Coffeehouse Thread

24 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

New Microsoft.com

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    Shining Arcanine

    http://www.microsoft.com/

    Is it just my computer or does everyone else's copy of IE in XP SP2 fail to display the top like shown on the bottom:

    http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=584433899

  • User profile image
    harumscarum

    I get the same thing in FF.

  • User profile image
    PaoloM

    Works just fine (XP Pro, SP2) here. Given that those gradients are created using directx transforms, they are not viewable in anything else but IE.

    I would check your internet zone settings to see if there's something different from the standard.

  • User profile image
    Kaelan

    Now that's a good use of dx transforms! Maybe people will finally realize why they're a good idea (even if they're not implemented so well.)

  • User profile image
    juliankay

    This redesign is very bad. The code is not even compliant.


    Get your act together Microsoft. You're not some mickey mouse company, or are you?!

  • User profile image
    Shining Arcanine

    PaoloM wrote:
    Works just fine (XP Pro, SP2) here. Given that those gradients are created using directx transforms, they are not viewable in anything else but IE.

    I would check your internet zone settings to see if there's something different from the standard.


    My internet zone settings are always different than the standard. I didn't think that they could turn off a nonstandard feature in IE through. ^_^

    Kaelan wrote:
    Now that's a good use of dx transforms! Maybe people will finally realize why they're a good idea (even if they're not implemented so well.)


    They aren't in any W3C CSS recommendation. All of which Microsoft took part in the creation of. I fail to see how they can be a good idea if they weren't included.

    juliankay wrote:
    This redesign is very bad. The code is not even compliant.


    Microsoft made a good part of each W3C recommendation. It is a shame to see that Microsoft is completely ignoring them when designing its websites.

  • User profile image
    Jeremy W

    Ahem: http://channels.lockergnome.com/web/archives/20040826_microsoft_takes_homepage_baby_steps.phtml

    Links to Doug Bowman's post praising MS's efforts in this area. It's not amazing, but how far it's come in terms of the homepage is quite good:

    A huge drop in the number of tables used to lay out the page, not a spacer gif in sight, all the proprietary attributes and identifiers in the links are gone, most of the bulky JavaScript the previous home page used is stripped out, and the HTML now weighs in at a lean 11 KB.

    No, not fully standards compliant, but as he notes, the 60 odd errors (VERY few) are nearly all to do with markup, something VERY easy to fix.

    Overall Doug's evaluation is bang on. This isn't the perfect redesign, but it is a series of huge steps in the right direction, specifically because different pages aren't being served to different browsers.

    Also, the redesign is a lot more focussed on customers and people instead of pushing software. Which, as Joe Wilcox notes, is a huge deal.

    So, no, MS isn't "completely ignoring" them. But sometimes these things take time, and this is more semantically correct and well done than just about any corporate site I can think of. Well done to Microsoft.

  • User profile image
    Kaelan

    Shining Arcanine wrote:


    Kaelan wrote: Now that's a good use of dx transforms! Maybe people will finally realize why they're a good idea (even if they're not implemented so well.)


    They aren't in any W3C CSS recommendation. All of which Microsoft took part in the creation of. I fail to see how they can be a good idea if they weren't included.

    I don't see how the fact that CSS is crippled and badly designed makes it bad for Microsoft to make use of directx transforms. They are a useful feature with no equivalent in standard HTML/CSS, and for whatever reason the W3C doesn't seem to intend to remedy that. There are plenty of similar features that are only supported by Gecko, and aren't a part of the CSS standard, yet I don't hear people crying when developers use them.

  • User profile image
    Keskos

    Kaelan wrote:
    Shining Arcanine wrote:

    Kaelan wrote: Now that's a good use of dx transforms! Maybe people will finally realize why they're a good idea (even if they're not implemented so well.)


    They aren't in any W3C CSS recommendation. All of which Microsoft took part in the creation of. I fail to see how they can be a good idea if they weren't included.

