Search Results

Search found 3419 results on 137 pages for 'browsers'.

Page 21/137 | < Previous Page | 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28  | Next Page >

  • The Challenge with HTML5 – In Pictures

    - by dwahlin
    I love working with Web technologies and am looking forward to the new functionality that HTML5 will ultimately bring to the table (some of which can be used today). Having been through the div versus layer battle back in the IE4 and Netscape 4 days I think we’re headed down that road again as a result of browsers implementing features differently. I’ve been spending a lot of time researching and playing around with HTML5 samples and features (mainly because we’re already seeing demand for training on HTML5) and there’s a lot of great stuff there that will truly revolutionize web applications as we know them. However, browsers just aren’t there yet and many people outside of the development world don’t really feel a need to upgrade their browser if it’s working reasonably well (Mom and Dad come to mind) so it’s going to be awhile. There’s a nice test site at http://www.HTML5Test.com that runs through different HTML5 features and scores how well they’re supported. They don’t test for everything and are very clear about that on the site: “The HTML5 test score is only an indication of how well your browser supports the upcoming HTML5 standard and related specifications. It does not try to test all of the new features offered by HTML5, nor does it try to test the functionality of each feature it does detect. Despite these shortcomings we hope that by quantifying the level of support users and web developers will get an idea of how hard the browser manufacturers work on improving their browsers and the web as a development platform. The score is calculated by testing for the many new features of HTML5. Each feature is worth one or more points. Apart from the main HTML5 specification and other specifications created the W3C HTML Working Group, this test also awards points for supporting related drafts and specifications. Some of these specifications were initially part of HTML5, but are now further developed by other W3C working groups. WebGL is also part of this test despite not being developed by the W3C, because it extends the HTML5 canvas element with a 3d context. The test also awards bonus points for supporting audio and video codecs and supporting SVG or MathML embedding in a plain HTML document. These test do not count towards the total score because HTML5 does not specify any required audio or video codec. Also SVG and MathML are not required by HTML5, the specification only specifies rules for how such content should be embedded inside a plain HTML file. Please be aware that the specifications that are being tested are still in development and could change before receiving an official status. In the future new tests will be added for the pieces of the specification that are currently still missing. The maximum number of points that can be scored is 300 at this moment, but this is a moving goalpost.” It looks like their tests haven’t been updated since June, but the numbers are pretty scary as a developer because it means I’m going to have to do a lot of browser sniffing before assuming a particular feature is available to use. Not that much different from what we do today as far as browser sniffing you say? I’d have to disagree since HTML5 takes it to a whole new level. In today’s world we have script libraries such as jQuery (my personal favorite), Prototype, script.aculo.us, YUI Library, MooTools, etc. that handle the heavy lifting for us. Until those libraries handle all of the key HTML5 features available it’s going to be a challenge. Certain features such as Canvas are supported fairly well across most of the major browsers while other features such as audio and video are hit or miss depending upon what codec you want to use. Run the tests yourself to see what passes and what fails for different browsers. You can also view the HTML5 Test Suite Conformance Results at http://test.w3.org/html/tests/reporting/report.htm (a work in progress). The table below lists the scores that the HTML5Test site returned for different browsers I have installed on my desktop PC and laptop. A specific list of tests run and features supported are given when you go to the site. Note that I went ahead and tested the IE9 beta and it didn’t do nearly as good as I expected it would, but it’s not officially out yet so I expect that number will change a lot. Am I opposed to HTML5 as a result of these tests? Of course not - I’m actually really excited about what it offers.  However, I’m trying to be realistic and feel it'll definitely add a new level of headache to the Web application development process having been through something like this many years ago. On the flipside, developers that are able to target a specific browser (typically Intranet apps) or master the cross-browser issues are going to release some pretty sweet applications. Check out http://html5gallery.com/ for a look at some of the more cutting-edge sites out there that use HTML5. Also check out the http://www.beautyoftheweb.com site that Microsoft put together to showcase IE9. Chrome 8 Safari 5 for Windows     Opera 10 Firefox 3.6     Internet Explorer 9 Beta (Note that it’s still beta) Internet Explorer 8

