Bungie.net Community
This topic has moved here: Subject: 100 ≠ 10000
  • Subject: 100 ≠ 10000
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2
Subject: 100 ≠ 10000

Tom Achronos
Bungie.net Overlord
twitter: http://twitter.com/Achronos

"I have no words that would do justice to the atrocities you commit to the English language, as well as your continued assaults on the concepts of basic literacy and logical reasoning."

Safari in general is missing lots of features and isn't compatible with IE or Firefox, despite what Apple might tell you. Most notably, Safari's Javascript/Ajax support is severely lacking, and sites like bungie.net that are dependent on such functionality to work will fail in mysterious ways. While we continue to try and support Safari, its lackluster scripting support when compared to IE or Firefox makes it difficult (and it isn't faster, btw). Bungie.net will work best with IE7 or Firefox 2.0. Anything else it may be hit or miss.

As for the rest of this thread, stop with the supid fanboy platform wars. Windows isn't "phail", nor is OS X. They are simply tools. Both have good and bad points, both sides of which are irrelevant to this forum.

  • 09.17.2007 11:40 AM PDT

Turn west on Broadway, and right at the second light on Welchester Road. There is a dirt path about a 1/4 mile way up, turn onto it. When you hit the interstate 56 sign pull back onto the road. From there take the road 38 miles towards Wisconsin. Get off at Exist 73 and take that street to Vermont Road, and take a left at the stop sign. Go down that street to the fifth house on the left. Go into the backyard and open the shed. There you will find my leaf blower, its yours to keep.

was that a shot at macs, your going to get so flamed, jk

i did have the problem on my mac lab top but on pc with firefox i never had trouble with anything like that.

[Edited on 09.17.2007 12:21 PM PDT]

  • 09.17.2007 12:18 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Cockburnicus
Posted by: UL7IM4 G33K
Posted by: Chevmeister
Safari blows. That's the problem.

If your not gonna help, don't F'n post. I hate redundant replies.
Actually. that is the problem. I had this problem for Safari for Mac. Then I switched to firefox and it never happened again. Safari isn't good in omparison to firefox.


Exactly. Sorry for being as blunt as a spoon but it's true. Safari is a horrible browser. 60% of the time when I'm building sites in ASP.net 2.0 IE is great, firefox is great, safari & netscape & opera don't view the content correctly. I learned a long time ago never to try and fix my sites just because they don't work in those browsers. I try to concentrate on the most popular and main stream browsers.

  • 09.17.2007 4:13 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: UL7IM4 G33K
That is wrong, it is not the browser's fault, it is the website for not being compatible. Safari runs much faster than Firefox in how it runs and uses RAM on your Mac. Firefox is slow on a Mac and is better one windows. The way websites work is that you program them to be compatible with several browsers so no one has a problem. If the website doesn't work with a browser, than it is up to the web team to fix the problem, not the person to fix it. Sure it is easier to download a new browser, but you are alienating a large portion of users who use safari (damn near all Mac users).

First impressions are everything, and it doesn't work on the first browser they use, they won't be happy.


While it's true that the designer must try to accommodate the different browser skews, you cannot expect the programmer to pay attention to poorly designed browsers, not to mention unpopular ones. Like I said in my above post, I try to modify my code to function correctly on all the major skews. You can't go onto your cell phone and write some crappy browser and expect everyone to change their site code for you, that's living in the clouds.
If your browser can't keep up with certain needed standards then your browser becomes unpopular. Firefox and IE follow these standards closely enough and evolve/adapt often enough that we as web designers can do some pretty creative things. When you have a browser that functions well with optimized and up-to-date back-end code then you can do some amazing stuff and contribute to the Web 2.0 world we live in now. But when you're fighting browsers and trying to create a code base that works universally you run into issues and the end product becomes one built on compromises.

