MS's support logic

On Sat, 09 Aug 2014 23:25:22 +0100, Brian Gregory wrote:

On 09/08/2014 22:02, Ken Blake wrote:
On Sat, 09 Aug 2014 21:20:29 +0100, Brian Gregory
wrote:


I'm always using the command line in Windows.
There's lots of stuff you can't do efficiently without using the
command line.


You say "always," but I assume you mean "often." I use it very seldom.
What are some of things you use it for, things "you can't do
efficiently without using the command line"?


Yes correct 'often'.

copy *.doc backups cd backups ren *.doc *.doc.bak

Noting above that one thing you certainly can NOT do with Explorer's GUI
file functions is mass renaming as you show above (or mass copy/renaming).

Let's not forget...

ping (although I use fping, not Windows ping)

tracert

arp

ipconfig

netstat

sfc and chkdsk are usually run from a command line.

....and other debugging tools.

dir dir.txt

I would consider a batch file being cmd line. I had two bat files set up
for remote desktop. On the desktop were shortcuts to each, one to remote
to my server, and the other to remote into work.

On 8/14/14 7:36 PM, DanS wrote:
On Sat, 09 Aug 2014 19:01:34 -0600, Ken Springer wrote:

On 8/9/14 8:46 AM, Darth_Hideous wrote:
On 2014-08-09, Mayayana wrote:

snip

1) | Linux runs Firefox, TBird, Chrome, Spreadsheets, etc.
| It's for everyone.

Linux doesn't support most of the software people
use, and to make matters worse, the Linux fanclub won't admit that.
GIMP has been unusable for 20


I listed most of the software people use.

No, you didn't. You listed 3 programs and a type of program. And of
the 3 programs, TBird is an email client, and I believe email clients
are being used by fewer and fewer users.

But the most widely used programs, most likely, are those of MS Office,
of which Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and Outlook are not supported on
Linux.

I use Gimp all the time.
Works fine.

I don't think it's a question of working or not working, but how well
does it work, is it efficient and easy to use,

Now that's funny. I've always thought Adobe products were hard to use and
not intuitive. I chalked it up to most of them being originally designed
for Apple and then being ported to Windows.

And there's no single design that works for everyone. All a person can
do is try the demo versions, see what fits.


--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 25.0
Thunderbird 24.6.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

| IE is very deeply
| tied in, and some software would break even if IE could
| be removed. But there's a difference between IE being
| stuck to Windows and using IE online. I have IE6 on my
| main machine. The way I see it is it's never a good idea
| to update IE. But I would never use it online, either. Within
| Windows I don't see any problem with IE. The same
| integration that makes it dangerous online makes it
| very useful within Windows.
|
| In the context of using a browser, what does "within Windows" mean?
|

First, it's quick and convenient as a browser. As long as
it's offline and not opening an unknown file, I don't worry
about using it.

It's also very useful for HTAs. I write a lot of simple utilities
as HTAs. One can create fairly advanced software using only
script, HTML, CSS and the IE DOM. I've made an MSI editor,
an HTML email sender, various tweaking utilities, a thumbnail
viewer to view images in a folder, a ZIP code lookup utility,
and various GUI frontends for simpler utilities. An HTA is basically
a webpage with no security limitations. It was Microsoft's way
to allow sys admins the ability to write DHTML utilities while
still improving IE security. Used along with COM libraries, HTAs
provide a way to do ust about anything compiled software
can do. Script and COM libraries provide the functionality
while the IE DOM provides the GUI.

Beyond that, IE is deeply tied into the shell. Prior to XP
every folder window was actually a browser window with
an ActiveX listview control serving as the rectangle that
displays files and folders. It was entirely customizable because
the actual folder window "client area", what's not the chrome
and the menu, was a webpage coming from Windows\Web\folder.htt.

That functionality is gone now, but folder windows still
present as IE windows in the API for backward compatibility.
One can use simple COM objects to access the DOM of open
IE instances along with the ShellFolderView object for any open
folder windows. Windows presents them as one thing.

In terms of the shell: BHOs, extensions, explorer bars, etc
tie into both Windows Explorer and IE. So anyone who can write
shell extensions can work with both Explorer and IE together.
(That's one of the worst things about IE for online. A BHO
gets the ShellFolderView object of open folder windows as
well as getting the DOM for open IE instances. Windows
doesn't distinguish between the two! It's an odd but handy
abberation left over from the Active Desktop browser integration.)

There are also numerous API connections. For instance, API
functions can be used to access the DOM of any open IE or
HTA.

I also use a sort of HTA hack to create custom message boxes
for scripting:
http://www.jsware.net/jsware/msggal.php5
An HTA (an IE browser window opened with different chrome
and no security) is the only way I know of to make custom
message windows that match the system appearance and
work on all Windows versions.

So what I meant was that IE is very powerful, very flexible,
and -- due to the extensive Windows tie-in -- very adaptable
for use in programming and scripting. ActiveX controls were
originally developed for IE. In an HTA *any* ActiveX control
can be incorporated. It doesn't need to be "safe". (As I
understand it, the newer Metro apps are actually something
like HTAs; just glorified webpages. But I haven't looked into
the details of what they are under the surface.)

