Personally, I prefer IE because it loads faster on all the computers I've seen that have FireFox and IE [All Windows XP computers, but on my Vista computer, IE still loads very fast] and hey; if I'm going to browse the internet, it's usually because I want to browse it NOW
, not in a minute or so, so that it can be all 'proper' and such.
Not to mention the only weird issue I've encountered in my own validated code was in my latest project, where a textarea would normally render properly, but after regenerating it, rendered it in twice the vertical space it was supposed to [A.K.A. rendered space for two, one after the other], where only one textarea appeared, leaving a bit of empty space on the page. Also, only if I was logged in at the same time - if not, it worked fine.
Personally, I don't understand the point of noScript or AddBlocker - the advertisements [Sometimes run by scripts so that the can provide dynamic linking, and Flash, and all that jazz] are what are paying for the bandwith you just used to recieve data from that server - yes, we pay the good old ADSL/Broadband/Dialup/Cable fees, but we don't pay the server for giving us that information from the site, so we also do not intuitively pay for the developer who created that content, be it the web developer, the reporter, videographer, actors, etc.
I personally will take advertisments on the edges or in the middle [Not a popup, though] of my page, as long as it is free to view the site - I'll just not look at the advertisments unless they are useful to me. Simple, easy, and I get the resulting page at no cost to me.
Besides, I'd like people to view ads on my pages, so that I don't pay server fees and content-developer fees on top of bandwith I pay for home use.
Gaydar2000SE wrote:I feel so unnoticed about my points about IE.
I actually like it if my sites look like crap on IE, it's a protest against this practice and the more sites look like crap on it, the less people use IE, the more sits that can use proper coding. Vive la resistance, je deteste l'occipatión d'internet.
If your clients are not getting links from IE, and yet they're getting you to redesign their pages, perhaps they would consider it more of a successful investment if you did always support IE, thus allowing IE users to view the page, and grant them more viewers/members?
I'm presuming their paying you for a site re-design was likely for the purpose of getting more views, since that would allow them to recieve income from the redesign, yeah?
If CSS 3.0 is not recommended yet, why are you using it? If it's still in Beta [A.k.a HTML 5, which is how I'm understanding why it's not recommended], isn't it likely to change on you without notice? This shouldn't even be a complaint from a developer; "What I'm developing on isn't standardised yet, and IE won't display it properly!"
I dunno, looks like IE7 supports it - where's your basis of this?
Also, simple question about the whole EU Win7 deal - if the users don't start off with IE, how do they get FireFox, Opera, Safari, etc.?
Rather, how do you think they WILL
IE's should still be included because it'll solve the easy way of "Wait, how am I going to research these browsers to decide which one I want to get, when that information is on the internet, and in order to view information on the internet, I need an internet browser, which I need to get to go to the internet to find out more information about?"
Chicken and Egg scenario, yeah?
Or at least, to the non-1337.