On 02/08/09 11:59, John Doue wrote: > 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 ...
So if the poorly written site (in your example) was to output the site content completely in Martian pig latin, should a "good" browser be able to figure that out as well? The fact is that good browsers understand good content. If a site designer designs a site which produces garbage, he gets was he designs. >> >>> 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. How is that selfish? Use the tools that fit your 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. You *are* the one that decides which sites you'll look at. No one is twisting your arm to use any particular client. Use whatever you want. > > 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. Most sties include a link to contact the web developer with problems regarding the site. You can send them a message and explain that in your browser of choice, their site exhibits problems (which you should enumerate to them). Whether they do anything about it is another issue. I've seen some sites designed with IE in mind and no interest at all in getting them to work with any other clients. > > 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! _______________________________________________ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