Beyond all that, IE is wrapped up with the Internet API.
That's not necessarily a good thing, but it does provide
simple Internet fuinctionality. The functions from urlmon.dll
and wininet.dll are basically IE functions, for doing things
like downloading files. Those libraries are part of an IE install,
with a matching version number.

| I'm always using the command line in Windows.
| There's lots of stuff you can't do efficiently without using the
| command line.

| Noting above that one thing you certainly can NOT do with Explorer's GUI
| file functions is mass renaming as you show above (or mass copy/renaming).
|

That's why the Windows Script Host was developed.
A flexible, GUI-enhanced scripting system meant to be
the DOS replacement for the Windows GUI. One can
still use DOS, but WSH can do far more.

But Brian's initial comment was that there's "lots of
stuff" that can't be done efficiently via Explorer, and that
he's "always using" command line. He was defending the
ubiquitous and pretty much mandatory use of command
line in Linux. There are people who just love command
line and have never liked the mouse very much, but
claiming that command line is more efficient, or even
equally functional, is just silly.

You've switched the issue to "is there anything command
line can do that GUI can't". That's a different issue. Batch
renaming is not something I've ever had reason to do before.
If I wanted to do it I'd write a flexible VBScript so that I could
do it over and over without needing to do any typing after
the first time. Once the script is written it's a drag-drop
operation. To have to type it all out every time I wanted
to do such an operation is just primitive and wasteful.

On Thu, 14 Aug 2014 23:09:50 -0400, Mayayana wrote:

| I'm always using the command line in Windows.
| There's lots of stuff you can't do efficiently without using the |
command line.

| Noting above that one thing you certainly can NOT do with Explorer's
GUI | file functions is mass renaming as you show above (or mass
copy/renaming).
|

That's why the Windows Script Host was developed.
A flexible, GUI-enhanced scripting system meant to be the DOS
replacement for the Windows GUI. One can still use DOS, but WSH can do
far more.

But Brian's initial comment was that there's "lots of
stuff" that can't be done efficiently via Explorer, and that he's
"always using" command line. He was defending the ubiquitous and pretty
much mandatory use of command line in Linux.

No. He was explaining how he uses the command line in Windows to do
something that can be done better at a command line.


There are people who just
love command line and have never liked the mouse very much, but claiming
that command line is more efficient, or even equally functional, is just
silly.

No. It's not. To claim it is for ALL things is. Batch copy/renaming is
more efficient in a command line than doing each file, one at a time, in
Explorer.



You've switched the issue to "is there anything command
line can do that GUI can't".

I have not. There are GUI programs you can use to do all the things I've
listed.

It is more efficient to peck out different network troubleshooting
commands than open a dedicated GUI program to do each.


That's a different issue. Batch renaming is
not something I've ever had reason to do before.

Which doesn't mean that it's a non-issue or not relevant for every/anyone
else, or isn't maybe it's just not a good example.


If I wanted to do it I'd write a flexible VBScript so that I could do it
over and over without needing to do any typing after the first time.
Once the script is written it's a drag-drop operation. To have to type
it all out every time I wanted to do such an operation is just primitive
and wasteful.

(Also, why the | indicating reply level rather than the standard
character? Some newsreaders, like TBird and Pan, can color text based on
reply level, and your | char totally f's that up...

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2694585/Pan1.jpg

....to the left, your | tagged posts, to the right, properly formatting
reply level. Note how each level of replies is a different color to
differentiate which lines belong to what level.)

On Thu, 14 Aug 2014 22:56:16 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:


| IE is very deeply
| tied in, and some software would break even if IE could
| be removed. But there's a difference between IE being
| stuck to Windows and using IE online. I have IE6 on my
| main machine. The way I see it is it's never a good idea
| to update IE. But I would never use it online, either. Within
| Windows I don't see any problem with IE. The same
| integration that makes it dangerous online makes it
| very useful within Windows.
|
| In the context of using a browser, what does "within Windows" mean?
|

First, it's quick and convenient as a browser. As long as
it's offline and not opening an unknown file, I don't worry
about using it.

It's also very useful for HTAs. I write a lot of simple utilities
as HTAs. One can create fairly advanced software using only
script, HTML, CSS and the IE DOM. I've made an MSI editor,
an HTML email sender, various tweaking utilities, a thumbnail
viewer to view images in a folder, a ZIP code lookup utility,
and various GUI frontends for simpler utilities. An HTA is basically
a webpage with no security limitations. It was Microsoft's way
to allow sys admins the ability to write DHTML utilities while
still improving IE security. Used along with COM libraries, HTAs
provide a way to do ust about anything compiled software
can do. Script and COM libraries provide the functionality
while the IE DOM provides the GUI.

Beyond that, IE is deeply tied into the shell. Prior to XP
every folder window was actually a browser window with
an ActiveX listview control serving as the rectangle that
displays files and folders. It was entirely customizable because
the actual folder window "client area", what's not the chrome
and the menu, was a webpage coming from Windows\Web\folder.htt.

That functionality is gone now, but folder windows still
present as IE windows in the API for backward compatibility.
One can use simple COM objects to access the DOM of open
IE instances along with the ShellFolderView object for any open
folder windows. Windows presents them as one thing.

In terms of the shell: BHOs, extensions, explorer bars, etc
tie into both Windows Explorer and IE. So anyone who can write
shell extensions can work with both Explorer and IE together.
(That's one of the worst things about IE for online. A BHO
gets the ShellFolderView object of open folder windows as
well as getting the DOM for open IE instances. Windows
doesn't distinguish between the two! It's an odd but handy
abberation left over from the Active Desktop browser integration.)

