what happened to this forum

[MikeD]

...The same feature in IE does not work on all sites and that includes this one. (View>text size>larger/smaller)
...

IE hasn't had any major technology updates in like 6 years. If you are still using IE to browse the web you are misssing a lot of new stuff out there. I just naturally assumed everyone knew that and was using Firefox already. So I guess I learned something new today also. Thanks Steve.

[Kim Crosser]

Users have been urged to upgrade to the latest versions of Mozilla's software to protect themselves from a series of critical security holes.
The Computer Emergency Readiness Team (CERT) warned on Monday that earlier versions of Firefox, and other Mozilla software based on Firefox code, contain a clutch of vulnerabilities that expose users to attack.
The Mozilla Foundation released a new version of Firefox last week, version 1.5.0.2, which it said contained fixes for several security flaws.
According to security firm Secunia, there are a total of 21 flaws in the older versions of Firefox, such as Firefox 1.5, some of which it described as critical.
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6062713.html?tag=nl.e589

Sure glad Firefox is so much more secure than IE...

By "everyone", I guess you are excluding the 75-80% of browser users that use Internet Explorer.
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
Oh - and these are users that are accessing the W3C Schools site, who tend to be more frequent adopters of non-Microsoft products.

Why is it that when Microsoft introduces non-standard "enhanced" browser behavior, everyone complains that they aren't playing fair and should remains standards-compliant, but when other browsers introduce features that aren't part of the W3C standards, "... you are missing a lot of new stuff out there."?

[MikeD]

Oh brother... here we go again...

IE does not have, nor has if ever had any security holes, right?

So let me know when IE supports transparency in PNG graphics. Do you know why the PCA SDR logo in the top right looks so horrible in IE? Because I had find some kludgy Javascript to get the back to render transparent. "Just works" in Firefox, Mozilla, Netscape. And, I'm sure you know this already, but PNG is one of the top 3 graphic formats on the web. And has been for a number of years. Where are you IE?

Oh and BTW: JPEG doesn't support transparency. And Unisys wants a license fee for using GIF. Just in case you wanted to try and tell me I should use one of the other 2 file formats.

So how's that built-in popup blocker working for ya? Oh yeah, you don't have one, you need a third party tool to block your popups.

So how do you like those tabs that keep you from having to litter your desktop with 10 open windows? Oh yeah, you would need yet another 3 party application to get that working in IE.

Want more???

"everyone" == 99.9% of the people I know and have talked to about such things in that last year or so. Most of which happen to be teens (14-19), who are notorious for wanting to see all the "cool" stuff on a site. And they use Firefox. So yeah, based on that input I did assume everyone was using Firefox, Mozilla, or something with the Gecko rendering engine.

And I have no idea what you are talking about with the "standards" comment. If Firefox, IE, or any other brower forced me into doing something that was anti-standards I would be just as pissed at them no matter who the manufacturer was.


At least this was a little technical... getting better Kim

[Kim Crosser]

A few "technical" points:

1. IE supports the "required" features of PNG. The "alpha channel" feature of PNG is an "optional" feature, which will be supported in IE 7, and for which Microsoft posted a workaround more than a year ago. There have been numerous alpha channel "behavior" scripts for IE posted since mid-2004.

2. GIF fees... C'mon - what a cop-out. Purchase any good graphic tool (like LViewPro) and you get GIF generation included with the purchase ($29). GIF rendering (with transparency) is and has always been free. So you like PNG better than GIF - just admit it and get on with life... FYI - Unisys does NOT charge a license for GIF use in any non-profit or non-commercial use, which should cover our forum (http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/Gif/unisys.html).

3. I never claimed IE had no security holes. Firefox is a great browser. However (as many of us learned years ago), when you build software for browsers, you SHOULD check to make sure you aren't using features that are only supported on some of them. (How well does everything work on Netscape Navigator?)

4. If "everyone" is your immediate circle of friends (14-19 year olds), how does that relate to "everyone" in the larger sense (i.e., the whole online community)? By your logic, all of us at the stadium for AX's have Porsches - therefore, everyone must drive Porsches. I would wager that our forum users are similar to the Internet community at large - i.e., around 90% Windows OS and around 75-80% Internet Explorer. Assuming that all our forum users have selected Firefox browsers - well, we all know what "assume" does.

