What is Digg?Sponsored by Microsoft
Microsoft responds to the headlines. view!
microsoft.com/everybodysbusiness - Read our developers' points of view on the headlines making news.
93 Comments
- corevette, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25just a note, opera and firefox 3 (or any gecko 1.9 based browser) and konqueror also pass the acid 2 test. lets not even get started on ie
- schestowitz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+26Firefox 3.0 (nightly) was declared 'Acid2-compliant' a fortnight ago.
Here's a video that illustrates the central point of this submission: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rt3dwZwvdI - ROFLance, on 10/12/2007, -4/+25Firefox vs. Firefox?
I got $20 on Firefox. - t3soro, on 10/12/2007, -7/+26sadly the Fox isn't as standards compliant as you'd expect it to be, and doesn't have all the CSS3 support that Safari has :(
- hobgobbler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17yeah, how did he forget Opera?
- NanoStuff, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19"So I'm guessing the Safari window is what the final result should look like?"
No, it's supposed to be a garbled mess just like in IE. The happy face is a consolation prize for failure. - DougBTX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14@corevette: Safari is based on the WebKit HTML/Javascript engine, which is open source. The same HTML renderer is used in KHTML and Adobe's new Apollo.
- 4ndr3w, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14theme for windows? It's vista
- lolwtfhaha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13IE: Head Shot!
- SirStan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Even my Nintendo Wii can render it correctly! Go opera.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sirstan/339786451/ - TomFrost, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13You got it -- the acid test arranges completely seperate graphics and block elements into a smiley face image, using every type of positioning that css has available. Only browsers that perfectly implement every single positioning method will show the image correctly. This is why web design can be such a nightmare... Safari/Opera shows things almost perfectly every time, a little tweaking to get things looking alright in older Gecko browsers, but the css code needs to be almost COMPLETELY rewritten so that Internet Explorer (version 7 or not) can render it correctly. It's maddening!
- soogy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11This is inaccurate. IE7 is a huge improvement over IE6, which is what is being used in the example screenshot. Take a look for yourselves:
http://i11.tinypic.com/4g7hapy.png
Oh, wait... - TomFrost, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Did you SEE the difference between Firefox and IE? You're right-- Firefox 2 doesn't pass the test (though 3 does), but it gets it to a point where some minor code adjustments to a web site can make it display properly. IE is so far out of the ballpark that you have to write a completely seperate css file for it just so it can arrange the page into something acceptible. No, FF2 isn't perfect, but that's not the nightmare.
- fuckingusername, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14glad I use Opera
- Vironex, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I bet you use tables for layout.
- h0f5, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Its sad how many people just think that people who complain about firefox are just biased against microsoft. If you ever tried web designing, its the kind of feeling when you get it to work perfectly on every known browser on earth but it breaks in IE. People dont hate it for the sake of it being Micro$oft. They hate it because it sucks standards wise.
- N2O1138, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I ran it on a few browsers (some quite old) on my computer. Opera passed perfectly, Netscape 7 was the same as Firefox 2, as was Mozilla. IE7 had the same sort of red explosion as IE6
Edit: I'm running Windows XP Home - TomFrost, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6IE7 produces similar results as 6. It's funny-- Microsoft touted that they've fixed many of their errors in CSS processing, but the only "errors" they actually fixed were the small hacks web designers would use to make their css render properly in IE. IE7 broke more sites than 6 did!
- newbill123, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6To be fair, most of CSS-3 is still in the "working draft" stage. Some things (like text-shadow) were easy pickings for a rich text layout engine like the one in Mac OS X. But even these have the webkit prefix in case the standards change before finalization. Webkit still has a few edge cases that could use improvement in CSS-2. And gosh knows they need some hefty work on their Javascript engine (but that's another huge set of standards problems).
They may be behind in some things and ahead in some others, but Apple is doing a great job of avoiding the non-standard tactics of forcing proprietary tech on the world like in the old browser wars. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Wow, just another reason why IE sucks cocky balls
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5So I'm guessing the Safari window is what the final result should look like?
Never did understand the Ac!d test - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Anybody know about IE7?
