|
|
Post by ROBiT on Aug 4, 2009 16:13:41 GMT -5
Although most people here know IE sucks, the majority of users still use it. I believe it would be a good idea to optimize the site so it runs better on IE. Here's a list of errors I get when visiting in IE: Webpage error details User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 1.0.3705; Media Center PC 2.8; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; Windows-Media-Player/10.00.00.3990; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729) Timestamp: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 21:12:36 UTC Message: Expected ';' Line: 361 Char: 62 Code: 0 URI: danballforums.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=site&action=postMessage: Expected '(' Line: 1023 Char: 4 Code: 0 URI: danballforums.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=site&action=postMessage: Expected '(' Line: 1036 Char: 4 Code: 0 URI: danballforums.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=site&action=postAnyone else willing to test it can post their IE error codes to narrow down the problem. Here's how: Visit the forums Click the page with an exclamation mark in the corner by the status bar Click "copy error details" in the popup. I believe it is all Javascript errors, and I'll look at the source code to see the problems found in mine. Edit:I found one code causing problems. <script type="text/javascript">
if pb_username != 'qwertyuiop'
{
getElementById(qwertytest).innerHTML = " ";
}
</script>
<div id="qwertytest">
This is a test, please ignore.
</div>
To fix it, it should be <script type="text/javascript">
if (pb_username != 'qwertyuiop')
{
getElementById("qwertytest").innerHTML = " ";
}
</script>
<div id="qwertytest">
This is a test, please ignore.
</div> |
As IE prefers Parentheses around statements. I believe the other erros are similar problems. You also missed some quotes around the "GetElementById" statement, as you are searching for a string. |
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Aug 4, 2009 19:13:15 GMT -5
You do realize how hard this is. I veiwed my test forum on IE and the banner didn't align exactly, throwing off the bg, the Header images on the mini profiles levetate by one pixel, etc...
Its very hard to keep things that make the site better, while still making it look good on IE.
Lemme just say this. FF is free. FF doesn't have these coding errors. Why have you not gotten it yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by xShadowLordx on Aug 4, 2009 19:30:59 GMT -5
I agree. It's just plain idiotic that people don't get FF when its FREE!!!!!!!!
I mean, come on, for crying out loud!
|
|
|
|
Post by darkraine on Aug 4, 2009 20:25:21 GMT -5
well there are certain situations like public computers that don't have the right to share firefox over all of the computers. Apparently that's why school computers don't have firefox, even though its free, they can't get the distribution rights for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by ROBiT on Aug 4, 2009 21:19:12 GMT -5
You do realize how hard this is. I veiwed my test forum on IE and the banner didn't align exactly, throwing off the bg, the Header images on the mini profiles levetate by one pixel, etc... Its very hard to keep things that make the site better, while still making it look good on IE. Lemme just say this. FF is free. FF doesn't have these coding errors. Why have you not gotten it yet. It's actually simple, make the codes IE specific. <script type="Javascript"> <!-- if (Navigator.AppName == "Microsoft Internet Explorer") { //codes here } else { //codes for other browsers here } //--> </script> |
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Aug 4, 2009 22:12:42 GMT -5
It's Actually not...
That would require re-writing all the codes to work for IE. Not to mentions some codes dont work because IE interprets the code different, making alight differences than normal, which turn out to make the code not work right. These codes would be hard to rewrite.
|
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Aug 5, 2009 1:12:06 GMT -5
So that's what was wrong with the code! I haven't done any javascript at all for a long time, sorry. I'll fix that.
Anyway, the majority of forum users do NOT use IE. Even when the forums were totally IE-incompatible, not many people complained about not being able to access it. Also, you have to consider the statistical data here. More people use firefox than internet explorer. Statistics usually don't lie.
|
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Aug 5, 2009 1:19:21 GMT -5
Technically the majority of the world uses IE. But's thats mainly because it comes with XP and Vista. FF doesn't come with any operating system, so only people who really care actually get it. Most people on this forum do care though, so this forums majority is FF. Then IE, then GC i think.
|
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Aug 5, 2009 1:23:52 GMT -5
We could always add a code to track that, see what the majority is. I'm looking to Pickle for this one.