Bungie.net is an amazing site; the re-launch will be even more amazing. It's simple on the front-end to you guys, but behind the scenes it's doing amazing things. The new Bnet will communicate with live, allowing you to interact with Halo 3 in ways many games will never know how. A major site coupled with a major software title (Halo 3) cannot be expected to compromise features for a low-end/unpopular browser.
For the most part browsers are just windows into amazing disconnected code running on the server for the site you're viewing, but a good browser is one that works hard on the client-side to render something as best as it possibly can. This is the reason you see Firefox and IE updating constantly. It is the job of the programmer to optimize his code, but when a programmer makes a mistake and the browser still understands what he was trying to do and renders the final product as it was intended, that's an excellent browser.

In the end it is not the sole responsibility of either the web designer/programmer or the browser to deliver an amazing (or at least functional) site. Both the web designer and browser designer must work together to create helpful standards that enable all the other designers to be creative without fighting technical issues. Some things are just too complicated for smaller browsers to keep up with, other things are just not standardized. The way each browser reads the HTML tags that are fed to it is usually a matter of the browser's opinion.
The browser takes the firehose of data given to it (the same data for each browser) and attempts to interpret. I might write a piece of code that says to the browser "create a table with 4 columns and 3 rows and a border of one pixel." Firefox might think I'm telling it to draw a border around the table alone while another browser might think a border surrounds the table and divides the columns/rows.
One browser might think a column spans the whole width of the page if I don't tell it differently, while a different browser might think that the column should only be big enough to contain the data put in it. There are so many different interpretations of the same data, it's very hard to accommodate every browser. This is why we need standards or basic guidelines that each browser should follow.
There are a few differences here and there between FireFox and IE, but for the most part they follow a similar set of rules that make them very easy to design for. When they are that easy I don't have to worry about making sure my code will work nearly as much and I am free to make my code do things no one else thought it could do.

I have a very simple example of the troubles you run into when different browsers have different ideas how to do things. Go to Fordscleaning.com in both Internet Explorer and Firefox. I designed this really simple site for my father's company. For the most part it looks the same, but look just beneath the logo for the site in Internet Explorer. The brown background of the banner underlines the logo. This does not happen in Firefox. I battled with many variations of my banner layout and couldn't find one that suited my purpose.
I figured out that I'd have to redo my entire dynamic layout in order to avoid that problem so being as the problem wasn't a major one I left it alone. This is a tiny example of why it is a painstaking process to program for multiple browser skews; and this was a difference between the top two browsers so you can imagine the difference between these and lower end browsers like safari.

That's my two cents. Thanks for reading. Sorry for being a jerk with my first post.

[Edited on 09.17.2007 4:57 PM PDT]

  • 09.17.2007 4:49 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Great_Pretender
Posted by: Mr Dum Dum
Safari for Windows is a beta and therefore is not supported. I use it the only problem is

... that you can't finish your posts?

-TGP-


Ooops! It just dosen't let me create New Topics. Dang it!

  • 09.17.2007 5:33 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: just another fan
Posted by: Great_Pretender
Posted by: Mr Dum Dum
Safari for Windows is a beta and therefore is not supported. I use it the only problem is

... that you can't finish your posts?


Finish the post. 09-25-07
BELIEVE


Ok that has to be the funniest thing i've read on these foums for a very long time.

  • 09.17.2007 5:48 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Just curious, what Mac-compatible browser works best with B.net?

  • 09.17.2007 6:32 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Halifax
Just curious, what Mac-compatible browser works best with B.net?


I recommend FireFox, but I'm not an avid MAC user so I may not be the best person to ask.

  • 09.17.2007 6:48 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I use safari, and the only thing you can't do on bungie.net is: Post news in groups. and sign out button doesn't work...

  • 09.17.2007 7:00 PM PDT


Covenant Cival War

Oh yeah BTW...... WHERES'S MY GIGGITY COOKIE!!!

Posted by: Mattbluhalofan
Posted by: benjy118
Posted by: Mattbluhalofan
Posted by: benjy118
What Browers are you using?


Safari.


Try using FireFox...? But only TRY it, I'm not saying switch to FF, might not be for you.


Firefox is what I use to post the messages when this annoying error occurs.


