PDA

View Full Version : Word Password in Firefox?



Gabber
06-25-2005, 01:59 AM
Hello!
How can this be made to work in Firefox? Somehow it only works in IE and Netscape... the script is small, but I have no ideia how to adapt it to work in all... :mad:

http://javascript.internet.com/navigation/word-launcher.html

greetz :)

Gabber
07-01-2005, 11:39 PM
anyone?

Twey
07-02-2005, 10:05 AM
Erm... don't think you can. The problem is that Firefox opens up its find bar when you start typing characters at a page. Unless there's a way of disabling this in your page, I think you're going to have to find another way of doing this.

// If false (default), you must hit / (find text) or ' (find links) before your search.
user_pref("accessibility.typeaheadfind.autostart", true);
... is the problematic line in user.js.

Gabber
07-06-2005, 02:29 PM
hum... my firefox does not do that and still the script does not work.
is there a way to change it? It's such a nice and simple script O can't find pout why does not work in FF.

FF has usual has many flaws in JS.

mwinter
07-06-2005, 02:57 PM
FF has usual has many flaws in JS.You have no idea why it fails to work, yet somehow you think this is just the fault of Firefox? Did you consider the fact that the original author is inept?

The script could work in Firefox, just as it could be made to work in many browsers. However, Twey rightly points out that it will interfere in the normal operation of some browsers, and therefore it is a terrible idea.

Mike

Twey
07-06-2005, 03:12 PM
Haven't tested this, but from a not-very-reliable source whilst browsing, try changing this line:

document.onkeypress = getKey;
to this:

document.onkeydown = getKey;

And yes, I find it rather strange that you criticize Firefox's JS-parsing abilities, as it does it much better than, say, IE.

Gabber
07-06-2005, 04:11 PM
I think you guys must get out of thet FF craze. it's over! More and more FF bugs and security issues are being reported (I bet if it was as used as IE it would be much more buggy). sure, in some ways it's safer than IE, but omfg... screw the w3 compliant stuff when you don't even color the scrollbars! W3 does not own the net, who cares? It's just guidelines... since IE is much more used, the majority dictated colored scrollbars... simple! that is how the internet works... Not by "let's make some rules". Microsoft tried it and failed... they adapted by conquering the majority of the market to impose rules. Mozilla should learn from the competition... they may be sleazy, but not stupid.

I can show you some sites with highly well done DHTML and Javascript that work 100% in IE while FF screws all up! And made by very very high skilled people. In fact, even after adaptation by the author, FF renders all slow and buggish... FF to blame 100%. And this is well documented, FF does not have the same abilities as IE - should not be a surprise.

I like the extensions ideia, and more safety but sorry, I won't buy "Spread Firefox" spam. I hate trends... In fact, FF merchandising is even worse than Microsoft (for as hard as it costs, I must admit it!)... FF is owned by a large company too - that will do just the same as the competition if it gets there...
Spam, pure and simple, lies, and better yet "you cannot access this site if you have IE, get a better browser" - give me a break! This is BAD! Some sites get screwed without IE, but IE-fan-sites never have pop up boxes that say: "you have FF, beat it". Get the diference? One thing is saying: not 100% compatible with your browser... other is: beat it, or use/buy this browser instead.

As for JS, well... simple... most gets slow and a bit screwed. Improvements have been made (1.04 is better now... altough, don't forget, Mozilla goes in 1.7, so the browser itself is not exactly new at all!). But still far far from IE quality... specially in JS and DHTML. The "catch" is really the security for me.

Thanks for the help and sorry for the big text...

--------- real topic stuff ----------

I've tried it and it simply does not work in FF. Works fine both ways in IE. So, what could it be wrong with the script?

Twey
07-06-2005, 05:02 PM
I think you guys are not newbies... but you sure must get out of thet FF craze. it's over! more and more FF bugs and security issues are being reported (I bet if it was as used as IE it would be much more buggy). sure, in some ways it's safer than IE, but omfg... screw the w3 compliant stuff when you don't even color the scrollbars! W3 does not own the net, who cares? It's just guidelines... since IE is much more used, the majority dictated colored scrollbars... simple! that is how the internet works... Not by "let's make some rules". Microsoft tried it and failed... they adapted by conquering the majority of the market to impose rules. Mozilla should learn from the competition... they may be sleazy, but not stupid.
They're not stupid, no. That's why they won't do something ridiculous like create their own version of HTML that only works with their browser.


I can show you some sites with highly well done DHTML and Javascript that work 100% in IE while FF screws all up! And made by very very high skilled people. In fact, even after adaptation by the author, FF renders all slow and buggish... FF to blame 100%. And this is well documented, FF does not have the same abilities as IE - should not be a surprise.
If the authors were as highly skilled as you suggest, then they just couldn't be bothered to spend much time on the sites. It is not "highly well done" if it only supports one browser. Multiple browser support is pretty much the indicator of a good web page, and the whole purpose of the W3C. Despite what Microsoft might think, there are other browsers and other platforms out there, and since they won't accept that, web designers have to compensate for their arrogance.


