Topic awaiting preservation: Use a Better Browser (Page 2 of 2)

I have just downloaded and installed Firebird 0.6.0 and am using it now for the first time. I am impressed so far. I will report my thoughts back later, after giving it a good run.
Tao

I have cleared out other Moz variants (NS and Seamonkey) and Firebird actually loads the Moz page now but then it stopped responding after I click no I wouldn't want it as my homepage. Ahhh well I'll try again tomorrow.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

I've used FB before, actually I've been using it since it was called Pheonix (sp?) and was beta 0.4. I did like it a lot, but it's still in beta, parts of it aren't yet finished and I've had some issues with it -- probably because it's still in beta development.

But lets face it, do you really think the general web browsing public will be comfy going to a website like www.mozilla.org to download web browsing software when they already have a browser that works with 98% of all websites?

I don't think so.

And what difference is a bunch of tech savvy designers going to make if they switch? I mean, the push to code with standards makes sense, seeing as the message reaches the people that actually write the code, but the browser software?

Who honestly gives a shit, as long as you follow the standards when writing your pages it shouldn't really matter?

This entire topic seems like a rather pointless debate IMHO and it could be about any piece of software be it FTP programs, Email clients, Operating systems etc etc...

I'll use whatever software I'm most comfy with, and right now that's IE. I have NN-6.2 Moz-1.0 Moz-1.3 FB-0.6 OP-6 OP-7 and IE installed on my computer as I use them for testing, but I still use IE for general browsing because it's simple, it works, I couldn't be arsed changing, and I see no stand-out reason why I should change.

Besides, I thought the fundamental idea of web standards was so that it didn't matter what you were using to view a webpage with?

WASP realised that, thus the reason why they scraped the browser upgrade project.

[This message has been edited by Dracusis (edited 09-01-2003).]

Drac: Well for the most part this thread is about our individual choice of web browser - no campaign will make people switch. The only real campaign worth following is the anybrowser one - design to standards and make sure it works in other browsers not too tricky

Also about the WaSP BUC - they closed it beause they had by and large suceeded and most modern browser supported standards to some degree:
http://webstandards.org/act/campaign/buc/

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

I don't know what your idea of "the general web browsing public" is Dracusis, but I would include myself in that list, and that is just exactly what I have done (gone to mozilla.org to download).
I am glad I read this post and tried it, I have only been using Firebird today so it's too early to make a call, but I am impressed with the "Tab" feature so far.
Tao

You confuse me Drac.

As Emperor said, WaSP stopped their BUC becasue it had served its purpose...not becasue they realized it wouldn't work. It *did* work.

I never said you should switch, I bascially said you were looking at the web standards issue the wrong way.... =)

Edit:
I normally wouldn't get so verbose about this, but a lot of the comments in this thread suggest that upgrading your browser will help web standards, which is complete BS, thus my little rant -- I apologise in for this going off tpoic, but I think it's worth saying non the less.

DL, My first comment about standards was in regards to switching browsers. I'm all for standards but when it comes to the point where you're telling people to upgrade their web browser for the sake of web standards then I think we've missed the boat.

quote:

---

WaSP stopped their BUC because it had served its purpose...not because they realized it wouldn't work. It *did* work

---

If you ask me, WaSP is deluding themselves into thinking they actually made a difference. In reality I'd be willing to bet that the migration of Operating Systems is the primary cause of CSS1, XHTML and DOM capable browsers in use today. IE 5+ comes pre-installed with Win98 SE, 2000 and XP, that and numerous security scares that caused people to update windows and in turn updating their web browser is what really made that change and there is more than enough statistical evidence to prove that hands down.

The primary problem for Web developers back in the late 90's and early 00's was NN4 and IE4, all of which died with the switch to OS-X and NT 5 OS's.

Don't get me wrong, WaSP have great intentions, but I think trying to change what software people use in their day to day lives is folly unless you're proposing an alternative to a life threatening situation or you have a very deep back pocket to fund your marketing campaign.

Quite simply, from a standards point of view, trying to force change through the use of client software is a complete wast of time IMHO epically in an age where PC's with high resolution computer monitors with gigahertz processors are declining in their percentage as web surfing machines.

