google maps

| But alas, I'm now finding that at least one site doesn't render properly
(at
| least using 800x600 screen resolutions) with FF version 28, but does fine
| with FF version 35 (e.g: the Salon.com website, where the right half of
the
| web page is just a white background). I don't know if it worth going to
an
| updated FF version (using Australis, versions 29 and later), however.
|

I've been finding that a lot of sites no longer
render well. I'm wondering whether it's a case
of lazy mobile-optimizing. The Washington Post
has such big text that I often just copy it out
to Notepad for reading. And just now I opened
this article:

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/20...-what-is-code/

The text is gigantic. (And a difficult to read serif
font. Why do paper publishers think they need the
same font online?) There's a headline that says "The
Man in the Taupe Blazer". The capital letters are
1 1/8" high on my screen! Do other people see this
kind of problem lately?

It used to be a cardinal rule of web design that
webpages were supposed to "degrade gracefully",
meaning that if one wants to use Flash, script, or the
very latest CSS the page should still work fine in
older browsers. HTML and CSS were both designed
with that in mind: Any unrecognized element is
supposed to be ignored by the browser so as not to
mess up the page rendering. But I suppose that with
big, commercial sites that depend on ads, they probably
only care now that wealthy people with iPhones can read
some gossip while riding the bus to work, and thereby
be subjected to an ad view or two.

Mayayana wrote:


http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/20...-what-is-code/

The text is gigantic.

That text must be selected for mobile users.

As for the background, I'm getting different results
on two browsers. One browser gets "solid red" background
with black text on top. The other browser has an "animated"
background, with a white layer underneath the black text.
I'm willing to bet, you're seeing something different again.

But in all cases, the text is too big.

Paul

| The text is gigantic.
|
| That text must be selected for mobile users.
|

I wondered about that, but it doesn't seem to make sense.
I've got a Windows userAgent. It's so hard to figure out
the code these days. That site has at least 3 external
CSS files.

One thing I wonder about: I notice that site is linking
to fonts.googleapis.com and I've been noticing that in
a lot of pages lately. I block that in my HOSTS file, figuring
that there's no need to risk font downloads and that it's
a good way for Google to track people online, if most
big sites are calling for their fonts. I have no idea why
they're calling Google for fonts, but perhaps blocking
font downloads could be a factor in the page display.

| As for the background, I'm getting different results
| on two browsers. One browser gets "solid red" background
| with black text on top. The other browser has an "animated"
| background, with a white layer underneath the black text.
| I'm willing to bet, you're seeing something different again.
|

I don't do animation. Period. I'm careful to make sure
that GIF and CSS animation is disabled. I don't enable
script and I don't have Flash. What I see is garish red
page background with white text background, so that
there's just a border of red around the edges. I also see
an equally tasteless, non-subtle blue at the top. Ironically,
since most of the code is actually very clean, veiwing it
with no style works quite well.

It's interesting to hear that others are having this
giant text problem. I'm increasingly puzzled by just how
badly designed so many popular sites seem to be getting.

In message , Bill in Co
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Mayayana
writes:
[]
expect Google to let you know, though, if your
browser is not compatible. They've never been

Well, they do on YouTube (something like "we will shortly stop
supporting your browser version", though it's been working despite that
warning for a while now), but no such mention on the maps.

I'm not getting that message on YouTube using FF version 28.

Ah, _maybe_ I'll install the 28 I downloaded three days ago, _if_
YouTube stops working altogether with 26. I can't imagine there's
otherwise much difference between 26 and 28.

But alas, I'm now finding that at least one site doesn't render properly (at
least using 800x600 screen resolutions) with FF version 28, but does fine

That's an unusually-low resolution these days. (Even fobile moans exceed
it in some cases!)

with FF version 35 (e.g: the Salon.com website, where the right half of the
web page is just a white background). I don't know if it worth going to an
updated FF version (using Australis, versions 29 and later), however.

If I find a _very_ large proportion of sites won't work with 28 and
before, I guess I'll switch - though it might be to something other than
Firefox altogether.

Just a side note - if you find yourself needing an updated version of
Firefox (ver 29 and later), and dislike the Australis GUI, you can always
install the Classic Theme Restorer add-on, which help a lot. But I still
like the basic look of FF versions 28 and below. :-)

Me too - plus, it seems to me just not "right" to go to something that
doesn't work how I like, and have to then install something that makes
it work how I like, for benefits that aren't obvious to me. (Similarly
with W8 and Classic Shell or stardate. In fact I haven't really seen
anything _I_ want that W7 offers me over XP-POS, though I do have a 7
machine.)

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Science fiction is escape into reality - Arthur C Clarke

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Bill in Co
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Mayayana
writes:
[]
expect Google to let you know, though, if your
browser is not compatible. They've never been

Well, they do on YouTube (something like "we will shortly stop
supporting your browser version", though it's been working despite that
warning for a while now), but no such mention on the maps.

I'm not getting that message on YouTube using FF version 28.

Ah, _maybe_ I'll install the 28 I downloaded three days ago, _if_
YouTube stops working altogether with 26. I can't imagine there's
otherwise much difference between 26 and 28.

But alas, I'm now finding that at least one site doesn't render properly
(at
least using 800x600 screen resolutions) with FF version 28, but does fine

That's an unusually-low resolution these days. (Even fobile moans exceed
it in some cases!)

with FF version 35 (e.g: the Salon.com website, where the right half of
the
web page is just a white background). I don't know if it worth going to
an
updated FF version (using Australis, versions 29 and later), however.

If I find a _very_ large proportion of sites won't work with 28 and
before, I guess I'll switch - though it might be to something other than
Firefox altogether.

That's good to know.
I thought it might be an isolated case, but I guess not, huh? I mentioned
the salon.com website as one example I found.

Just a side note - if you find yourself needing an updated version of
Firefox (ver 29 and later), and dislike the Australis GUI, you can always
install the Classic Theme Restorer add-on, which help a lot. But I still
like the basic look of FF versions 28 and below. :-)

Me too - plus, it seems to me just not "right" to go to something that
doesn't work how I like, and have to then install something that makes
it work how I like, for benefits that aren't obvious to me. (Similarly
with W8 and Classic Shell or stardate. In fact I haven't really seen
anything _I_ want that W7 offers me over XP-POS, though I do have a 7
machine.)

Well, we're kinda forced into it (upgrading the browser) aren't we, if the
sites no longer render?

At this point I think I'm going to stick with FF ver 35 *with* the Classic
Theme Restorer add-on, somewhat reluctantly, although I have got it pretty
well tweaked now. I'm hesitant to go beyond ver 35, as I know each new
iteration brings its own issues. I think they're trying to drive this thing
towards Chrome, which I have no use for (and all the social networking crap
"built in for your convenience"). I did try a test to see if I could
downgrade to ver 28 if I ever wanted, and that at least worked ok
(surprisingly).