Try using it regularly

  • 09.17.2007 7:18 PM PDT

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstien

Posted by: Chevmeister
Posted by: UL7IM4 G33K
That is wrong, it is not the browser's fault, it is the website for not being compatible. Safari runs much faster than Firefox in how it runs and uses RAM on your Mac. Firefox is slow on a Mac and is better one windows. The way websites work is that you program them to be compatible with several browsers so no one has a problem. If the website doesn't work with a browser, than it is up to the web team to fix the problem, not the person to fix it. Sure it is easier to download a new browser, but you are alienating a large portion of users who use safari (damn near all Mac users).

First impressions are everything, and it doesn't work on the first browser they use, they won't be happy.


While it's true that the designer must try to accommodate the different browser skews, you cannot expect the programmer to pay attention to poorly designed browsers, not to mention unpopular ones. Like I said in my above post, I try to modify my code to function correctly on all the major skews. You can't go onto your cell phone and write some crappy browser and expect everyone to change their site code for you, that's living in the clouds.
If your browser can't keep up with certain needed standards then your browser becomes unpopular. Firefox and IE follow these standards closely enough and evolve/adapt often enough that we as web designers can do some pretty creative things. When you have a browser that functions well with optimized and up-to-date back-end code then you can do some amazing stuff and contribute to the Web 2.0 world we live in now. But when you're fighting browsers and trying to create a code base that works universally you run into issues and the end product becomes one built on compromises.

Bungie.net is an amazing site; the re-launch will be even more amazing. It's simple on the front-end to you guys, but behind the scenes it's doing amazing things. The new Bnet will communicate with live, allowing you to interact with Halo 3 in ways many games will never know how. A major site coupled with a major software title (Halo 3) cannot be expected to compromise features for a low-end/unpopular browser.
For the most part browsers are just windows into amazing disconnected code running on the server for the site you're viewing, but a good browser is one that works hard on the client-side to render something as best as it possibly can. This is the reason you see Firefox and IE updating constantly. It is the job of the programmer to optimize his code, but when a programmer makes a mistake and the browser still understands what he was trying to do and renders the final product as it was intended, that's an excellent browser.

In the end it is not the sole responsibility of either the web designer/programmer or the browser to deliver an amazing (or at least functional) site. Both the web designer and browser designer must work together to create helpful standards that enable all the other designers to be creative without fighting technical issues. Some things are just too complicated for smaller browsers to keep up with, other things are just not standardized. The way each browser reads the HTML tags that are fed to it is usually a matter of the browser's opinion.
The browser takes the firehose of data given to it (the same data for each browser) and attempts to interpret. I might write a piece of code that says to the browser "create a table with 4 columns and 3 rows and a border of one pixel." Firefox might think I'm telling it to draw a border around the table alone while another browser might think a border surrounds the table and divides the columns/rows.
One browser might think a column spans the whole width of the page if I don't tell it differently, while a different browser might think that the column should only be big enough to contain the data put in it. There are so many different interpretations of the same data, it's very hard to accommodate every browser. This is why we need standards or basic guidelines that each browser should follow.
There are a few differences here and there between FireFox and IE, but for the most part they follow a similar set of rules that make them very easy to design for. When they are that easy I don't have to worry about making sure my code will work nearly as much and I am free to make my code do things no one else thought it could do.

I have a very simple example of the troubles you run into when different browsers have different ideas how to do things. Go to Fordscleaning.com in both Internet Explorer and Firefox. I designed this really simple site for my father's company. For the most part it looks the same, but look just beneath the logo for the site in Internet Explorer. The brown background of the banner underlines the logo. This does not happen in Firefox. I battled with many variations of my banner layout and couldn't find one that suited my purpose.
I figured out that I'd have to redo my entire dynamic layout in order to avoid that problem so being as the problem wasn't a major one I left it alone. This is a tiny example of why it is a painstaking process to program for multiple browser skews; and this was a difference between the top two browsers so you can imagine the difference between these and lower end browsers like safari.

