.com.unity Forums - OT: Stop IE

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)

- Space Empires: IV & V (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - OT: Stop IE (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=26446)

And while we are on the subject of web standards. The linked site is in violation of several laws regarding access by people with disabilities, and as such Mr. Obrien could be needing to make use of that insurance that he probably doesn't have. If someone knows him, they would be doing him a favor by letting him know that many of his link tags don�t work.

Quote:

Renegade 13 said:

Quote:

wilhil said:
If you are using dial up in 2005, you really only have yourself to blame!

I'm sorry, but this is blatently untrue. Where I live right now, in the center of British Columbia, Canada, outside of a city, all we have access to is dial-up. Satellite: Maybe. Far far too expensive though. Cable: Nope. ADSL: Nope.

And I'm to blame for this...how?

yeah sorry for that comment! I can admit when I am wrong, but still, there is a huge percentage of users with broadband now adays as where it is, it is usually cheap and affordable, if you do not have it in your area, Im sorry and retract that comment!

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht....stopie.com%2F says it is valid. All of the links save 3 have titles, all of the images have alt tags.

Wilhil, Fyron, you people are basically on the same side. You both know that IE has several 'design features' that should be avoided, because of compatibility issues with other browsers. You both also agree that it's smarter to design websites to work on all browsers, and not exclude one browser because of those same 'design features'. Might I ask, then, what it is you are arguing about? Both of you people achieve the same result in the end, a website that will work equally for everyone. Does it really matter what route you use to achieve such ends?

Quote:

Imperator Fyron said:
Compatibility with all browser and OS environments is the entire purpose of the w3c standards. IE is not a valid standard bearer.

I feel we are moving away from the main point here, and it is becoming more a flame war, the main thing I can say is, my non w3c standard site works in both IE and it works in mozilla, which means that mozilla supports not w3c sites, so in reality, how is this diffrent from IE?

IE supports part of w3c. You can design fully w3c-compliant web sites that work in both IE and the rest of the world. IE also has a lot of junk code that it supports that must be avoided. Do you at least run sites through http://validator.w3.org/ to avoid major errors?

I always run through a number of validators so I can check for major errors, I just dont both doing the little things that will not change performance and will allow me to say w3c compliant as I see little use for this.

As I said, mozilla supports non w3c standards for the reason, so they can run non compatible sites, for the same reason microsoft runs them. I just honestly can not see a argument here for saying IE is bad and you should switch, I like IE, I have not hard one problem, and I simply have no reason to switch, yet I do not go around forums saying SWITCH TO IE... and go on about things. personally I like it, and to date, I have not hard one problem.

If you have security issues, put it in high security mode. I have not had one problem.

NA:
As per posts #388024 and #388031, this has pretty much already occured.

Quote:

NullAshton said:
Wilhil, Fyron, you people are basically on the same side. You both know that IE has several 'design features' that should be avoided, because of compatibility issues with other browsers. You both also agree that it's smarter to design websites to work on all browsers, and not exclude one browser because of those same 'design features'. Might I ask, then, what it is you are arguing about? Both of you people achieve the same result in the end, a website that will work equally for everyone. Does it really matter what route you use to achieve such ends?

Because when someone starts I get involved! lol

the argument was mainly about web browsers, not websites... but I do get your point, but still I just am a little annoyed because as I said, I do not mind people advising programs, saying, why not try mozilla, you can do this, maybe if I was using IE 3, and then they said try mozilla, it is much better, but frankly, mozilla vs IE is nothing more than someone pushing their points of view on another, which is no better than propaganda in my books.

The owner of stopie.com is just another microsoft hating person.

I am not to keen of some areas of microsoft, but they have good products, why should I stop using them?

I see 7 in the code. The US law allows for none, and is currently being much abused by the legal establishment. It really doesn�t make any difference to me, I just found it ironic that a site that was speaking so much to the state of internet standards would be in less than complete compliance with one of the few that have actually be legislated.

Quote:

wilhil said:
yeah sorry for that comment! I can admit when I am wrong, but still, there is a huge percentage of users with broadband now adays as where it is, it is usually cheap and affordable, if you do not have it in your area, Im sorry and retract that comment!

Thanks! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

There is really a US law about website access for disabled people? Is it just zoomable, scalable text or something more?