Browser Testing

I'll settle for the next best thing then :-)
Besides that, I've tried it once (several years ago, that is), and I just
didn't like it... I like firefox more...

My opinion is similar. I find it difficult to imagine a web browser
being so good that I would be willing to pay for it. I also tried Opera
a few years ago, and it just didn't appeal to me. I can't remember
exactly what I didn't like, but I seem to remember it being too
different. I started off using NN, then moved to Mozilla when it came
out, and have now moved to Foxfire, so part of it is that it is just
what I am used to. If I had a good compelling reason to change
browsers, I would, but it would have to be a good reason.

That said, it is still worthwhile to test with browsers I wouldn't use
on a daily basis.

Don

in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Don G wrote:

I'll settle for the next best thing then :-)
Besides that, I've tried it once (several years ago, that is),

Well, several years ago it was only browser with something like tabbed
browsing (Opera's is just much better than just tabbed browsing)

and I just didn't like it... I like firefox more...

Opera has always been like that, you need to customize it by redusing
stuff you see, in FF, it is other way around.

Nearly all innovations in browsers lately have been first in Opera.
Tabbed browsing, mouse gestures, medium screen rendering (must on pages
with frames), sessions, quick setting, user stylesheets.

My opinion is similar. I find it difficult to imagine a web browser
being so good that I would be willing to pay for it.

Well, I paid for it. It is that good.

I also tried Opera
a few years ago, and it just didn't appeal to me. I can't remember
exactly what I didn't like, but I seem to remember it being too
different.

The thing is, you can't make browser that is lots better, whiout making
it different. If it was same, why would anyone buy it?

I started off using NN, then moved to Mozilla when it came
out, and have now moved to Foxfire, so part of it is that it is just
what I am used to. If I had a good compelling reason to change
browsers, I would, but it would have to be a good reason.

You had, inbetween Netscape and Mozilla.


--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Utrecht, NL.

In article <42261cb2_4 (AT) newsfeed (DOT) slurp.net>, Don G <mail4dag (AT) yahoo (DOT) com>
wrote:

I know that there are many browsers out there, and that each has it's
own quirks, but are the differences significant enough to merit
installing one or more additional alternate browsers? If so, which
browser(s) would you recommend testing with?

My current suite of test browsers is as follows:

Windows 2000 or XP
----------
Internet Explorer 6.0
Mozilla 1.6
Firefox 1.0
Opera 7.5

Windows 95
----------
Internet Explorer 5.0
Internet Explorer 5.5

Mac OS X
----------
Internet Explorer 5.2.3
Safari 1.2.4
Firefox 1.0
Mozilla 1.7
Opera 7.5

Mac OS 9
----------
Internet Explorer 5.1.7


I run all of this on one Macintosh G4 using Virtual PC. I have given up
testing IE 4 and NS 4, and I look forward to abandioning IE 5.x --
hopefully in a year's time.

Which browsers you should test with can depend on your audience. If you
are developing an intranet for a corporation with a known configuration
on each desk, you might be able to save yourself some work. A
general-purpose web site needs to cover more bases. My personal site
has a much higher-than average percentage of Mac users, while IE 5.x
users are down to less than 2% of my visitors.

The differences between the most recent browsers are slight -- but it
is always good to check the site template at least once on all these
browsers before putting it into production. Once in a while, there is a
surprise. And it is better to hit that bump near the beginning of a
project rather than at the end.

--
Jim Royal
"Understanding is a three-edged sword"
http://JimRoyal.com

Opera has always been like that, you need to customize it by redusing
stuff you see, in FF, it is other way around.

I think that might have been part of it. Opera was overwhelming with
all of the stuff turned on, and being new the the browser, I had no idea
that the stuff _could_ be turned off, so I dumped it. I like things
clean and simple, which isn't what I got the first time I loaded Opera.
Now that I know better, maybe I'll play with Opera again.

Nearly all innovations in browsers lately have been first in Opera.
Tabbed browsing, mouse gestures, medium screen rendering (must on pages
with frames), sessions, quick setting, user stylesheets.

I love tabbed browsing, and I don't know what medium screen rendering or
quick setting are. I couldn't care less about mouse gestures, session
or user stylesheets.

Well, I paid for it. It is that good.

What makes it so good that you are willing to shell out money for it? I
use Firefox, and I am content. There isn't anything that is nagging at
me each time I browse the web because Firefox doesn't do it.

The thing is, you can't make browser that is lots better, whiout making
it different. If it was same, why would anyone buy it?

Ok, maybe different was the wrong word. Maybe unfamiliar would be a
better word. Like I said before, the first time I started Opera, it
appeared to be cluttered, and that really turned me off.

I started off using NN, then moved to Mozilla when it came
out, and have now moved to Foxfire, so part of it is that it is just
what I am used to. If I had a good compelling reason to change
browsers, I would, but it would have to be a good reason.

You had, inbetween Netscape and Mozilla.

What do you mean?

Don

In article <030320050925591866%jimroyal (AT) canada (DOT) com>,
Jim Royal <jimroyal (AT) canada (DOT) com> wrote:

In article <42261cb2_4 (AT) newsfeed (DOT) slurp.net>, Don G <mail4dag (AT) yahoo (DOT) com
wrote:

I know that there are many browsers out there, and that each has it's
own quirks, but are the differences significant enough to merit
installing one or more additional alternate browsers? If so, which
browser(s) would you recommend testing with?