- Timit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Parallels can't run aero without 3d acceleration, so don't assume it's basic
- digginghacker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I totally agree with you man. I spend half my time actually designing a page, and the other half getting the EXACT SAME DESIGN to work in IE that I wouldn't even waste my time on if IE didn't control 70+% of the market.
Someone needs to keep a running total of web designer suicides attributed to Microsoft ;-) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ImTheDarkcyde
No, he got dugg up. You got dugg down for call FF users *****. Ironic. - robdazomba, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5And by "professional web developer" do you mean designing flat HTML pages for $200 a shot for mom-n-pop businesses? I don't know any "pro" with your point of view. In fact, I'd say what you just said pegs you as an amateur. I sure wouldn't hire you. I've been involved in the production of sites for corporate customers where the sites were tied into content systems and high-end databases, and the audience was in the multi-millions, and coding to one browser means marginalizing and losing potentially 100s of thousands of viewers. Try your kind of attitude in that setting and you'll find yourself out on you ass. Coding to Explorer is lazy, shortsighted and career suicide. You have to be better than that.
- boombashi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4One's that know better don't use IE. The only reason to use IE is for Project or Windows update, and of course making sure your site works for the non-tech savies that still use IE, but that is why the IE Tab in Firefox was invented. The only people that use IE a). don't know how to change their default browser b.) don't know how to download and install a new browser, or c.) are afraid to learn a simple new program like Fire Fox.
- digginghacker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You are positioning a div, either inline or block, neither absolute or relatively positioned, fixed.
Float this div in any corner 5px away from each edge such that you can scroll the main content and this div doesn't move.
The correct code should look exactly like this to get it in the upper left with a 5px "margin":
div {
width: 100px;
height: 100px;
position: fixed;
top: 5px;
left: 5px;
}
Sure, it might not mean a whole lot to position something fixed on a page, but this is one of the easiest ways to show an IE flaw for something otherwise universally supported. - m99stump, on 07/29/2008, -0/+2@corvette,
WebKit is open source, and you can download it separately from Safari. It will render HTML the same (and look much like Safari the same). Shiira is a fully open source browser based on WebKit that is even more "free" than FireFox as its BSD. - digginghacker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I realize this isn't something you'd use every day, but this is a really good visual example of something IE screws up. No "major" website to my knowledge CAN use position: fixed. Why? Because most of their users wouldn't be able to see it. IE doesn't let them use that feature. When CSS3 is finally implemented with the feature to draw shadows, I have a hard time believing IE will support it. Does that mean shadows will become another obscure element that nobody uses?
All browsers do handle CSS differently. However (as vividly illustrated by the Acid 2 test) IE hopelessly botches most CSS you throw at it. The FF mishandlings can normally be fixed with a few extra lines of code, but IE frequently requires extensive hacks and sometimes an entire extra style sheet.
Don't believe me? Check the source of digg.com. Apparently they were forced to make two extra style sheets just to support IE6 (http://www.digg.com/css/4/ie6.css ) and IE7 (http://digg.com/css/4/ie7.css ).
Who's setting the standards? W3, or Microsoft?
PS - You can't float something to stay in a fixed position.
PSS - I'd like so see something that follows W3 compliance that IE displays correctly and another major browser doesn't. With the exception of, of course, standards set by Microsoft. - Phocion55, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Hah IE6 didn't even try.
- Ramble, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Looks like Vista basic.
- greatcaffeine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It doesn't matter which IE you use, it looks just as horrifying.
- Skeuomorph, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2There should be a visible difference between IE6 and IE7 (but still broken).
IE7 has two modes. The page has to be doctyped precisely to use the IE7's fixed mode, otherwise by default it renders in a backwards compatible quirksmode.
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2006/08/22/712830.aspx
"In all, we made over 200 behavior changes (bug fixes or new features) under strict mode to improve CSS2.1 compliance. All this work (with the exception of transparent PNGs) has been done under the switch only, since all changes required behavioral updates to be more in line what the CSS spec specifies. To preserve application compatibility we will not make any behavioral changes to “quirks mode” as it has been established since IE6." - telmacbrit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Ok, so i ran it myself in IE7. It's still broken badly. Would have been nice to see it in the test itself
- digginghacker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It's a Vista theme for XP. Despite what everyone's saying I think Vista looks kinda nice...