I like the extensions ideia, and more safety but sorry, I won't buy "Spread Firefox" spam. In fact, FF merchandising is even worse than Microsoft (for as hard as it costs, I must admit it!)... FF is owned by a large company too - that will do just the same as the competition if it gets there...
Spam, pure and simple, lies, and better yet "you cannot access this site if you have IE, get a better browser" - give me a break! This is BAD! Some sites get screwed without IE, but IE-fan-sites never have pop up boxes that say: "you have FF, beat it". Get the diference? One thing is saying: not 100% compatible with your browser... other is: beat it, or use/buy this browser instead.
I agree with you on the merchandising issue, but I suppose that Mozilla has to make money somehow. I have never seen a site that forbids access to IE - however, there are a frightening amount of sites out there that not only forbid access to Firefox users, but turn away any other browsers (http://www.trialversions.com/, another site I've lost the URL to, with a picture of a little black-and-white bowing man, JS redirect, sure someone knows it. Also see http://www.libervis.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=98. There is, as far as I know, reason for this script. It only applies to Mozilla browsers... and it breaks Mozilla browsers. Bug? So why haven't they fixed it? It is still there - try middle-clicking on something on msn.com in Firefox. This is not just another IE-enthusiast site - this is an official Microsoft web page!)! As you say, this is a very bad thing.


As for JS, well... simple... most gets slow and a bit screwed. Improvements have been made (1.04 is better now... altough, don't forget, Mozilla goes in 1.7, so the browser itself is not exactly new at all!). But still far far from IE quality... specially in JS and DHTML. The "catch" is really the security for me.
I totally disagree. Firefox, being W3C compliant, handles JavaScript a lot better than Internet Explorer. Internet Explorer, as a point of interest, doesn't actually understand JavaScript; the code it parses is (again) a Microsoft adaptation, JScript, and so some JavaScript features don't work on it. What is more often seen, though, is that Microsoft adds features to JScript that aren't in JavaScript, and so web developers begin to use these features, breaking their pages in anything except IE. As for Firefox's security, most (though not all) of it is very simple things, like asking for confirmation before opening executable files and not being an integral part of the operating system, so that even malicious code compromises it, it is still greatly limited in what it can do.


I've tried it and it simply does not work in FF. Works fine both ways in IE. So, what could it be wrong?
Did you try the adaptation I suggested above?

P.S. I quoted the pre-edited version, apologies given for any inaccuracies.

Gabber
07-06-2005, 05:15 PM
They're not stupid, no. That's why they won't do something ridiculous like create their own version of HTML that only works with their browser.

You use bgsound if you want to... also the marquee! :P
Right now, I am dying to see if ANYONE, anyone at all knows how to stop a sound play in FF! lol I've searched google and other engines TONS of times! Nothing... only play with embed sound (of course eheheh).... but no stop!
IE works fine in that point! Stop sounds fine... FF does not stop at all...
IF you have a solution for this please help me out...



If the authors were as highly skilled as you suggest, then they just couldn't be bothered to spend much time on the sites. It is not "highly well done" if it only supports one browser. Multiple browser support is pretty much the indicator of a good web page, and the whole purpose of the W3C. Despite what Microsoft might think, there are other browsers and other platforms out there, and since they won't accept that, web designers have to compensate for their arrogance.

Sorry, I must disagree... a good program is not a crap if it is Windows XP only.
There are brilliant sites out there than FF does not diasplay well. Adapting to many browsers can render a site compatible, but completly dull.
www.dhteumeuleu.com
and I don't think this site sucks at all. I haven't seen sites much better than this one... considering it's not flash but dthml, probably the most original and best site I've seen. The owner adapted many script to FF, some work fine, other don't. All work in IE very well... wonder why...



I agree with you on the merchandising issue, but I suppose that Mozilla has to make money somehow. I have never seen a site that forbids access to IE - however, there are a frightening amount of sites out there that not only forbid access to Firefox users, but turn away any other browsers (http://www.trialversions.com/, another site I've lost the URL to, with a picture of a little black-and-white bowing man, JS redirect, sure someone knows it)! As you say, this is a very bad thing.

By the way, MSN and the trial site work in my FF just fine...
I have seen sites that won't allow IE, with a huge pop up saying: get firefox. And over 10 of them! I usually don't come back ever...
Sure, but one thing is not thinking of other browsers (and people are in their right to do so, since many have IE installed and can use it)... other is saying: go away, because you have this browser. I think this is quite obvious.
FF is starting to get bad reputation because of this. Just because MS uses some sleazy moves, FF should not use even sleazier moves...
Remember that a person can always say: I made my site for this browser, this resolution, so I advise you to use it... like "this toaster is used best with this kind of bread". :) It's in their right to say so.. of course, for a company, it's better to have something for all... and if you want to have a very compatible site, same thing (I changed a lot of my own site to fit all resolutions, and to be good in FF... only one or 2 minor things, hardly noticed, won't work)


I totally disagree. Firefox, being W3C compliant, handles JavaScript a lot better than Internet Explorer. Internet Explorer, as a point of interest, doesn't actually understand JavaScript; the code it parses is (again) a Microsoft adaptation, JScript, and so some JavaScript features don't work on it. What is more often seen, though, is that Microsoft adds features to JScript that aren't in JavaScript, and so web developers begin to use these features, breaking their pages in anything except IE. As for Firefox's security, most (though not all) of it is very simple things, like asking for confirmation before opening executable files and not being an integral part of the operating system, so that even malicious code compromises it, it is still greatly limited in what it can do.

