|
Oh My Science posted:If your certificate is signed by a major certificate authority then it just means one of the chain certificates in between yours and the root is not installed on the web server. Interesting, that does appear to be the problem. Thanks! How come it doesn't give that warning for everybody though?
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 21:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 05:24 |
|
|
fletcher posted:Interesting, that does appear to be the problem. Thanks! How come it doesn't give that warning for everybody though? It depends. The two most common problems are: 1) system clock is wrong, have the user(s) check that. 2) browsers cert list is out of date, have users update the system or browser. I've had problems with Chrome Canary, but if you're using that browser you should be expecting random issues.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2013 21:45
|
|
|
I've been re-writing the stylesheet for Lawyerist.com to use rem units, but I still need to support IE 8. Sucks, but our readers are lawyers, and a ridiculous number are still on IE 8. Is there a script or something I can feed my stylesheet into that will spit out an IE 8–compatible stylesheet? I'd rather not do it all manually, if I can avoid it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 00:53
|
|
|
samglover posted:I've been re-writing the stylesheet for Lawyerist.com to use rem units, but I still need to support IE 8. Sucks, but our readers are lawyers, and a ridiculous number are still on IE 8. https://github.com/chuckcarpenter/REM-unit-polyfill I am on a roll here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 01:31
|
|
|
samglover posted:I've been re-writing the stylesheet for Lawyerist.com to use rem units, but I still need to support IE 8. Sucks, but our readers are lawyers, and a ridiculous number are still on IE 8. Have you used sass or something? Maybe myth.io can put pixel polyfills in for rems, but otherwise a sass mixin that does the conversion and puts in a pixel fallback is what you'll need. If you setup a good regular expression you could even automate the majority of the change.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 01:44
|
|
|
^ http://css-tricks.com/snippets/css/less-mixin-for-rem-font-sizing/ works (similar tested in production). Does compass not have something helpful built in now? I use stylus, so a bit unsure of current status. Probably better than the js thing I suggested (which does also work pretty well in production, however), regex + prefixfree.js would work well as well maybe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 02:36
|
|
|
RobertKerans posted:https://github.com/chuckcarpenter/REM-unit-polyfill That looks perfect. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 04:33
|
|
|
samglover posted:I've been re-writing the stylesheet for Lawyerist.com to use rem units, but I still need to support IE 8. Sucks, but our readers are lawyers, and a ridiculous number are still on IE 8. Microsoft are not supporting XP as of April so we may be spared this bullshit from now on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 17:24
|
|
|
jiggerypokery posted:Microsoft are not supporting XP as of April so we may be spared this bullshit from now on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 17:47
|
|
|
Shows how much I know/care about windows!
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
jiggerypokery posted:Shows how much I know/care about windows! Rule number one of web development: you'll always have to support at least 6 years back of IE.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 02:22
|
|
|
What if I refuse? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 14:24
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:What if I refuse?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 14:48
|
|
|
Uziel posted:IE8 is the default version for Windows 7, so unfortunately for many intranet sites that means it's the new standard instead of IE6 and 7. Except that, in the case of law firms, I think they're mostly using IE8 because they are still using XP. I'm hoping a bunch of them drop it when they finally update to Vista (LOL). In the meantime, that REM unit polyfill script is magic, even though I hate adding new scripts. Robot Arms fucked around with this message at 16:06 on Dec 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 16:02
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:What if I refuse? Then you can enjoy a job in something other than web design and development.* * Obviously there are rare exceptions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 16:18
|
|
|
That was a joke. (Mostly.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 16:30
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:That was a joke. (Mostly.) It can be tough to tell. Every few months we get a serious "nobody should support browsers older than 6 months; if they can't upgrade gently caress them!" post. I thought maybe it was that time again. IE11 is going auto-update, yes? Just think... In 4 or 5 years we may be unshackled!
