What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.Sponsored by The Fourth Kind
What does 3:33 AM mean to you? view!
facebook.com - People have reported alien encounters taking place at 3:33AM. Do you believe? The Fourth Kind - Now Playing.
252 Comments
- Dayz, on 10/12/2007, -10/+135People use IE to view digg?
- ksgant, on 10/12/2007, -4/+109I don't have Web 2.0. I'm still on the old Web 1.0
When was the upgrade and who do I contact to get the upgrade files? I don't think my ISP is set up for Web 2.0 yet.
OK, all kidding aside. Whoever came up with that buzzword should be beaten. You know how many times I've had to explain that to people with those exact same questions? "I don't have Web 2.0 yet. Where do I buy it?" - shiftt, on 10/12/2007, -9/+102what pissed me off the most was when Bill Gates said there will be a new version of IE every year
that means every year they will find new ways to screw over developers
why cant microsoft stop pretending that it knows what's best for us and just adopt to the freakin standards? - adjustafresh, on 10/12/2007, -2/+80"...the IE6 bugs will no longer haunt us."
Um, you do realize that there will still be a rather large percentage of IE6 users after version 7 arrives, right? Although version 7 will be an automatic update and many users will install it, there will still be a great deal of people who opt not to install it or uninstall it. Users who are using operating systems older than XP cannot use IE 7 either; they're stuck with version 6, and we're stuck supporting it. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+77IE7 Doesn't work with digg.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -14/+80web 2.0 is just a buzz word
- PiratedTVPro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+48... and is completely uncrawlable...
- loof, on 10/12/2007, -2/+45The problem with flash is everyone hates using flash sites. Sure they're pretty, but from a usability standpoint they're usually a mess.
- doktored, on 10/12/2007, -5/+47Flash is bloody terrible... I can't stand sites with it... Yes show me your stupid moving navigation again... Byeeee.
- cmiller1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+40That actually happens all of the time to those of us who don't use IE.
- petroK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+35It seems like Opera always stacks up well in these standards compliance issues (and several speed and stability tests I have seen)... yet I cannot seem to tear myself away from firefox.
- cronot, on 10/12/2007, -19/+54Digg me down if you want, but I think the underlying html and ajax on Digg is also (if not mostly) to blame - as in badly designed/written. Of all sites I visit daily, Digg is one of those that take the longest to load (on any browser).
Then again, I never bothered to check their code to make sure of that, so maybe it's their Server that is handicapped. - phpirate, on 10/12/2007, -14/+48However IE7 has a whole lot of bug fixes. I don't like the fact either that they're once again screwing over developers, but at the very least theres more options avaliable to us since the IE6 bugs will no longer haunt us.
The best part is the IE download page: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/default.mspx "We heard you" doesn't appear to apply for web standards, which is what developers have been critizing all these years. - NikhilPK, on 10/12/2007, -5/+37@gaznet
Because web designers have to make sure their sites are compatible with all browsers as not everyone uses firefox - Nanobe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+29I'm the author of this resource, and I'd like to clear up a few things.
First of all, "inherit" is listed individually with every single property in the CSS 2.1 specification. The specification doesn't imply that it's some kind of global property, nor does Internet Explorer implement it as such. IE supports "inherit" for the "direction" property, and as far as I know nothing else. Thus it isn't reasonable to list it as some kind of global value.
Also, I do *not* give browsers incomplete ratings for supporting propietary features. I give them incomplete ratings when the violate the CSS 2.1 specification. CSS 2.1 defines exactly how vendor-specific properties and property values must be named: prefixed with a "-" or "_" character. It specifically says that a browser must fail on any property value not prefixed with a "-" or "_" that isn't part of a W3C CSS specification. Most browsers support vendor-specific properties, but usually in a way that conforms to the specification. Internet Explorer often does not.
Also, it's completely unreasonable to expect any development team to bring something like IE6 up to Firefox's and Opera's level of standards support in this relatively short amount of time. IE7 improved over IE6 about as much as the latest versions of Firefox and Opera improved over their predecessors. Today's problems are mainly due to Microsoft's *past* actions of supporting CSS wrongly at a fundamental level and cutting off development efforts for so long. If Gecko or Presto (Opera) developers had done what Microsoft did, regardless of the amount of effort put into them today, they would also have a darn tough time clawing back into the competition. CSS 2.1 is a very large and complex standard, and it's simply unreasonable to expect any development team with any amount of resources to support it overnight. - steger, on 10/12/2007, -5/+32uhh, css has 100% saturation, it's not a plug-in, I don't have to download from some third party website in order to view content. CSS is powerful, but it's not a programming language like javascript, c# or VB. It's a language set to separate style from content. not to do crazy sounds when you scroll over a button.