    I don't see how the fact that CSS is crippled and badly designed makes it bad for Microsoft to make use of directx transforms. They are a useful feature with no equivalent in standard HTML/CSS, and for whatever reason the W3C doesn't seem to intend to remedy that. There are plenty of similar features that are only supported by Gecko, and aren't a part of the CSS standard, yet I don't hear people crying when developers use them.


    W3C's specifications doesn't mean you can't use anything else. We use flash, java, .net. What's important is whether your site is accessible or not. If I can't view the same site on firefox on linux it is not very good, because there are lots of linux boxes, or mac os boxes. W3c is out there to help people access the content as well as the owner of the content to present it. If nobody is complaining about accessibility of the content, nobody has right to question the techniques involved in the implementation of the web site. This is like, questioning a software which you run based on whether they used UML in the implementation process, or whether they used an OO language.

  • User profile image
    Shining Arcanine

    Jeremy W. wrote:
    Ahem: http://channels.lockergnome.com/web/archives/20040826_microsoft_takes_homepage_baby_steps.phtml

    Links to Doug Bowman's post praising MS's efforts in this area. It's not amazing, but how far it's come in terms of the homepage is quite good:

    A huge drop in the number of tables used to lay out the page, not a spacer gif in sight, all the proprietary attributes and identifiers in the links are gone, most of the bulky JavaScript the previous home page used is stripped out, and the HTML now weighs in at a lean 11 KB.

    No, not fully standards compliant, but as he notes, the 60 odd errors (VERY few) are nearly all to do with markup, something VERY easy to fix.

    Overall Doug's evaluation is bang on. This isn't the perfect redesign, but it is a series of huge steps in the right direction, specifically because different pages aren't being served to different browsers.

    Also, the redesign is a lot more focussed on customers and people instead of pushing software. Which, as Joe Wilcox notes, is a huge deal.

    So, no, MS isn't "completely ignoring" them. But sometimes these things take time, and this is more semantically correct and well done than just about any corporate site I can think of. Well done to Microsoft.


    That is good to know, I thought that the page was largely unchanged.

    Kaelan wrote:
    Shining Arcanine wrote:

    Kaelan wrote: Now that's a good use of dx transforms! Maybe people will finally realize why they're a good idea (even if they're not implemented so well.)


    They aren't in any W3C CSS recommendation. All of which Microsoft took part in the creation of. I fail to see how they can be a good idea if they weren't included.

    I don't see how the fact that CSS is crippled and badly designed makes it bad for Microsoft to make use of directx transforms. They are a useful feature with no equivalent in standard HTML/CSS,


    There is also no other browser in the world that supports them.

    Kaelan wrote:
    and for whatever reason the W3C doesn't seem to intend to remedy that.


    Ironically Microsoft is a member of the W3C so if what you say is true, that is partially Microsoft's fault.

    On another topic, did you know that gradients from been used in webpages before and have you checked the CSS3 specification lately? I haven't read much into it but there probably is something there.

    Kaelan wrote:
    There are plenty of similar features that are only supported by Gecko, and aren't a part of the CSS standard, yet I don't hear people crying when developers use them.


    Would you care to point one out?

  • User profile image
    Kaelan

    Shining Arcanine wrote:


    There is also no other browser in the world that supports them.



    Again, how does this make them bad? There are plenty of very useful tools and features that only one program supports.

    Shining Arcanine wrote:

    Ironically Microsoft is a member of the W3C so if what you say is true, that is partially Microsoft's fault.

    On another topic, did you know that gradients from been used in webpages before and have you checked the CSS3 specification lately? I haven't read much into it but there probably is something there.

    The W3C doesn't always listen to its members, or get things done in a reasonable amount of time. Did you read that news story about a few major browser developers (I know the Moz and Opera teams were a part of it) forming their own committee to, you know, actually get things done in a reasonable amount of time. I believe the name they picked is WHAT.

    http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=4816

    One interesting thing to note is that the main reason they have chosen to abandon the W3C is that MS is making faster progress with XAML than the W3C is.
    Shining Arcanine wrote:


    Kaelan wrote: There are plenty of similar features that are only supported by Gecko, and aren't a part of the CSS standard, yet I don't hear people crying when developers use them.