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2013 16:11
|
|
|
For every 5 year old browser out there, there is a workaround. A client couldn't view the nice shiny videos on his site, on his Win7/IE8 machine. We ended up putting them on a youtube channel for him...let them worry about decoding and browser compatibility for poo poo like that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 23:14
|
|
|
pipebomb posted:For every 5 year old browser out there, there is a workaround. A client couldn't view the nice shiny videos on his site, on his Win7/IE8 machine. We ended up putting them on a youtube channel for him...let them worry about decoding and browser compatibility for poo poo like that. Was that less effort than, say, providing them a link for chrome?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 18:55
|
|
|
I use Google Analytics but I also want to use some sort of webserver log file analyzer. Last time I did this many years ago it was with AWStats. Anything else I should look at besides that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 20:43
|
|
|
jiggerypokery posted:Was that less effort than, say, providing them a link for chrome? His concern, rightly, is that he has a specific config, others may as well. Money talks, ego walks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
pipebomb posted:His concern, rightly, is that he has a specific config, others may as well. Money talks, ego walks. Fair enough!
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 08:32
|
|
|
pipebomb posted:His concern, rightly, is that he has a specific config, others may as well. Money talks, ego walks. And as an aside, a responsible web developer should be using the analytics and expected audience to inform these decisions, not dogma. If you have an abnormally high IE8 browser share for your website, well you should support it to a reasonable degree.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 09:09
|
|
|
That's a great point Maluco - in this case, the client is a lawyer who handles clients with little or no money. That demographic might not have the latest technology, so it's certainly something to consider.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 15:56
|
|
|
pipebomb posted:That's a great point Maluco - in this case, the client is a lawyer who handles clients with little or no money. That demographic might not have the latest technology, so it's certainly something to consider. Come on now, it can also features a large amount of stuck in the mud people who still use internet explorer because thats all they've known on the desktop, even if the rest is iPhones and iPads. I think the snark is hardly necessary mate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 18:11
|
|
|
Are browsers like Firefox or Chrome not available at all on older systems/laptops? Seems to me like if that isn't the case, then you can't say it's only because of that. Although you should still allow for it...
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 18:45
|
|
|
Maluco Marinero posted:Come on now, it can also features a large amount of stuck in the mud people who still use internet explorer because thats all they've known on the desktop, even if the rest is iPhones and iPads. I think the snark is hardly necessary mate. I Intended no snark, I was serious.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 18:49
|
|
|
pipebomb posted:I Intended no snark, I was serious. Oh okay sorry. Low bandwidth text and all that, perceived sarcasm where there was none. Certainly depends on the segment of law whether the clients have no money or not. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 18:52
|
|
|
Lumpy posted:It can be tough to tell. Every few months we get a serious "nobody should support browsers older than 6 months; if they can't upgrade gently caress them!" post. I thought maybe it was that time again. It must be!
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 18:57
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:Are browsers like Firefox or Chrome not available at all on older systems/laptops? Seems to me like if that isn't the case, then you can't say it's only because of that. Although you should still allow for it... Its not a case of what's available, but what is conveniently available. The base version of Internet Explorer distributed with Windows will be good enough for a significant portion of certain demographics. They will not even realise the difference between latest tech and IE8 unless they end up with an iPhone or iPad where the default browser is modern. Even in that case, if the site is then broken it will be the websites fault, and not the browser's. You can train clients the difference, and certainly there is more room to drop lower versions when you are building web applications, but for sales pathways you can't expect to engage in customer education about better browsers. If someone is just browsing looking for a particular service, if you throw up an 'install something else' popup rather than doing a best effort to deliver the page, you will probably bounce that user and not see them again. That's why you must judge your supported list based on demographics and use case. For example, I'm building a web based maintenance system for ships. A big part of the sell is that even though it's a web app, it can work offline. This is possible only with technology in IE10+ and all of the other modern browsers. I am comfortable with this because the sales process is already going to require customer education, and once they've committed to using the app they will be sold and be willing to make that jump. It also helps that I'll be targeting small operators which means less restrictive IT policies regarding browsers and intranets and what not. The public sales pages however, will definitely be supporting IE8, no question about it. That may not mean pixel perfect replication, but it will be attractive and usable for what its intended. There is no wiggle room here as I know for a fact that a lot of the target demographic will be on base install, maybe not the end users but definitely the decision makers at that company. Anyway, that's a lot of  for, its situational.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 19:07