    Read the article

  • The broken Promise of the Mobile Web

    - by Rick Strahl
    High end mobile devices have been with us now for almost 7 years and they have utterly transformed the way we access information. Mobile phones and smartphones that have access to the Internet and host smart applications are in the hands of a large percentage of the population of the world. In many places even very remote, cell phones and even smart phones are a common sight. I’ll never forget when I was in India in 2011 I was up in the Southern Indian mountains riding an elephant out of a tiny local village, with an elephant herder in front riding atop of the elephant in front of us. He was dressed in traditional garb with the loin wrap and head cloth/turban as did quite a few of the locals in this small out of the way and not so touristy village. So we’re slowly trundling along in the forest and he’s lazily using his stick to guide the elephant and… 10 minutes in he pulls out his cell phone from his sash and starts texting. In the middle of texting a huge pig jumps out from the side of the trail and he takes a picture running across our path in the jungle! So yeah, mobile technology is very pervasive and it’s reached into even very buried and unexpected parts of this world. Apps are still King Apps currently rule the roost when it comes to mobile devices and the applications that run on them. If there’s something that you need on your mobile device your first step usually is to look for an app, not use your browser. But native app development remains a pain in the butt, with the requirement to have to support 2 or 3 completely separate platforms. There are solutions that try to bridge that gap. Xamarin is on a tear at the moment, providing their cross-device toolkit to build applications using C#. While Xamarin tools are impressive – and also *very* expensive – they only address part of the development madness that is app development. There are still specific device integration isssues, dealing with the different developer programs, security and certificate setups and all that other noise that surrounds app development. There’s also PhoneGap/Cordova which provides a hybrid solution that involves creating local HTML/CSS/JavaScript based applications, and then packaging them to run in a specialized App container that can run on most mobile device platforms using a WebView interface. This allows for using of HTML technology, but it also still requires all the set up, configuration of APIs, security keys and certification and submission and deployment process just like native applications – you actually lose many of the benefits that  Web based apps bring. The big selling point of Cordova is that you get to use HTML have the ability to build your UI once for all platforms and run across all of them – but the rest of the app process remains in place. Apps can be a big pain to create and manage especially when we are talking about specialized or vertical business applications that aren’t geared at the mainstream market and that don’t fit the ‘store’ model. If you’re building a small intra department application you don’t want to deal with multiple device platforms and certification etc. for various public or corporate app stores. That model is simply not a good fit both from the development and deployment perspective. Even for commercial, big ticket apps, HTML as a UI platform offers many advantages over native, from write-once run-anywhere, to remote maintenance, single point of management and failure to having full control over the application as opposed to have the app store overloads censor you. In a lot of ways Web based HTML/CSS/JavaScript applications have so much potential for building better solutions based on existing Web technologies for the very same reasons a lot of content years ago moved off the desktop to the Web. To me the Web as a mobile platform makes perfect sense, but the reality of today’s Mobile Web unfortunately looks a little different… Where’s the Love for the Mobile Web? Yet here we are in the middle of 2014, nearly 7 years after the first iPhone was released and brought the promise of rich interactive information at your fingertips, and yet we still don’t really have a solid mobile Web platform. I know what you’re thinking: “But we have lots of HTML/JavaScript/CSS features that allows us to build nice mobile interfaces”. I agree to a point – it’s actually quite possible to build nice looking, rich and capable Web UI today. We have media queries to deal with varied display sizes, CSS transforms for smooth animations and transitions, tons of CSS improvements in CSS 3 that facilitate rich layout, a host of APIs geared towards mobile device features and lately even a number of JavaScript framework choices that facilitate development of multi-screen apps in a consistent manner. Personally I’ve been working a lot with AngularJs and heavily modified Bootstrap themes to build mobile first UIs and that’s been working very well to provide highly usable and attractive UI for typical mobile business applications. From the pure UI perspective things actually look very good. Not just about the UI But it’s not just about the UI - it’s also about integration with the mobile device. When it comes to putting all those pieces together into what amounts to a consolidated platform to build mobile Web applications, I think we still have a ways to go… there are a lot of missing pieces to make it all work together and integrate with the device more smoothly, and more importantly to make it work uniformly across the majority of devices. I think there are a number of reasons for this. Slow Standards Adoption HTML standards implementations and ratification has been dreadfully slow, and browser vendors all seem to pick and choose different pieces of the technology they implement. The end result is that we have a capable UI platform that’s missing some of the infrastructure pieces to make it whole on mobile devices. There’s lots of potential but what is lacking that final 10% to build truly compelling mobile applications that can compete