Sure, but IE faults are also it's strong points... with the development it can bring great stuff... but MS people are too greedy: that is why FF is needed.
But I must disagree... check out that site, IE is way faster! No comparison possible... I don't care that much for W3... like I've seen in many sites: NO, I won't put some text in my html to give publicity to w3.org. :P And that is basically it... the validator code and so on... just publicity, IE can handle sites pretty well without it...FF too... I would actually agree, if it did not have that w3.org mentions and pub. if all pages worldwide would use it, any newbie in the internet would think they OWNED the internet... wonder why they have such a high page rank... lol
Sorry, it's just another scheme for me... it may have good intentions to make guidelines, but that is just it guidelines... Meant to be flexible, always changing and adapting to innovations programs bring... I won't participate in any crusade against MS, since it's doing the same they did.
History repeats itself...

and just to show I am not against FF:

http://sib1.od2.com/common/Framework.aspx?shid=054D002E

open in in IE and FF... there is a minor difference... lol
This is also something that should not happen... at least in big companies sites, or sites that pretend to be for all users...
I don't think a good site has to be 100% compatible with all, but al least minimum... I don't care if in FF some fancy stuff won't work, and if looks best in IE... but there is a line... this site crossed it all the way! :P



Did you try the adaptation I suggested above?

Yes, does not work at all in FF, works fine both ways in IE. is it some javascript error in the code? :|

By the way, if you could help me out with that sound stop using javascript... I can post the code I use... but I won't mind a new code too. :)

Twey
07-06-2005, 05:42 PM
You use bgsound if you want to...I can't say I do, actually, and I wouldn't touch <marquee> with a bargepole.
I am dying to see if ANYONE, anyone at all knows how to stop a sound play in FF!I don't generally browse with my speakers on, so I haven't encountered this particular problem. If I'm expecting a sound ("To hear this sound, click here"), I turn the speakers on. If I don't want to hear the sound any more, I turn the speakers off again.

Sorry, I must disagree... a good program is not a crap if it is Windows XP only.
No it isn't, but this is because that's the way that particular media worked out. Windows programs only run on Windows (WINE and various other special cases aside), and *nix programs only run on *nix (Cygwin and...). However, the Internet is meant to be a "world-wide" resource - available to everyone. You use Windows - how would you feel if everyone suddenly started writing pages that could only be viewed on BSD? You'd probably be quite annoyed - and rightly so.

www.dhteumeuleu.com
and I don't think this site sucks at all. I haven't seen sites much better than this one... considering it's not flash but dthml, probably the most original and best site I've seen. The owner adapted many script to FF, some work fine, other don't. All work in IE very well... wonder why...
Again, the site itself can be as wonderful as you like, but as long as it isn't interoperable, it's missing one of the biggest features of the WWW, which was around before Microsoft and will almost certainly be around long after them.


Sure, but one thing is not thinking of other browsers (and people are in their right to do so, since many have IE installed and can use it)... other is saying: go away, because you have this browser. I think this is quite obvious.
FF is starting to get bad reputation because of this. As said above, I have yet to encounter such a site - though it happens a lot in the other direction.
Remember that a person can always say: I made my site for this browser, this resolution, so I advise you to use it... like "this toaster is used best with this kind of bread". Yes indeed - and I do so. A small paragraph at the bottom of the page saying "best viewed in..." is fine and quite appropriate - so long as the page can still be viewed appreciably in other browsers.


Sure, but IE faults are also it's strong points... with the development it can bring great stuff... but MS people are too greedy: that is why FF is needed.Oh, certainly - innovation is a great thing. However...

I don't care about W3... specially like I've seen in many sites: NO, I won't put some text in my html to give publicity to w3.org. :P And that is basically it... the validator code and so on... just publicity... if all pages worldwide would use it, any newbie in the internet would think they OWNED the internet... wonder why they have such a high page rank... lol
Sorry, it's just another scheme for me... it may have good intentions to make guidelines, but that is just it guidelines... Meant to be flexible, always changing and adapting to innovations programs bring... I won't participate in any crusade against MS, since it doinf the same they did. ... all user agents should evolve in the same direction, which is what W3C is trying to encourage, and what IE doesn't do. The little compliance tags aren't mandatory, by the way - a lot of people want to include them to show that they have created a page that does its best to live up to the high standards of the Web, but they don't have to.

And the point here is not another FF/IE argument; it's to do with creating your pages for one browser and one browser only, or encompassing all the user agents out there. IE just makes it a lot harder to do this.


Yes, does not work at all in FF, works fine both ways in IE. is it some javascript error in the code? :|

Yes, I think it may be. The problematical line appears to be:

var eventChooser = (isNetscape) ? keyStroke.which : event.keyCode;

Try changing it to:

var eventChooser = (isNetscape) ? keyStroke.which : keyStroke.keyCode;


By the way, if you could help me out with that sound stop using javascript... I can post the code I use... but I won't mind a new code too.
Try http://www.codehouse.com/javascript/favelets/audio_killer/

Gabber
07-06-2005, 06:01 PM
I don't generally browse with my speakers on, so I haven't encountered this particular problem. If I'm expecting a sound ("To hear this sound, click here"), I turn the speakers on. If I don't want to hear the sound any more, I turn the speakers off again.

some years ago I would not enjoy a site with sound... because it usually meant endless midis...
now it can have great sound in the background, some even have radio... and buttons with volume and sound regulation.
This is great. I use sound in my site in IE, which can be turned off. I made it so that in FF no sound is played. :)
The solution is not make the user turn of the speakers (he might be listening to music while browsing), but have a switch... and that does only work in IE and I can't udnerstand why...



