Macromedia.com Progress Report

And yet their site is still COMPLETELY invisible in Opera 7.02. What an improvement...

In my opinion, If browser developers can't get their browsers to work as well as Internet Explorer, that's their problem and the community shouldn't suffer because of that.

If you choose not to use Internet Explorer for whatever reason, that's your choice, but you shouldn't complain that the browser you're using doesn't work where Internet Explorer does.

If Apple wants people to use Safari, then they should program it to work with all websites. It shouldn't always be left up to the developers to "dumb down" their websites so that they work with Safari. Otherwise Safari and Apple are only hindering the evolution/development of the net, not helping it.

Wow, John, you must be new this "web standards" thing, eh? Or just flamebait?

Thanks for the mention, Todd. For Opera and Safari the big problem right now is the inability to post binary data, which precludes some of the application functionality on the site. In earlier conversation Opera said they'd be working on this, and I understand than in talks with Apple they'll also be bringing this into conformance. I've heard of additional rendering differences of the site in those browsers, but for us the lack of binary communication was the showstopper.

(Binary POST from a browser isn't part of the markup specification, or of the styling specification... I'm not sure if it's in the interactivity specification (ECMAScript), or document object model or some other specification... I'm not sure offhand whether the "official definitions" mandate that any browser implement this, so it may be a de facto standard rather than a de jure standard.)

We're trying for something new with this site -- documents will be there, same as before, but we're also trying to make the applications work more like real applications. It's unlikely we'll get it optimized right off the bat, so continued guidance and feedback is greatly appreciated, thanks.

jd/mm

BC,

No one person or subject is "flamebait". Whether people choose to discuss a subject reasonably or with insults is their choice.

If you disagree with what I say, tell me why in a mature, constructive manner. If you just don't like what I say, deal with it.

Safari is a Beta piece of software - It's not surprising that certain websites don't work with it yet and it is certainly not just the fault of the website developers.

Well, John, you may feel the IE works ?correctly? and that all other browsers should emulate it?s functionality. You?re welcomed to your opinion. Unfortunately, the W3C is the group that determines what is correct or not, and IE doesn?t conform to the law. IE?s not awful, but developers shouldn?t have to code to MS?s whims. They should follow one, uniform rule of conduct, and browsers should align themselves with the W3C. Safari is a beta (and an excellent one at that) but it?s not finished, and it still has some major issues. It utterly defaces my weblog for example.) No one is saying that MM should change their code so it works in a browser that doesn?t (yet) work properly, and you agree with that. So why would you agree with the same sentiment when you replace ?Safari? with ?IE?? You?re saying one broken browser should take precedence, not matter what. Why, majority of users? I?ll pass on choosing software based on upon the underhanded tactics of one software monopoly. If you accept mediocre software, pretty soon, that?s all that?s left.

Excellent reply, ~bc.

Very good points bc, I knew about the W3C, but I didn't know that browsers should conform to its rules.

However, in my experience, the W3C is just as bad. There are certain things that the W3C says that I cannot do, such as adjusting the colors of a scrollbar using a CSS stylesheet, when this feature has been available in most of the more popular browsers for a while now.

So from what I can see, the W3C doesn't aid design, but hinders it, forcing web developers to use old, perhaps "safer" techniques. If the W3C is to be a truly respected as the governing body of web and browser development, then it needs to update to newer techniques.

Or are we not supposed to use certain newer techniques and hold back while other browser developers catch up?

Something like 96% of people use Internet Explorer and that obviously includes some Mac users. As far as I'm concerned, Internet Explorer works far better than any other browser available. Everyone is welcome to choose whatever browser they want to use. But then when a website doesn't work with their browser, they should go and complain to the developers of said browser to update their software to the latest techniques, not just the developers of the website. Especially when the browser is in beta.

Safari is an excellent Beta, I've heard great things about it and you've made some fair points about it. But then it has to be admitted that it's not Macromedia's fault that Safari doesn't display its website properly.

And I think it's a shame that Apple was able to bully Macromedia into changing their website to work with Apple's Beta browser. Although Macromedia does need to satisfy its Apple audience, and if that audience are all going to start using an unfinished beta browser and expect every website to work with it, that's what Macromedia will unfortunately be left to deal with.

I'm not saying that everyone should use Internet Explorer, although it may understandably seem that way. I think it's good that Internet explorer has some competition. But it would be nice if Internet Explorer had some decent software to contend with.

"And I think it’s a shame that Apple was able to bully Macromedia into changing their website to work with Apple’s Beta browser. "

With 41% of the surveyed individuals being Mac users, do you really think that it's Apple alone that has convinced Macromedia?