There are also numerous API connections. For instance, API
functions can be used to access the DOM of any open IE or
HTA.

I also use a sort of HTA hack to create custom message boxes
for scripting:
http://www.jsware.net/jsware/msggal.php5
An HTA (an IE browser window opened with different chrome
and no security) is the only way I know of to make custom
message windows that match the system appearance and
work on all Windows versions.

So what I meant was that IE is very powerful, very flexible,
and -- due to the extensive Windows tie-in -- very adaptable
for use in programming and scripting. ActiveX controls were
originally developed for IE. In an HTA *any* ActiveX control
can be incorporated. It doesn't need to be "safe". (As I
understand it, the newer Metro apps are actually something
like HTAs; just glorified webpages. But I haven't looked into
the details of what they are under the surface.)

Beyond all that, IE is wrapped up with the Internet API.
That's not necessarily a good thing, but it does provide
simple Internet fuinctionality. The functions from urlmon.dll
and wininet.dll are basically IE functions, for doing things
like downloading files. Those libraries are part of an IE install,
with a matching version number.


Thanks for that excellent explanation. You've enlightened me today, and
that's a good thing.

--

Char Jackson

| Thanks for that excellent explanation. You've enlightened me today, and
| that's a good thing.
|

Nice to feel useful.
I guess that maybe the biggest advantage of IE
in Windows, which is implied in all the other useful
aspects but which I didn't mention, is simply the fact
that it's certain to be installed, which makes it a kind
of universal tool and programming platform for Windows.

I can write a webpage or an HTA in "quirks mode"
(with no DOCTYPE tag) and know that it will display
the same way on all Windows computers with IE6 or later.
Microsoft provided that option starting with IE7, as
a way for webmasters to get around the constant
compatibility breaks in their browser versions.

Quirks mode makes all IE versions compatible. There's
some loss of functionality. Newer CSS won't work. But at
least the display is predictable, over 15 years worth of
Windows PCs.

But that's also yet another reason not to use IE online.
Some big websites have custom code for each version
of IE, to repair rendering differences between versions.
Others don't. Most don't use quirks mode because they
want to use newer IE functionality. Meanwhile each version
of IE complicates things further. With IE11 there are
numerous possible rendering modes. Yet the fully compliant
"edge mode" won't even support Microsoft's own VBScript!
It's nice that MS has provided all of those compatibility
options, but it doesn't really work for webmasters with IE
being a moving target. Microsoft have dragged their feet on
web standards compliance for about 15 years now. For most
of that time they've been up to their old tricks: maintain
monopoly position by breaking compatibility with all other
products so that people will have to use ours.

Microsoft now claims that IE11 is fully standards compliant
and has even changed the userAgent to make it look like
Firefox, but that's just another unnecessary complication
that's likely to cause problems for IE users. For instance,
I had to make a slight change to all of my webpages
in order to recognize IE11 as IE. The standard way for a
website to recognize IE is to look for "MSIE" in the userAgent.
MS removed that in IE11. If I hadn't heard about Microsoft's
bizarre userAgent masquerade then all IE11 users would be
getting the mozilla/webkit version of my pages and the
menus wouldn't work, so they'd never get past the homepage!

And why would MS do such a daffy thing? As far as I
can tell it was just a case of bad judgement in PR
stunts: They want to prove in dramatic fashion that IE
is as compliant as FF by spoofing the userAgent to look
like FF.
It's an ironic sign of the times. About 10 years ago IE
had over 90% of the browser market. Now the overproduced
and undersupported IE11 is going around solicitously grovelling,
telling websites through its userAgent string, that it's "like
gecko", which if the FF rendering engine.

This is a standard IE11 userAgent string:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko

IE doesn't provide the option to change the userAgent string
outright, but anyone using IE11 who has trouble online might
be able to fix it by going in the Registry to:

Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet Settings\

Then in 5.0\User Agent\Version add "MSIE" to the string.
Or in User Agent\Pre Platform\ and a value named something
like IE11Fix and set the data to "MSIE"

That will allow non-updated websites to see IE11 as IE.

(Note those Registry settings are based on older IE versions.
There could be slight variations in the Registry values. And
the settings may be in either HKLM or HKCU or both.)

In message , Mayayana
writes:
| Thanks for that excellent explanation. You've enlightened me today, and
| that's a good thing.
|

Nice to feel useful.

Oh, you are! We may disagree often, but you're very useful!
[]
MS removed that in IE11. If I hadn't heard about Microsoft's
bizarre userAgent masquerade then all IE11 users would be
getting the mozilla/webkit version of my pages and the
menus wouldn't work, so they'd never get past the homepage!
[]
This is a genuine question: why, as a website designer, do you find it
necessary - for something as simple as menu design, presumably leading
to sub-page navigation - to use anything more complex than something
that will work in both browsers anyway (does that mean HTML3.x)? Is the
need to use some special feature that only complex code will give you
(which I'm afraid I see as the fear of looking old-fashioned) really
worth the hassle of having to write two or more versions of (complex)
code to do the same thing?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"In the _car_-park? What are you doing there?" "Parking cars, what else does
one
do in a car-park?" (First series, fit the fifth.)

| This is a genuine question: why, as a website designer, do you find it
| necessary - for something as simple as menu design, presumably leading
| to sub-page navigation - to use anything more complex than something
| that will work in both browsers anyway (does that mean HTML3.x)? Is the
| need to use some special feature that only complex code will give you
| (which I'm afraid I see as the fear of looking old-fashioned) really
| worth the hassle of having to write two or more versions of (complex)
| code to do the same thing?

