntly.
But still, I hope you haven't confused the level on which my anti-Netscape argument is on with that of my OW-isn't-so-great argument. OmniWeb is really a great browser, and I'm looking forward to seeing it mature--I just don't think it needs to be shareware, or that they need to nag you at all about it. It could work to their advantage--make a really nice free browser to show off your programming skills, and if they like it, then people will go and look at the rest of your stuff. Makes a lot of sense to me.
iCab - what's not to like? (The question is rhetorical.) I like the way it does a lot with a little. I use IE a lot too. I also downloaded the latest build of Mozilla last week. I'm very optimistic about that one.
[quote]Dumb designers (or hapless designers with dumb bosses, to be fair) design for browsers.<hr></blockquote>
Unfortunately, designing to work in *all* browsers (such as NS4.x) severely cripples webpages. It makes for bloated, non-validating code that wreaks havoc on screenreaders and the like.
[quote]There is a uniform standard for rendering HTML which all competent web designers adhere to.<hr></blockquote>
Given the pages I see on a day to day basis, I hardly think all competent web designers adhere to the W3 specifications. If they did, my life would be a lot easier, and NS4.x would have been gone years ago.
As it stands now, making the choice to use 3 year old technology effectively eliminates 12% of the web browsing market from seeing a page like it's meant to be viewed.
[quote]IE is just as guilty of ignoring and deviating from it as NS is (JSCript, anyone?).<hr></blockquote>
JSCript (otherwise known as ECMAScript) is standard, as determined by the W3.
If you look at what IE and NS do that's against the standard, you'll come up with a huge number of deviations on Netscape's side. Everything from the <layer> tag to rendering CSS using javascript. (Turn off javascript in NS4.x, and you'll lose all your styles).
[quote]Only because MS wanted to undermine Netscape. Prior to that, it was not uncommon for them to be sold on the same shareware model that OW is.<hr></blockquote>
Netscape was free before IE was. People like to avoid that fact.
Netscape was attempting to make money off their server software and authoring tools. Their browser was free.
[quote]They tend to be designed to serve the interests of whoever's paying for them. In IE's case, that's MS. In NS' case, it's AOL. In OW's case, it's the user. I prefer to use a browser designed for me.<hr></blockquote>
I prefer to use a browser that renders things fast and properly. Huzzah.
Hell yes there is. Thank goodness it (and the W3) exists, or the web would be madness. But does any single browser out there fully and completely adhere to its guidelines? Does any browser choose to adhere only to those standard guidelines? Mmm, nope.<hr></blockquote>
However, there is a large subset of proper, standard code that works perfectly well, especially if you allow for graceful degredation - which, again, you're supposed to.
The browsers are catching up to the standards fast, but there's one big problem: Web designers who take advantage of bugs or legacy behaviors, and then complain when newer browsers break them. There are a lot of legacy workarounds that make it impossible to implement standard behavior correctly. The Omni guys were commiserating with the IE team about this during the last WWDC.
[quote]Overall, even though Microsoft has added a few of it's own tags to IE, Netscape has chocked in far more useless shit through the years<hr></blockquote>
Why do people assume that criticism of IE is a defense of Netscape? I have disliked Navigator since version 2.0 - long before anyone had heard of Internet Explorer - and that turned to hatred with the version 3 browser. I'm keenly aware of the fact that I currently dislike Microsoft for pulling the same stunts that Netscape used to. I don't even bother testing my pages in 4.x - I code HTML strictly and conservatively, so I know that the information will be presented to the viewer with most of the formatting intact.
In fact, for all that I enjoy using OmniWeb, I'm still waiting for someone to write a decent, no-excuses graphical browser. I haven't seen one since Mosaic.
[quote]Mozilla isn't making up for [Netscape's legacy], to put it bluntly.<hr></blockquote>
What's missing? I was under the impression that it wasn't bad for standards compliance. It's flawed in many ways, but at least it's not as wildly nonstandard as Netscape 4.x.