Yes indeed - and I do so. A small paragraph at the bottom of the page saying "best viewed in..." is fine and quite appropriate - so long as the page can still be viewed appreciably in other browsers.

I know what you mean, I use the same too... The page is completly viewable in FF (almost 100% alike), and is functional even without JS (altough some things won't work).... even in lynx it's nice to see! :D eheheh
But I agree with you in this point...
Thanks for having a nice discussion without a fight... it gets rare in the internet nowadays... :)


I'll check out the link you gave me... and that script correction and I'll let ya know.

Twey
07-06-2005, 06:07 PM
Thanks for having a nice discussion without a fight... it gets rare in the internet nowadays...
I know... that's why I try :p

even in lynx it's nice to see!
Oh yes... (frequent CLI browser user :))

Gabber
07-06-2005, 06:13 PM
Yes, lynx is very good. I like it a lot... it would be even more awesome if it converted the images to ASCII. :P 100% text lol kidding..


I've tried it...
LOL
Works 100% in FF, but does not work in IE! :P Situation inverted...
In IE says "keyCode is null or not an object".

Now how to make it compatible with both?


ps: I went to that sound site... I don't get it, how do I use that source code to stop sound from a image link for example?

Twey
07-06-2005, 06:30 PM
Brilliant... now all we need to do is add some browser detection :p



<!-- ONE STEP TO INSTALL WORD LAUNCHER:

1. Copy the coding into the HEAD of your HTML document -->

<!-- STEP ONE: Paste this code into the HEAD of your HTML document -->

<HEAD>

<SCRIPT LANGUAGE="JavaScript">

<!-- This script and many more are available free online at -->
<!-- The JavaScript Source!! http://javascript.internet.com -->
<!-- This script slightly edited by Twey for Firefox usage :-P -->

<!-- Begin
var SpecialWord = "javascript",
SpecialUrl = "http://javascript.internet.com/new/",
SpecialLetter = 0;
function getKey(keyStroke) {
var isNetscape=(document.layers);
// Cross-browser key capture routine couresty
// of Randy Bennett (rbennett@thezone.net)
var eventChooser = (isNetscape) ? keyStroke.which : keyStroke.keyCode;

// Here there be edits

</script>
<!-- IE conditional comments. The best feature MS has come up with? Possibly. -->
<!--[if IE]>
<script type="text/javascript">
eventChooser = event.keyCode;
</script>
<![endif]-->
<script type="text/javascript">

// End of edits

var which = String.fromCharCode(eventChooser).toLowerCase();
if (which == SpecialWord.charAt(SpecialLetter)) {
SpecialLetter++;
if (SpecialLetter == SpecialWord.length) window.location = SpecialUrl;
}
else SpecialLetter = 0;
}
document.onkeypress = getKey;
// End -->
</script>


<p><center>
<font face="arial, helvetica" size"-2">Free JavaScripts provided<br>
by <a href="http://javascriptsource.com">The JavaScript Source</a></font>
</center><p>

<!-- Script Size: 1.05 KB -->


Give that a go. I'm no JS guru, so it might not work, but I reckon it ought to :p

As for the bookmarklet:
A bookmarklet is basically a bit of JavaScript, in javascript: form. The idea is that you bookmark it, then whenever you want to run that JavaScript, you just click the bookmark. Clever, huh?

Just bookmark:
javascript:/*Audio Killer Copyright (C) CodeHouse.com, 2002*/for(var es;(es=document.embeds).length;){es[0].parentNode.removeChild(es[0]);}void 0;

... then click when you want to kill the sound.

Gabber
07-06-2005, 06:51 PM
I had exactly the same ideia! lol
but sounded so messy... I tried to use what you did, but does not work in FF and IE now. :\


so, I went more... brute force! Is there a way to chop this down?



<!-- IE conditional comments. -->
<!--[if IE]>
<SCRIPT LANGUAGE="JavaScript">
var SpecialWord = "yeah",
SpecialUrl = "www.Ilovecandy.com",
SpecialLetter = 0;
function getKey(keyStroke) {
var isNetscape=(document.layers);
// Cross-browser key capture routine couresty
// of Randy Bennett (rbennett@thezone.net)
var eventChooser = (isNetscape) ? keyStroke.which : event.keyCode;
var which = String.fromCharCode(eventChooser).toLowerCase();
if (which == SpecialWord.charAt(SpecialLetter)) {
SpecialLetter++;
if (SpecialLetter == SpecialWord.length) window.location = SpecialUrl;
}
else SpecialLetter = 0;
}
document.onkeypress = getKey;
</script>
<![endif]-->

<SCRIPT LANGUAGE="JavaScript">
<!-- Begin
var SpecialWord = "yeah",
SpecialUrl = "www.ilovecandy.com",
SpecialLetter = 0;
function getKey(keyStroke) {
var isNetscape=(document.layers);
// Cross-browser key capture routine couresty
// of Randy Bennett (rbennett@thezone.net)
var eventChooser = (isNetscape) ? keyStroke.which : keyStroke.keyCode;
var which = String.fromCharCode(eventChooser).toLowerCase();
if (which == SpecialWord.charAt(SpecialLetter)) {
SpecialLetter++;
if (SpecialLetter == SpecialWord.length) window.location = SpecialUrl;
}
else SpecialLetter = 0;
}
document.onkeydown = getKey;
// End -->
</script>



------------------------
ad for that sound script...
Well, works fine in IE and FF, but you can't resume the sound... lol
The only alternative I see is making a special FF button...so, in IE one button shows, in FF other button appears... but it's so messy and does not really cover the problem. Stop and play sound using image links... I wonder why won't FF have such a thing...