|
|
|
Lumpy posted:It can be tough to tell. Every few months we get a serious "nobody should support browsers older than 6 months; if they can't upgrade gently caress them!" post. I thought maybe it was that time again. Ahh the perks of being a designer. I get all the benefits of playing with new technologies, with none of the bullshit of worrying about IE support, or more than one Android device, or efficiency or maintainability in general. It's pretty nice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 20:08
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:Ahh the perks of being a designer. I get all the benefits of playing with new technologies, with none of the bullshit of worrying about IE support, or more than one Android device, or efficiency or maintainability in general. It's pretty nice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 21:18
|
|
|
The Merkinman posted:I'm assuming you're a print designer, otherwise the developer could just say "sorry that's not possible in the browsers we need to support" Funny you should say that. Before, I used to work for very large waterfall shops, with all accompanying drama and politics. UX was pigeon-holed into the very early stages of projects, months before engineers were involved. I'd spend weeks arguing in a lost cause with risk-adverse product managers and middle management. It didn't matter how polished my competitive analysis, user research, or UX deliverables were, the answer was inevitably "no." And these stakeholders, not wanting to be outwardly negative or confrontational, would always pin the blame on "engineering constraints," even though no actual engineer was ever consulted. One day, I started building functional HTML prototypes instead. It wasn't something the UX department normally delivered, but I did it anyway. Suddenly I had something that could demonstrate my idea much more fluidly than even the best wireframe or storyboard, plus the stakeholder could view it on whatever computer or phone they claimed to care about. It sounds stupid, but just seeing something in action broke down a lot of that resistance. I was never even pushing anything that interesting; at one point, I was simply asking for typeahead search on a very small set of data. Nowadays, I work for a much nimbler, but still resource-constrained company. Here I can use things like Ember to create somewhat sophisticated, client-side prototypes without getting into backend development. I do it for all the same reasons I mentioned above, but at this company, seeing what's possible has encouraged both management and engineering to really push for making it a reality, even if that means dropping support for more problematic devices. The engineers I work with are really quite good, there just aren't enough of them (there never are). Of course, I'm still responsible for making sure my designs are responsive, represent our 80% cases without totally breaking under our 20% cases, etc., but prototyping helps us move faster. It also helps us build better products, because we can test higher-fidelity prototypes and uncover more nuanced issues before committing to production-quality code.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 22:37
|
|
|
Does anyone see what is wrong with this form? I'm getting blanks on my request: http://jsfiddle.net/4q8wb/ Result with checkboxes checked and the submit is clicked: code:Edit: nevermind I was being dumb. I needed the 'name="foo"' attribute on the checkboxes. Knyteguy fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Dec 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 20:32
|
|
|
Ok guys, I've got another dumb question. I'm trying to use position:absolute to make a snazzy hover. I've got it to work on one of my pages but now I want to replicate it identically (and not write more code) and it doesn't seem to work. Since the site is live, here's the page that works, and the page that doesn't work. css: code:code:
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 21:07
|
|
|
You're missing position: relative on .half
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 21:26
|
|
|
Griffith86 posted:You're missing position: relative on .half Thanks! I knew it was gonna be dumb.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 21:57
|
|
|
Anyone aware of any articles or usage statistics for back links? I don't mean backlinks in the SEO sense, but literal "<< Back" type links. I find them to be unnecessary since they duplicate basic browser functionality, but I have a client who might need numbers to be convinced.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
kedo posted:Anyone aware of any articles or usage statistics for back links? I don't mean backlinks in the SEO sense, but literal "<< Back" type links. I find them to be unnecessary since they duplicate basic browser functionality, but I have a client who might need numbers to be convinced. If you're dealing with / passing context then a 'back' link can sometimes make sense I guess (assuming it is doing something to work with/around that), though it probably doesn't in this case. I doubt you'll be able to find real hard numbers on it though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 05:24 |
|
|
My opinion on Back links is the same as Cancel links: they can all die in a fire. Users know what their browser back button does, but they don't know for sure what your buttons do. Unfortunately, I don't have any numbers to back that up, but I remember reading some Nielsen usability write-ups about back/cancel button usage that led me to my current views. http://www.nngroup.com/articles/reset-and-cancel-buttons/ http://www.nngroup.com/articles/the-top-ten-web-design-mistakes-of-1999/ quote:The Back button is the lifeline of the Web user and the second-most used navigation feature (after following hypertext links).
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 23:18
|
|