[quote]But still, I hope you haven't confused the level on which my anti-Netscape argument is on with that of my OW-isn't-so-great argument. OmniWeb is really a great browser, and I'm looking forward to seeing it mature--I just don't think it needs to be shareware, or that they need to nag you at all about it. It could work to their advantage--make a really nice free browser to show off your programming skills, and if they like it, then people will go and look at the rest of your stuff. Makes a lot of sense to me.<hr></blockquote>
Most of the rest of OW's stuff isn't as general-interest as their browser is. Besides, once they stabilize the code base, you really only have to see the nag screen once - it displays on launch, and I never quit applications in OS X anymore.
[quote]Unfortunately, designing to work in *all* browsers (such as NS4.x) severely cripples webpages.<hr></blockquote>
Designing to make the page look identical in every graphical browser ever made will severely cripple a webpage. So you don't do that.
Again, anyone familiar with the web standards knows and understands that, and designs with it in mind. You do not have control over the appearance of the screen display. The only absolute edict the W3C issues to clients (and which Netscape 4.x predictably ignores, in a few infuriating cases - like when a designer forgets to close a <table> tag) is that no matter what, all the data in the page is to be displayed.
[quote]Given the pages I see on a day to day basis, I hardly think all competent web designers adhere to the W3 specifications.<hr></blockquote>
We have different definitions of "competent," obviously.
[quote]As it stands now, making the choice to use 3 year old technology effectively eliminates 12% of the web browsing market from seeing a page like it's meant to be viewed.<hr></blockquote>
That's what graceful degredation is for. Not everyone is going to see all your pretty formatting. That's been obvious, and a given of web design, since HTML 1.0. So you make sure that the page looks at least OK in more constrained environments, or failing that, that the information is accessible and the navigation is usable.
[quote]JSCript (otherwise known as ECMAScript) is standard, as determined by the W3.<hr></blockquote>
Except for the myriad bugs, yes.
Netscape is worse, but IE is far from perfect.
[quote]If you look at what IE and NS do that's against the standard, you'll come up with a huge number of deviations on Netscape's side.<hr></blockquote>
What does this have to do with anything I was talking about? A criticism of IE is not a defense of Netscape.
It isn't news that Netscape sucks.
[quote]Netscape was free before IE was. People like to avoid that fact.<hr></blockquote>
You make it sound so conspiratorial. I don't remember it that way.
[quote]Netscape was attempting to make money off their server software and authoring tools. Their browser was free.<hr></blockquote>
When? They wanted money for the version 3 browser.
[quote]quote: They tend to be designed to serve the interests of whoever's paying for them. In IE's case, that's MS. In NS' case, it's AOL. In OW's case, it's the user. I prefer to use a browser designed for me.
I prefer to use a browser that renders things fast and properly. Huzzah.<hr></blockquote>
That would be Opera? Oh, wait, they charge for their browser too...
I use Mozilla 095 for OS X almost all the time now. It now lets me use it for online banking, so I have not used IE in weeks. Omniweb gets better and better all the time but I am still waiting for the final release.
Comments
So, I'm currently - hopefully not long, an OS 9/IE 5.0 user. But damn, OS 9 is just so much more consistent
Peace
I prefer Opera on Windows 98 at home.
Dumb designers (or hapless designers with dumb bosses, to be fair) design for browsers.
There is a uniform standard for rendering HTML which all competent web designers adhere to. IE is just as guilty of ignoring and deviating from it as NS is (JSCript, anyone?).
[quote]I'm not going to pay for a stinkin' browser. They've been free for years.<hr></blockquote>
Only because MS wanted to undermine Netscape. Prior to that, it was not uncommon for them to be sold on the same shareware model that OW is.
There's no such thing as "free." Web browsers have become huge, complicated applications that cost real time and money to develop. They tend to be designed to serve the interests of whoever's paying for them. In IE's case, that's MS. In NS' case, it's AOL. In OW's case, it's the user. I prefer to use a browser designed for me.
CSS support in 4.1 is coming along nicely. OW's engineers have promised full standards compliance in version 5, and at the rate they're improving OW, I wouldn't be surprised.
I'll give iCab honorable mention. I use it when I'm in OS 9, because it's small and fast and (for a browser) stable. Unfortunately, I'm not in OS 9 much anymore, and the OS X version isn't up to par with OmniWeb or Mozilla.
