Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1.    #1  
    Sorry for the rant, but this really ticks me off. When web developers test for stuff that has no relevance on how the content renders.

    Case in point, ABC.com. I went over there to watch the last episode of Castle. I get a kick out of the show. I miss Firefly and enjoy Cap'tn in the new role.

    Web page loads fine. Video starts, then I get redirected to a page that says I need various versions of Windows or Mac to see this video. Bull.

    So I configure my User Agent switcher to tell it I'm Firefox 3.0 on Win XP. Guess what happens, the view plays fine. On Ubuntu 9.04 64-bit. The world doesn't revolve around Windows or Mac, test for capabilities.

    Not an iPhone, kick you out. How about we test for capability of the browser, instead of the user agent string with ignorant filtering. Yes, my Pre can render those iPhone pages fine. Stop being a **** and kicking me out of the URL I want to go to.

    GRRRRRRR.
    Your Pre wants Word Whirl from the App Catalog.

    It told me.
  2. #2  
    Quote Originally Posted by sacherjj View Post
    GRRRRRRR.
    +1
  3. xtn
    xtn is offline
    xtn's Avatar
    Posts
    434 Posts
    Global Posts
    711 Global Posts
    #3  
    double GRRRRRRR
  4. #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by sacherjj View Post
    The world doesn't revolve around Windows or Mac,
    um, yeah, in this context, it actually does.

    test for capabilities.

    Not an iPhone, kick you out. How about we test for capability of the browser, instead of the user agent string with ignorant filtering.
    it would seem obvious that capabilities testing *is* probably going on, and the user agent string filtering would be filtering out the browsers that haven't been tested, eh?

    Yes, my Pre can render those iPhone pages fine. Stop being a **** and kicking me out of the URL I want to go to.

    GRRRRRRR.
    sorry, but they're testing just like you want. ;D just not the browser you want them to test for, which if we're being really optimistic, probably has 10% of the mobile browser share, which is only a tiny fraction of the overall share. i'd be very surprised if the pre browser had more than .05% of browser share (around christmas, the iphone had 0.57% of total browser share).

    if you wante testing by capabilities, it's going to be a while before the pre gets on a test matrix. personally, for a mass market site like abc, i'd probably test 4 desktop browsers (ie, safari, firefox, chrome) on mac and windows, and maybe iphone and blackberry. but i would do NO content filtering- if it works for you, great, if not, oh well.
  5. #5  
    this is why we need flash. Cross-compatibility.
  6. #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnnyPre View Post
    this is why we need flash. Cross-compatibility.
    No, this is why you need HTML 5 with Canvas.

    Flash is proprietary.
  7.    #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    No, this is why you need HTML 5 with Canvas.

    Flash is proprietary.
    Yep. And universally compatible video support.
    Your Pre wants Word Whirl from the App Catalog.

    It told me.
  8. #8  
    the problem is there's too much BS "standards" to try and code for....PHP, Java, AJAX, CSS....oh you have a critical flaw in your Adobe Flash, please update....oh sorry you need to agree to this Active X control, oh sorry we don't support Firefox....

    Please click here to download and install this other BS media codec to view our video on this particular website...so you end up having 10 different codecs, just use Divx or something!

    "YES! Sign me up for Ask.com toolbar, and Vongo toolbar, and ALOT Toolbar, and i'll take a side of MyWebSearch and the latest version of VirusProtect 2010 XP Deluxe!"

    oh yea, please disable your ad blocker so you can see our website as it was meant to be seen with 3/4 of the page filled with more BS ads about crap you wouldn't buy in a million years!!

    Just let me watch my damn video! LOL....
  9. #9  
    Is this the same as sites that only allows Microsoft only browser because the site says it makes your browsing work better?
  10. #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by drdoug99 View Post
    the problem is there's too much BS "standards" to try and code for....PHP, Java, AJAX, CSS....oh you have a critical flaw in your Adobe Flash, please update....oh sorry you need to agree to this Active X control, oh sorry we don't support Firefox....
    flash, java, and active x aren't actual web standards.

    php is basically irrelevant, as it's run server side.

    you don't test for 'ajax' standards compatibility- if you're coding standards compliant javascript, html, and css, you'll have standards compliant ajax (if you're using ajax), since that's all ajax is.
  11. #11  
    This boils down to one statement: lazy web developers. They don't want to take the time to make sure their site works for all browsers and platforms. It's like those sites that will only work in MS IE because the web dev decided to be lazy and code it to ignore all others. I hate lazy devs. Your in the wrong profession if you want to be lazy.

Posting Permissions