I'm afraid that gets into technical details that may
not be of much interest.

There are HTML issues and CSS issues. It relates mostly
to how *exactly* browsers render a webpage given the
general directions provided by webpage code. (Though for
the menus it's a support issue. See below.)

The first aspect is just the basic HTML. I like working
with graphics and did my site with a rather complex
design that's self-sizing. (Most websites are done with
a specific width that used to typically be 800px and is
now typically 1000px. So anyone whose browser window
is not exactly that width either gets an empty area on
the side, or they get a horizontal scrollbar and a partially
hidden page. Self-sizing involves designing the page so
that at least a part of it adjusts so that it can fit any
browser window horizontally.)

What happens when one gets into trying to specify
a detailed layout is that different browsers act differently.
Non-IE browsers are generally consistent, but IE to non-IE
and within IE versions it works differently. There are
big things, like behavior in scrollbars or general layout:
I found that IE wouldn't provide the design I wanted without
using TABLEs (which are "mildly deprecated"), while other
browsers could do it with DIVs. There wasn't a single
combination that worked the same way in all browsers. I
had to use a redundant combination of TABLEs and DIVs to
get what I wanted.
There are also minor glitches, like a case where one browser
might insert an invisible pixel or two of border around an
item while another browser doesn't. So I might have to do
things like set a style of top: -2px; for one browser but not
for another.

By different browsers here I mean each version
of IE as a different browser and all other browsers as an
additional browser:
IE6 | IE7 | IE8 | IE9 |(IE10/11?) | all non-IE browsers.
Using quirks mode it's narrowed down to:
IE6 | all non-IE browsers.

I usually work on a page in IE6 until it's the way I like
it, then switch to FF to adapt it for non-IE browsers. There
are always differences.

So that's the basic HTML. If it's simple -- 1990s style --
it will work in all browsers. But once the layout starts getting
more involved, inconsistencies show up. When I wrote an MSI
editor in IE5 it all worked in IE6 *except* that the viewport
on a dynamically loaded TABLE was acting differently. I just
had to keep playing with the code until I found a version
that worked in both browsers. That's common. An hour to
code the page and 6 hours to get it just so.

Then there's CSS. On my site I use "flyout" or popup menus.
I like them because they save a lot of space. It's like menus
in a Windows program. When the main menu item is hovered
over the submenu appears. The CSS :hover is actually
an event, which came in with CSS2. :hover event styles
can be specified for any element. So one can create popup
menus by making them invisible and then changing the visibility
when the mouse hovers over the top menu. But it doesn't
work in IE6. (I'm not sure what version it does work in.
Maybe IE9? That's just a guess.)
The other way to do a flyout/popup menu is with script,
but I try to avoid script so that visitors won't have to have
it enabled.
That left me with a problem, and not just for the flyout/popup
menus. To make a common page for all browsers would require
giving up the popup menus *and* keeping the layout very simple.
I solved it by making 2 webpage versions, with scripted flyouts
for IE and CSS flyouts for other browsers. The two versions
also have various minor code differences for layout rendering.

The result is that by using IE quirks mode for IE I can have a
complex layout that works as desired in all browsers by serving
one page to all versions of IE and another to all non-IE browsers.
Maybe I could serve my FF page to IE10 or 11. I don't know.
(I tried to install IE10 on Win7 out of curiosity and I couldn't
even get the thing to install. The installer just kept failing without
explanation. Maybe it was trying to call home? Maybe MS
wanted me to use the online installer? I don't know. I finally
gave up. The fact that their own software won't install properly
on one of the few computers it actually supports is a sorry
state of affairs.) Yet even if IE10 and 11 could handle the FF
page, that still leaves IE 6-9. XP can't even run later than IE8.
IE10-11 have very limited support, only working on Windows
7/8. So IE has really become a boutique product. A large
percentage of computers online can't even install the latest
version.

Here's an example of a page I was at this morning. The
Washington Post. This is an example of their IE support:

!--[if lt IE 7]body class="ie6 static"![endif]--
!--[if IE 7]body class="ie7 static"![endif]--
!--[if IE 8]body class="ie8 static"![endif]--
!--[if gt IE 8]!--body class="static"!--![endif]--

That's special code that only IE recognizes. It's specifying
different CSS for the HTML BODY tag, depending on which
version of IE it is! To my mind that's just crazy. It means
writing and testing 4 or 5 different versions of a page just
for IE. If they don't do that then either they have to
accept the limited options of quirks mode, or they'll have
to live with unpredictable behavior: A box that's too big
for its content; a line that's in the wrong place; an unwanted
scrollbar; an image that's overlapping text.... all sorts
of little problems can happen.

So for me it comes down to only one realistic option:
If I want to fully support all browsers and still have my
webpages look right and function fully in all of them,
the only realistic option is to use two versions, with
one being IE quirks mode.