    Would you care to point one out?

    -moz-binding -moz-border-radius -moz-border-radius-topleft -moz-border-radius-topright -moz-border-radius-bottomright -moz-border-radius-bottomleft -moz-border-top-colors -moz-border-right-colors -moz-border-bottom-colors -moz-border-left-colors -moz-opacity -moz-outline -moz-outline-color -moz-outline-style -moz-outline-width -moz-user-focus -moz-user-input -moz-user-modify -moz-user-select

    Not to mention the entirety of XUL and all the other proprietary mozilla DOM extensions. Many of them are great features, but they aren't in CSS. Why? Maybe the W3C didn't consider them important, maybe the W3C thought they were too complicated, and maybe the W3C is just retarded. Based on my opinion of CSS (versions 1-3), I'm opting for the latter.

  • User profile image
    warren

    juliankay wrote:

    This redesign is very bad. The code is not even compliant.

    Big fucking deal.  It's not important.

    What matters to the 99.99%+ of people who visit Microsoft.com (or indeed, any other website) is that the website:

    a) is usable,
    b) has relevant and popular stuff front-and-center,
    c) loads reasonably fast,
    d) isn't cluttered with unnecessary things


    Did they do all these things with the site redesign?  Yes.  Does the lack of adherence to W3C standards interfere with any of these goals?  No!

    A site that is W3C-compliant can also be completely useless and irrelevant, and if not written correctly, can also be much larger and slower to display.  Conforming to more recent standards can also interfere with the website's ability to display on older browsers (think IE3, Netscape 4.0, etc.).

  • User profile image
    warren

    Oh, and while we're at it, let's talk about how Google also sucks because it isn't valid W3C HTML either.  In fact, their home page is also a mess of extremely lengthy lines and poorly named Javascript variables!

    And yet, somehow, Google manages to soldier on!  How DO they do it?

  • User profile image
    Jeremy W

    Keskos, he isn't complaining. He's showing that other browsers do the same thing and people don't scream about how evil it is.

  • User profile image
    Shining Arcanine

    Kaelan wrote:
    Shining Arcanine wrote:

    There is also no other browser in the world that supports them.



    Again, how does this make them bad? There are plenty of very useful tools and features that only one program supports.


    Last check one of the reasons for having a recommendation is so everyone can view the same thing regardless of their platform.

    Kaelan wrote:

    Shining Arcanine wrote:
    Ironically Microsoft is a member of the W3C so if what you say is true, that is partially Microsoft's fault.

    On another topic, did you know that gradients from been used in webpages before and have you checked the CSS3 specification lately? I haven't read much into it but there probably is something there.

    The W3C doesn't always listen to its members, or get things done in a reasonable amount of time. Did you read that news story about a few major browser developers (I know the Moz and Opera teams were a part of it) forming their own committee to, you know, actually get things done in a reasonable amount of time. I believe the name they picked is WHAT.

    http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=4816

    One interesting thing to note is that the main reason they have chosen to abandon the W3C is that MS is making faster progress with XAML than the W3C is.


    Answer me this, would you rather have a recommendation that was rushed and as a result unfinished which you will complain about or have a recommendation that wasn't rushed and as a result finished which you won't complain about?

    Kaelan wrote:
    Shining Arcanine wrote:

    Kaelan wrote: There are plenty of similar features that are only supported by Gecko, and aren't a part of the CSS standard, yet I don't hear people crying when developers use them.


    Would you care to point one out?