favorably with native applications. Some of it is the fragmentation of browsers and the slow evolution of the mobile specific HTML APIs. A host of mobile standards exist but many of the standards are in the early review stage and they have been there stuck for long periods of time and seem to move at a glacial pace. Browser vendors seem even slower to implement them, and for good reason – non-ratified standards mean that implementations may change and vendor implementations tend to be experimental and  likely have to be changed later. Neither Vendors or developers are not keen on changing standards. This is the typical chicken and egg scenario, but without some forward momentum from some party we end up stuck in the mud. It seems that either the standards bodies or the vendors need to carry the torch forward and that doesn’t seem to be happening quickly enough. Mobile Device Integration just isn’t good enough Current standards are not far reaching enough to address a number of the use case scenarios necessary for many mobile applications. While not every application needs to have access to all mobile device features, almost every mobile application could benefit from some integration with other parts of the mobile device platform. Integration with GPS, phone, media, messaging, notifications, linking and contacts system are benefits that are unique to mobile applications and could be widely used, but are mostly (with the exception of GPS) inaccessible for Web based applications today. Unfortunately trying to do most of this today only with a mobile Web browser is a losing battle. Aside from PhoneGap/Cordova’s app centric model with its own custom API accessing mobile device features and the token exception of the GeoLocation API, most device integration features are not widely supported by the current crop of mobile browsers. For example there’s no usable messaging API that allows access to SMS or contacts from HTML. Even obvious components like the Media Capture API are only implemented partially by mobile devices. There are alternatives and workarounds for some of these interfaces by using browser specific code, but that’s might ugly and something that I thought we were trying to leave behind with newer browser standards. But it’s not quite working out that way. It’s utterly perplexing to me that mobile standards like Media Capture and Streams, Media Gallery Access, Responsive Images, Messaging API, Contacts Manager API have only minimal or no traction at all today. Keep in mind we’ve had mobile browsers for nearly 7 years now, and yet we still have to think about how to get access to an image from the image gallery or the camera on some devices? Heck Windows Phone IE Mobile just gained the ability to upload images recently in the Windows 8.1 Update – that’s feature that HTML has had for 20 years! These are simple concepts and common problems that should have been solved a long time ago. It’s extremely frustrating to see build 90% of a mobile Web app with relative ease and then hit a brick wall for the remaining 10%, which often can be show stoppers. The remaining 10% have to do with platform integration, browser differences and working around the limitations that browsers and ‘pinned’ applications impose on HTML applications. The maddening part is that these limitations seem arbitrary as they could easily work on all mobile platforms. For example, SMS has a URL Moniker interface that sort of works on Android, works badly with iOS (only works if the address is already in the contact list) and not at all on Windows Phone. There’s no reason this shouldn’t work universally using the same interface – after all all phones have supported SMS since before the year 2000! But, it doesn’t have to be this way Change can happen very quickly. Take the GeoLocation API for example. Geolocation has taken off at the very beginning of the mobile device era and today it works well, provides the necessary security (a big concern for many mobile APIs), and is supported by just about all major mobile and even desktop browsers today. It handles security concerns via prompts to avoid unwanted access which is a model that would work for most other device APIs in a similar fashion. One time approval and occasional re-approval if code changes or caches expire. Simple and only slightly intrusive. It all works well, even though GeoLocation actually has some physical limitations, such as representing the current location when no GPS device is present. Yet this is a solved problem, where other APIs that are conceptually much simpler to implement have failed to gain any traction at all. Technically none of these APIs should be a problem to implement, but it appears that the momentum is just not there. Inadequate Web Application Linking and Activation Another important piece of the puzzle missing is the integration of HTML based Web applications. Today HTML based applications are not first class citizens on mobile operating systems. When talking about HTML based content there’s a big difference between content and applications. Content is great for search engine discovery and plain browser usage. Content is usually accessed intermittently and permanent linking is not so critical for this type of content.  