So I see that MicroSoft has updated their website. Is it really that hard to make the menu and banner pretty in Firefox too? The design is clearly a move towards the standards and it looks highly optimized. Why not take the tiny extra step to style it nicely for Firefox?
I understand legacy sites from a few years ago that saw the trend toward an IE-only web and so never considered making things work well in multiple browsers.
This is different. This is a company with infinite budget, talented developers, and an entire team who are specifically tasked with writing a Web browser, and apparently the desire to move towards the w3c standards. Is it really so difficult when you're redesigning a site from the ground up to make your primary (and fairly simple) navigation menu style and your site banner look roughly the same in more than one browser? No. It's not. It's certainly within their capabilities. Why then?
Maybe Scoble knows.
Posted by asa at August 26, 2004 10:46 AMi guess they think "it costs too much" - if time to learn how to do proper html or money to employ the people that know.
also, another way of them to prove that ie is better. or am i a bit paranoid?
Posted by: Michael Zeltner on August 26, 2004 11:26 AMThe site only looks good in IE, but not Firefox and Opera.
Maybe it is used IE-only CSS for the fading effort? Also, I think it should set html, body { margin: 0; padding: 0; }
Posted by: minghong on August 26, 2004 11:27 AMI think they own css ;-)
filter:progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.Gradient(startColorStr='#d1d3d4',endColorStr='#ffffff',gradientType='0' );
doesn't look very standards compliant to me.
Posted by: Robert J. Accettura on August 26, 2004 11:30 AMSeems strange really considering they are trying to get Mozilla, Linux, Mac etc users to convert to MS products. Would have thought they would make a point of ensuring that their site looks attractive for the potential converts.
Posted by: Ross Thomas on August 26, 2004 11:51 AMI can't believe they're making use of filter: ... That's just a slap in the face, ain't it? I won't ever believe that Microsoft actually are trying to comply with standards.
Posted by: Markus Lindström on August 26, 2004 12:40 PMWhat do you expect from someone who can't even include a doctype?
Posted by: Stephen Horlander on August 26, 2004 12:50 PMI actually thing the rendition in Firefox is better than in IE. Firefox also scales things for DPI without having to set a registry key.
Posted by: Brant Gurganus on August 26, 2004 01:11 PMOn a seperate note, Asa, since the AltSS Switcher has been removed in the newest build which I just got... could you please add a web based method to switch the SS for your blog? Since, this was one of the justifications for why the switcher wasn't all that necessary immediately.
Posted by: Tim Meader on August 26, 2004 01:38 PMTim, looks like Asa pulled the alternate stylesheets, they're nowhere to be found in the source.
Posted by: Markus Lindström on August 26, 2004 02:10 PMPretty hilarious, really. I have ActiveX controls prompt me every time they want to run in IE and if I say "No" on the new MS homepage the gradients don't show and it looks nearly as it does in Firefox.
Maybe we should suggest they use PNGs for their gradient so it'll work on different backgrounds? ;)
Posted by: Kevin Freitas on August 26, 2004 04:05 PMAsa, what are you nuts? They obviously want their site to look crappy on non-IE browsers to artifically show how much better IE is. Jackasses.
Posted by: James "Kovu" Russell on August 26, 2004 04:33 PMThe design is clearly a move towards the standardsWhat move toward standards are you talking about? It doesn't even have a DOCTYPE for crying out loud. Posted by: Greg on August 26, 2004 05:56 PM
Come on Asa, Microsoft does NOT have an "infinite budget" - they only have millions and millions to spend on such things...
Not quite enough for them to buy a clue...
> Is it really that hard to make the menu and banner pretty in Firefox too?
Why should they care?
> The site only looks good in IE, but not Firefox and Opera.
Only if you've enabled JavaScript in MSIE, something only idiots do.
And my request is to you Asa, can you make your site look as pretty in Firefox as it does in Lynx ;)
I don't really like this new stylesheet (I preferred to old one - this is too bright).
But still as always, a good read which is the main thing.
Posted by: Dave on August 27, 2004 02:06 AMWho cares? mozilla.org could've made IE page of http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.7/README.html look good by using images instead of an unfinished spec and Microsoft could've done the same. I don't see it as a move to standards but a move torwards asthetics. It's not like the world's going to end.
Posted by: Bill on August 27, 2004 12:58 PMTim, I don't have alternate style sheets to switch to. I decided they weren't necessary.
--Asa
Posted by: Asa Dotzler on August 27, 2004 06:25 PMGoing by this article it really is quite an improvement -
http://www.stopdesign.com/log/2004/08/25/microsoft-advances.html
Posted by: Paul on August 27, 2004 06:54 PMBill :
> Who cares? mozilla.org could've made IE page of
> http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.7/README.html
> look good...
Hey! Hands off of Moz! This is not just different, this is more like apples and kiwis here! Micro$oft is evil, while Moz is here to make sure we can keep on rockin' in the free world!
-----------------
And now on to something completely unrelated...
Ross :
"Seems strange really considering they are trying to get mainly IE users to convert to moz.org products. Would have thought they would make a point of ensuring that their site looks attractive for the potential converts."
Mwa-har-har-har!!!
Posted by: Grunt on August 28, 2004 03:08 AM