Finally, a shout-out to Lynx, which I fire up when I want real speed. :cool:
<strong>There is a uniform standard for rendering HTML which all competent web designers adhere to. IE is just as guilty of ignoring and deviating from it as NS is (JSCript, anyone?).
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hell yes there is. Thank goodness it (and the W3) exists, or the web would be madness. But does any single browser out there fully and completely adhere to its guidelines? Does any browser choose to adhere only to those standard guidelines? Mmm, nope.
Overall, even though Microsoft has added a few of it's own tags to IE, Netscape has chocked in far more useless shit through the years, which has caused far more problems than even the worst IE issue. Webdesigners know this--NS being a steaming pile of shit has been old news, for years, even. Mozilla isn't making up for that, to put it bluntly.
But still, I hope you haven't confused the level on which my anti-Netscape argument is on with that of my OW-isn't-so-great argument. OmniWeb is really a great browser, and I'm looking forward to seeing it mature--I just don't think it needs to be shareware, or that they need to nag you at all about it. It could work to their advantage--make a really nice free browser to show off your programming skills, and if they like it, then people will go and look at the rest of your stuff. Makes a lot of sense to me.
<strong>Omniweb does this funky anti aliasing that hurts my eyes.</strong>[<hr></blockquote>
Actually it's using Quarts to render text. If it's hurting your eyes you may need to go get your eyes checked
<strong> [quote]
Lay off the crack guys and make something good and on par with Microsoft already.
Booo alternatives!</strong><hr></blockquote>
IE for OS X is below par compared to Omniweb.
OmniWeb 4.0.4 in OS X 10.0.4
No, I haven't got my hands on 10.1 yet.
After using this beautiful creation, how could anyone ever go back to the ugliness that is IE 5, much less Netscape or Mozilla?
But, yeah, I really like how OmniWeb renders text. It just looks beautiful.
[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
Unfortunately, designing to work in *all* browsers (such as NS4.x) severely cripples webpages. It makes for bloated, non-validating code that wreaks havoc on screenreaders and the like.
[quote]There is a uniform standard for rendering HTML which all competent web designers adhere to.<hr></blockquote>
Given the pages I see on a day to day basis, I hardly think all competent web designers adhere to the W3 specifications. If they did, my life would be a lot easier, and NS4.x would have been gone years ago.
As it stands now, making the choice to use 3 year old technology effectively eliminates 12% of the web browsing market from seeing a page like it's meant to be viewed.
[quote]IE is just as guilty of ignoring and deviating from it as NS is (JSCript, anyone?).<hr></blockquote>
JSCript (otherwise known as ECMAScript) is standard, as determined by the W3.
If you look at what IE and NS do that's against the standard, you'll come up with a huge number of deviations on Netscape's side. Everything from the <layer> tag to rendering CSS using javascript. (Turn off javascript in NS4.x, and you'll lose all your styles).
[quote]Only because MS wanted to undermine Netscape. Prior to that, it was not uncommon for them to be sold on the same shareware model that OW is.<hr></blockquote>
Netscape was free before IE was. People like to avoid that fact.
Netscape was attempting to make money off their server software and authoring tools. Their browser was free.
[quote]They tend to be designed to serve the interests of whoever's paying for them. In IE's case, that's MS. In NS' case, it's AOL. In OW's case, it's the user. I prefer to use a browser designed for me.<hr></blockquote>
I prefer to use a browser that renders things fast and properly. Huzzah.
Netscape Communicator 4.7 is on my OS 9 too. Don't use it much. Only to test web sites and download...er...images...
Never, ever will I install Netscape 6 or higher and Mozilla ain't a browser...it's an experiment that'll never end...
[QB]
Hell yes there is. Thank goodness it (and the W3) exists, or the web would be madness. But does any single browser out there fully and completely adhere to its guidelines? Does any browser choose to adhere only to those standard guidelines? Mmm, nope.<hr></blockquote>
However, there is a large subset of proper, standard code that works perfectly well, especially if you allow for graceful degredation - which, again, you're supposed to.