In message , Mayayana
writes:
| This is a genuine question: why, as a website designer, do you find it
| necessary - for something as simple as menu design, presumably leading
| to sub-page navigation - to use anything more complex than something
| that will work in both browsers anyway (does that mean HTML3.x)? Is the
[]
I'm afraid that gets into technical details that may
not be of much interest.
[]
The first aspect is just the basic HTML. I like working
with graphics and did my site with a rather complex
design that's self-sizing. (Most websites are done with
a specific width that used to typically be 800px and is
now typically 1000px. So anyone whose browser window
is not exactly that width either gets an empty area on
the side, or they get a horizontal scrollbar and a partially
hidden page. Self-sizing involves designing the page so
that at least a part of it adjusts so that it can fit any
browser window horizontally.)

I approve of sizing by percentage; fixed-size is for .PDFs, not web
pages.
[]
I found that IE wouldn't provide the design I wanted without
using TABLEs (which are "mildly deprecated"), while other

Ooh, I _hate_ that word: makes me _want_ to use whatever they're
deciding they don't like this week. (I first came across it with
reference to the CENTER tag.)

browsers could do it with DIVs. There wasn't a single
combination that worked the same way in all browsers. I
had to use a redundant combination of TABLEs and DIVs to
get what I wanted.

)-:
[]
So that's the basic HTML. If it's simple -- 1990s style --
it will work in all browsers. But once the layout starts getting

That, I guess, was my question/thinking.
[]
that worked in both browsers. That's common. An hour to
code the page and 6 hours to get it just so.

Out of curiosity, do you use a code generator or hand-code the HTML
directly?

Then there's CSS. On my site I use "flyout" or popup menus.
I like them because they save a lot of space. It's like menus
in a Windows program. When the main menu item is hovered

I can see the attraction. (I suspect my blind friends can't. Have you
ever tried using one of your pages via speech?)
[]
The other way to do a flyout/popup menu is with script,
but I try to avoid script so that visitors won't have to have
it enabled.

Sounds good.

That left me with a problem, and not just for the flyout/popup
menus. To make a common page for all browsers would require
giving up the popup menus *and* keeping the layout very simple.

[And we can't have a very simple layout, can we? That would never do!]
[]
one page to all versions of IE and another to all non-IE browsers.
Maybe I could serve my FF page to IE10 or 11. I don't know.
(I tried to install IE10 on Win7 out of curiosity and I couldn't
even get the thing to install. The installer just kept failing without
explanation. Maybe it was trying to call home? Maybe MS
wanted me to use the online installer? I don't know. I finally
gave up. The fact that their own software won't install properly
on one of the few computers it actually supports is a sorry
state of affairs.) Yet even if IE10 and 11 could handle the FF

Yes, a sorry state of affairs; I just gave up, eventually, trying to get
- I think it was - IE10 then 11 to install on a friend's machine: like
you, it just kept failing, with no explanation (or some complex one
that'd have directed me all around the houses to beyond where I had the
will to live). I tried selecting just one, or just the other, as well as
both (as part of Windows Update) - no go.

page, that still leaves IE 6-9. XP can't even run later than IE8.

Indeed.

IE10-11 have very limited support, only working on Windows
7/8. So IE has really become a boutique product. A large
percentage of computers online can't even install the latest
version.

I hadn't thought of it like that. Good point. (I'm a Firefox user - so
far; I've stopped at version 2x.)

Here's an example of a page I was at this morning. The
Washington Post. This is an example of their IE support:

!--[if lt IE 7]body class="ie6 static"![endif]--
!--[if IE 7]body class="ie7 static"![endif]--
!--[if IE 8]body class="ie8 static"![endif]--
!--[if gt IE 8]!--body class="static"!--![endif]--

That's special code that only IE recognizes. It's specifying
different CSS for the HTML BODY tag, depending on which
version of IE it is! To my mind that's just crazy. It means

And I can't help wondering if what they are trying to do could be
achieved with much simpler code (maybe producing _slightly_ less
sophisticated appearance, though possibly not even that).

writing and testing 4 or 5 different versions of a page just
for IE. If they don't do that then either they have to
accept the limited options of quirks mode, or they'll have
to live with unpredictable behavior: A box that's too big
for its content; a line that's in the wrong place; an unwanted
scrollbar; an image that's overlapping text.... all sorts
of little problems can happen.

And, indeed, do!

So for me it comes down to only one realistic option:
If I want to fully support all browsers and still have my
webpages look right and function fully in all of them,
the only realistic option is to use two versions, with
one being IE quirks mode.

Or, reduce the sophistication of what you're trying to achieve!



4
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"If god doesn't like the way I live, Let him tell me, not you." - unknown

| I found that IE wouldn't provide the design I wanted without
| using TABLEs (which are "mildly deprecated"), while other
|
| Ooh, I _hate_ that word: makes me _want_ to use whatever they're
| deciding they don't like this week. (I first came across it with
| reference to the CENTER tag.)
|
I agree. It's a weird usage that basically means "this
code works fine but you're wrong to use it". FONT has been
deprecated for as long as I remember, but it still works.

I think TABLE is a special case. It was supposed to be
for making tables, but was also the only way to control
layout. Hip coders like to make fun of people who use
TABLEs, I think, because they want to feel that HTML
has come of age and doesn't require "hacks" anymore.
Personally I don't consider it a hack. TABLE does the job,
so I see no reason not to use it. And HTML really hasn't
come of age, anyway. The same people avoiding TABLEs
are using a dizzying number of nested DIVs.

| Out of curiosity, do you use a code generator or hand-code the HTML
| directly?

