Antony wrote:DJGM wrote:Why can't they stick to a proper layout? Like this . . .
[tt]Standard Titlebar
Menubar (File Edit View etc ... )
Navigation buttons and URL bar
Bookmarks (or Links) Bar
Browser Tabs.[/tt]
DJGM,
Somehow I don't quite agree with you.
What's wrong with slightly re-arrange the order?
There's no Windows Human Interface Guidelines (at least I've never heard of)
as opposing to Apple Human Interface Guidelines.
To a certain extent, there's not much wrong with a new default toolbar arrangement. What really irks me
about the arrangement of the GUI in IE7, is that it cannot be customised like IE6 could, and there's no
way of allowing the user to switch to a "Classic" mode, and a more traditional browser toolbar layout.
Essentially, IE7 is an extremely huge step backwards with regards to GUI flexiblity and usability.
Even N4.x had a far more customisable user interface than this digital freakshow!
And anyway ... "slightly re-arranged" you say? This IE7 thing is rearranged to the point of being fubar'd
And while there might not be any officially documented interface guidelines for Windows apps as there
are for Mac OS X apps, the traditional layout has always been, titlebar, menubar, toolbar, workspace.
And I'll bet if Microsoft had also decided to make IE7 available for Mac OS X, with a similarly unflexible
and messed up GUI, I'm sure you'd be jumping up and down in a rage, quoting every applicable line
from the Apple's HIG's, and furiously demanding Steve Ballmer's head on a platter!
Antony wrote:DJGM wrote:There may well have been some minor improvements to the engine, making it slightly more
standards compliant than IE6.x was (which was barely standards compliant anyway) but
if Microsoft wants Internet Explorer 7 not to be considered a huge joke by those of us
that know better, IMHO, "Trident" seriously needs to be scrapped and replaced.
Improvements to the engine is a good thing, regardless of the amount. Thanks to IE's market
share, they are some kind of de-facto standard ... why shall they bother to comply with
some other standards? What I am saying is most websites design webpages
with MSIE in mind (as first priority at least).
There are "de-facto" standards, and there are proper, internationally recommended industry standards.
And I know which type of standards I choose to support, and for that matter, I'm sure you know too.
While it may be true that MSIE still has quite a high majority market share, that share is now gradually
diminishing, and the alternative browsers, particularly Mozilla Firefox, are now becoming too popular
for website developers to ignore. IMHO, any website developers that specifically cater for users
of MSIE, and barely giving other browsers a second glance, don't deserve to have websites.
These days, there is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for writing browser specific code.
Antony wrote:DJGM wrote:I don't think the makers of alternative browsers need worry too much about IE7, since
they're all cross platform, while IE7 will be made only for Windows XP/2003/Vista.
Windows has around 90% on computer markets, and it's Microsoft's interests
to encourage people to upgrade to new version of Windows.
But, how many computer users are going to be stupid enough to be willing to shell out money for a
brand new OS, just to get a slightly upgraded internet browser? Windows 2000 still has a fairly
sizeable number of users, but they're all going to stuck with IE6.x. Their only option would be
to switch to another internet browser once IE6.x offically becomes obsolete.
And, in the case of upgrading to Windows Vista, many users will need to purchase brand new PC's.
It may well be in Microsoft's best interests for Windows users to upgrade to the latest version of
the operating system (and Apple are no different in this respect with regards to Mac OS X) but
for those of us with older PC's (like me) upgrading to Windows Vista is simply not an option.
UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.8.0.1) Gecko/20060130 SeaMonkey/1.0