|
|
|
|
Post by me2 on Aug 5, 2009 7:30:01 GMT -5
The easiest way to support as much browsers as possible and to have fewest problems is to make your code valid according to the specifications! Just make it run through the w3c validators: validator.w3.org/jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/After doing this you only have to do sometimes a few extra fixes for IE, while the rest of the browsers are very, very happy with the code they get, unless you don't do to much bad stuff with JavaScript /me |
|
|
|
Post by darkraine on Aug 5, 2009 11:28:50 GMT -5
I agree, "perfect" (valid) codes aren't very hard to rewrite for IE, meanwhile most people don't write codes "perfectly" because it makes no differences to their browser/interpreter . . . or, what you could do, is make a code on the homepage that will redirect any IE users to a page that has a warning saying that the website is written for FF, and give two links, one for a FF download, and the other saying something along the lines of "I don't care" . . . the annoying warning wouldn't hinder anyone from viewing the forums, it would simply discourage the use of IE . . . this can be done with a simple 301 redirect and a few if statements, the only problem with this is that it might discourage new visitors if they use IE.
|
|
|
|
Post by me2 on Aug 6, 2009 7:06:40 GMT -5
Actually as a webdevelopter you should never do this, just because of some laziness and/or stupidness. Browser sniffing is always a really bad idea. First IE 7 and 8 are not thaaaat bad in contrast to IE6 and prior. They do the most important stuff in a correct way, or with only minor errors. Second, a browser sniffing can't look into the future. It's nearly guaranteed that it might fail for an IE9 in the future, because you don't know how this version is doing stuff. Furthermore its very difficult do make a browser sniffing work correctly. Browser strings are very complicated and there are several thousands of them. For example take a look a this problem of Opera 10 which was caused by stupid web developers who used browser sniffing just because their scripts couldn't handel a two digit version number. Also it's not that difficult to make (x)html code completely valid, expecially if you have done it before a few times. Basically its just : - Add a doctype
- add the meta encoding in the head
- give all images an alt attribute
- use the validator to go though the remaining errors. (After a short time you get a pretty good feeling why he doesn't like your code.)
And for the CSS it's even easier, because the syntax is simpler. So the validator will tell you directly where your errors are. /me |
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Aug 6, 2009 16:07:14 GMT -5
For this page alone, the validator found 1560 errors and 758 warnings. Most of these involve comments in the Global H/F, and solving these "problems" would remove those same errors from other pages to be checked...
In the H/F, I have all of the codes labeled with commented titles.
<!-- --------------------------[ Name of Code Here ]---------------------------------------------- --!>
The validator does not like the use of hypens inside comments. Could '=' (without apostrophes) be used instead?
|
|
|
|
Post by ROBiT on Aug 6, 2009 16:13:06 GMT -5
Don't worry, comments are completely ignored when the page runs through the browser.
|
|
|
|
Post by General Veers on Aug 6, 2009 16:14:43 GMT -5
Well, I realize that they are only for human understanding, but what confuses me is why the validator has so many problems with them...
|
|
|
|
Post by me2 on Aug 6, 2009 18:59:28 GMT -5
Don't worry, comments are completely ignored when the page runs through the browser. True, but probably you think a comment starts with "<!--" and ends with "-->". However this is wrong! Correct is: A comment starts with "--" and ends with "--" . And the comment has to be between the markup declaration open delimiter "<!" and a the markup declaration close delimiter ">". And now think for yourself about the following examples: <!-- Comment --> <!---- Not a comment ----> <!------ Comment ------> <!-- Comment -- -- Comment --> <!-- Comment -- Not a comment -- Comment --> and what might happen if you have an odd number of hyphens. It's a good advice to simply avoid any double hyphens in a comment. For this page alone, the validator found 1560 errors and 758 warnings. I didn't check but usually the real number is much lower, because after an error the validator doesn't know what's correct and in which elements it is now. For example after not recognizing a table start it will complain about all table cells. And those wrong comments are doing stuff which is even worse. /me |
|
|
|
Post by ROBiT on Aug 6, 2009 21:40:35 GMT -5
Pwned. I just had to say that.  Thanks for contributing to my thread. |
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Aug 6, 2009 23:38:17 GMT -5
When did I right snip?
|
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Aug 7, 2009 4:06:39 GMT -5
Probably soon after you left snipped.
That was probably an edited quote.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mohamad Abd Al Raman on Aug 7, 2009 4:55:32 GMT -5
Still doesnt work btw india
|
|
[img src="http://i25.[tinypic].com/10ygymt.png"]
[M:7000]