Twey
07-06-2005, 07:09 PM
Oops, sorry, did something silly.

<!-- ONE STEP TO INSTALL WORD LAUNCHER:

1. Copy the coding into the HEAD of your HTML document -->

<!-- STEP ONE: Paste this code into the HEAD of your HTML document -->

<HEAD>

<SCRIPT LANGUAGE="JavaScript">

<!-- This script and many more are available free online at -->
<!-- The JavaScript Source!! http://javascript.internet.com -->
<!-- This script slightly edited by Twey for Firefox usage :-P -->

<!-- Begin
var SpecialWord = "javascript",
SpecialUrl = "http://javascript.internet.com/new/",
SpecialLetter = 0;
function getKey(keyStroke) {
var isNetscape=(document.layers);
var isIE = (navigator.appName.indexOf("MSIE") != -1)
// Cross-browser key capture routine courtesy
// of Randy Bennett (rbennett@thezone.net)

// Used to be:
//var eventChooser = (isNetscape) ? keyStroke.which : keyStroke.keyCode;

// is now:
var eventChooser;
if(isNetscape) eventChooser = keyStroke.which;
else if(isIE) eventChooser = event.keyCode;
else eventChooser = keyStroke.keyCode;

var which = String.fromCharCode(eventChooser).toLowerCase();
if (which == SpecialWord.charAt(SpecialLetter)) {
SpecialLetter++;
if (SpecialLetter == SpecialWord.length) window.location = SpecialUrl;
}
else SpecialLetter = 0;
}
document.onkeypress = getKey;
// End -->
</script>


<p><center>
<font face="arial, helvetica" size"-2">Free JavaScripts provided<br>
by <a href="http://javascriptsource.com">The JavaScript Source</a></font>
</center><p>

<!-- Script Size: 1.05 KB -->

Seems not to be my day!

Gabber
07-06-2005, 07:20 PM
Still does not work! :)
But that is okay, I can use the big code I made too...
Altough yours looks slimmer and smoother... :)

mwinter
07-06-2005, 10:38 PM
I think you guys must get out of thet FF craze.What Firefox craze do you think I'm 'in'? I prefer Opera really, but after reinstalling XP I started using Firefox. I only installed Opera again relatively recently and I can't be bothered to switch back. :D

I don't have objections towards IE because I'm trying to push FF, but simply because I detest IE, as both a developer and a user.


More and more FF bugs and security issues are being reportedAs Firefox receives more attention, the probability of discovering and reporting a problem is bound to increase. Simple mathematics. :) However, the important difference between the Mozilla Organisation (and others) and Microsoft is that bugs actually get fixed. Microsoft haven't released a single significant feature update since the original release of IE6.


screw the w3 compliant stuff when you don't even color the scrollbars!You're kidding me, right? You'd rather have a polarised industry just so you could get coloured scrollbars?

Everyone benefits from standardisation. Developers have a reliable, stable feature set, which increases productivity and allows them to predict behaviour. This in turn creates a better experience for users because they don't have to choose between user agents just to get basic content.

Browser competition should be based upon perceived efficiency, performance, ease of use, and extra features. Specified behaviour shouldn't be an issue, not by a long margin.


W3 does not own the net [...]No-one owns the 'net, but it's the Web we're talking about here. Still, no-one owns that, either. The W3C have never claimed to. What the W3C does represent is the consensus of all of the major players, including Microsoft. They all play a part in negotiating the various publications, but apparently Microsoft don't seem interested in implementing what I assume they've agreed to.


It's just guidelinesSome of the publications are guidelines, but others are also specifications and standards. However, the W3C aren't the only standards body. Microsoft doesn't implement some aspects of HTTP properly either, and that's maintained by the IETF.


[...] IE is much more used [...]Only because Microsoft have a near monopoly on desktop PCs. When was the last time you saw a brand new PC sold with a Linux distribution in an average store?

Most users don't even know that there is an alternative to IE. Some of those that do are wary of the fact that sites will be incompatible with those alternatives because the designers are incompetant.

Popularity doesn't necessarily represent preference, and IE is certainly not widely used on the basis that it's a good piece of software.


I can show you some sites with highly well done DHTML and Javascript that work 100% in IE while FF screws all up!By all means do. However, I expect your definition of 'well done' will differ from mine.


And this is well documented, FF does not have the same abilities as IE - should not be a surprise.No, it isn't. As far as I can see, Microsoft put their own features ahead of the basics.


[...] I won't buy "Spread Firefox" spam.If Microsoft are to change for the better, they need a competitor. If the state of Web development is to improve, Microsoft need a competitor. At present, Mozilla is the only browser able to assume that position.

By the way, don't throw the word 'spam' around. Mozilla haven't done anything close to that.


Some sites get screwed without IE, but IE-fan-sites never have pop up boxes that say: "you have FF, beat it".I've never seen a site with a pop-up like that, but then again I haven't used IE for well over a year. However, I certainly have had pop-ups telling me that I need to use IE, or 'information' screens with text to the same effect.


As for JS, well... simple... most gets slow and a bit screwed.Performance varies between the two. As for screwed, what do you mean? Doesn't work? That's usually because the script was written solely for IE, so what do you expect?