    -moz-binding -moz-border-radius -moz-border-radius-topleft -moz-border-radius-topright -moz-border-radius-bottomright -moz-border-radius-bottomleft -moz-border-top-colors -moz-border-right-colors -moz-border-bottom-colors -moz-border-left-colors -moz-opacity -moz-outline -moz-outline-color -moz-outline-style -moz-outline-width -moz-user-focus -moz-user-input -moz-user-modify -moz-user-select

    Not to mention the entirety of XUL and all the other proprietary mozilla DOM extensions. Many of them are great features, but they aren't in CSS. Why? Maybe the W3C didn't consider them important, maybe the W3C thought they were too complicated, and maybe the W3C is just retarded. Based on my opinion of CSS (versions 1-3), I'm opting for the latter.


    If you read the CSS3 recommendation you would know that all of those are in the CSS3 recommendation. If you knew more about the W3C, you would know that the CSS3 recommendation can change frequently. Rather than risk having sites coded using pre-final CSS3 that changed in the final recommendation breaking the feature (sound familiar IE team?), the mozilla developers added a -moz- prefix to their support of the pre-final recommendation to ensure that any sites that improperly use the CSS3 in the final recommendation would not be created because of their actions while knowing that all other browsers would fail to recognize it and therefore ignore it.

    As for XUL, the entire point of XML is extensibility. Due to the extensible nature of XML, XUL is allowed within the XML recommendation. If you have a problem with that, why aren't you complaining about SVG and RSS?

  • User profile image
    Keskos

    Kaelan wrote:
    Shining Arcanine wrote:

    There is also no other browser in the world that supports them.



    Again, how does this make them bad? There are plenty of very useful tools and features that only one program supports.

    Shining Arcanine wrote:
    Ironically Microsoft is a member of the W3C so if what you say is true, that is partially Microsoft's fault.

    On another topic, did you know that gradients from been used in webpages before and have you checked the CSS3 specification lately? I haven't read much into it but there probably is something there.

    The W3C doesn't always listen to its members, or get things done in a reasonable amount of time. Did you read that news story about a few major browser developers (I know the Moz and Opera teams were a part of it) forming their own committee to, you know, actually get things done in a reasonable amount of time. I believe the name they picked is WHAT.

    http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=4816

    One interesting thing to note is that the main reason they have chosen to abandon the W3C is that MS is making faster progress with XAML than the W3C is.
    Shining Arcanine wrote:

    Kaelan wrote: There are plenty of similar features that are only supported by Gecko, and aren't a part of the CSS standard, yet I don't hear people crying when developers use them.


    Would you care to point one out?

    -moz-binding -moz-border-radius -moz-border-radius-topleft -moz-border-radius-topright -moz-border-radius-bottomright -moz-border-radius-bottomleft -moz-border-top-colors -moz-border-right-colors -moz-border-bottom-colors -moz-border-left-colors -moz-opacity -moz-outline -moz-outline-color -moz-outline-style -moz-outline-width -moz-user-focus -moz-user-input -moz-user-modify -moz-user-select

    Not to mention the entirety of XUL and all the other proprietary mozilla DOM extensions. Many of them are great features, but they aren't in CSS. Why? Maybe the W3C didn't consider them important, maybe the W3C thought they were too complicated, and maybe the W3C is just retarded. Based on my opinion of CSS (versions 1-3), I'm opting for the latter.


    Yes, you can use XUL with html and there are sites using xul. I haven't heard anybody complaining about it, and I don't see why you should complain about it. Again if you design your site inaccessible to many people, you have a point, otherwise it is pointless to argue for a problem that doesn't even exist.

    Jeremy misunderstood what I said. I agre Kaelan and I am saying that, people use XUL and nobody complains about it. And obviously there is nothing to complain about as long as the site is accessible to you. If the site owner uses only XUL then that's not appropriate, but if you offer XUL as a separate thing with improved stuff, I don't see the problem. Jeremy's interpretation of what I said is wrong. I totally agree with Kaelan's points.

  • User profile image
    Keskos

    Jeremy W. wrote:

    Keskos, he isn't complaining. He's showing that other browsers do the same thing and people don't scream about how evil it is.



    I didn't say he is complaining and I agree with him.  Read what I wrote again.

  • User profile image
    Kaelan

    undefined

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.