On Fri, 2003-10-17 at 03:01, Franki wrote: > James Sparenberg wrote: > > >On Thu, 2003-10-16 at 13:49, Chuck Stuettgen wrote: > > > > > >>On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 10:24, Jack Coates wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>you make the fatal assumption that IE supports the standard. It doesn't. > >>>Standard code works on IE if it's really really simple, but frequently > >>>breaks in ugly ways. > >>> > >>>Transparent PNGs. > >>>PNGs at all (color is off). > >>>Advanced CSS features, like flow. > >>>Many advanced Javascript form functions. > >>> > >>> > >>Especially, on the CSS support. We have Java based (JSP) system we > >>developed to create and issue insurance certificates for commercial > >>insurance. > >> > >>The completed certificate is displayed in two frames. A small horizontal > >>frame, containing nothing more that a few navigation buttons and a > >>background, over the main window in which the completed certificate is > >>rendered in the Adobe Acrobat reader plug-in. > >> > >>Recently, we started getting complaints from our users that the system > >>was very slow and that it would take a minute or more for a certificate > >>to be displayed. > >> > >>During troubleshooting we discovered that it could take up to 5 minutes > >>to display the certificate from the time the user clicked the submit > >>button if they used IE. However, if they used Netscape 4.78, or later, > >>the certificate would be displayed in less than a second. In most cases > >>it was displayed, before the user could even move their hand. > >> > >>Since we make this web based application available to our customers, it > >>was imperative that we find the cause and resolve it. > >> > >>After several days of troubleshooting and debugging our head Java > >>programmer found the problem. > >> > >> > >>A contract programmer, who is no longer employed, had coded a 6 line > >>Cascading Style Sheet for the top frame. > >> > >>We removed the CSS and recoded to the page. Now it displays in less than > >>a second using IE as well as Netscape, Mozilla, Opera. et all.. > >> > >> > > > > > >Chuck, > > > > I think you've stated better than anyone I've ever heard why it's > >important to view a site in > > > >1. Every browser you can find. > > > >2. On every box within reach EXCEPT the developers box. > > > >3. Oer a 56k modem with a crap connection. > > > > > >This last one doesn't apply as much if you live outside the US and the > >3rd world. > > > >James > > > > > > > Get real James, > > I live in Australia, and broadband over here either isn't available in > most areas, or is to expensive.. > I have ADSL, but it costs me 85 a month and has only 256/64 and to get a > static IP address required that they limit my bandwidth to 1 gig a month... > > Now tell me again why only US should test with Dialup? in Australia > Dialup still outnumbers broadband by a massive martgin. > Trust me, from the people I know over there, those that do have > broadband, have MUCH better broadband then those of us in Australia.
I'm stating not that only the US should test with a modem, but rather stating that the sorry 19% of US internet users who have access to broadband (This means home, work or school) is crap compared with even our immediate neighbors. (I've heard Canada is up to about 70 or 80% for example and Mexico is at about 35% or better.) The jibe is against the policies here. Not stating that only the US is stuck on Modems, or should test with them. It was a political statement aimed at my own gov (FCC) not what you took it to be. James > > rgds > > Franki > > > -- > Please sign our petition to encourage notebook manufactures to offer video card > upgrades just like desktops. > http://www.petitiononline.com/inspiron/petition.html > > For free scripts, online webmaster tools, HTML, XHTML, Perl & PHP tutorials and > stuff, visit: > http://htmlfixit.com, Free web developer resources. > > > > > > > >
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