But applications have different needs. Applications need to be started up quickly and must be easily switchable to support a multi-tasking user workflow. Therefore, it’s pretty crucial that mobile Web apps are integrated into the underlying mobile OS and work with the standard task management features. Unfortunately this integration is not as smooth as it should be. It starts with actually trying to find mobile Web applications, to ‘installing’ them onto a phone in an easily accessible manner in a prominent position. The experience of discovering a Mobile Web ‘App’ and making it sticky is by no means as easy or satisfying. Today the way you’d go about this is: Open the browser Search for a Web Site in the browser with your search engine of choice Hope that you find the right site Hope that you actually find a site that works for your mobile device Click on the link and run the app in a fully chrome’d browser instance (read tiny surface area) Pin the app to the home screen (with all the limitations outline above) Hope you pointed at the right URL when you pinned Even for you and me as developers, there are a few steps in there that are painful and annoying, but think about the average user. First figuring out how to search for a specific site or URL? And then pinning the app and hopefully from the right location? You’ve probably lost more than half of your audience at that point. This experience sucks. For developers too this process is painful since app developers can’t control the shortcut creation directly. This problem often gets solved by crazy coding schemes, with annoying pop-ups that try to get people to create shortcuts via fancy animations that are both annoying and add overhead to each and every application that implements this sort of thing differently. And that’s not the end of it - getting the link onto the home screen with an application icon varies quite a bit between browsers. Apple’s non-standard meta tags are prominent and they work with iOS and Android (only more recent versions), but not on Windows Phone. Windows Phone instead requires you to create an actual screen or rather a partial screen be captured for a shortcut in the tile manager. Who had that brilliant idea I wonder? Surprisingly Chrome on recent Android versions seems to actually get it right – icons use pngs, pinning is easy and pinned applications properly behave like standalone apps and retain the browser’s active page state and content. Each of the platforms has a different way to specify icons (WP doesn’t allow you to use an icon image at all), and the most widely used interface in use today is a bunch of Apple specific meta tags that other browsers choose to support. The question is: Why is there no standard implementation for installing shortcuts across mobile platforms using an official format rather than a proprietary one? Then there’s iOS and the crazy way it treats home screen linked URLs using a crazy hybrid format that is neither as capable as a Web app running in Safari nor a WebView hosted application. Moving off the Web ‘app’ link when switching to another app actually causes the browser and preview it to ‘blank out’ the Web application in the Task View (see screenshot on the right). Then, when the ‘app’ is reactivated it ends up completely restarting the browser with the original link. This is crazy behavior that you can’t easily work around. In some situations you might be able to store the application state and restore it using LocalStorage, but for many scenarios that involve complex data sources (like say Google Maps) that’s not a possibility. The only reason for this screwed up behavior I can think of is that it is deliberate to make Web apps a pain in the butt to use and forcing users trough the App Store/PhoneGap/Cordova route. App linking and management is a very basic problem – something that we essentially have solved in every desktop browser – yet on mobile devices where it arguably matters a lot more to have easy access to web content we have to jump through hoops to have even a remotely decent linking/activation experience across browsers. Where’s the Money? It’s not surprising that device home screen integration and Mobile Web support in general is in such dismal shape – the mobile OS vendors benefit financially from App store sales and have little to gain from Web based applications that bypass the App store and the cash cow that it presents. On top of that, platform specific vendor lock-in of both end users and developers who have invested in hardware, apps and consumables is something that mobile platform vendors actually aspire to. Web based interfaces that are cross-platform are the anti-thesis of that and so again it’s no surprise that the mobile Web is on a struggling path. But – that may be changing. More and more we’re seeing operations shifting to services that are subscription based or otherwise collect money for usage, and that may drive more progress into the Web direction in the end . Nothing like the almighty dollar to drive innovation forward. Do we need a Mobile Web App Store? As much as I dislike moderated experiences in today’s massive App Stores, they do at least provide one single place to look for apps for your device. I think we could really use some sort of registry, that could provide something akin to an app store for mobile Web apps, to make it easier to actually find mobile applications. This could take the form of a specialized search engine, or maybe a more formal store/registry like structure. Something like apt-get/chocolatey for Web apps. It could be curated and provide at least some feedback and reviews that might help with the integrity of applications. Coupled to that could be a native application on each platform that would allow searching and browsing of the registry and then also handle installation in the form of providing the home screen linking, plus maybe an initial security configuration that determines what features are allowed access to for the app. I’m not holding my breath. In order for this sort of thing to take off and gain widespread appeal, a lot of coordination would be required. And in order to get enough traction it would have to come from a well known entity – a mobile Web app store from a no name source is unlikely to gain high enough usage numbers to make a difference. In a way this would eliminate some of the freedom of the Web, but of course this would also be an optional search path in addition to the standard open Web search mechanisms to find and access content today. Security Security is a big deal, and one of the perceived reasons why so many IT professionals appear to be willing to go back to the walled garden of deployed apps is that Apps are perceived as safe due to the official review and curation of the App stores. Curated stores are supposed to protect you from malware, illegal and misleading content. It doesn’t always work out that way and all the major vendors have had issues