Internet Explorer, as a point of interest, doesn't actually understand JavaScriptIn all fairness, most browsers don't. JavaScript is a language defined by Netscape for their browsers. Later, Microsoft implemented their own version, JScript. Later still, these two languages were standardised by ECMA to create ECMAScript. All modern JavaScript-like languages (including both JavaScript and JScript) are now implementations of this single language (which is why I tend to refer to it, rather than JS).



Adapting to many browsers can render a site compatible, but completly dull.It's a matter of determining what a browser is capable of doing (not what it is). If it can support the extra features, you provide them. If not, you write your script so that it falls back to something simpler, yet still functional. The same principle applies to cases where no script support is available at all.


Remember that a person can always say: I made my site for this browser, this resolution, so I advise you to use itIn my opinion (and not just mine), it is bad practice to do so. If properly authored, it really won't matter because the user won't be missing anything significant (and a decorative, but otherwise useless script doesn't count).


NO, I won't put some text in my html to give publicity to w3.org.So don't. No-one's forcing you do, and I don't see any point in doing so. The average user doesn't care, and doesn't add anything beneficial to their experience. Besides, just because a SGML validator says your document is valid doesn't actually mean it is - only knowledge of the specification can tell you that. The validator is just a tool to catch simple mistakes. Nothing more.


And that is basically it... the validator code and so on... just publicityWhat? *shakes head*


IE can handle sites pretty well without it...FF too...They have little choice. If a browser actually implemented HTML the way it's meant to be, it would be all but useless on the Web. This isn't the fault of HTML, but simply the state of things. There are so many sites that are utter junk from a technical point of view that they make it impossible for browser vendors to stick strictly to the standards. However, they should do as much as is practical.

This is, in my mind, part of the reasoning behind XHTML. An XHTML-conforming browser, when presented with XHTML (not XHTML served as HTML) will simply stop parsing the document if it comes across nonsense. This allows resource-strapped hardware like mobile devices to implement a light-weight parser, rather than something bulky like a tag soup parser. If XHTML ever becomes practical (it isn't, as yet), it may go some way towards producing a tidy Web.


Sorry, it's just another scheme for me... it may have good intentions to make guidelines, but that is just it guidelines... Meant to be flexible, always changing and adapting to innovations programs bringThe publications that are specifications are just that - specifications that are meant to be implemented as written. As I said previously, innovation is something completely different which should happen far removed from basic functionality. Eventually, a unique feature may be incorporated as a basic feature if it's deemed worthwhile, and that's just fine, but extras shouldn't compromise everything else and that's part of my gripe with Microsoft.

As Twey said, this has nothing to do with IE versus anything else. This is simply a matter of principle and harmony. Chaos and conflict isn't productive or helpful. It just creates problems, and it's why society has rules.


Back to the actual topic at hand. :D As you seem intent on doing this, it may as well be done well:


document.onkeypress = (function(g) {
var words = [{text : 'google', url : 'http://www.google.com/'},
{text : 'ddrive', url : 'http://www.dynamicdrive.com/'}],
input = 0,
matches = [];

function filter(c) {
for(var i = 0, j = 0, n = matches.length; i < n; ++i) {
if(matches[i&#93;.charAt(input) == c) {
matches[j++] = matches[i];
}
}
return j;
}
function getCharacter(e) {
var c = NaN;

if(!e) {e = g.event;}
if(e) {
if(e.which) {
c = e.which;
} else if(e.keyCode) {
c = e.keyCode;
}
if(c) {
return String.fromCharCode(c);
}
}
}
function reset() {
for(var i = 0, n = words.length; i < n; ++i) {
matches[i&#93; = words[i].text;
}
input = 0;
}
reset();

return function(e) {
var c = getCharacter(e),
i, l, m, n;

if(c) {
if(!(n = filter(c))) {
reset();
n = filter(c);
}
if((1 == n) && ((m = matches[0]).length == ++input)) {
for(i = 0, l = words.length; i < l; ++i) {
if(words[i&#93;.text == m) {location.href = words[i&#93;.url; break;}
}
} else {
matches.length = n;
}
}
};
})(this);Could be better, but I can't be bothered. :p Works in Firefox, Opera 7.03+, NN4, and IE4+. Allows multiple action words and recovers from spelling mistakes.

Mike

Gabber
07-06-2005, 11:10 PM
What Firefox craze do you think I'm 'in'? I prefer Opera really, but after reinstalling XP I started using Firefox. I only installed Opera again relatively recently and I can't be bothered to switch back.

Opera? nah... I prefer something "free" :)
And more compatible with the real web today. :=)



As Firefox receives more attention, the probability of discovering and reporting a problem is bound to increase. Simple mathematics. However, the important difference between the Mozilla Organisation (and others) and Microsoft is that bugs actually get fixed. Microsoft haven't released a single significant feature update since the original release of IE6.

Not quite...
If you have service pack2 you will tell the difference... a BIG one!
The problem is this ****ty windows/ie integration.





You're kidding me, right? You'd rather have a polarised industry just so you could get coloured scrollbars?

yes! :P
kidding... I would prefer the "wizards" would just consider something almost all sites use. simple.


Everyone benefits from standardisation. Developers have a reliable, stable feature set, which increases productivity and allows them to predict behaviour. This in turn creates a better experience for users because they don't have to choose between user agents just to get basic content.