That's my two cents. Thanks for reading. Sorry for being a jerk with my first post.


CSS ftw. CSS is much less likely to have these problems. Not to mention Safari IS a mainstream browser. Tables are also annoying imo, and you can work around many of these problems you explained pretty simply (if my friend can do it, anyone can). He has a very advanced site working on Opera, Safari, Firefox, Camino, and IE7 (http://www.vickslife.com). He has done this also with the site for our old highschool and even with many other sites he has designed (won 3rd place in a site design contest for Art Institute of Calfiornia, Orange County).

I don't see why all these problems are so inherent when he works around them so simply. I even helped him get around some of them when I have near no knowledge of actual coding.

The simple solution in my mind is tell the browser as much information as possible about how to display the site, then you shouldn't have to worry. Or you could, not exactly ideal, make several versions of the site for differen't browsers. Have an HTML page with links to Mac and Windows versions of the site.

[Edited on 09.17.2007 8:17 PM PDT]

  • 09.17.2007 8:13 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Chevmeister
A HUGE WALL OF TEXT
MY GOD
SO MUCH TEXT
MY EYES!
Uhm. I agree?

  • 09.17.2007 8:57 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: UL7IM4 G33K
...

CSS ftw. CSS is much less likely to have these problems. Not to mention Safari IS a mainstream browser. Tables are also annoying imo, and you can work around many of these problems you explained pretty simply (if my friend can do it, anyone can). He has a very advanced site working on Opera, Safari, Firefox, Camino, and IE7 (http://www.vickslife.com). He has done this also with the site for our old highschool and even with many other sites he has designed (won 3rd place in a site design contest for Art Institute of Calfiornia, Orange County).

I don't see why all these problems are so inherent when he works around them so simply. I even helped him get around some of them when I have near no knowledge of actual coding.

The simple solution in my mind is tell the browser as much information as possible about how to display the site, then you shouldn't have to worry. Or you could, not exactly ideal, make several versions of the site for differen't browsers. Have an HTML page with links to Mac and Windows versions of the site.


I'm not going to start a war, so I'll make this my last post in this thread. CSS is a cascading style sheet. It is a must for professional web design. I used a table tag as an EXAMPLE of the way browsers can misinterpret. To assume I don't use CSS is very naive. I program in ASP.NET 2.0 to dynamically work with CSS, JAVA, HTML, etc... and manipulate it behind the scenes. I'm currently learning AJAX to top it off (sweet stuff btw). I don't mean to come off as arrogant or cocky, but I do work with some pretty advanced stuff. To put it into perspective --- Bungie.net is programmed in ASP.NET currently, so you can see that it can do some pretty amazing stuff. That isn't to say the relaunched bnet will be ASP.NET, I have no idea what they'll do with the site when it relaunches soon. Anyway...

<link rel="Stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://www.fordscleaning.com/fordscleaning.css&quo t; /><style type="text/css">

That is the style sheet reference tag from the site I gave as an example. Please do not think that site is an example of everything I do. I did it for my father, for free so naturally it's very simple. It was only an example.

As for the fact that you think it is "easy" to make several versions of a site or code more specifically, that is very naive. A good programmer ALWAYS programs VERY precise and specific, but no matter how specific you get other browsers almost need an entire redesign. I won't even entertain that thought with the stuff I work on. I couldn't even imagine trying to redesign the Bungie.net site for another browser. Pointless. Switch to a better browser than can keep up and maintain standards.

As for your "friend." If he says it's easy then either A. His sites are not complex or B. He lies.