Hand coded. I wrote my own editor many years ago.
I do a lot with web design and with VBScript/WSH. My
editor was designed mostly for what I need myself -
those two general categories. It's never sold very well.
HTML editors are a dime a dozen and mine is a bit quirky.
But it works well for me. And if I need a new function
I can add it.

In my experience it's hard to mix the two methods. A code
generator makes a bloated mess. It's difficult to start
tweaking code like that. Though I think a lot of webmasters
take that aproach, working in something like Dreamweaver
and then doing a bit of editing in code view. I guess part of
the problem is that there are two disparate aspects to the
craft - graphic design and coding. I like graphics and I like
coding, but most web designers are graphics people, while
most coders don't much care about design.

| I can see the attraction. (I suspect my blind friends can't. Have you
| ever tried using one of your pages via speech?)

You mean with a screen reader? No. I have a blind
friend whose PCs I build and manage. He uses Jaws.
It's very difficult for him these days because most
major sites have auto-generated pages with numerous
sections squeezed into the page -- typically 3 vertical
columns, each with several sections. An average page
can have hundreds of links.
On my own site I don't worry about that. There's
not much of anything a blind person might find useful,
and if they did find me via search the page they arrive
at should work just find, except for the menus. The
visual design is graphically complex but the code is
simple and the content is straightforward. A blind
person landing on one of my pages should be able to
read it easily.
I could do something like put a site
index link to plain menus, but one has to draw the line
somewhere. Such a link is likely to never be used.
Phones are a similar case. I could probably optimize my
site better for smart phones. I'm getting more people
using those these days. But I figure that if someone
doesn't have time to sit down and read properly then
there's nothing much they'll see at my website, so there's
no sense catering to their manic lifestyle. I don't have
any pictures of pop stars at orgies and I don't have
any 10-word updates about "the burning question of the
day". What I have requires a modicum of concentration.
And most of it's free. The phone addicts can pay me if
they want better readability.

| That left me with a problem, and not just for the flyout/popup
| menus. To make a common page for all browsers would require
| giving up the popup menus *and* keeping the layout very simple.
|
| [And we can't have a very simple layout, can we? That would never do!]

That's half the fun. I guess you're not very excited
about graphic design. I find it very interesting and
expressive. Also interior design. Colors and patterns have
so much affect on mood and message. Even people who
are not consciously interested in design are usually
affected by it.

| Yes, a sorry state of affairs; I just gave up, eventually, trying to get
| - I think it was - IE10 then 11 to install on a friend's machine: like
| you, it just kept failing, with no explanation (or some complex one
| that'd have directed me all around the houses to beyond where I had the
| will to live). I tried selecting just one, or just the other, as well as
| both (as part of Windows Update) - no go.
|

Very curious. I wonder what the problem is. I speculated
that it might be a bit of passive-aggression, trying to get me
to go for the online install, but I really don't have any idea
what the problem might be. At first it told me something
needed to be updated. I updated that, but then it just
switched its complaint to something else. (I don't remember
all the details now.)

| !--[if lt IE 7]body class="ie6 static"![endif]--
| !--[if IE 7]body class="ie7 static"![endif]--
| !--[if IE 8]body class="ie8 static"![endif]--
| !--[if gt IE 8]!--body class="static"!--![endif]--
|
| That's special code that only IE recognizes. It's specifying
| different CSS for the HTML BODY tag, depending on which
| version of IE it is! To my mind that's just crazy. It means
|
| And I can't help wondering if what they are trying to do could be
| achieved with much simpler code (maybe producing _slightly_ less
| sophisticated appearance, though possibly not even that).
|

Are you one of those guys who writes webpages as plain
text on a white background, with blue links?
Even if you don't care about graphics, it's important for
business sites. If the Washington Post has a page that
looks clunky then it will look unprofessional... Though I don't
normally enable script, block 3rd-party images and see
very few ads, so it could be that the WP website looks like
a tacky collage of Miracle Mile strip mall lighting and I just
haven't seen it.

One of the most impressive sites I've seen is Netflix. The
functionality is very complex but works beautifully. It does
everything one might want, with nothing extra or confusing.
If I were running that site I'd want to maintain that functionality
and quality of design at any cost. Their whole business depends
on it.

Interestingly, though, on the page where I got that sample
code above there's just some plain text. The page is fairly simple,
with little real content. But it loads the basic WP style sheets,
which amount to more than 1/4 MB of CSS. That's more than
five times what was considered maximum size for an entire
webpage not so long ago.

| So for me it comes down to only one realistic option:
| If I want to fully support all browsers and still have my
| webpages look right and function fully in all of them,
| the only realistic option is to use two versions, with
| one being IE quirks mode.
|
| Or, reduce the sophistication of what you're trying to achieve!

Hmm. I thought you didn't care about design. Now it sounds
like you're opposed to design on principle. For the sake of
accessibility? Do you also think that housing should consist
of square rooms in warehouses, with a plain bed and chair
for furniture? For me it's all of a piece. Accessibility can be an
issue for the blind, but the vast majority of people are sighted.
For them the content, appearance, readability and intuitiveness
of structure are all important parts of the page. Thought given
to design can be inspiring and uplifting, and that's relevant. It
can also communicate intention, priorities and of course corporate
style. A webpage isn't just an information storage device.