Browser competition should be based upon perceived efficiency, performance, ease of use, and extra features. Specified behaviour shouldn't be an issue, not by a long margin.

specified behaviour by the majority becomes the standard. simple as that. most pcs have usb, then usb became standard, altough firewire existed for much longer and quite faster... :P but for mac... only a minority used...
Soon, it may be likely somethings IE has, became standard (unless MS registers patents...NEWS: EUROPE REJECTED THAT CRAP YES!)



No-one owns the 'net, but it's the Web we're talking about here. Still, no-one owns that, either. The W3C have never claimed to. What the W3C does represent is the consensus of all of the major players, including Microsoft. They all play a part in negotiating the various publications, but apparently Microsoft don't seem interested in implementing what I assume they've agreed to.

Their browser has one thing FF and none of others have...read faulty html and javasscript... that can be bad, but it is usually good: small errors won't make a page unreadable. A normal person who uses a banal html program, can make a nice page....
Simple as that...
For me the problem what you say: when details become impeditive of standard stuff... (bgsound for example)




Some of the publications are guidelines, but others are also specifications and standards. However, the W3C aren't the only standards body. Microsoft doesn't implement some aspects of HTTP properly either, and that's maintained by the IETF.

MS sucks. :|
Does not mean IE sucks.


Only because Microsoft have a near monopoly on desktop PCs. When was the last time you saw a brand new PC sold with a Linux distribution in an average store?

Linux is after all, not so stable... it also has a bug like the millenium bug...
Open Source, like Bill Gates once said very well... is never responsible. If you put linux into a space shuttle, linux crashed and the shuttles crashed in NY... who is responsible?
With Windows, it would be MS. And with linux?
It's an extreme example, but the man has a point...
Still, I agree monopoly is very evil.
Things should change... but linux needs to change too.




Most users don't even know that there is an alternative to IE. Some of those that do are wary of the fact that sites will be incompatible with those alternatives because the designers are incompetant.
Popularity doesn't necessarily represent preference, and IE is certainly not widely used on the basis that it's a good piece of software.

+- true.
people are usually happy with IE. only some small groups aren't.
I think competition is healthy... but I must give credit to has it too!


By all means do. However, I expect your definition of 'well done' will differ from mine.

for me a well done site is not only 100% compatible. w3.org site is a crap, but it's compatible. awfull navigation, very hard to find stuff... and ugly.
:P
simple...
internet is not code, it's media!




No, it isn't. As far as I can see, Microsoft put their own features ahead of the basics.

this is good!



If Microsoft are to change for the better, they need a competitor. If the state of Web development is to improve, Microsoft need a competitor. At present, Mozilla is the only browser able to assume that position.
By the way, don't throw the word 'spam' around. Mozilla haven't done anything close to that.

It's spam! Unwanted publicity!
Firefox spam!
It's not fair competition to say the other suck, so use ours...
In many countries it's even forbidden. You compete for what you have to offer... and frankly, after using FF, I like the extensions, and many stuff... I end up using both... FF disapointed me... perhaps I expected too much.




I've never seen a site with a pop-up like that, but then again I haven't used IE for well over a year. However, I certainly have had pop-ups telling me that I need to use IE, or 'information' screens with text to the same effect.

NOt the same thing as I have explained.
totally different concept.
But I assure you those sites exist. surprised me too!





Performance varies between the two. As for screwed, what do you mean? Doesn't work? That's usually because the script was written solely for IE, so what do you expect?

does not work! This script was not made for IE for ex. simply does not work.
But usually script are quite slow!



It's a matter of determining what a browser is capable of doing (not what it is). If it can support the extra features, you provide them. If not, you write your script so that it falls back to something simpler, yet still functional. The same principle applies to cases where no script support is available at all.

So you give me reason. Make a site as compatible as possible, but you can still use fancy stuff... as long as the basic remains... but the basic is usually not enough to have a really cool site.
I am not claiming to do a IE only, ultra depent site... :)
A compatible, but that can retain fancy stuff!




In my opinion (and not just mine), it is bad practice to do so. If properly authored, it really won't matter because the user won't be missing anything significant (and a decorative, but otherwise useless script doesn't count).

This usually does not happen. I tried not to make it happen in my site...I get ya point.
But even if just fancy, it is still media the user woudl probably like to see!


So don't. No-one's forcing you do, and I don't see any point in doing so. The average user doesn't care, and doesn't add anything beneficial to their experience. Besides, just because a SGML validator says your document is valid doesn't actually mean it is - only knowledge of the specification can tell you that. The validator is just a tool to catch simple mistakes. Nothing more.

ok. :)

Sorry for the long text. Thanks for all the support and info on the subject...

The script works 100%!!! Thank you very much!
A nice script indeed!

mwinter
07-07-2005, 01:50 PM
What Firefox craze do you think I'm 'in'? I prefer Opera really [...]Opera? nah... I prefer something "free" :)It is free. You don't have to buy it, just like you don't have to buy Firefox. As for the banner advert (which you're bound to object to if I don't pre-empt), it doesn't actually impact significantly on its use. With my settings, I would only lose 1cm of vertical viewport space compared to Firefox (which really is nothing), and the adverts are downloaded in batches periodically, so you don't have any intrusion on bandwidth during normal use.


And more compatible with the real web today. :=)Opera is just as capable as any other browser, and is far superior to IE.



Microsoft haven't released a single significant feature update since the original release of IE6.Not quite...
If you have service pack2 you will tell the differenceI've had SP2 since it was released. The only noticable feature for IE was a pop-up blocker, but there have been third-party blockers available for a long time, so the benefit is minimal. None of its bugs, other than those related to security, were addressed. My statement stands.