with security and the review process at some time or another. Security is critical, but I also think that Web applications in general pose less of a security threat than native applications, by nature of the sandboxed browser and JavaScript environments. Web applications run externally completely and in the HTML and JavaScript sandboxes, with only a very few controlled APIs allowing access to device specific features. And as discussed earlier – security for any device interaction can be granted the same for mobile applications through a Web browser, as they can for native applications either via explicit policies loaded from the Web, or via prompting as GeoLocation does today. Security is important, but it’s certainly solvable problem for Web applications even those that need to access device hardware. Security shouldn’t be a reason for Web apps to be an equal player in mobile applications. Apps are winning, but haven’t we been here before? So now we’re finding ourselves back in an era of installed app, rather than Web based and managed apps. Only it’s even worse today than with Desktop applications, in that the apps are going through a gatekeeper that charges a toll and censors what you can and can’t do in your apps. Frankly it’s a mystery to me why anybody would buy into this model and why it’s lasted this long when we’ve already been through this process. It’s crazy… It’s really a shame that this regression is happening. We have the technology to make mobile Web apps much more prominent, but yet we’re basically held back by what seems little more than bureaucracy, partisan bickering and self interest of the major parties involved. Back in the day of the desktop it was Internet Explorer’s 98+%  market shareholding back the Web from improvements for many years – now it’s the combined mobile OS market in control of the mobile browsers. If mobile Web apps were allowed to be treated the same as native apps with simple ways to install and run them consistently and persistently, that would go a long way to making mobile applications much more usable and seriously viable alternatives to native apps. But as it is mobile apps have a severe disadvantage in placement and operation. There are a few bright spots in all of this. Mozilla’s FireFoxOs is embracing the Web for it’s mobile OS by essentially building every app out of HTML and JavaScript based content. It supports both packaged and certified package modes (that can be put into the app store), and Open Web apps that are loaded and run completely off the Web and can also cache locally for offline operation using a manifest. Open Web apps are treated as full class citizens in FireFoxOS and run using the same mechanism as installed apps. Unfortunately FireFoxOs is getting a slow start with minimal device support and specifically targeting the low end market. We can hope that this approach will change and catch on with other vendors, but that’s also an uphill battle given the conflict of interest with platform lock in that it represents. Recent versions of Android also seem to be working reasonably well with mobile application integration onto the desktop and activation out of the box. Although it still uses the Apple meta tags to find icons and behavior settings, everything at least works as you would expect – icons to the desktop on pinning, WebView based full screen activation, and reliable application persistence as the browser/app is treated like a real application. Hopefully iOS will at some point provide this same level of rudimentary Web app support. What’s also interesting to me is that Microsoft hasn’t picked up on the obvious need for a solid Web App platform. Being a distant third in the mobile OS war, Microsoft certainly has nothing to lose and everything to gain by using fresh ideas and expanding into areas that the other major vendors are neglecting. But instead Microsoft is trying to beat the market leaders at their own game, fighting on their adversary’s terms instead of taking a new tack. Providing a kick ass mobile Web platform that takes the lead on some of the proposed mobile APIs would be something positive that Microsoft could do to improve its miserable position in the mobile device market. Where are we at with Mobile Web? It sure sounds like I’m really down on the Mobile Web, right? I’ve built a number of mobile apps in the last year and while overall result and response has been very positive to what we were able to accomplish in terms of UI, getting that final 10% that required device integration dialed was an absolute nightmare on every single one of them. Big compromises had to be made and some features were left out or had to be modified for some devices. In two cases we opted to go the Cordova route in order to get the integration we needed, along with the extra pain involved in that process. Unless you’re not integrating with device features and you don’t care deeply about a smooth integration with the mobile desktop, mobile Web development is fraught with frustration. So, yes I’m frustrated! But it’s not for lack of wanting the mobile Web to succeed. I am still a firm believer that we will eventually arrive a much more functional mobile Web platform that allows access to the most common device features in a sensible way. It wouldn't be difficult for device platform vendors to make Web based applications first class citizens on mobile devices. But unfortunately it looks like it will still be some time before this happens. So, what’s your experience building mobile Web apps? Are you finding similar issues? Just giving up on raw Web applications and building PhoneGap apps instead? Completely skipping the Web and going native? Leave a comment for discussion. Resources Rick Strahl on DotNet Rocks talking about Mobile Web© Rick Strahl, West Wind Technologies, 2005-2014Posted in HTML5  Mobile   Tweet !function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs"); (function() { var po = document.createElement('script'); po.type = 'text/javascript'; po.async = true; po.src = 'https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(po, s); })();