My current suite of test browsers is as follows:

Windows 2000 or XP
----------
Internet Explorer 6.0
Mozilla 1.6
Firefox 1.0
Opera 7.5

Windows 95
----------
Internet Explorer 5.0
Internet Explorer 5.5

Mac OS X
----------
Internet Explorer 5.2.3
Safari 1.2.4
Firefox 1.0
Mozilla 1.7
Opera 7.5

Mac OS 9
----------
Internet Explorer 5.1.7

I would add Mac Internet Explorer 4.51 to the Mac OS 9 collection. That
is the browser that is part of America Online 5, the latest AOL client
available to Mac OS 9 users.

In article <macheads-08F9DC.11503203032005 (AT) news (DOT) verizon.net>, Nichola
Collins <macheads (AT) verizon (DOT) net> wrote:

I would add Mac Internet Explorer 4.51 to the Mac OS 9 collection. That
is the browser that is part of America Online 5, the latest AOL client
available to Mac OS 9 users.

I have not received a single hit on my site from IE 4.5 in the last few
months. I think this one can be safely relagated to the dust bin.

--
Jim Royal
"Understanding is a three-edged sword"
http://JimRoyal.com

in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.site-design, Don G wrote:

Opera has always been like that, you need to customize it by redusing
stuff you see, in FF, it is other way around.

I think that might have been part of it. Opera was overwhelming with
all of the stuff turned on, and being new the the browser, I had no idea
that the stuff _could_ be turned off, so I dumped it. I like things
clean and simple, which isn't what I got the first time I loaded Opera.

Then you like emacs. Clean and simple, no menu, nothing. But you can do
everything. But that aproach is not going to work if you want new people
buy your product.

Nearly all innovations in browsers lately have been first in Opera.
Tabbed browsing, mouse gestures, medium screen rendering (must on pages
with frames), sessions, quick setting, user stylesheets.

I love tabbed browsing, and I don't know what medium screen rendering or
quick setting are.

Because they are either not implemented on other browsers, or not there
by default.

I couldn't care less about mouse gestures, session
or user stylesheets.

Mouse gestures make surfing much faster, if you use mouse (and Opera
happens to have best keyboard navigation as well.)

Session is very useful, you can close your browser and you get same pages
open again when you open browser next time (if you want). And same when
your computer crashes (so it is must on MS operating systems).

Userstylesheets are veryu powerful. You can easily fix any site using
them. But this is to people that know CSS, that are quite rare.

Can you give example of innovation made on some other browser?

What makes it so good that you are willing to shell out money for it? I
use Firefox, and I am content. There isn't anything that is nagging at
me each time I browse the web because Firefox doesn't do it.

But Opera is still better. I can do stuff faster with Opera than with FF.
I can install (new version of) opera in 30 seconds, including download
time, for FF I need to use at least an hour, and I might even not find
all parts, as they don't work with new version.

The thing is, you can't make browser that is lots better, whiout making
it different. If it was same, why would anyone buy it?

Ok, maybe different was the wrong word. Maybe unfamiliar would be a
better word. Like I said before, the first time I started Opera, it
appeared to be cluttered, and that really turned me off.

I have heard that they have cleaned default UI much. (haven't used
default UI, ever, last saw it when installing 7.2, I think...)

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Utrecht, NL.

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Lauri Raittila
<lauri (AT) raittila (DOT) cjb.net> writing in
news:MPG.1c91615c9a332fec98a38a (AT) news (DOT) individual.net:

Mouse gestures make surfing much faster, if you use mouse (and Opera
happens to have best keyboard navigation as well.)

Session is very useful, you can close your browser and you get same
pages open again when you open browser next time (if you want). And
same when your computer crashes (so it is must on MS operating
systems).


I paid for Opera, too. I love it.

Firefox also has gestures, and they make a little red line on the screen,
kind of cute, but don't seem to be quite as quick as Opera's.

I don't know how many times Opera has saved my butt with sessions. I
come across a useful snippet of code and CRASH! With other browsers, I
would have to a) remember that I found the snippet, b) if I was looking
for it, have to remember what keywords I was using when I found it, c) if
I wasn't searching for it, what I was doing when I came across it. If I
bookmarked every page I thought was interesting, my bookmark file would
be bigger than my hard drive.

Oh, and skins! Can we talk? The best. I like Strange Truth because it
confuses people who try to use my computer, he he, go use someone else's!
--
Adrienne Boswell
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share

in alt.html, kchayka wrote:

Lauri Raittila wrote:

(and Opera happens to have best keyboard navigation as well.)

Can you give example of innovation made on some other browser?

mozilla's type-ahead-find is a feature I can't live without.

Yes. It was only partly innovated by Opera... (Opera's inline find was
not that handy at first, but mozilla people made it much better.)

To me, it beats just about any other form of keyboard navigation.

But don't make them unnecessary, as it won't work well on form fields, or
if you are opening many links from same page...

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Utrecht, NL.

kchayka <usenet (AT) c-net (DOT) us> wrote:

type-ahead-find coupled with the tab key are about all I ever use. Opera
doesn't tab to links, just form fields, so Opera's less useful to me
than mozilla browsers.

Opera uses the "a" and "q" shortcuts to navigate from one link to the next.
--
Darin McGrew, mcgrew (AT) stanfordalumni (DOT) org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, darin (AT) htmlhelp (DOT) com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"If you aren't part of the solution, then you are part of the precipitate."