[Regarding scrollbar colours] I would prefer the "wizards" would just consider something almost all sites use.All sites? The vast majority of sites leave browser chrome alone, as well they should.

Even though Opera supports author-specified scrollbar colours, I disabled it. Those sites which do fiddle around more often than not create schemes that either make the scrollbar difficult to see, distort the 3D effect, or look garish and ugly. It's a feature I'm quite happy to do without.



Browser competition should be based upon perceived efficiency, performance, ease of use, and extra features. Specified behaviour shouldn't be an issue, not by a long margin.specified behaviour by the majority becomes the standard.The majority of browser vendors follow the standards. One vendor (Microsoft) is not a majority.


[Software] patents...NEWS: EUROPE REJECTED THAT CRAP YES!Really? I signed a petition against it a while ago and recently received an e-mail mentioning that a second reading was approaching, but I haven't received anything more. Good to know. :)


[IE can] read faulty html and javasscript... that can be bad [...]Yes, it is. As I said previously, the Web has got to the stage where a strict user agent would fail utterly to operate over much of the Web because it has become a quagmire of badly written code.

All user agents error correct markup - they have to. But the extent to which Microsoft maintain support for such junk, coupled with its prevelance, does nothing but make the situation worse. Amateurs will see something 'working' in IE, and assume that it's just fine. Look at it in something else and it will fall apart. Of course, that must be the fault of these other browsers. :rolleyes:


small errors won't make a page unreadable.Small errors shouldn't occur. There's no reason for them to.


A normal person who uses a banal html program, can make a nice page....Exactly. WYSIWYG programs produce valid HTML. It might be bloated junk, but it's still valid and readable. Any professional or serious amateur should know how to do it properly themselves. Though such tools weren't available in the past, they are now. There's no excuse for it any more.



MS sucks. :|
Does not mean IE sucks.True. Just because the decision makers are reckless idiots doesn't automatically mean that other employees (like the software engineers) and all of their software is just as bad. After all, IE/Mac was a decent attempt at a modern browser, but Microsoft stopped development.

Still, IE does suck from all objective points of view.


Linux is after all, not so stable...Really? Linux has never crashed, yet Windows has many times.


Open Source, like Bill Gates once said very well... is never responsible.Bill Gates has a conflict of interest, don't you think?


If you put linux into a space shuttle, linux crashed and the shuttles crashed in NY... who is responsible?
With Windows, it would be MS. And with linux?The developers, who else? The software still goes through rigourous QA testing cycles, and if an open source team did work on a mission-critical project, they would be just as liable.

What do you think would happen if Microsoft were responsible? That Gates would be jailed? That they'd prosecute the developers? No, of course not. Microsoft would probably be handed a massive fine and they might fire team leaders or management.


Things should change... but linux needs to change too.Of course it does. Administration tasks need to become simpler if it's to be competitive so that the average person can maintain the system themselves, just as they might with the simpler aspects of Windows. It's a matter of time.


for me a well done site is not only 100% compatible.Of course. That isn't my only criteria, either.


w3.org site is a crap, but it's compatible. awfull navigation, very hard to find stuffCrap is a bit strong, but I agree that some things are difficult to find. However, I never said that the W3C website was a perfect example, did I? I don't think I could actually name a perfect site, but mainly because I don't bother looking.



As far as I can see, Microsoft put their own features ahead of the basics.this is good!You said before that you agree that polarisation of the industry was a bad thing, but now you think that Microsoft should just stride off unilaterally, without consideration for what effects that might have on compatibility with other existing systems? Or did you not comprehend quite what you just said?


[With regard to Mozilla] It's spam! Unwanted publicity!
Firefox spam!Where? I don't get e-mails saying that I should use Mozilla products, nor do I see adverts for them all over the place. Either you're seeing things that I'm not, you're exagerating, or you're lying.


It's not fair competition to say the other suck, so use ours...There's nothing unfair about truth, however I've never seen Mozilla officially say that. Anyway, Mozilla don't need to do it - other groups do it for them, including elements of the US government and security consultancy groups in the USA.



However, I certainly have had pop-ups telling me that I need to use IE, or 'information' screens with text to the same effect.NOt the same thing as I have explained.
totally different concept.I'm being told that my browser is difficient, useless, and that I must use IE. It's exactly the same.



As for screwed, what do you mean? Doesn't work? That's usually because the script was written solely for IE, so what do you expect?does not work! This script was not made for IE [...]It was written for IE and NN4, and the author was inept. Of course it's not going to work for Firefox.


As for the script... I don't get where I put the password...On the second and third lines are two examples. If you typed 'ddrive' or 'google', you'd be taken to the Dynamic Drive core site or Google, respectively. You can have as many, or as few, action words (passwords, in your case) as you like.


and I just put that after the <script> tag?Yes.

Mike

Twey
07-07-2005, 04:03 PM
Linux is after all, not so stable...
I'm afraid that's just not true. One thing many people, even groups against open-souce (Apple), agree on (yes, a majority) is the notorious stability of *nix kernels.

w3.org site is a crap, but it's compatible. awfull navigation, very hard to find stuff
Perhaps so, but you have to remember that the W3C is very large. The larger a site gets, the more difficult it is to keep it navigable - and the W3C are also rather busy, and a non-profit organisation.

On software patents: yes they DID! :D
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3517951