PLUS, I've said this every time this has been posted. This originally came from a /. story last week (and on digg about 3 times last week) about Paul Thurrott's article about hi complaints about IE7 Beta 1 which was dated as August 1st, 2005.
IE7 Beta 3 is much better with CSS compliance than IE7 Beta 1 was. I know personally because I've tested every beta (Being a web developer with a Microsoft partner has its benefits). Just try it now or wait till it gets installed on your machine before you make a lame IE bashing attempt. - silenceHR, on 10/12/2007, -1/+28buzzword or not, it doesnt really matter.
what matters is poor compatibility .... and what makes it even worse, now we will have to watch for IE 5.5, IE 6 and IE 7 buga and quirks. like it wasnt enough that you had to make CSS hacks for IE 5, now you'll get one more.
sorry, but this is really annoying. i wish more corps adopt alternatives, just so we can force MS to follow bloody _STANDARDS_.
is that so difficult?? - jbohlinger, on 10/12/2007, -6/+30Oh this comment stream hurts to read - Digg isn't playing nice with IE? Please. IE can't handle digg. Not to say that Digg is perfect, but it is a page working with web standards that I don't have problems with in Opera or Firefox.
In other words, Digg is playing by the rules, IE just doesn't know them in the first place. - myheaditches, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23If you say flash is better than CSS, then you have failed at recognizing why CSS exists. If I want to change the style of a web page, in CSS all I have to do is change the CSS document. One page. In flash, I have to redo my changes to each page. Also, CSS and HTML can be edited in any text editor. Flash? Not so much.
If your entire site is on one flash page, then how do I link to a page to show to someone?
If your site uses flash and causes my computer to get nice and toasty, then I'm going to hunt through my open web pages (usually about 20-30) and close ones that are making Camino run at 90% CPU. Sorry, but your super awesomerific flash page isn't worth my sterility. - fizzyalex, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23Flash and CSS have nothing to do with each other. Flash is used for graphical pages, while CSS is used to keep HTML looking and acting like you want it to.
Crazy... - UCFMark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21I'm thinking that this may be useful:
http://www.duggmirror.com/tech_news/IE7_is_basically_non_compliant_with_CSS_web_standards/
The fact is, IE isn't going anywhere for the foreseeable future. I worked for a small IT consulting company this summer, and none of the clients would be comfortable switching from IE just because of their comfort level. Hell, most of them complained when we moved them from Outlook 10 to Outlook 11! - BitSlash, on 10/12/2007, -4/+24and if you're using linux... then the site is worthless.
- Herolint, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21This is exactly why I don't use any Microsoft products anymore. Microsoft continuously screws over developers again and again in an attempt to sequester them into the Microsoft camp.
What a crappy way to treat not only your customers, but also those who want to develop things for your stupid platforms.
This year, I've stopped caring if my web work functions in IE or not. I'm sick of dealing with them and my customers are sick of paying extra to support IE. I simply tell my customers that due to IEs poor adherence to well defined and documented standards, they will have to use a different browser (Firefox, Opera, Mozilla, Konqueror, Safari, etc.). No complaints so far.
Microsoft should just flush this polished turd and be done with it. - cronot, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23Sorry, but no, olddirtycr. I've got a 8Mbit pipe here, and that bandwidth is free most of the time, everything comes in a flash. Except for Digg.
- EggzDiggs, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21That's punishing the viewer and not the company with the uncompliant browser. For your own site that's fine - but imagine if a corporate client told a prospective buyer or investor to come back with a better browser?
- p1mpjuice, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17@work
No. He's actually right about that. Something with the comment system. - ojstone, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16I really don't understand why people don't use firefox as their primary browser... you could avoid all these problems.
- melmyfinger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15It's because normal people are too lazy and too uninformed. The most common responses you'll hear is:
* Firefox? What's that? (If I don't know it then I don't want to install it).
* I don't want to have to learn another program.
* But I already have IE and it's built-in so I don't have to install anything. - kedaar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Yes, I agree one person's research can not be used for baseline but this story will drive others to test more.
- pygmalion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14I find Digg sucks as far as incremental loading/rendering goes. Can take several seconds (and even a beach ball on OS X) before I can finally see something. Shouldn't need to load the entire comments tree before I can see the top of the page...
- Aculeus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18Digg runs great on Firefox. Any slowdowns are more likely the cause of overloading the servers, not the browsers rendering.
- aonaran, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14You're kidding right? Flash is your solutiuon to CSS issues?? I've seen very few flash sites I'd visit on a regular basis, for all the problems CSS gives when trying to maintain compatibility with IE, I'd still rather see a less "flashy" site in CSS than one in mainly flash.