In message , Mayayana
writes:
| I found that IE wouldn't provide the design I wanted without
| using TABLEs (which are "mildly deprecated"), while other
|
| Ooh, I _hate_ that word: makes me _want_ to use whatever they're
| deciding they don't like this week. (I first came across it with
| reference to the CENTER tag.)
|
I agree. It's a weird usage that basically means "this
code works fine but you're wrong to use it". FONT has been
deprecated for as long as I remember, but it still works.

Glad you agree. (And most source code I've looked at that uses the
supposed alternatives to FONT also uses FONT as well, thus just
duplicating everything.)

I think TABLE is a special case. It was supposed to be
for making tables, but was also the only way to control
layout. Hip coders like to make fun of people who use
TABLEs, I think, because they want to feel that HTML
has come of age and doesn't require "hacks" anymore.
Personally I don't consider it a hack. TABLE does the job,
so I see no reason not to use it. And HTML really hasn't
come of age, anyway. The same people avoiding TABLEs
are using a dizzying number of nested DIVs.

And if from code generators (at least, I hope that's the reason!),
sometimes with no reason _at all_ for the tens of DIVs.

| Out of curiosity, do you use a code generator or hand-code the HTML
| directly?

Hand coded. I wrote my own editor many years ago.
[]
In my experience it's hard to mix the two methods. A code
generator makes a bloated mess. It's difficult to start

Yes - the one I come across _most_ (though not that often, only when I
want to save something someone who uses it has sent me) is IncrediMail
(spit!); the _worst_ I've come across is Word. I tried (using the wrong
brackets here in case something interprets it)

{HTML}{HEAD}{/HEAD}
{BODY}
{FONT COLOR=red}red{/FONT}
{FONT COLOR=yellow}yellow{/FONT}
{/BODY}

loaded into Word, and then saved as HTML; looking at the result, it
takes a while to even _find_ the original text )-:!

tweaking code like that. Though I think a lot of webmasters
take that aproach, working in something like Dreamweaver
and then doing a bit of editing in code view. I guess part of

I guess that the argument that, these days, links (and processors) are
so fast, and storage so cheap, that it doesn't actually matter if your
code is inefficient (so spend your limited time on design not coding),
_does_ have some validity these days - but it still offends me.
[]
| I can see the attraction. (I suspect my blind friends can't. Have you
| ever tried using one of your pages via speech?)

[I'd never noticed - I used to use it before they cut news access at
work - that OE uses "|" rather than "". Maybe because I used
OE-Quotefix which perhaps changed it.]

You mean with a screen reader? No. I have a blind
friend whose PCs I build and manage. He uses Jaws.

I have several; one and her friend uses JAWS (though is looking into the
free one which is coming on), her husband uses Window-Eyes.

It's very difficult for him these days because most
major sites have auto-generated pages with numerous
sections squeezed into the page -- typically 3 vertical
columns, each with several sections. An average page
can have hundreds of links.

Don't I know it. Can take several minutes for JAWS to read out the
header before it gets to the actual meat.

On my own site I don't worry about that. There's
not much of anything a blind person might find useful,

Fair enough.

and if they did find me via search the page they arrive
at should work just find, except for the menus. The
visual design is graphically complex but the code is
simple and the content is straightforward. A blind
person landing on one of my pages should be able to
read it easily.

That's good to know, especially if it's unlikely to be of use to them
anyway.

I could do something like put a site
index link to plain menus, but one has to draw the line
somewhere. Such a link is likely to never be used.

Indeed.

Phones are a similar case. I could probably optimize my
site better for smart phones. I'm getting more people
using those these days. But I figure that if someone
doesn't have time to sit down and read properly then
there's nothing much they'll see at my website, so there's
no sense catering to their manic lifestyle. I don't have

(-: [I've just got one, but really just to use as a tablet, i. e. to
have web access when out and about.]
[]
day". What I have requires a modicum of concentration.

Oh, you won't be bothered by many 'phone users then (-:
[]
| [And we can't have a very simple layout, can we? That would never do!]

That's half the fun. I guess you're not very excited
about graphic design. I find it very interesting and

Yes and no. I _do_ like a clever webpage design - when I see something I
haven't seen before, with clever use of mousovers, flyouts, and all the
rest, I do think "that's neat" (not "cool" - I'm of the in-between
generation that finds use of "cool" uncool, but I'm aware it's come back
in!). But my being favourably impressed soon goes the other way if the
coding breaks because of the particular set of settings and plugins I
have in my browser, which it often does (and I don't really have any
really unusual plugins/settings). When _that_ happens, I'd far rather
have a simple one that works.

expressive. Also interior design. Colors and patterns have
so much affect on mood and message. Even people who
are not consciously interested in design are usually
affected by it.

Including me, I'm sure. Lighting level - I'm talking interior design
now, not webpages! - is the one I'm most aware of: I don't particularly
like the darkness that seems almost mandatory in many pubs and
restaurants. (And no, it's not because ...; I have very good night
vision.)
[]
| !--[if lt IE 7]body class="ie6 static"![endif]--
| !--[if IE 7]body class="ie7 static"![endif]--
| !--[if IE 8]body class="ie8 static"![endif]--
| !--[if gt IE 8]!--body class="static"!--![endif]--
|
| That's special code that only IE recognizes. It's specifying
| different CSS for the HTML BODY tag, depending on which
| version of IE it is! To my mind that's just crazy. It means
|
| And I can't help wondering if what they are trying to do could be
| achieved with much simpler code (maybe producing _slightly_ less
| sophisticated appearance, though possibly not even that).
|

Are you one of those guys who writes webpages as plain
text on a white background, with blue links?