If you want an example of a very complex site then have a look at my blog. The look and feel is very simple (and yes I know most people don't like the color scheme, but that's why it's not their blog right?) but the back-end has so many things going on that the site took me two months to put together. That site will track every IP coming in, track where you came from, track hits, dynamically add content much like bnet, page the content, summarize the content, dynamically generate thumbnails of large images on the fly, read from directories, etc... I have done everything I can to make it easy to update and easy to comment. It will handle users for comments as well. It's all coded from the ground up. I'm really proud of my Image Browser page. All I have to do is use my FTP program to throw an image on the server and the site automatically indexes it, creates a thumbnail, and throws it on the site. I don't even have to do a bit of code, just put the picture there and I'm done :)
I put a lot of work into that site for my personal blog and I'm rather proud. Like I said, most people crap on it when they see it but I don't care. This was the first site I designed for ME and not for someone else so I threw in a bit of myself. Anyway, enough ranting.

......................................
PS

Posted by: dalmedya
Posted by: Chevmeister
DALMEDYA IS A JERK
Uhm. I agree?

If you can't contribute, don't post. I didn't make you read it.
......................................

PSS - That is not a very advanced site. I'm not trying to be rude, but there is no "functionality" behind that. It's all basic front-end HTML stuff. It looks good and fancy, I'll give it that. But getting something to look good on multiple browsers isn't that complicated when there's no back-end functionality to fight with.

Anyway, I'm done now. Like I said, I don't want to start a war. Rest your eyes Dalmedya.

[Edited on 09.17.2007 9:15 PM PDT]

  • 09.17.2007 8:57 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Jeez, grow a sense of humour.
I actually did understand most of what you said, and I do agree with you.
My earlier post:B.net does not support Safari. Use Firefox.

  • 09.17.2007 9:18 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I'm one of those deviant Mac users, (shouldn't be caps locked, btw), and I prefer firefox over safari. The performance difference is negligible, and you get to build your bookmarks and subscriptions from the ground up instead of the pre-loaded stuff that comes with the browser. I know that you've probably customized the browser to the way you like by now, but you won't regret the change (probably). If you like the look of Safari, then the iFox theme for firefox makes firefox look almost exactly like safari (and itunes). Firefox has greater compatibility with most sites and a well-integrated way of downloading extensions and themes. Firefox can also import bookmarks and things from safari or IE. Just my two cents.

  • 09.18.2007 12:54 AM PDT

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstien

Posted by: Chevmeister
Posted by: UL7IM4 G33K
...

CSS ftw. CSS is much less likely to have these problems. Not to mention Safari IS a mainstream browser. Tables are also annoying imo, and you can work around many of these problems you explained pretty simply (if my friend can do it, anyone can). He has a very advanced site working on Opera, Safari, Firefox, Camino, and IE7 (http://www.vickslife.com). He has done this also with the site for our old highschool and even with many other sites he has designed (won 3rd place in a site design contest for Art Institute of Calfiornia, Orange County).

I don't see why all these problems are so inherent when he works around them so simply. I even helped him get around some of them when I have near no knowledge of actual coding.

The simple solution in my mind is tell the browser as much information as possible about how to display the site, then you shouldn't have to worry. Or you could, not exactly ideal, make several versions of the site for differen't browsers. Have an HTML page with links to Mac and Windows versions of the site.


I'm not going to start a war, so I'll make this my last post in this thread. CSS is a cascading style sheet. It is a must for professional web design. I used a table tag as an EXAMPLE of the way browsers can misinterpret. To assume I don't use CSS is very naive. I program in ASP.NET 2.0 to dynamically work with CSS, JAVA, HTML, etc... and manipulate it behind the scenes. I'm currently learning AJAX to top it off (sweet stuff btw). I don't mean to come off as arrogant or cocky, but I do work with some pretty advanced stuff. To put it into perspective --- Bungie.net is programmed in ASP.NET currently, so you can see that it can do some pretty amazing stuff. That isn't to say the relaunched bnet will be ASP.NET, I have no idea what they'll do with the site when it relaunches soon. Anyway...

<link rel="Stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://www.fordscleaning.com/fordscleaning.css&quo t; /><style type="text/css">

That is the style sheet reference tag from the site I gave as an example. Please do not think that site is an example of everything I do. I did it for my father, for free so naturally it's very simple. It was only an example.

