Best viewed with Firefox.

I so agree with you guys, now i use firefox and i had to install this entension called IE tab so that i can still use all the IE setting with out all the add telling me that internet explorere or my browser isnt safe.

 

Firefox will also display sites correctly that aren't coded as the W3C proposes. You can leave out whatever accessibility enhancements you want, you can use font tags, tables for layout, etc., Firefox will handle it too.
The problem with IE is mainly CSS. If you've ever made a layout in CSS you'll realise how problematic IE actually is in that area. The thing is that CSS is a standard, so if you follow that standard (which describes how this or that CSS property will act) you expect that it will display as intended. However, IE doesn't always do that, which is a major pain.
So, in reality browsers that do support CSS correctly are easier to code for for an amateur than browsers that don't support it very well.

 

1) the W3C standards of course, Microsoft is even part of the W3C.
2) That's indeed true. But you're missing the point, Firefox merely supports the standards better than IE, so that's why some people claim it would be better to use it.
But, IE7 will have less problems with CSS, and IE8 will be even better, so it seems Microsoft understands how important supporting standards actually is.

 

A valid point. The problem created, however, is that different browsers interpret bad code in different ways. Even if a developer can get away with bad code in browser A doesn't mean it will work the same in browser B. The result leaves us with pages that work in IE but not FF, and pages that work in FF but not IE—the former being more common due to IE's large market share. The only way to avoid this fragmentation of the Web is for all browsers to agree on what is acceptable code and not deviate from that arrangement.

 

The W3C has published recommendations. They are not standards, at least not yet, and that's obviously not because they are new.

 

They're indeed recommendations but recommendations that are widely followed, supported and created by people from various companies and organisations (including MS). They're also the best documented and supported recommendations being used by thousands of applications.

So what are you suggesting? Starting from scratch because one browser out of the many doesn't support some W3C recommendations very well? Are you trying to suggest that fault is the W3C and not MS? If so, why do other browsers get it right?

Of course we can stay in the "browser war" age and have browsers implementing different or proprietary standards, but who will benifit from that? The thing even is that IE doesn't have another standard for CSS, it simply has buggy support for it, the rendering problems IE has aren't intentional but only related to bugs. That's opposed to for example supporting a proprietary standard instead of SVG.

 

What I'm suggesting is that simply that calling them standards doesn't make them standards. Some of the W3C recommendations make sense to me; others don't. All browsers have their quirks, including in terms of how they interpret "standards".

My objection is to people (not you specifically but in general) in threads like this one and the <DIV> vs <Table> one who imply that there is only one acceptable browser, one acceptable OS, or one acceptable way of doing things.

The essence of freedom is choice. And diversity of personal preferences is generally a good thing in that it encourages choice.

 

Correct. But a product being widely recognized or employed—the definition of a standard—does make something a standard. Seems to me that HTML and CSS both are widely recognized and employed. Thus they are standards. There could exist instead Microsoft Markup Language, Mozilla Markup Language, Opera Markup Language, etc., but they don't. They all have agreed to implement HTML. HTML is the standard markup language used on the WWW. Each browser, of course, still has their own set of extensions. Back in the days of the browser wars each browser's extensions differed enough that they could have been considered separate standards, but that's not how it is anymore.

 

I mostly agree minstrel. The only thing I feel different about is that personal preferences aren't that good in this context, as in others where standards are desired to address certain problems. In this case the lack of standards or bad support is a big pain for web designers, especially those who have client that demand an accessible website.

But I do agree that it wouldn't be fine if a standard is so static that there's no way around it. But CSS and XHTML 1.1 aren't like that, both recommendations allow extensions. Some basic examples are embedding XML in XHTML1.1, the various -moz CSS properties or Microformats.

The thing with IE is that it does support the CSS2 standard but its support is incomplete (eg. no :hover on other elements than a) and buggy (eg. box model problem). That doesn't mean IE isn't an acceptable browser, but it does mean that it lacks in rendering quality, that Firefox and others are better in that area. Of course people choose to use what they want, no problem with that, but you can't blame web designers promoting one browser over the other if the other has a buggy rendering engine that requires lots of hacks.

There's also no problem at all using tables and it's foolish if some people try to impose it on others. If the other doesn't want it it's his problem, and he'll have to bare the consequences of that choice (positive or negative), it doesn't do any harm to other people.

 

yeah I use firefox for everything now

 

been using firefox for everything for some time now, and i dont regret it. firefox should just take over the entire web browsing world!!!! hehe

 

I've been using Internet Explorer for everything and I love the way it opens instantly for me everytime. I also love that because 80 to 90% of surfers are using IE, then 99% of all webmasters will design their site so that it shows up correctly for me when I visit them.

 

I use Firefox now, but it makes me mad. It freezes up alot and crashes. I've never had a problem with IE doing that. Better my foot. The only thing that I like more with Firefox is the Tabs, and I believe IE 7 has tabs....I'm not sure which version.

 

Well, Firefox is far better than anything you could find in the internet, for a web browser.

 

Well that depends on your preferences. Safari and Opera for example are also very high quality browsers.

 

Actually that's a reason not to use IE

The thing is that more and more modern websites are using CSS for styling. Firefox, Opera and Safari are browsers that follow this standard pretty well but IE has quite a few bugs which requires developers to find workarounds and spend much extra time to debug a website for this browser.
So if you want to do web developers a favor, use a browser that has good CSS support

 

Don't get me wrong, I've used Firefox before. What I noticed is that I was coming across much more websites with display problems than I was in IE.

You may be right and IE is not the best with CSS, but most webmasters know that to design a site that only displays correctly in mozilla browsers would be web traffic suicide. So even if Firefix is able to display CSS that IE can't use, most webmasters probably wouldn't use it, because the ultimate goal is to get people to view their site and content, not to show someone how they have cool CSS on their site.

But really, what it all comes down to is the load time. If Firefox opened as quickly as IE, I might be tempted to switch.

As trivials as the extra load time sounds, the real benefit to me is that IE opens right away. I hate watching the Netscape splash screen or the long pause before Firefox opens with its tab functionality. Especially when I'm at work and someone asks "how do you spell this word" and I can instantly open Dictionary.com in IE without the slightest bit of hesitation.

Plus, I guess I just love hitting CTRL+O to type in a URL, rather than CTRL+L. (Yeah, I know that could probably be changed in the properties of Firefox).

 

Is anyone else as anal as me in regards to design, I create separate CSS files for FF and MSIE so they render exactly how I want them too.

Why dont these people just do that..!

 

Why should they need to? If all browsers worked to a standard and rendered equally then you could throw the words "cross browser" into the garbage bin of history, and good riddance.

IE is quicker at it's initial load as you would expect of a browser that is so entrenched in the operating system itself, but it's slower than Firefox at just about everything else, including rendering pages.

 

I'm not saying I don't believe you, I might. I'm just curious, as there could be many variables as to why one page loads slow or fast (eg. the webserver, the visitors ISP, etc.)

What is the evidence that Firefox renders pages faster than IE?