SillyDog701

[Wellander]

Hi,
Http://www.ksurf.am seems to only correctly in WIndows Internet Explorer 5.5 or higher.
What can I do about this?
I love the station but the websilt is so bad.
It seems top crack communicator it functions incorrectly in Mozilla and Internet Explorer 5.01 or lower.
I am not very happy.

Edit by Moderator (Josh): Topic has been changed to read: Bad website that fails in Mozilla.

UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.01; Windows NT 5.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)

[DJGM]

E-mail the station to say that their site is not working in modern browsers like Mozilla.

If you get some standard lame brained excuse, saying "97% of people use MSIE to
surf the net, so we're catering for the vast majority . . ." then you'll need to point
out the fact that the global market share for MSIE is now down to about 85%
and is gradually declining further down the scale each month.

It may also be worth pointing out that standalone versions of IE for Windows are no
longer being developed, and that IE for the Mac has been completely discontinued,
and has been replaced by Safari as the bundled default Mac OS X web browser.,

Also point out that a growing number of internet users are getting sick and tired
of MSIE's technical shortcomings and security bugs, and are switching to better
and safer alternatives such as Mozilla Suite, Mozilla Firefox, and/or Opera . . .

It's also come to the point where, even a Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer,
has written a lengthy article called "Why You Should Dump Internet Explorer"!

If that gets you nowhere, then file a Tech Evangelism bug report on Bugzilla.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040614 Firefox/0.9

[Shark Daddy]

And in the meantime... use IE instead of losing out.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040206 Firefox/0.8

[Wellander]

Hi,
I did e-mail them and they e-mailed back satying that they used Microsoft Frontpage 2002 (xp) to make thire website and they will now use a different program since they nowe know about the problems it causes.
Sounds good.
Hope to see if fixed soon.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040616

[DJGM]

That's good news.

They've rectified the errors of judgement that persuaded them to choose the world's worst
web editing program to build their website. Here's hoping they choose to use something
that's far superior to Microsoft FrontPage, such as Dreamweaver MX2004, or Nvu . . .

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040616

[Wellander]

That's good news.

Here's hoping they choose to use something
that's far superior to Microsoft FrontPage, such as Dreamweaver MX2004, or Nvu . . .

Hi,
Yes it is.
Or Netscape Or Mozilla Composer.

UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows 98)

[Mandrake]

That's good news.

They've rectified the errors of judgement that persuaded them to choose the world's worst
web editing program to build their website. Here's hoping they choose to use something
that's far superior to Microsoft FrontPage, such as Dreamweaver MX2004, or Nvu . . .

Dreamweaver is one of the best programs around to make a website in, but Nvu is no better than Frontpage 2003, really.

UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)

[DJGM]

Nvu is no better than Frontpage 2003, really.

You've got to be kidding! That's like saying Firefox is no better than IE5.5!

Let's compare notes here . . .

Nvu enables you to create webpages that comply to the HTML 4.01 Transitional web standard, does
not generate any non-standard proprietary code, and your work will look good in all the browsers,
from IE6.0 to Mozilla 1.x, from Netscape 7.x to Opera 7.x, from Konqueror 3.x to Safari 1.x.

Microsoft Frontpage 2003 (xp) enables you create webpages that do not properly comply to any
of the W3C's recommended web standards, it generates non-standard, IE specific, proprietary
code, that some describe as "tag soup", and your work will look great when viewed only
with Internet Explorer, and will look absolute crap in modern (real) browsers!

While FP may have the edge over Nvu in terms of features and functionality, the end result of
any webpages produced with it, no matter how hard you've worked on them, will be a totally
shambolic mess "under the hood" whenn the Page Source is viewed.

Nvu may be in it's early stages of beta development right now, but to all intents and purposes,
it is unlikely to match Dreamweaver, like for like, but the absolutely undeniable fact of the
matter is, if you want to produce some nice, standards compliant webpages, but cannot
afford the high cost of DW, then given the choice between Nvu and FP, the former has
many, many magnitudes of higher quality than the latter.

Nvu is based on Gecko, the layout engine inside Mozilla 1.7 rc3; it's
a super-fast, very reliable, standards conformant engine maintained
on a daily basis by a wide community of developers. Its remarkable
support of XML, CSS and JavaScript offers the best authoring
platform on the market. Its architecture based on XUL makes
it the most extensible editing tool ever.

In case you're still not convinced . . .

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040614 Firefox/0.9

[Mandrake]

Nvu is also lacking many features found in FrontPage 2003. If I just want to write clean HTML, I'll fire up notepad and do it that way. Also I own FP 2003 - the code is suprisingly clean, it's leaps and bounds better than Frontpage XP. There isn't even a tag stating that the page was written in Frontpage anymore. The code may not be quite as clean as in Nvu, but it is a lot better in FP2003 (compared to older versions), that and all Frontpage's other features that Nvu lacks would lead me to use and reccommend it to anyone over Nvu. But for real web development, there i no competition to Dreamweaver.

UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)

[Wellander]

Hi,
Another one http://my.execpc.com/~aaamike/milwstat looks very good in IE but ugly in other browsers.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040616

[DJGM]

The first few lines of the page source say it all . . .

Code: Select all

<html>

<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage Express 2.0">
<title>State of Milwaukee Radio</title>
</head>



For ****'s sake . . . This no-hoper is using Frontpage Express 2.0 . . . !

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040616

[Shark Daddy]

For ****'s sake . . . This no-hoper is using Frontpage Express 2.0 . . . !

That's not the problem. In fact Frontpage for such a simple page would probably work fine. The problem is that this no-hoper is sending his file as text/plain in part because there's no file extension. Not too bright.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040206 Firefox/0.8

[DJGM]

Yeah. but FP Express? That's even worse than regular FP. Not to mention obsolete!

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040616

[Wellander]

Hi,
What is wrong with this website?
Http://www.radio-info.com
I can not seem to use it.

[Mandrake]

MySQL errors are a server-side issue. They'll probably fix it soon.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040616