As for the fact that you think it is "easy" to make several versions of a site or code more specifically, that is very naive. A good programmer ALWAYS programs VERY precise and specific, but no matter how specific you get other browsers almost need an entire redesign. I won't even entertain that thought with the stuff I work on. I couldn't even imagine trying to redesign the Bungie.net site for another browser. Pointless. Switch to a better browser than can keep up and maintain standards.

As for your "friend." If he says it's easy then either A. His sites are not complex or B. He lies.

If you want an example of a very complex site then have a look at my blog. The look and feel is very simple (and yes I know most people don't like the color scheme, but that's why it's not their blog right?) but the back-end has so many things going on that the site took me two months to put together. That site will track every IP coming in, track where you came from, track hits, dynamically add content much like bnet, page the content, summarize the content, dynamically generate thumbnails of large images on the fly, read from directories, etc... I have done everything I can to make it easy to update and easy to comment. It will handle users for comments as well. It's all coded from the ground up. I'm really proud of my Image Browser page. All I have to do is use my FTP program to throw an image on the server and the site automatically indexes it, creates a thumbnail, and throws it on the site. I don't even have to do a bit of code, just put the picture there and I'm done :)
I put a lot of work into that site for my personal blog and I'm rather proud. Like I said, most people crap on it when they see it but I don't care. This was the first site I designed for ME and not for someone else so I threw in a bit of myself. Anyway, enough ranting.

......................................
PS

Posted by: dalmedya
Posted by: Chevmeister
DALMEDYA IS A JERK
Uhm. I agree?

If you can't contribute, don't post. I didn't make you read it.
......................................

PSS - That is not a very advanced site. I'm not trying to be rude, but there is no "functionality" behind that. It's all basic front-end HTML stuff. It looks good and fancy, I'll give it that. But getting something to look good on multiple browsers isn't that complicated when there's no back-end functionality to fight with.

Anyway, I'm done now. Like I said, I don't want to start a war. Rest your eyes Dalmedya.


1) Your blog got 31 validation errors on Validator where my friends got zero, not to mention he is using XHTML strict when you are using XHTML Transitional, an easier format.

2) Your site lacks majorly in design sense.

3) My friend's site uses half the code to name his stylsheet.

4) I never said designing a site was EASY. Its simple, like a 40 mile hike is simple, but hard. You obviously didn't even visit his site (at least past the main page), since most of what you show me is far below his standards. I am also going into design for web and interfaces. I may not know how to code, but I know the basics to site design. Please don't act as if I am ignorant in this. I do know what I am talking about... and what I haven't talked about I don't know about (java for example).

5) Safari performed the best on the Acid2 test, where Firefox and IE7 both rendered the face off by more than just a few pixels (the face isn't even recognizable).



[Edited on 09.18.2007 9:26 AM PDT]

  • 09.18.2007 9:25 AM PDT

I use Safari (mac) and it runs fine.
And unlike back when I had Firefox on Windows, I can run a lot more while Safari is running.

  • 09.18.2007 1:14 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Chevmeister
Bungie.net is programmed in ASP.NET currently, so you can see that it can do some pretty amazing stuff. That isn't to say the relaunched bnet will be ASP.NET, I have no idea what they'll do with the site when it relaunches soon. Anyway...


It's the same site. Just new features. I doubt that will ever change, as the ideal science BB software in use here has been modified an incredible amount. It's as scalable and suitable as a forum software can come, to be honest.

Also. You might want to remember Achronos is a professional who's been doing this since most of us were mere twinkles ('cept recon, the old fart). I'd lay money on him sitting in his chair, chuckling at you lot argue about web design.

  • 09.18.2007 3:15 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: UL7IM4 G33K

1) Your blog got 31 validation errors on Validator where my friends got zero, not to mention he is using XHTML strict when you are using XHTML Transitional, an easier format.

2) Your site lacks majorly in design sense.

3) My friend's site uses half the code to name his stylsheet.