Regardless, your argument is flawed. The main point that I'm sure most everyone will agree with is that web pages (or any internet technology) should be accessible using a common, well-documented standard. Whether the implementers add little flourishes (colored scrollbars) that do not hinder functionality is irrelevant, as they're a luxury.

I'm not going to argue that either the w3c or IE6 are the standard. However, just because something works in IE6 does not make it a properly-formed web page. It doesn't even guarantee that it will work in the next Internet Explorer revision. Designing a page to a documented specification is good. However, in many cases our only test for conformance is to open up the browser and say "Hey, it works. Good enough."

Saying that Safari users are wrong in complaining makes no sense from a consumer standpoint. If a considerable portion of Macromedia's market share is using Safari, isn't it to Macromedia's benefit to collaborate with Apple to get things working on both ends? It's not a requirement, just a good business practice.

Finally, the point that the w3c is "holding standards back." I'd like to hear about some web features that Microsoft has recently (not innerHTML era) introduced that has many benefits that are not a w3c standard. There are many w3c proposals that nobody has implemented as yet, while the vast majority of features out there are, in fact, standards.

"...web pages should be accessible using a common, well-documented standard. Whether the implementers add little flourishes (colored scrollbars) that do not hinder functionality is irrelevant, as they’re a luxury."

If everyone thought that way, we'd be using BBC computers to surf the web right now. Apple is a developer that I would especially expect to invest heavily in these "flourishes"/"luxuries", given that they care greatly about appearance and rightly so. And as a company that cares greatly about design/appearance, for them to ask another company to change the great new design of their website to one that doesn't look as good is just plain hypocritical.

Function is vital, you're right, but to hinder the evolution of web design the way the W3C does, isn't right.

Does that mean that every time someone develops a new web design technique, they have to run it by the W3C? And in what circumstances will the W3C allow a new technique to be accepted? And if they do accept said technique, how quickly will it be implemented into the other browsers? Will it at all and what if one browser refuses to support the technique? - More than likely it will not allow new techniques and, as I said before, hinder the evolution of web design. So what do we do then? Stick with the same old software forever? I don't think so.

The reason that HTML was/is so successful is because it was open source and people were allowed to develop new techniques, spin-off languages, etc. And they did so to great effect. So, to now restrict and govern the continuing creation of newer techniques/languages,etc, would be a crime.

And it's not as though colored scrollbars created using a CSS stylesheet effects those browsers that don't support it. Those browsers simply won't display the colored scrollbars. So why does the W3C say that code is incompatible? It works for all browsers, it just simply won't be displayed by some.

The principle idea behind the W3C is right, but it won't work without great sacrifice to the continuing development of design.

I refuse to use dated techniques to create websites because the W3C says I should. Especially when I know that the website could look a lot better using newer techniques.

A few years ago, when you entered a website that used a new form of programming/software, you were given the option to download the software. And that's the way it should be now. It should be either down to the user to use the right software or down to the developers to make sure their software works with new design programming/techniques/software.

Granted, that could lead to some chaos, but with the advent of broadband, is it really going to be such a huge problem to download a little software? Would Flash be around if everyone refused to download the software because it didn't work with their browsers straight away? Better yet, would Macromedia be here?

When it comes to designing commercial websites, depending on the target audience, I may adhere to the majority of the W3C's rules. But there should be some kind of compromise between governing the web and allowing designers to continue to create new techniques.

"If a considerable portion of Macromedia’s market share is using Safari, isn’t it to Macromedia’s benefit to collaborate with Apple to get things working on both ends?"

Yes, which is exactly what I said, when I said that Macromedia needs to keep it's Apple customers satisfied.

I guess I'm just confused as to which dated techniques the w3c is endorsing. I think we're coming from a similar standpoint here: every company should make the choice as to which technology they use, but in doing so you choose your consumers.

The idea of downloading a plugin to handle new content works well. Flash has high a high rate of adoption, and Adobe's SVG plugin handles that media fairly well. As long as there's a must-have application, users will adopt the technology.

I think I initially thought I detected the "it works in IE, screw everything else" attitude in your post. That wasn't the case. I am interested in what you view as "newer techniques" that the w3c isn't supporting. I agree that we need some innovation, but I'm not so sure what you're hinting at. Personally, I'm not so sure the next big thing will appear in a browser.

I'm still feeling two things here from John: 1) that you'd rather use IE as a standard to code to than the W3C, and 2) that you feel that the W3C is holding back the web. I respectfully disagree with both sentiments.

I'd agree with Mike in wondering what IE offers that W3C doesn't? Personally, I'm going to choose following W3C code which lets, say, a blind person access my content because I've followed their accessibility guidelines vs using IE to change the scollbar of a browser (which makes the Danish UI guy in me simply cough!).

Honestly, John, I feel you're right about the W3C. But I aslo think your feelings are outdated by a few years. I think before CSS took hold and XHTML1.0, you were probably right. But W3C is doing things right now that no one is implementing and it's really going to change things, and one example is SVG, (also XML, and the science/math MLs) . I have all the modern browsers, and some old ones, and none of them support SVG! I have to download something extra to view this one SVG file I stumbled on!

Your point about downloading viewers is also one that really upsets me. I (as a visitor to your site) should never have to download something to allow you (as designer) to be snazzy, when *I am paying for the download (and I mean bandwidth)* when I'm trying to buy things from you. You should bend to me the customer/user! And to assume that broadband should allow this (mostly) bygone practice to return is to ignore two big things: the majority of Americans still have dial up, and two, a lot of customers/users don't want plug ins and software on their computers in this day of spyware, ad-ware, and internet security issues.

Flash exists on 99% of browsers mostly because *it's built into the browsers* nowadays. and I simply HATE it when I get a message that says I need to download Flash, even though I have the bleeding edge newest plugin, because some hack couldn't write a decent sniffer script.

99% of designers can't be trusted to use any thing that isn't specified by the W3C! When they've conquered these specs, then I'll be open to suggestions (like usable Flash!?)

I sent in a comment about not being able to use their exchange.macromedia.com site, since my company blocks Flash at the firewall. I sent this in as a legitimate concern/complaint about the new site.

I received a nice little email saying that this comment should have been directed to the software feedback instead of the macromedia.com feedback. "um, I had a problem with a website completely blocking my use and it's not a problem with the website?"

I love how the new site looks, but they at least need to have an html only edition.

"If you choose not to use Internet Explorer for whatever reason, that?s your choice, but you shouldn?t complain that the browser you?re using doesn?t work where Internet Explorer does. "

WELL WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A COMPANY BUILDS A SITE THAT DOESN'T EVEN WORK ON IE FOR THE MAC!

Macromedia stresses "Accessibility" and uses catch phrases, like "Experience Matters" Well here's my experience.

GOAL: Download the updater for Dreamweaver (6.1)

EXPERIENCE:
1)Open the site, (macromedia.com) in my browser of CHOICE, Safari. Get two pages into the site and I am notified that I need to have the Flash Player, Version 6,0,65,0 or higher. Ok try and download the player. Nothing happens.

2) Open up my next browser of CHOICE, Camino. Get two pages into the site... bla bla. Ok Ok... guess its time to fire up IE.

3) Open up IE. Get a few pages into the site. About to download the Updater. One more page.... AAAAA... wrong. Looks Like I need Flash Player, Vertion 6,0,65,0 or higher. Try and download the player. Nope wont let me do that either.

What the heck. I AM A FLASH DEVELOPER! I HAVE BEEN WORKING IN FLA6 FOR CLOSE TO A YEAR NOW! I have the flash 6 player. I use it everyday. Ok so maybe they are using a new version of the player. I can't download it. What is so special about what Macromedia is doing that not only do I have to not only use IE (Which for me hasn't worked anyway) but download some new version of the player. Or is this just a JavaScript gone bad. Whatever the case now I can't use Macromedia's site to download an updater for a product that I bought and I'm miffed.

Perhaps its time I join the IE/Windo$ club and enjoy all of the wonderful new features the internet has to offer. Sounds like freedom to me.

You can view the site in Opera just fine if you set it to identify itself as IE 6.0. It's only when you actually identify the browser as Opera 7.02 that you get a blank page. So obviously there is no technical reason to block Opera, because the site works great. They just seem to be blocking it because it is not IE or something.

It is extremely arrogant to expect people to download a plug-in just to visit your site. If I go to a site and am asked to download a plug-in, I immediately hit the back button.

You seem to think that IE is the defacto standard for web browsers, which is just silly. IE hasn't done anything innovative in years. Every other browser out there is coming up with great new ideas and features except IE.

So if Opera made a cool new feature in its browser that I used on my site, you would go to www.opera.com and download a new web browser just to see my site? You wouldn't be at all upset about that? Or would you expect every other browser including IE to incorporate that feature as well, just because Opera did?

What amazing new features are there in IE that the W3C doesn't support? Colored scrollbars? Wow, what a revolutionary feature.

IE 6 for Windows doesn't even support .PNG yet. Which has been finalized for like 6 years. Every other browser including Safari, Opera and others all support it flawlessly however. But I don't use it in my sites because I want people to have a good experience at my site. But according to your logic if you want to view my site, you should go download Opera or Safari. That's just ridiculous.

You can view the site in Opera just fine if you set it to identify itself as IE 6.0. It's only when you actually identify the browser as Opera 7.02 that you get a blank page. So obviously there is no technical reason to block Opera, because the site works great. They just seem to be blocking it because it is not IE or something.

It is extremely arrogant to expect people to download a plug-in just to visit your site. If I go to a site and am asked to download a plug-in, I immediately hit the back button.

You seem to think that IE is the defacto standard for web browsers, which is just silly. IE hasn't done anything innovative in years. Every other browser out there is coming up with great new ideas and features except IE.

So if Opera made a cool new feature in its browser that I used on my site, you would go to www.opera.com and download a new web browser just to see my site? You wouldn't be at all upset about that? Or would you expect every other browser including IE to incorporate that feature as well, just because Opera did?

What amazing new features are there in IE that the W3C doesn't support? Colored scrollbars? Wow, what a revolutionary feature.

IE 6 for Windows doesn't even support .PNG yet. Which has been finalized for like 6 years. Every other browser including Safari, Opera and others all support it flawlessly however. But I don't use it in my sites because I want people to have a good experience at my site. But according to your logic if you want to view my site, you should go download Opera or Safari. That's just ridiculous.

Woops. Sorry for the double post.

My current company has also recently done a redesign that's standards compliant. XHTML Strict. I believe 99% of our site validates. There might be a few pages that have old code that doesn't validate. Hopefully we won't run into the disaster that Macromedia ran into. Check out our jump into XHTML strict @ http://www.4d.com. We're also soliciting feedback on our site. :)

Ok, this is really upsetting. I can't download anything from macromedia on any Mac. Not my tower, or powerbook... Not on any kind of browser. I can't even download the flash player. (Again I am a flash developer and I have 6 and ever update posted until this week.)

Is this the future of the web?

Your site works great for me, Jarod. Opera 7.02 on XP.

So, did anyone realise that at
this page from the report
it reads Jakob Nielson ??? Yes with an "O"! ha!!
(Note post time in case they fix it)

Actually Macromedia.com's pages are pretty good. The Safari rendering issues are bugs in Safari and not bugs in Macromedia's Web site. I've already fixed one of the worst offenders, but there are still several more that need to be tracked down.

Just sticking up for Macromedia a bit. They cannot and should not have to work around a buggy Safari, and I don't blame them for releasing the site anyway.

i dont want to enter the debate that's already been entertained in these comments, just make a note about a comment made in the post.

"Then again, it is worth noting that if the code base of their site were standards compliant, they wouldn’t have to devote additional time or resources to fixing the issues, for the site would just work."

that's not so true. i've just spent numerous hours over the last few days debugging a valid xhtml and css design to work in browsers other than ie6 on the pc.

the eventual conclusion was to resign ourselves to the fact that, no matter which way we attacked certain problems from a standards compliant angle, we're faced with bugs that just wont go away, or cause issues in other browsers.

safari ( v.60 and a 'found' copy of v.67 ) and ie 5.2 on the mac were the definate trouble makers. camino, mozilla, netscape and ie6 were all taking the code and displaying it in the intended way, but those two browsers just seemed to be taking a contrary stance to certian things. i wont get into specific problems because the situation is fairly compilcated.

the simple fact of all this is that you have the wc3 standards on one side, and a slew of browsers on the other that either interpret those standards differently from eachother, or dont fully support portions and aspects of the standards. until we have a browser that supports standards to the letter, without exceptions or bugs, we're not going to have code that just works.

apologies, i negelected part of my point.

some code is supported in all the current browsers. a simple design without many 'fancy' aspects can and will validate perfectly and render perfectly across the board. but the more complex and involved your code gets, the more the flaws shine though.

there are 'work arounds' and 'hacks' and whatever else people call them to, essentially, trick things into working, but that's hardly a solution and it's not in the spirit of the standards. i dont think that it's acceptible that i need to know the tricks to make feature x work in browser y while not messing up things in browser z.

"some code is supported in all the current browsers. a simple design without many ‘fancy’ aspects can and will validate perfectly and render perfectly across the board. but the more complex and involved your code gets, the more the flaws shine though."

That's a good point. Starting with a specification and then designing against various implementations of that spec can indeed work well. The problem is scalability -- as the work becomes more complex then the likelihood increases the each implementation may either (a) interpret parts of the spec in a slightly different way or (b) have to handle things which are not completely prescribed in the spec. The areas of overlap between implementation do increase over time -- right now, most browsers have succeeded in jumping to support for HTML 4.0, and in the future they'll be more homogenous for CSS, XHTML and the rest -- but there's a lot more "edge territory" when you're designing against a spec with multiple implementations, rather than designing against a known implementation.

Regards,
John Dowdell
Macromedia Support

So quiet lately. More comment please.

Your are not the only one.