The browsers are catching up to the standards fast, but there's one big problem: Web designers who take advantage of bugs or legacy behaviors, and then complain when newer browsers break them. There are a lot of legacy workarounds that make it impossible to implement standard behavior correctly. The Omni guys were commiserating with the IE team about this during the last WWDC.
[quote]Overall, even though Microsoft has added a few of it's own tags to IE, Netscape has chocked in far more useless shit through the years<hr></blockquote>
Why do people assume that criticism of IE is a defense of Netscape? I have disliked Navigator since version 2.0 - long before anyone had heard of Internet Explorer - and that turned to hatred with the version 3 browser. I'm keenly aware of the fact that I currently dislike Microsoft for pulling the same stunts that Netscape used to. I don't even bother testing my pages in 4.x - I code HTML strictly and conservatively, so I know that the information will be presented to the viewer with most of the formatting intact.
In fact, for all that I enjoy using OmniWeb, I'm still waiting for someone to write a decent, no-excuses graphical browser. I haven't seen one since Mosaic.
[quote]Mozilla isn't making up for [Netscape's legacy], to put it bluntly.<hr></blockquote>
What's missing? I was under the impression that it wasn't bad for standards compliance. It's flawed in many ways, but at least it's not as wildly nonstandard as Netscape 4.x.
[quote]But still, I hope you haven't confused the level on which my anti-Netscape argument is on with that of my OW-isn't-so-great argument. OmniWeb is really a great browser, and I'm looking forward to seeing it mature--I just don't think it needs to be shareware, or that they need to nag you at all about it. It could work to their advantage--make a really nice free browser to show off your programming skills, and if they like it, then people will go and look at the rest of your stuff. Makes a lot of sense to me.<hr></blockquote>
Most of the rest of OW's stuff isn't as general-interest as their browser is. Besides, once they stabilize the code base, you really only have to see the nag screen once - it displays on launch, and I never quit applications in OS X anymore.
Designing to make the page look identical in every graphical browser ever made will severely cripple a webpage. So you don't do that.
Again, anyone familiar with the web standards knows and understands that, and designs with it in mind. You do not have control over the appearance of the screen display. The only absolute edict the W3C issues to clients (and which Netscape 4.x predictably ignores, in a few infuriating cases - like when a designer forgets to close a <table> tag) is that no matter what, all the data in the page is to be displayed.
[quote]Given the pages I see on a day to day basis, I hardly think all competent web designers adhere to the W3 specifications.<hr></blockquote>
We have different definitions of "competent," obviously.
[quote]As it stands now, making the choice to use 3 year old technology effectively eliminates 12% of the web browsing market from seeing a page like it's meant to be viewed.<hr></blockquote>
That's what graceful degredation is for. Not everyone is going to see all your pretty formatting. That's been obvious, and a given of web design, since HTML 1.0. So you make sure that the page looks at least OK in more constrained environments, or failing that, that the information is accessible and the navigation is usable.
[quote]JSCript (otherwise known as ECMAScript) is standard, as determined by the W3.<hr></blockquote>
Except for the myriad bugs, yes.
Netscape is worse, but IE is far from perfect.
[quote]If you look at what IE and NS do that's against the standard, you'll come up with a huge number of deviations on Netscape's side.<hr></blockquote>
What does this have to do with anything I was talking about? A criticism of IE is not a defense of Netscape.
It isn't news that Netscape sucks.
[quote]Netscape was free before IE was. People like to avoid that fact.<hr></blockquote>
You make it sound so conspiratorial. I don't remember it that way.
[quote]Netscape was attempting to make money off their server software and authoring tools. Their browser was free.<hr></blockquote>
When? They wanted money for the version 3 browser.
[quote]quote: They tend to be designed to serve the interests of whoever's paying for them. In IE's case, that's MS. In NS' case, it's AOL. In OW's case, it's the user. I prefer to use a browser designed for me.
I prefer to use a browser that renders things fast and properly. Huzzah.<hr></blockquote>
That would be Opera?
BTW, I use iCab or almost everything, in OS 9 and X.
Using Netscape 4.76 , Love Netscape