4) I never said designing a site was EASY. Its simple, like a 40 mile hike is simple, but hard. You obviously didn't even visit his site (at least past the main page), since most of what you show me is far below his standards. I am also going into design for web and interfaces. I may not know how to code, but I know the basics to site design. Please don't act as if I am ignorant in this. I do know what I am talking about... and what I haven't talked about I don't know about (java for example).

5) Safari performed the best on the Acid2 test, where Firefox and IE7 both rendered the face off by more than just a few pixels (the face isn't even recognizable).



I know I said I wouldn't post again, but man are you ignorant. NO SET OF HTML will have zero validation errors when created dynamically. All the HTML on my site is generated by advanced programming functions. Many many many of the tags a validation tool poops on are tags not even meant for the browser, they are meant for the server to perform its awesomeness; that is why validation tools are useless in dynamic programming. To prove my point:


PWNED

And as far as your XHTML babble goes. I don't decide what HTML to put out, that's the beauty of it. My genius programming code does it for me. It knows best, trust me.

2) Your site lacks majorly in design sense. double lawl.
1. I ALREADY SAID MY SITE DESIGN IS NOT LIKED BY MOST PEOPLE. Ahem. And I don't care either; it's my site and I like the look n feel. I am the domain expert for my own UI on my own site. I didn't make it for you. I didn't make it to drive traffic. I made it for myself to express my thoughts and opinions through writing. If no one reads it, so be it. I have my niche.

2. Look through the page source on my site and look through the page source on his. He either used a robust HTML editor like Dreamweaver or hardcoded it by himself in HTML. Fine, that's cool. He did a great job making it look good with HTML. My point is that HE CODED EVERY TAG ON HIS SITE. Every HTML tag is loved by him. Complex design like Bungie.net, etc. is not so simple. When tags are spit out of the firehose dynamically it becomes a whole new world my friend. I graduated with a bachelor in computer science. It took me 2.5 years to learn everything I know about dynamic web design. Trust me, you think you know a lot when you can make a site look good, but beyond the world of CSS, HTML, JAVASCRIPT, and FLASH lies an entirely different world. It's like going from general math to calculus.

Advanced functions on my site handle many many many scenarios with data that you simply couldn't hard code into an HTML form, you just can't. All the code operates on the server, communicating in a disconnected format with the client. It's a beautiful machine once you understand it. I know you think you understand it, but you really don't. I'm not trying to insult you, but you are being ignorant and in your ignorance I took slight offense. You don't think anything of it when you sign into Bungie.net with your live ID then click reply and submit, ta da! It's not that simple.

First, when you click that little sign in button, that's a piece of Microsoft genius up there. Originally known as the Microsoft Passport, a site using this feature must pay fees that aren't very cheap to use it. It functions universally adding a universal authentication method to all things using passport. Log into b.net you're logged into Xbox.com (another passport subscriber), just brilliant. This offers major benefits over tradition box account authentication or simple forms authentication. If you can afford it, sign up for passport :)

Second, Authentication traits are passed from passport to Bungie.net. The amazingly intelligent programmers at bungie write code to accept this information and utilize it on their site. From there you have vast amounts of interaction with the site that seems very simple to the end user (that's how it's supposed to be). You have a profile, you can post threads, comments, submit news, join groups, etc... All of which is stored in another brilliant piece of ingenuity, a database. While it should be called a world-base, database is the term that has become known to all of us. It seems simple enough, it just stores data right? Wrong...

The world-base, as it should be called, houses the world the data lives in. This means that all the relationships between the data, data constraints, primary keys to keep track of and search for data and create unique distinctions is ALL stored in this beautiful world usually known to Microsoft Programmers as SQL Server. I won't go into a giant lecture on databases, but rest assured it's not easy concept.