5. The "standards" point was that PNG transparency is NOT a formal requirement of W3C, although it has been adopted by most browsers and will be in IE 7. It is optional. There are LOTS of HTML tag features Microsoft embedded in IE that are not supported in other browsers, and I have to keep beating up on my developers to NOT use them, as that makes our code behave badly on other browsers - and the reverse is true. There are some very good HTML standard compliance validators that will advise you if you are using a feature not strictly standards compliant, or which uses optional features (like PNL alpha channel). (http://www.thefreecountry.com/webmaster/htmlvalidators.shtml has some good links. We have had good success with the CSE HTML Validator utility, which can be downloaded and run locally, or you can download and compile the W3C compliance validator.)

[MikeD]

A few "technical" points:

1. IE supports the "required" features of PNG. The "alpha channel" feature of PNG is an "optional" feature, which will be supported in IE 7, and for which Microsoft posted a workaround more than a year ago. There have been numerous alpha channel "behavior" scripts for IE posted since mid-2004.

I don't really keep up with all the work arounds for IE. Maybe I mislead you, and others, but I am NOT a webmaster. I play one for the club because that's were my skills seem to help out the most. But I am not one now, nor do I want to be one ever. Optional or not, a transparent PNG was what I had and it worked in Gecko but not in IE.

2. GIF fees... C'mon - what a cop-out. Purchase any good graphic tool (like LViewPro) and you get GIF generation included with the purchase ($29). GIF rendering (with transparency) is and has always been free. So you like PNG better than GIF - just admit it and get on with life... FYI - Unisys does NOT charge a license for GIF use in any non-profit or non-commercial use, which should cover our forum (http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/Gif/unisys.html).

Technically speaking, I know nothing about imaging or images. And frankly do not care nor have a desire to begin caring. GIF may not cost any money, but it is certainly no free. My decision to use a format other than GIF is based on principle and nothing more.... And I was not, and am not now afraid to admit that. You want to call it a "cop-out"? OK, doesn't really matter to me. But my principle is based on the GIF licensing issue, and those principles triggered the decision to use PNG.

3. I never claimed IE had no security holes. Firefox is a great browser. However (as many of us learned years ago), when you build software for browsers, you SHOULD check to make sure you aren't using features that are only supported on some of them. (How well does everything work on Netscape Navigator?)

So then why take a stab at Firefox's security flaws? Had I not called you out on that point the implication to those not savvy would have been "Firefox is riddled with security holes, whereas IE is not." You knew that was going to be the underlying sentiment and wanted it to be. Isn't that called propaganda?

And you are right. A real webmaster should check all browsers to make sure the site looks and works properly. And as I said before, I am not a real webmaster. And I'll be honest, the first time I saw this forum in IE 6 was about two weeks ago. And that's when I realized the logo in the top left was completely black. Needless to say I was very surprised and shocked.

4. If "everyone" is your immediate circle of friends (14-19 year olds), how does that relate to "everyone" in the larger sense (i.e., the whole online community)? By your logic, all of us at the stadium for AX's have Porsches - therefore, everyone must drive Porsches. I would wager that our forum users are similar to the Internet community at large - i.e., around 90% Windows OS and around 75-80% Internet Explorer. Assuming that all our forum users have selected Firefox browsers - well, we all know what "assume" does.

You didn't really read what I said, did you?

I just naturally assumed everyone knew that and was using Firefox already

I admitted to making and assumption. And we all make assumptions, yes, I'm sure even you do Kim. And we make those assumptions based on our current sphere of influence. Of all the people I know and talk to about this sort of thing 1% of them still use IE. The rest use Firefox or Mozilla.

My point about being around teens mostly was that they are typically early adopters. Looking for and using the latest and greatest of everything.

And your point about driving Porsche's vs. not, makes no sense. If my only friends were those in this club, then it might work. But, and this may be hard to believe, only a small percentage of my friends are in this club. I have friends that drive Bently GT's and friends that drive 25 year old Mazda's.

5. The "standards" point was that PNG transparency is NOT a formal requirement of W3C, although it has been adopted by most browsers and will be in IE 7. It is optional.

That couldn't be true. I didn't bring up the PNG transparency issue until the post after you mentioned "standards". I think you may need to try another stab at that one.

