« the blahs, the blues and the bitchiness | Main | who lives in a pineapple on the 50 yard line? »

ahh, go fuck yourself, ok?

ahh, go fuck yourself, ok?

Yes. I know this site does not come across properly in Netscape. And yes, I know that for some browsers, the page does not open up all the way. I know this because I use Netscape (at work) and because I have to resize my own browser (IE5 at home) every time I open this page.

I also know it because I have received numerous emails telling me so. Telling me that I am a snob and elitist or that I just don't care about Netscape users. And then someone tried to take my Froggy award away from me!

So please, stop sending me emails to tell me what I already know. Stop yelling at me and calling me names. I am just using a Moveable Type template here, folks. When I do get a redesign up, and hopefullly that will be sooner rather than later, it will not be complete CSS, therefore making it readable on Netscape. Patience is a virtue. However, not being a very virtuous person myself, I will not hesitate to find out where you live and come to your house and piss in your vegetable garden and eat your pets for dinner should you -anyone- send me another email telling me that I suck.

Thank you.

Posted by on February 3, 2002 01:11 PM |

Comments

People still use Netscape?
Silly kids Netscape is for AOL users.
You know, the ones that are amazed when the computer says hello and goodbye. I like my browser, its polite. (yes I know Netscape doesn't do this yet, but give it time.)
I used netscape for the longest time but there has not been a decent version since 4.27 or something like that. Why would I continue to use an out of date product that is degredating?
So all you Netscape loosers, leave Michelle alone. Get a clue, and update to IE5.5 sp2 (if not 6)

Posted by: EdgartheBent | February 3, 2002 01:29 PM

sorry, I miss spelled michele again. (force of habit) and degrading. what the hell is degredating? Ok, Ive had too much coffee.

Posted by: EdgartheBent | February 3, 2002 01:31 PM

Hey michele,

I used to get icky email too. My response: I don't code for specific browsers. I code to specifications. Pick a certain flavour of html and code to it. Forget the whole trying to make it look pretty in every browser. Eventually the browser manafacturers will get a clue and code for CSS properly. Netscape is notorious for handling perfectly valid CSS incorrectly.

btw before anyone emails me. A)I know my page is a hardly modified from the MT templates(haven't had time to redesign since installation) and B)I don't validate as xhtml compliant at the moment because my guest writers post online quiz results which I am too lazy to correct anymore.

There. This comment is longer than most of my posts.

Posted by: gord | February 3, 2002 01:42 PM

It is entirely possible to design a website that is compliant in both Netscape, IE, and Opera, and it's not all that difficult, either, for people who have been doing it for years, but Michele has way too much shit going on, so people need to give her a break and stop bitching at her for every little thing from her content to her layout.

Michele, if that other guy isn't coming up with something for you soon, let me know. I'll get you set up with something that will work in all browsers.

Posted by: Candi | February 3, 2002 01:50 PM

Netscape sucks! That said, I think I will go make my "default" skin on my site one that is not friendly to Netscape. Wait, you read my site at work, and I don't want to punish you. Hmmm... Well, I still hate Netscape. If Candi's too busy, let me know - I'll hook you up with something that is browser friendly. Meanwhile, go kick some whiney ass!

Posted by: Christine | February 3, 2002 01:58 PM

Also, the graphics don't display in Internet Explorer. How are people supposed to appreciate all the little visual puns and cute little icons if they're using IE?

Posted by: D | February 3, 2002 02:31 PM

Oops. Yes. Let me retract my statement about helping with a site design. Christine would be happy to help you redesign, because Christine is spiffy and helpful and is not overworked and stressed out like I am.

I really don't know who posted that earlier, but it wasn't me. LOL

Posted by: Candi | February 3, 2002 03:02 PM

that is so pathetic...people obviously have nothing better to do with their time. whatev. kid and who uses netscape anyway? whatev. uare fab so fuck those chumps, you're cooler

Posted by: felicia | February 3, 2002 03:45 PM

my site looks like crap in netscape too. It looks OK in Opera, though, which means if 2 out of 3 browsers can view my website correctly, that other browser has issues. So I choose not to care about netscape.

Posted by: freedexter | February 3, 2002 04:00 PM

Laziness is a virtue - a stupid table-based page displays the same in all browsers, muah-hua-hahahaha!

Posted by: Bill | February 3, 2002 06:46 PM

"If it doesn't work in Nescape, [sic] it doesn't belong on the web."

Hmm.

If the words are readable, close enough. Of course, it has to work in Opera.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 3, 2002 09:26 PM

Heh, I feel like I got my "hey, this doesn't work!" email in right before you got pissed and started emailing people firebombs back. ;)

(Oh, and if everyone else says "nope, too busy," I'll help ya out with a new design. Cause you're spiffytastic.)

Posted by: Mike | February 3, 2002 10:09 PM

sometimes i have to use Netscape 4 here at work because IE dies, but it's still viewable. i mean, i'm here for the words :D

Posted by: shauny | February 3, 2002 11:32 PM

I definitely seem to be in the minority here, since I'm still a Netscape user. IE for Mac just doesn't appeal to me aesthetically. But either way, I hadn't noticed any problems, so I'm cool with the redesign.