Getting the data there isn't simple either; a major coding contribution must be put in by the hard working web programmers. You see, they aren't merely web "designers" anymore, they are web programmers because they graduated into a larger realm. When you click on your favorite forum a work of genius is tapped. The server-side code actually interacts with this database, pulling every thread and related post out of the database and offering it to you as a paged archive of win. The code spits out DYNAMICALLY CREATED HTML tags that interact with CSS and JAVASCRIPT to present you a beautiful piece of art...
...A disconnected, browser rendered representation of data stored within a world-base. You can interact, disconnectedly I might add again, with the server and the data stored there by simply clicking your mouse. Once you have chosen your dynamically created HTML link to click you are taken to a thread where the server then ingeniously plugs into the database and spits more information at you. You can then sift through this information and if you wish to reply you can click reply. The code on the server determines where exactly your reply fits and inserts it into the database.

On top of all this server/client-side interaction it does this billions and billions of times a day for thousands upon thousands of people who visit the site, and it does it well. That is a work of art my friend, you have no idea. That isn't even the half of it. From there you get into groups and all kinds of amazing things that your favorite programmers do.
Hell the simple "characters remaining" part of the page where I type this is a wonderful bit of JAVASCRIPT that my awesome up to date browser handles flawlessly. Simple, yet brilliant. I don't mean to insult your intelligence, and if you love this stuff like I do then you will go to school and learn it as well, but please don't be ignorant. Those who work hard for their degrees get pretty aggravated when someone compares their works of art to a 40 mile hike. You don't think on a 40 mile hike, in fact you try not to think, it's hard work but you only have to think about where you're going. Your brain will hurt when you get your Bachelor in Computer Science bud. It will hurt like being hit on in a dirty airport bathroom stall.

That is just a taste. I have a stack of books beneath my desk that have taken many years for me to read and understand in conjunction with all my schooling, and even I don't feel like I have a firm grasp on all of it. The possibilities for what you can do with this knowledge are so infinite that I don't think anyone, not even sir William Gates, could wrap their mind around all of it.
Simple HTML programmers might think W3C is the know all, end all, but it isn't. First learn how to program flawless HTML, which your friend has, then sign on for a four year trip to win town at the university of your choosing and experience more than you will ever realize. It of course must be your passion for the trip to win town to be successful, but drink your win juice and make sure to cover your burgers in win sauce and all will be well.

if (win >= epic)
{
Response.Write("Congratulations, you beat the internet!");
VictoryDance.Start();
}
else
{
MySkills.Run(maxDifficulty);
}

I would say I'm officially done again, but you'll probably think of another way to set me off so I'll just make it a tentative decision :P

PS -
Posted by: elmicker
It's the same site. Just new features. I doubt that will ever change, as the ideal science BB software in use here has been modified an incredible amount. It's as scalable and suitable as a forum software can come, to be honest.

Also. You might want to remember Achronos is a professional who's been doing this since most of us were mere twinkles ('cept recon, the old fart). I'd lay money on him sitting in his chair, chuckling at you lot argue about web design.

I am aware that he is a professional. This is why he has my utmost respect. I've been wrong before, but I would say that Achronos knows what I'm talking about. Unlike myself, he's smart enough to stay out of the argument though ;)

[Edited on 09.18.2007 5:33 PM PDT]

  • 09.18.2007 4:25 PM PDT

No signature found. Click here to change this.

Stop saying "Safari for Windows". I'm a Mac user.

  • 09.18.2007 5:00 PM PDT

I remember when I used this space to put cool looking links to my chapters back in the day. I don't even know why I'm using it now. Why are you even reading this? You must be interested in me. Still reading?

Posted by: Mattbluhalofan
Stop saying "Safari for Windows". I'm a Mac user.
I had the exact same problem when I used safari. I would seriously consider getting use to another browser or downloading a new one.Has your computer been slowing down or anything lately? Mine started when I was using safari and my computer ended up crashing...

[Edited on 09.18.2007 6:03 PM PDT]

  • 09.18.2007 6:02 PM PDT

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstien

As i said... try clearing the cache and maybe look for some updates that might fix some problems. Don't switch browsers simple cause it is easier. Just try to see if you can get safari working. I had this problem with Firefox and had to switch to safari myself.

  • 09.18.2007 8:11 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Just wondering OP, if you every got your problems with b.net on safari figured out.

  • 10.21.2007 2:33 AM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2