But that's just my opinion. I just wanted to express that using a non-M$ browser isn't going to help the web standards fight. At the end of the day, noble as it may be, people will go with what's simple. For the Windows crowd that's going to be IE weather you like it or not. Again, that's no to say IE will be stuck with us forever, but IE's deployment is tight, slick and it works bang out of the box -- no batteries required. Dislodging that from the every day users OS will take a shit load more than the current state of affairs and I'm pretty sure M$ know that, thus them not really caring about upgrading IE until their next OS release.

But that's just my opinion, and we all know I have a rather demure view of what the people are capable of, maybe I'll be proven wrong, maybe a handful of designers and tech savvy surfers switching their web browsing software will make a difference, but I won?t be holding my breath.

[This message has been edited by Dracusis (edited 09-01-2003).]

Drac:

quote:

---

If you ask me, WaSP is deluding themselves into thinking they actually made a difference.

---

I don't think any of us can be sure of the specifics but I suspect that it had more influence that you'd imagine. I suspect the redirecting to their BUC was a step to far and I doubt the actual 'oops' page ever made much of a difference but got the issue of web standards uppermost in the mind of a lot of important web people and, thanks largely to the W3C (and conferences and stuff, these people do have a lot of contact with the browser manufacturers and they were able to push the idea. It might be a problem that a small number of influential people have a disproportional influence on such matters but to a large part they were expressing the concerns of a larger body of web people out there so I think it was important that we all played out part.

Clearly it is difficult to pin down where the forces originated which pushed development along these lines but I'm reasonably confident that the BUC raised awareness of this issue enough to help speed up developments and keep things focused on one target across a range of different companies.

My posting of the link in this thread was never designed to encourage people to follow this campaign (as I most certainly have no intention of joining in) but it was an interesting concept worthy of discussion and a tool to provoke discussion of browser issues and where things currently stand - which it has done and lots of interesting stuff has emerged.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Good points, but I still don't think the BUC wasn't worth the server space it was stored on. A lot of the other work that WaSP have done has undoubtly helped, but the BUC?

I'm still not sure. That particular project always annoyed me because I came across a lot of websites using it to justify not designing for NN4/IE4 when those pages wouldn't even validate. You might be right about it having more of an impact that I realise, but I think Zeldman, ALA, DigitalWeb, WaSP and many others helped the standards push most by promoting good and clean coding practices as opposed to dictating what browsers we should be using. On the other hand, IE did make some rather dramatic shifts towards supporting standards from version 5.0 -> 5.5 -> 6.0.

Hmmm, I think I just talked my way into a corner. I hate it when that happens. =)

quote:

---

That particular project always annoyed me because I came across a lot of websites using it to justify not designing for NN4/IE4 when those pages wouldn't even validate.

---

Yes, the BUC was used and abused, as a cheap way for lazy designers who couldn't care less about standards to have an excuse to exclude older browsers. This, along with the "BUC spamming," were most likely other factors that caused the campaign to be discontinued.

For the most part, however, I think the BUC succeeded in what it originally set out to do: promote awareness of web standards to the general public. It may not have been the only force at work, but the percentage of NN4 users today is still far less than before the campaign began.

And no, this discussion is not about "upgrade your browser for the sake of web standards." It's "upgrade your browser so you can have a better browsing experience." If you believe the better browsing experience is with IE6, so be it. Just remember that IE6 hasn't changed in the last 3 years, and won't change for at least another 3 years, and if it ever does, you'll have to pay (literally).

In my opinion, alternative browsers have already come far enough, that they surpass IE not just in standards-compliance, but in the general user experience, as well. So Gecko and other rendering engines aren't as fast as IE's. And I can't say that they ever will be.

But from what I can see, IE6 is quickly becoming the NN4 of the our generation. Why did Netscape's developers scrap the old architecture, and work tirelessly for 4 years on a built-from-the-ground-up Gecko engine, all while sacrificing huge market share to the ever-advancing IE? Because NN4 was just too old to keep up. No amount of upgrading and updating could save it. They had to start over.

What does this have to do with IE? Take a look at the "About Internet Explorer" dialog in the Help menu. It's built on NCSA Mosaic for heaven's sake. Microsoft has already conceded that any future upgrade to IE will require changing the underlying OS. In other words, "buy Longhorn." On the other hand, alternative browsers are in a state of active development. So why not do yourself a favor, and make the switch now?