Posted by: Keith | February 4, 2002 12:57 AM

fuck yas all - you oughta try reading michele's site using apple logo, 1983 upgrade version, then you'd know what it was like to suffer horrible pain intthe gentials everyt ime she redesigned...

in the meantime, michele, any recommendations about my noisy neighbours - they don't have pets or children or vegetable patches, so who/what should i target?

Posted by: g | February 4, 2002 01:25 AM

You should be able to still do an all-CSS layout based on a MT template and have it look fine in NS with just a little tweaking.
I had one person complain that my site doesn't layout right in Opera. Oh man. I have respect for this person and his mad skilz - but c'mon, Opera? Opera users are about .03% of my traffic (so probably this one guy.) Thus Daddy does not worry about Opera. I actually prefer the look and feel of NS and Opera to IE, but gave in to Heir Bill a while back.

Posted by: Charles | February 4, 2002 01:49 AM

PS thanks for adding me back to your front page. I now feel personal validation being included with the 100 or so other weblogs you list :)

Posted by: Charles | February 4, 2002 01:52 AM

It seems to me MT should have a mechanism for handing the text to browsers that don't get CSS. One can't force or penalize people for what kind of eyes they use to see a site. The web was created by scientists for "universal information exchange" - not tool makers bickering over standards (i.e. it started out as the solution to the problem it has become).

I prefer Netscape on a Mac, but often use Lynx from UNIX (MT sites totally crash lynx in Solaris). Since MT doesn't cater to people, people should be flexible and less demanding of you. I've got 4 operating systems and 5 or 6 different browsers to choose from. If I can't view your site with one, then I can peacefully fire up another. Simply pragmatic.

Posted by: chris | February 4, 2002 04:49 AM

I think this site looks ok in N6 but not in N4. Besides the point, though.

I really don't think it is reasonable to expect someone with a small, personal site to make their blog compatible for all browsers. Not everyone who has a personal page knows how to do such things and to tell the person that they suck or whatever because of it is just ridiculous. It's mostly Netscape's fault for not getting with the program, anyhow.

To everyone who offered to help me out, I thank you very much. D is really working on a new design for me, and it's my fault it's not ready yet because I am so damn picky. However, there are things I would like to add here and there besides a new look and I would love some help. Not just someone to come in my back door and throw some code in for me, but someone who has the patience of a saint who would like to actually teach some things to me. The last time I actually coded anything was about 1984 when I made a baseball stats program in BASIC. So yea, I have a lot to learn.

Have I mentioned how much I love every one of you? Platonically speaking, of course.

Posted by: michele | February 4, 2002 05:11 AM

ooooooh.. basic... boy do i miss that masterpieve of a prgramming language [hehe]

Posted by: frank | February 4, 2002 07:46 AM

Well, seeing as how you're on dreamhost (which means you have PHP, though who doesn't these days), I could teach you a few basic PHP things. That's really my only good language; I used to know Perl, but I repressed it all.

Just email me if you'd like some help. Oh yeah, I've been writing it for about 2 years or so, a little longer if you include the stuff I was editing for a friend before I got my own website.

Posted by: Mike | February 4, 2002 09:26 AM

www.webstandards.org - A good read on the whole browser compatibility issue.

Posted by: kF | February 4, 2002 09:57 AM

I hate to break it to you guys, but it takes just as little effort to code a site that works in every browser as it takes to code a site that works in one browser only.

The magic words are: HTML 3.2.

The rules are: end your table tags, include all of your image and table cell widths and heights, and use FONT tags (if you want quick changes, use dynamically written font tags from PHP, CF, or Perl variables).

I'm happy to report that my site works in every browser identically that I have tried it on, on Windows and Mac platforms. The only issue I have seen is Konqueror (on Linux) doesn't render my fonts properly because it doesn't support Tahoma (but at least you can read the content).

I'm a web designer by trade. Although I prefer IE since it runs faster on Windows, I know plenty of professional, higher-than-AOL-level people who use Netscape. Some people even prefer Opera.

Either way, congratulations on your Froggy award. A small victory indeed.

Happy blog coding.

Posted by: max | February 5, 2002 09:57 AM

Netscape for AOL users?

Let's have a short history lesson.

In 1994 AOL had its own standalone web browser. It didn't come with AOL, but users were able to download the 1.4mb installer. With Netscape 2 and IE 1.5 the tiny browser had a chance at being a close third (Opera didn't exist yet). Then in 1996 the wonderful powers of Microsoft offered to include AOL in the installation of
Windows95. There was one catch. AOL had to end development on their browser and use the "new" Windows Internet Explorer 3.0. AOL had nothing to lose so they agreed and grew to become the giant idiot cluster that it is today.

Shortly after the browser war began. Netscape had a superior browser but not means of monetary revenue. Internet Explorer was backed by Microsoft and had a powerful advantage over the little people at Netscape. When Netscape was about to go under, AOL decided to purchase the company and help them come back on top. However Microsoft was not going to take this lying down.

Microsoft forced AOL to keep using IE as their browser in order to keep the software as part of the Windows installation. Hence the now powerful AOL/TimeWarner who own Netscape but are forced to use Microsoft Internet Explorer. So can you clarify how Netscape is for AOL users?

Posted by: vert | February 5, 2002 10:11 AM

seriously netscape is for aol losers

Posted by: Rico | September 1, 2003 09:25 AM