January 12, 2016 at 1:33 am
Really Steve?
A Google site appears not to work on an MS browser? Did you read the rest of my post?
Obviously we are all biased by the sites we use. For me I have never visited a site that was obviously broken in IE11 (some issues with Edge).
I agree Edge needs a lot of work, but I am willing to give them some slack given that effectively it is version 1.0 and they virtually started from scratch by dumping all backwards compatibility stuff that IE has.
January 12, 2016 at 7:24 am
There are a disturbing number of applications whose web interfaces will only work in IE. And while newer versions of IE might be fully compatible with current browser standards those applications are not and IE tends to be much more backwards compatible to its own bad standards than other browsers. For example the last company I worked for using a major CRM was completely locked into IE6 because that was the version of IE the CRM supported.
January 12, 2016 at 7:30 am
ZZartin (1/12/2016)
There are a disturbing number of applications whose web interfaces will only work in IE. And while newer versions of IE might be fully compatible with current browser standards those applications are not and IE tends to be much more backwards compatible to its own bad standards than other browsers. For example the last company I worked for using a major CRM was completely locked into IE6 because that was the version of IE the CRM supported.
That right there is the problem - it's not IE but the people making the decisions.
As a software dev pretty much every client demands that we use open standards whilst also supporting IE so we always code to standards not browsers.
This move is a brief of fresh air because it means finally the last IE 8 hack can be removed from one of our products.
January 12, 2016 at 10:10 am
peter.row (1/12/2016)
Really Steve?A Google site appears not to work on an MS browser? Did you read the rest of my post?
Obviously we are all biased by the sites we use. For me I have never visited a site that was obviously broken in IE11 (some issues with Edge).
I agree Edge needs a lot of work, but I am willing to give them some slack given that effectively it is version 1.0 and they virtually started from scratch by dumping all backwards compatibility stuff that IE has.
I did read it.
My complaint with Edge was an existing site that worked well in IE 10/11, and in FF/Chrome, did not work in Edge. Certainly Google may have done something to ban the site, but the issues I had looked like a mistake in how Edge worked.
You like IE, fine. Nothing wrong with that. I'm not saying you shouldn't, or anyone shouldn't. I've had issues with IE, and I stand by my opinion that it's a cumbersome, annoying product.
Enjoy IE/Edge. If they work for you, that's good.
I'll stick with FF/Chrome as my primary browsers.
January 12, 2016 at 11:07 am
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (1/12/2016)
I'll stick with FF/Chrome as my primary browsers.
Me too. I've seen Edge consume over 1 GB of memory on a single page on a single tab, where FF was down around 200 MB with several tabs (including the page open in Edge) open. I hope they fix the memory problem one day. More than that, I hope they don't garbage it up with a bunch of extra junk.
January 13, 2016 at 2:27 am
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (1/12/2016)
peter.row (1/12/2016)
Really Steve?A Google site appears not to work on an MS browser? Did you read the rest of my post?
Obviously we are all biased by the sites we use. For me I have never visited a site that was obviously broken in IE11 (some issues with Edge).
I agree Edge needs a lot of work, but I am willing to give them some slack given that effectively it is version 1.0 and they virtually started from scratch by dumping all backwards compatibility stuff that IE has.
I did read it.
My complaint with Edge was an existing site that worked well in IE 10/11, and in FF/Chrome, did not work in Edge. Certainly Google may have done something to ban the site, but the issues I had looked like a mistake in how Edge worked.
You like IE, fine. Nothing wrong with that. I'm not saying you shouldn't, or anyone shouldn't. I've had issues with IE, and I stand by my opinion that it's a cumbersome, annoying product.
Enjoy IE/Edge. If they work for you, that's good.
I'll stick with FF/Chrome as my primary browsers.
I apologise for my post being a little harsh. I don't "enjoy" using any browser it's just something I use to access the internet. However it was just the way the statements were framed.
As a developer often when a website appears broken on IE11/Edge it is *not* because IE11/Edge is at fault it is because the website developers are not using unprefixed CSS or are using non-final standards.
For the record I have FF, Chrome, IE and Edge installed and use all of them.
January 13, 2016 at 2:29 am
Ed Wagner (1/12/2016)
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (1/12/2016)
I'll stick with FF/Chrome as my primary browsers.Me too. I've seen Edge consume over 1 GB of memory on a single page on a single tab, where FF was down around 200 MB with several tabs (including the page open in Edge) open. I hope they fix the memory problem one day. More than that, I hope they don't garbage it up with a bunch of extra junk.
I agree and have reported via the Windows Feedback app on similar memory consumption issues.
To be fair I have experience large amount of memory being used by FF and Chrome too.
However I do hope the MS do sort this out soon.
January 13, 2016 at 5:38 am
Website developers should code to the recommendations and use polyfills for non-standard implementations INCLUDING Google's prefixed implementations. That would mean more compatible websites and a clearer picture.
Unfortunately, that is not going to happen.
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
January 13, 2016 at 9:18 am
I'm not sure where the problem is. There are always non-standard things each browser does, which means that you'll have different interpretations. There are also the requirements of "get this site up", and if you have to code around something that doesn't work well in IE/FF/C, then you do it.
And then we have code that causes issues.
January 13, 2016 at 9:28 am
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (1/13/2016)
...There are always non-standard things each browser does, which means that you'll have different interpretations...
This is what polyfills is supposed to resolve. It is what W3C say should be used in client code i.e. do not code to a browser specific variant but use polyfills that map standards compliant calls to the browser specific calls within the browser.
It is easy to do but some might cynically say that Google are benefiting from this poor practice which they appear to encourage (IMHO).
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
Viewing 10 posts - 16 through 24 (of 24 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply