Netscape Notes

Netscrap Notes

7-18-3

Time renders most things irrelevant. This is fast becoming a moot point. In retrospect, this problem hardly seems to have been worth the trouble, except that everyone seemed so concerned that making websites cross-browser compatible seemed to be the right thing to do. But why? Let the visitor beware. I have four browsers on my computer. Why can't everyone else? It was, all along, more a matter of corporate competition and intrigue than it was about visitors' relations. While the browser builders battled with each other, the site designers suffered. The ultimate result was web standards, a better idea.

10-01-2

"Is the [MS] Empire about to crumble?" The answer.... "Probably not." Sure Netscape 7 is faster and better looking. Sure it has a built-in Instant Messenger compatible with AIM and ICQ, but -- and there's that "but" -- it looks like a billboard for AOL, with ads everywhere.
(HTML Goodies To Go Newsletter)

Just an additional post to keep this page active. Netscape seems to have solved many of its problems, but it's heading in a whole new direction that's more difficult to complain about, it being the mainstream motive of the world today. Even Russia and China are beginning to become involved.

[Reading over this post later, I find that I have no idea what I meant by that last sentence.]

6-6-2

Read this.

2-8-2

Every once in a while I get caught up in a misdirection. One of the more frequent ones is trying to code my web pages for cross browser compatibility. I spent more than half of what would be my most productive time today, some five hours, trying to make my menu work perfectly in Netscape 4.7 and 6.0. Fortunately, I succeeded, but I had to make some compromises I didn't like. This pisses me off. I'm back to the old issue of anger at Netscape for making my web life so difficult. It's hard enough to make pages look good in one browser over three different screen resolutions, let alone having to deal with multiple browsers that you have to code differently for. But I've been over this before.

10-31-1

The basic problem with Netscape is that it's very difficult to code for. The newer versions, which should have improved on past mistakes and oversights, do not, solving some problems while creating others.

While professionals may know how to code for cross-browser compatibility, average people who want to code their own site pages probably do not. IE is easier to code for. It's far more forgiving re minor code mistakes than even the most "advanced" Netscape version.

I will keep trying to code for cross-browser compatibility. I want to learn as much as possible, but given time constraints, this could take a while. Meanwhile...use IE. (Since Netscape browsers are used by such a small segmant of the market, the problem hardly seems worth bothering about--except to Netscape users, and I don't want to alienate anyone. Well... maybe some people, but not Netscape users per se.)

8-29-1

I haven't exhaustively checked my websites in Netscape for quite a while now. It's getting so that I don't even care any more. I'm assured by a post in a newsletter I subscribe to that as high as 87% of people on the net use the IE browser. I hope that's true. I was never a fan of the Microsoft monopoly, but in this case it works in my favor. I'm so tired of non-standard practices re computing and the net, even as I worship the concept in every other aspect of life on this planet.

7-2-1

I've been back and forth on this cross-browser compatibility issue (as the previous notes below demonstrate), and I haven't yet settled on a solution. My gut response is to say to hell with Netscrap and to design for IE browsers only. But I recognize that this is nothing more than anger at my own inability to write good code. (Even being upset at Netscape and the software industry in general for producing non-standardized products is ultimately anger at my own self. All anger is projection.) I know it's possible to design for all browsers. Professionals do it. But I am not a professional programmer. Only recently have I discovered how complicated a problem it is. (See webreview and compatibility mastergrid for a small hint at the complexity.) I myself handle the problems when I surf [I love to visit non-professionally designed sites] by using several browsers, but should I expect the same from my visitors? I certainly don't want visitors to leave in disgust just because they become upset with the site's poor appearance in their browser. It's bad enough that many of them will leave because they become disgusted with the content. This is an ongoing matter. I feel lost.

6-28-1b

I am advised that the problem causing this textbox [since superceded by a different format] not to appear in netscape 4.77 could have to do with the nesting of tags within other tags. I believe it, because I had the same problem with the button above [the button has since been replaced], which I solved by un-nesting it. But I'll be damned if I can find any nesting problems. I've been over the code again and again and again.

6-28-1a

I'd eliminate this textbox [since removed], for the benefit of netscape 4.x users (et al. who have difficulties with it in their browsers), but I like it, and I can't find a substitute format that does what this does. And anyway, I'm a stubborn bastard. I can't accept the fact that browsers can't be cross-compatible re code. I WILL make it work, somehow.

6-24-1

I give up. I admit that Netscape has beaten me. From here on in, this site is intended to be viewed with IE only. Each version of Netscape renders the cover page differently. If I knew of a way to reconcile the differences, if I knew how to write code for both IE and Netscape, if I knew of a source where I could learn the techniques, I would do it. But since no one seems to be willing to inform me, and since I can't seem to discover these things on my own, I surrender. Netscape users: switch to IE. Actually, most of the pages other than the cover look okay in Netscape. I wish I could...oh, never mind.

6-21-1

I'd be really interested in learning from Netscape users how my site appears in their browsers, especially those of you with Netscape 6. And I'd be even more interested in hearing from you if you know of ways to correct the code to make it perform better. (See specific questions I have on the new help page.) My criticism of Netscape is born out of my inability to get my site to work properly in their browsers. I sincerely would like to make this work, but failing that, I can only criticize. I hate to merely complain, but if that's all that's left to do, I'll do it.

6-17-1

I take it all back. Netscrap 6 is as screwed-up as the previous versions.

6-15-1b

Here's a surprise for those of you who've known me for a while: I'm beginning to like Netscape! After years of calling it Netscrap and freely pointing out its deficiencies, I got a copy of Netscape 6. It's better. It still has a few irritating little tics--like the extra space it inserts at the beginning of some lines in text boxes. (I have a Beta version, so maybe they've corrected this problem.) Anyway, I apologize, Netscape, for all the bad things I've said about you. Now I'm free to turn my critical attention elsewhere, like to RealPlayer maybe. What persistent, pernicious, pecuniary jerks they've become.

6-15-1a

Netscape users: my contact info that used to be on a separate page is now way down at the bottom of the cover page [soon to be moved to a separate page], and the "contact" link on the menu will not take you to it (at least not in version 6-Beta.) It seems that my Netscape browser will not allow the page jump. (But it allows jumps on all my other pages. ????? I've parsed the text with two different editors with no success. So, maybe the above comments re my change of heart about Netscape are premature. I'll try to fix this problem, but meanwhile, Netscape users will have to scoll down to the information.
[ This problem has been corrected. Yay! :) ]

2-28-1

Netscrap users: I'm working on the errors. This site is optimized for IE.

1-25-1

Users of browsers other than IE (that is, Netscape, Opera, etc.): I'm working to correct the formatting problems. Sorry.

[top] [back to intro page] [menu]