• The forum software that supports hummy.tv has been upgraded to XenForo 2.3!

    Please bear with us as we continue to tweak things, and feel free to post any questions, issues or suggestions in the upgrade thread.

Tapatalk

Black Hole said:
I'm not an authority, but in my view HTML5 should sort at least some of the problems out - all modern browsers should conform,
Click to expand...
I'm fed up with being told to use "modern browsers".
HTML5 works on most browsers that I (try to) use. Indeed I did manage to transfer a Java applet into the HTML5/Javascript. The biggest annoyance is:
Please check that you are using a supported browser (such as Firefox) and that WebGL is enabled
Click to expand...
I have a supported browser. WebGL is enable, but some idiot has knackered the browsers by forcing it onto a hardware blacklist. The known workarounds don't work. I can use an old version of Chrome (new versions blacklist the hardware) - but I hate Chrome (and Firefox) because they create multiple processes and clog up my memory (I think I mean my computer's memory).
Black Hole said:
"let anybody not on HTML5 yet take care of themselves".
Click to expand...
Very :mad:!
 
Black Hole said:
...
What? Installable where? Isn't it already installed on our server?
...
Click to expand...
Xenforo has added some functionality that automatically creates an installable HTML5-based mobile client for any forum setup that meets certain requirements.
prpr said:
Apple have become the new Micro$oft.
Click to expand...
Surely Apple are the old Apple, and Google is or are the new M$. I believe G is what Xenforo meant when using the term "industry standards".
EEPhil said:
...I have a supported browser. WebGL is enable, but some idiot has knackered the browsers by forcing it onto a hardware blacklist. ...
Click to expand...
Where?

Also, signatures in forums -- why? Perhaps understandable in email and Usenet, but there's a user link on every forum post where per-user stuff should be found. Eliminate sigs, put Report/Like/Reply on the header bar, 25% more posts per page.

I offer the following signature minimiser CSS:
Code: 
  .message-signature:active, .message-signature:focus {
    overflow-y: inherit;
    max-height: inherit;
  }
  .message-signature:active br, .message-signature:focus br {
    display:  inherit;
  }
  .message-signature br {
    display: none;
  }
  .message-signature {
    overflow-y:  hidden;
    max-height: 2.5ch;
  }
The "sent using tapatalk" sig is actually the last item in the message and can't be removed by styling, but this UserJS does the job:
Code: 
for (const bb of document.querySelectorAll("article.message-body .bbWrapper br:last-of-type")) {
	const tt = bb.nextSibling;
	if (tt && tt.data && tt.data.search(/sent from .* using tapatalk/i) >= 0) tt.parentNode.removeChild(tt);
}
 
/df said:
I assumed this was a problem with some site that rejected your browser/platform combo, but no?
Click to expand...
More like the browser rejects the site because it doesn't like my graphics card. I can't update the card. Some (older) browsers allow the blacklist to be ignored and the website will work perfectly. It's not my hardware that's the problem it's something else. Ho, hum. One browser for this site, another one for the local bus company.
 
Yes that page shows a lot of errors. If I check my browser's error console I get rather a lot of CSS and XML errors as well.
 
And it isn't rocket science to get it right, but it takes excessive laziness to get it wrong.
 
EEPhil said:
If I check my browser's error console I get rather a lot of CSS and XML errors as well.
Click to expand...
However, my memory of CSS2 (c. 2005) was that you had to put different workarounds for one browser compared to another. Therefore if you run one of the compliance checkers it moaned about non-standard stuff. From memory, I think something had to be !important for one browser and a comment had to be placed in the middle of a definition for another browser.
Black Hole said:
It doesn't matter how compliant a website is, iOS will still display it incorrectly and requires its own tweaks.
Click to expand...
Back in 2005 ish I seem to remember the same browser (possibly Netscape) running under Windows and on some Apple product wouldn't display the same.
 
EEPhil said:
Back in 2005 ish I seem to remember the same browser (possibly Netscape) running under Windows and on some Apple product wouldn't display the same.
Click to expand...
Back then, a third-party browser might have had its own rendering engine, but now all alternative app browsers use the iOS rendering engine (maybe on Apple's insistence).

