Mark Hansen wrote:
On 02/08/09 10:22, John Doue wrote:
Mark Hansen wrote:
On 02/07/09 23:29, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
flyguy wrote:
This site
http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php
displays very poorly. The menu bar is fine, but the rest of it is mostly
off-screen to the right. There is no horizontal scroll bar, so it's
impossible to read. My other computer with SM 1.1.14 does the same
thing; IE 7 displays it properly.
I've tried disabling McAfee security, allowing all cookies, popups and
images, but no joy. My useragent strings are
general.useragent.extra.Firefox Firefox/2.0
general.useragent.extra.seamonkey SeaMonkey/1.1.14
Any suggestions?
it looks the same to me in IE7 as it does in SM 1.1.14.
Perhaps the suggestions here might help:
http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Websites+look+wrong
If not, then post a screenshot of what you see, cause I
sure don't see anything wrong.
Using SeaMonkey 1.1.13 on Linux, if I just increase the font size a
little, everything gets hosed. Try Ctrl+Plus a couple or three times
and you should see it.
Just a fact: this site, as others which do not display properly with
1.1.14 displays properly with 1.1.13 on XP.
Just a fact: I viewed the site referenced by the OP on SeaMonkey 1.1.13
on Windows/XP, increased the font size by one step and it went bonkers.
As an individual user, I
care mostly about seeing sites, even poorly written, properly.
Well, good luck with that. The problem is that many site developers don't
understand what is needed to design their application to work on multiple
browsers. They test that it runs on their browser of choice (usually, IE)
and others are left to chance.
You are right of course, and it is a shame. But it is a fact of life,
and using a browser which won't display properly a poorly written page
does not do any good any body ...
It is a difficult issue for developers, but until there is an Internet
police, the user is king ...
So, as a user, what can you do? You can certainly contact the site
developer and let them know about their site's shortcoming. You can
view their site with *their* preferred browser. You can boycott their
site.
You forgot the obvious option: using a SM version which is more tolerant
to code errors or oversights. 1.1.13 seems ok to me in this respect and
I went back from 14 to 13 for that very reason. Selfishly, I use the
tool that best fits my needs. Ideally, I want to be the one who decides
which sites I won't look at because they are poorly written. Using the
latest version is of no interest to me, per se.
Contacting the developer? That certainly is the most useful thing to do,
provided one has the required qualifications and expertise. I certainly
don't. But meanwhile, being able to more or less properly see a
imperfect site seems to be a good compromise.
I even recently came across a site from a very well known Finnish mobile
phone company whose French sites display properly in SM, but do not let
me log in when I provide the proper identification. I tried the same
site with FF 2.0.20 same result. Eventually, I tried with IE, and
there, I was able to access on first try.
All this is very frustrating and I sympathize with the compromises
developers must make. But I make my owns too!
--
John Doue
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