There are LOTS of HTML tag features Microsoft embedded in IE that are not supported in other browsers, and I have to keep beating up on my developers to NOT use them, as that makes our code behave badly on other browsers - and the reverse is true. There are some very good HTML standard compliance validators that will advise you if you are using a feature not strictly standards compliant, or which uses optional features (like PNL alpha channel). (http://www.thefreecountry.com/webmaster/htmlvalidators.shtml has some good links. We have had good success with the CSE HTML Validator utility, which can be downloaded and run locally, or you can download and compile the W3C compliance validator.)

I think we agree on this point. But I really do not see how it's relevant to this conversation. If you want to run the forum through an HTML validator, be my guest.

You do understand that this new look and feel stuff was not my invention, right Kim? I merely took what was done by someone else and adapted it to the forum. I mean if you really have that big of a problem with the graphics, layout, font, color scheme, or whatever, you are more than welcome to take it up with the developers.

I try and be open to criticism and suggestions. But this is taking it a bit too far, don't you think? I mean coming at me bitching about this, and I should've done that. And IE is so cool, it even wipes my rear when I get off the pot in the morning. What is your point Kim?

I'm tired. Honestly, if it doesn't look good in IE, I don't really care at this point. Download Firefox or not. Use the PCASDR style, or not.

[Kim Crosser]

Mike - I apologize if it looks like I was bitching at you.

My first posts (on this and the other thread) were really intended with tongue in cheek (thus the emoticons). We seem to have escalated this well beyond the poking fun level, which wasn't my intention.

All of us do appreciate the work you, Chris, and the others do to maintain and update the web site.

Acknowledgements:

1. IE is arguably the least secure browser on the market. Anyone who doesn't know that hasn't read or listened to any news reports of virus and other attacks in the past several years.

2. IE is usually well behind the other browsers in adopting new standards (and optional standards). Instead, Microsoft seems to focus on adding new features to IE to support their internal (and proprietary) Document Object Model and COM support. This makes it support proprietary MS environments very well, but doesn't help with cross-platform web pages.


Now, a (helpful, I hope) suggestion regarding the font issue. The reason the forum fonts won't resize in IE is that the pages use "absolute" font sizes rather than "relative" font sizes. Technically, if you specify an absolute font size (e.g. "10px", "12pt", etc.), the browser is supposed to honor that specification and keep the font at that size. It appears that Firefox's scaling of the fonts is unique to Firefox (or the Gecko rendering engine), and isn't part of the W3C standards.
If you use a relative font size (e.g., "small", "x-small", "20%", "1.2em", etc.), then the browser is allowed to resize the font (using the "View->Text Size->..." menu in IE). Use of "em" units is the preferred method for defining resizable fonts. (http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/font-size)

[MikeD]

Mike - I apologize if it looks like I was bitching at you.

Apology accepted.

My first posts (on this and the other thread) were really intended with tongue in cheek (thus the emoticons). We seem to have escalated this well beyond the poking fun level, which wasn't my intention.

The Windows XP update issues thread was all about poking fun. After all you don't seriously expect me to switch to Windows, just like I don't seriously expect you to switch to Linux. But this thread was not poking fun. It started off as a complaint, and with the exception of Robert, Steve, and possibly Tom (Tom at least had the insight to offer a suggestion that didn't require my intervention) has continued on that path.

Now, a (helpful, I hope) suggestion regarding the font issue. The reason the forum fonts won't resize in IE is that the pages use "absolute" font sizes rather than "relative" font sizes. Technically, if you specify an absolute font size (e.g. "10px", "12pt", etc.), the browser is supposed to honor that specification and keep the font at that size. It appears that Firefox's scaling of the fonts is unique to Firefox (or the Gecko rendering engine), and isn't part of the W3C standards.
If you use a relative font size (e.g., "small", "x-small", "20%", "1.2em", etc.), then the browser is allowed to resize the font (using the "View->Text Size->..." menu in IE). Use of "em" units is the preferred method for defining resizable fonts. (http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/font-size)

And I keep trying to tell you that I did not set the font size or the color scheme. It was developed by a member who volunteered their companies services. I had no say in what they did. And I do not have the time right now to go through the style sheets to change all the font sizes, and rework all the background colors. If you want to take on that effort, then by all means go for it. If you send me the style sheets I'll test them, install them and we'll be on our merry way. If you want me to do it, it will be a while. I have moved on to other projects and will come back to this when I can.

Thanks,
Mike