Many things I came across when building a few web pages, as per W3C tutorials, don't work or don't work properly on an Apple browser, so I had to choose not to use those features or search the Internet for suggested work-arounds. Something I couldn't crack was iOS's insistence "it knows best" how to scale text - instead of presenting it a sensible size and wrapping lines as necessary (which is the correct behaviour - authors are not supposed to impose any particular margin width and just let text wrap), it just shrinks the whole page's default maximum width (in pixels) to fit within the sides of the display. I had no choice but to conquer that, the necessary tweak being "viewport" metadata in the HTML page header.
 
Black Hole said:
authors are not supposed to impose any particular margin width and just let text wrap
Click to expand...
For the joint three university project I was working on (a set of MSc e-learning modules) the project management and specifications came from another university. The dictat was that all the material must fit in a screen and the page must not scroll. The user experience had to be the same for the major personal computers and popular browsers of the time. This was in line with the various guidance that came from other bodies (I'm too lazy to dig out the reference at present - but these were national guidelines for this type of work). In other words we were trying to use web pages for a purpose they were not intended for. I had to put hard breaks in lines to get things to display "properly". Oh, and the worst part? We were only allowed an 800x600 pixel window.
(Here's a daft one. A couple of years later, working on something similar but with full screen window, I attempted to display this at a conference only to find the display computer was fixed at 800x600 resolution - I had a backup plan, but it wasn't pretty.)

Each time a browser was updated another gremlin was introduced. Since then both Flash and Java Applets have been made very difficult to use. Fortunately the project finished before the Java/Flash difficulties - so that's some other person's problem. I would have solved it (and did for demonstration purposes at future interviews) but nobody asked me (or paid for the work).

I'm glad I no longer develop web pages. :D
 
EEPhil said:
The dictat was that all the material must fit in a screen and the page must not scroll. The user experience had to be the same for the major personal computers and popular browsers of the time.
Click to expand...
:disagree:

Talk about spoon feeding. Apparently even uni students have insufficient attention span to turn a page (ie scroll down in case there might be more text off-screen).
 
Black Hole said:
Talk about spoon feeding. Apparently even uni students have insufficient attention span to turn a page
Click to expand...
Around 2003 I was told that the [then] current intake of undergrad students on engineering courses were that thick that remedial classes were required to get them to O' level maths capability. In fact, a foundation year was introduced to cover all that stuff that should have been on the O' level and A' level syllabus. We have to question why they were offered a place at university in the first place. (The Tony Bliar [sic] years - 50% of pupils in further education might be the reason). Therefore it didn't surprise me that university students couldn't turn a page. What did surprise me was that these courses were masters level intended for part-time industrial students. So whilst agreeing with your disagree smiley, I needed the beer tokens and got the spoon out and started feeding them.
 
Re Apple, just check for their browser, and if you find it, redirect them to an information page recommending good browsers and platforms. You will not lose many customers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
html5test.com

The HTML5 test - How well does your browser support HTML5?

The HTML5 test score is an indication of how well your browser supports the upcoming HTML5 standard and related specifications. How well does your browser support HTML5?
html5test.com html5test.com
Opera on Android scored 523/555. As that is chromium, and there only seem to be 3 engines, ie, chromium, mozilla and apple, and a handful of platforms, we could possibly tie this up.
 
All on Android:

Opera 523/555

Firefox 516/555

As safari isn't available, it seems to be a non-starter as a browser.

Edge 530/555

Chrome 518/555.🤣

Brave 520/555🤣🤣

With acid3, they all score 97.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Safari on iPadOS 13.6.1: 502/555

However, I have Safari set to desktop (rather than mobile) by default. The above is for mobile, where the test page reports the configuration correctly. If I return to the desktop version, I get:

504/555, "You are using Safari 13.1.2 on macOS Catalina 10.15".

Do these scores matter? Not to me. Sometimes something doesn't work or breaks, and now I know why.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top