Well, I _do_ tend to keep it fairly simple, though tend to go more for
light text on dark backgrounds, but as I've said, I've nothing against
more imaginative design, as long as it doesn't break too easily!

Even if you don't care about graphics, it's important for
business sites. If the Washington Post has a page that
looks clunky then it will look unprofessional... Though I don't

Yes, but ... (see below)
[]
One of the most impressive sites I've seen is Netflix. The
functionality is very complex but works beautifully. It does
everything one might want, with nothing extra or confusing.
If I were running that site I'd want to maintain that functionality
and quality of design at any cost. Their whole business depends
on it.

I'll take your word for it (which is _not_ a way of saying I disagree:
as I said, I like a clever site that works; I just am unlikely to use
Netflix).

Interestingly, though, on the page where I got that sample
code above there's just some plain text. The page is fairly simple,
with little real content. But it loads the basic WP style sheets,
which amount to more than 1/4 MB of CSS. That's more than
five times what was considered maximum size for an entire
webpage not so long ago.

.... that's part of what I consider the problem: they design these
(probably over-)complicated style sheets, then put them on (or link to
them from of course, which is I do realise the point of them) _every_
page, even ones with just a little text on - where corporate appearance
could still be preserved, if thought necessary, by just a banner graphic
and some colour settings.

| So for me it comes down to only one realistic option:
| If I want to fully support all browsers and still have my
| webpages look right and function fully in all of them,
| the only realistic option is to use two versions, with
| one being IE quirks mode.
|
| Or, reduce the sophistication of what you're trying to achieve!

Hmm. I thought you didn't care about design. Now it sounds
like you're opposed to design on principle. For the sake of

No, only when it becomes fragile.

accessibility? Do you also think that housing should consist

No, I don't think my blind friends should have automatic access to every
web page (though there's argument for saying that, say, government -
national and local - and other sites they might reasonably be expected
to use, such as transport, _should_ be accessible). For sites in
general, it's obviously a commercial decision whether the effort to make
the site accessible is worth the [almost certainly little )-:] extra
trade they'd get, and they have to factor in whether looking less whizzy
might also lose them some sighted customers. (Something like ebay is an
interesting mid point; as it happens, my friends _can_ just about use
it.)

of square rooms in warehouses, with a plain bed and chair
for furniture? For me it's all of a piece. Accessibility can be an
issue for the blind, but the vast majority of people are sighted.
For them the content, appearance, readability and intuitiveness
of structure are all important parts of the page. Thought given
to design can be inspiring and uplifting, and that's relevant. It
can also communicate intention, priorities and of course corporate
style. A webpage isn't just an information storage device.

All true. Though - like wheelchair access to buildings - it _is_
possible to design things so they are attractive to _both_ sets of
users, but there are far fewer designers who can do it, and it probably
_does_ take longer (and thus cost more). And is best considered from the
start (like building design), rather than retro-fixing.

2
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Where's Piglet?" asked Pooh, as he munched a pork pie.

On 8/17/14 3:17 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Mayayana
writes:

snip

I guess that the argument that, these days, links (and processors) are
so fast, and storage so cheap, that it doesn't actually matter if your
code is inefficient (so spend your limited time on design not coding),
_does_ have some validity these days - but it still offends me.

I'm no programmer, but with bits and pieces of things I've read over the
years, and what I see, I've thought the same thing about almost all
computer software.

snip


--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 25.0
Thunderbird 24.6.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

In message , Ken Springer
writes:
On 8/17/14 3:17 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Mayayana
writes:

snip

I guess that the argument that, these days, links (and processors) are
so fast, and storage so cheap, that it doesn't actually matter if your
code is inefficient (so spend your limited time on design not coding),
_does_ have some validity these days - but it still offends me.

I'm no programmer, but with bits and pieces of things I've read over
the years, and what I see, I've thought the same thing about almost all
computer software.
[]
Which - that it's getting cheaper and faster all the time, so it doesn't
matter, or that it still does?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

.... wrapping up the bone china in newspapaers and the /Daily Express/. - Eddie
Mair, in RT 22-28 September 22-28 2012

On 17/08/2014 13:57, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Ken Springer
writes:
On 8/17/14 3:17 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Mayayana
writes:

snip

I guess that the argument that, these days, links (and processors) are
so fast, and storage so cheap, that it doesn't actually matter if your
code is inefficient (so spend your limited time on design not coding),
_does_ have some validity these days - but it still offends me.

I'm no programmer, but with bits and pieces of things I've read over
the years, and what I see, I've thought the same thing about almost
all computer software.
[]
Which - that it's getting cheaper and faster all the time, so it doesn't
matter, or that it still does?

If software wasn't just cobbled together as quickly as possible using
bits and pieces from old projects without thinking much about whether
the approach taken makes good sense we might not need this ludicrous,
near continuous flow of bug fixes and security patches.

--

Brian Gregory (in the UK).
To email me please remove all the letter vee from my email address.