    Read the article

  • Here’s a Quick Alternative Way to Download Videos from YouTube

    - by Taylor Gibb
    More than 24 hours of video content are uploaded to the internet per minute. With so many videos being uploaded, there’s no doubt you’ve come across a video you want to keep. Read on to find out how you can download your favorite videos for offline viewing. This method of downloading YouTube videos, is different, in the sense that you are just retrieving a buffered version of the video from your browsers cache. While you could always do this manually, different browsers store the cache in different places, a much easier method would be to head over to the NirSoft site and download a copy of Video Cache View (choose the zipped version), which allows you to view all the videos in your cache and supports all major browsers. Note: The download link is quite far down the page, see screenshot below How To Properly Scan a Photograph (And Get An Even Better Image) The HTG Guide to Hiding Your Data in a TrueCrypt Hidden Volume Make Your Own Windows 8 Start Button with Zero Memory Usage

    Read the article

  • Set default browser to OPEN browser

    - by dmeu
    Hi I am switching constantly between browsers (three different at the moment). So i was also switching default browsers to open my mail / new links etc... I also saw that with the command sudo update-alternatives --config x-www-browser the browsers have different priorities. So I had the idea that it could be possible that the default browser could be the browser/s that is/are actually open and running! And if two are running, the one with higher priority is chosen. Unluckily I did not find anything.. Is this possible? Would be really great! cheers dmeu

    Read the article

  • How to make browser offer "remember password"

    - by Alois Mahdal
    What properties login form needs to have to trigger "remember password" for all (or most) browsers? Background: For years I have been using Opera, and the rule has been that almost anything that looks like login form triggers this feature. Now I'm exploring other browsers, and surprisingly find that one of login forms I visit most often, Roundcube login page, does not trigger this feature neither in Chromium nor Firefox (tried various versions and page setups of RC). Since it's on my VPS, I could patch it up and eventually even send that to RC development team, but I have the unnerving feeling that this must have been solved over and over, and it's just me being blind or something. So again: is there any consensus between browser developer as to when this featue should be triggered? Is there a best practice for webmasters to tell the browser "this is the login page"? Or are all browsers doing their own heuristics?

    Read the article

  • Are there any good reasons to intentionally serve a new web site in Quirks mode?

    - by wsanville
    I was a little surprised that Amazon's site doesn't specify a doctype, and is rendered in quirks mode. What could possibly be the reason for this? I understand what quirks mode is and why doctypes were introduced, but I can't understand why this would be intentionally left off. I guess it might simplify markup if they're trying to support ancient browsers, but isn't that like shooting yourself in the foot when it comes to modern browsers, especially when their site is so Javascript rich? Does this level the playing field when it comes to supporting really old browsers? Is there something else I'm missing?

    Read the article

  • How to Use a 64-bit Web Browser on Windows

    - by Chris Hoffman
    64-bit version of Windows don’t use 64-bit browsers by default – they’re still in their infancy, although even Adobe Flash now supports 64-bit browsers. Using a 64-bit browser can offer significant performance benefits, according to some benchmarks. This article is for Windows users – 64-bit Linux distributions include 64-bit browsers, so you don’t have to do anything special on Linux. How to Own Your Own Website (Even If You Can’t Build One) Pt 1 What’s the Difference Between Sleep and Hibernate in Windows? Screenshot Tour: XBMC 11 Eden Rocks Improved iOS Support, AirPlay, and Even a Custom XBMC OS

    Read the article

  • is box-shadow (CSS3) really not ready to use? (according to "CAN I USE")

    - by mechdeveloper
    I have a problem that I want you to help me, I am currently making a website, I am building that website on HTML5 and CSS3 technology, every feature I'd like to use I check it first in "CAN I USE", the technology I use most is box-shadow, and I already made some great things with it but, I have a doubt about the percentage of browser that don't support that technology, the percentage of browser that do not support box-shadow is around 17.12%, and if you see the conclusions (show options = other options = show conclusions) they say that that feature isn't ready yet because they are "Waiting for Opera Mini 5.0-6.0 to expire", I personally think that the best that we can do in order to make people update their browsers is not support older browser, but ... am I right thinking like this? will I have bad consecuences if I don't support older browsers? is worth to work twice just to support older browsers? should I still working with box-shadow?