For one thing flash sucks for accessability for those with vision problems, and it always takes longer to load a flash program than a text/graphic/CSS menu. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15All I know is that IE 7 Beta 3 still fails to render half of the Mozilla 1.0 demos. Now that's sad. http://www.mozilla.org/start/1.0/demos.html
- sailor, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15I think you all are missing the point here its not Digg, its IE that is the problem...
Firefox has no problem with it. Firefox is something like 93% compliant with web standards and IE is only 53% compliant with web standards...it doesn't take too much though to see who is at fault here. - Spatulas, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13I believe this quote from some questions from Håkon Wium Lie on slashdot a while ago about sums that up:
"It's quite clear that Microsoft has the resources and talent to support CSS2 fully in IE and that plenty of people have reminded them why this is important. So, why don't they do it? The fundamental reason, I believe, is that standards don't benefit monopolists. Accepted, well-functioning, standards lower the barrier of entry to a market, and is therefore a threat to a monopolist.
From that perspective, it makes sense to leave CSS2 half-implemented. You can claim support (and many journalists will believe you), and you also ensure that no-one can use the unimplemented (or worse: buggily implemented) features of the standard. The only way to change the equation is to remind Microsoft how embarrassing it is to offer a sub-standard browser. And to use better browsers.
Another reason for not making a IE too good is that it will compete with Windows. A modern browser is an application platform; the combination of HTML, JavaScript, CSS and DOM allows developers to target the web instead of Windows, Linux, or Mac. "
from http://interviews.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/23/1443203 - jbohlinger, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Whenever I recommend a new browser to a non-tech savvy person I find that Opera is the best choice. While I use FF because of the extensions and tools it provides it is not the best web experience. Opera is. They consistently kick both IE and FF to the curb.
If you are using FF without extensions, you should just be using Opera. - merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15Damn:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.digg.com
So much for digg being standards compliant, eh? - domomike, on 10/12/2007, -12/+23The fix to this is simple: Start creating web pages that spot out IE7 and take them to a page that lets them know that the web page is too advanced for their browser and they should upgrade to Firefox.
- fforw, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11flash 8 does not work on linux..
- newbill123, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11While I agree with the generalized headline of this digg, I'm not sure this is the best article to back up that gut feeling most of us have to our bosses and IT departments.
When you pull up Safari or Konqueror, you'll see a lot of question marks in their chart tally. That gives the impression that there's some subjectivity in judging the test results. Obviously he has a setup of each to get _some_ numbers; he just can't make final judgements yet.
That's confirmed even more by the disclaimer that reads, "Most of the above information comes from testing and research conducted by one person. It is possible that these tables contain errors." - rhamej, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12MS IS adhering to standards. The only problem is the standards they are following are their own.
IE7 is beta, so there is still hope. - AaronMT, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Internet Explorer 7 is so bad at rendering newly updated CSS websites that it's rather sad yet hilarious.
Have a look at DeviantART, www.deviantart.com : In IE7 then in Firefox
The difference is night and day in what the user see's and experiences.
As well might I add, Digg has Google Ad render problems in IE7 as well when you open up a users comments, the text dissapears! - technique, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Microsoft was one of the many companies that supported the creation of W3C.
- Tyrax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Microsoft has a response:
http://blogs.msdn.com/cwilso/archive/2006/08/10/694584.aspx - OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"A website that tells me I have to use FF to use it instantly stops me visiting it again"
Yes, exactly. And IE-centric pages have been doing pricely that to users of other browsers for years.
It's time to fight back! - negtive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9That's exactly what they're thinking. They're trying to leverage *their* standards, not ones drafted by an external organization (W3C).
- Aculeus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Also, Flash uses a limited set of CSS for it's styles and can also use HTML for markup. Flash doesn't replace CSS because they aren't even the same type of product.
Also, I can kill you with my brain. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11As Homer Simpson says:
Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. 14% of people know that. - MisterKen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Are we supposed to be surprised?
- MCrass, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10This is a bit of a chicken vs egg situation. What good are standards if the majority of the market doesn't follow them? Standards tend to end up being de-facto, determined by the market leader (or group of leaders). If IE7 doesn't work with CSS standards, but works with Microsoft's own twisted interpretation of them, then the reality of the matter is, MS CSS becomes the standard.
I'm not defending MS and their misuse of CSS rendering in IE, I'm just saying it seems kind of silly for groups like the W3C, who don't actually produce much of anything anymore, and then rabid anti-MS people to go crazy about how unfair it is. Anyone can draft a standard. Today, I hereby proclaim the new Mike HTML Standard, it involves tags like which makes text explode into little bits. Doesn't mean anything though unless browsers plan on properly implementing it.
I've always felt that standards should be decided by the people producing software in the affected market space. Looking at the Working Group for CSS on the W3C page, I see four companies/groups that actually make web browsers. A lot of those extra people make things more difficult. -
Show 51 - 100 of 258 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is