You can find it here:
http://www.windowsxlive.net/?page_id=15
Kinda funny that a skin makes XP run almost identical to Vista, sans the instant search and 3d stuff. - takeda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The whole incompatibility is made on purpose, that's what makes many people still using the IE.
I guess the way to overcome this, is to (and most of you know that already):
1. promote other web browsers (even though I'm big Opera supported, I'm happy that FF is getting more popular, since that makes the pages accessible to other browsers)
2. when designing the web page, make sure it is standards complaint...
When IE was small and not so popular they actually managed to be first to pass the ACID-1 test.
Heh, actually Microsoft is still member of W3C... - takeda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Because making IE standards complain would make easier for competition to take over.
IE was actually first browser to pass ACID 1!!! But that was when most people used Netscape. - takeda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Because your story was... how to say it?... too insignificant? =))
- boombashi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5It's non-compliant fools such as yourself that make cross browser CSS/XHTML web-development a freaking nightmare. Apparently you know nothing about the W3C compliant standards. Now go WYSIWYG a tabled layout website of pictures of your Mom's cats, and leave the professionalism to people that know what they are talking about.
- digginghacker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Learn to code outside of tables and you'll be just as frustrated.
- golfobsession91, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2holy ***** you made it to the front page?!?!?! why didn't my penis story make it? :(
- geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Billions in cash and they can't get this right. They for whatever reason choose not to spend money getting IE standards-compliant.
- MySchizoBuddy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Acid 2 is a test. passing it is a way for us to know that you have studied hard and know the material. Hence it is imp in the real world. U cannot claim to know the material and totally bomb the test.
- digginghacker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3That's the thing though, people have spent time getting it to work cross-browser. Theres an entire community of people inventing new CSS hacks just to get IE to display things correctly. Someone wrote a freaking javascript function 300 lines long so IE could support something being absolutely positioned!!! It's getting really crazy, and something needs to be done.
In a way, we're already creating webpages to the Acid standard. - digginghacker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Here, I put it online:
http://bjnc.org/genco/fixed
Visit that in IE6: The browser forcing developer compliance.
There are numerous hacks out there to get position: fixed to work in IE6, here's one of them:
http://tagsoup.com/cookbook/css/fixed/
Think of the time spent by this guy trying to get this basic positioning element of CSS to work in a browser that nobody would bother with if it didn't control 70+% of the market.
FYI: position: fixed was finally corrected in IE7 if it's in standards compliance mode (it ironically also works in IE5 for mac), but they've still got a way to go. - takeda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Instead of pointing out a "flaw" and telling me to code it properly, why don't you bring up a real-world example of something that a designer would actually have to do?"
Here's a real life example:
http://cross-browser.com/
(look on right side, to make it work with IE a Java Script was required)
I also saw something similar on HP.com, there was a small icon. When you clicked on it, you could leave feedback about given page.
It's damn convenient especially for menus, because if you put the icons they are always accessible.
The digg.com is not using it, so when I want to jump (for example) to my profile, or view articles for a different category, I need to scroll all the way to the top. If the menu would be fixed on the side, it would make browsing more pleasurable.
This feature is very useful, but it's hard to implement thanks to IE. - gr00vy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This is simply not why Web Designers hate microsoft.
This reason that the test fails for most browsers has to do with error handling, and not positioning as posited by the author. IE7 is failing for the simple reason that many existing pages will break if they pass acid 2, and nearly no pages will be fixed if you pass it. This is a very very real world example.
However, safari and now firefox3 pass acid 2. For the simple reason that the test exists, and it has a brilliant way of displaying passing or failure. It is likely now that IE7 will pass in the near future (my understanding is that it has been fixed, just not realeased because of earlier reason), and that the world vis-a-vis this test will be back to normal.
And that web developers will still hate microsoft, and it still won't be for this reason. - digginghacker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Sorry, I didn't have Vista (XP Vista skin), and it wouldn't install IE7. I'll try to get one next time with IE7 and opera :-D
- seanmc303, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Too bad for you that Firefox has all the sweetest web development extensions. My heart aches if I don't have my Web Developer and Firebug (1.0 beta) extensions.
-
Show 51 - 93 of 93 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 