    Read the article

  • Optimizing data downloaded via 'link' media queries and asynchronous loading

    - by adam-asdf
    I have a website that tries to make sensible use of media queries and avoid 'expensive' CSS for users of mobile devices. My eventual goal is to make it 'mobile-first' but for now, since it is based on Twitter Bootstrap it isn't. I included some background images (Base64 encoded) and styles that would only apply to "full-size" browsers in a separate stylesheet loaded asynchronously via modernizr.load. In Firefox (but not webkit browsers) it makes it so that if you navigate away from the homepage and then return, the content (specifically, all those extras) 'blinks' when it finishes loading...or maybe I should say reloading. If, instead of using modernizr.load, I include that stylesheet via a link... in the head with a media query attribute will it prevent the data from being downloaded by non-matching browsers (mobile, based on screensize) that it is inapplicable to?

    Read the article

  • Google I/O 2012 - High Performance HTML5

    Google I/O 2012 - High Performance HTML5 For years we built web apps that far outpaced the capabilities of the browsers they ran in. Just as the browsers were catching up HTML5 came on the scene - video and audio, canvas, SVG, app cache, localStorage, @font-face, and more. Now the browsers are racing to stay ahead of the wave that's building as developers adopt these new capabilities. Is your HTML5 app going to ride the wave or be dashed on the rocks leaving users stranded? Learn which HTML5 features to seek out and which to avoid when it comes to building fast HTML5 web apps. This session will be live captioned. From: GoogleDevelopers Views: 91 1 ratings Time: 01:02:07 More in Science & Technology

    Read the article

  • AJAX vs ActiveX/Flash for browser-based game

    - by iconiK
    I have been following the usage of JavaScript for the past few years, and with the release of extremely fast scripting engines (V8, SquirrelFish Extrene, TraceMonkey, etc.) the possibilities of JavaScript have increased dramatically. However, the usage share of Internet Explorer coupled with it's total lack of support for recent standards makes me want to drop a bomb on Microsoft's HQ, as it creates a huge amount of problems for any website. The game will need to be pretty dynamic client-side, with animations and other eye-candy things, but not a full-blown game like those that run directly in the OS using DirectX or OpenGL. However, this might be a little stretch for JavaScript and will certainly feel extremely slow in Internet Explorer (given that the current IE engine can be hundreds of times slower than SFX; gotta see what IE9 will bring), would it be better to just do the whole thing in Flash? I know this means requiring the plug-in AND I have no experience whatsoever with Flash (other than browsing YouTube :P). It also means I can't just output directly from PHP, I would have to use XML or some other format to pass data to it (JSON is directly integrated in JS and PHP can deal with it easily). Another idea would be to provide an alternative interface just for IE, though I don't know how (ActiveX maybe? or with Flash, then why not just provide it to all browsers) or totally not supporting it and requiring the use of other browsers, although this is plain stupid from a business perspective. So here am I, wondering what approach to take and thus asking for your advice. How should I build the client-side? AJAX in all browsers, Flash in all browsers or a mix (AJAX for "modern" browsers and something else for the "grandpa": IE).

    Read the article

  • Mobile Specific Site Development. Where to start?

    - by Andy
    I'm beginning the process of learning the ins and outs of developing sites for mobile web browsers. Are there any good resources/communities online that discuss mobile specific site development issues? My initial understanding is that to cover different phones you need to build one site that is enabled for browsers with the webkit engine (iphone, android, etc.) and another more basic site for other older browsers, is this assumption correct? Also what does developing for webkit mean exactly? How is it different than just using javascript/css/html? Is it the same except that you limit yourself to webkit specific functions and css? I looked on the webkit site, but it didn't explain it in those terms. Are there any other snafus I need to watch out for when developing for mobile browsers?

    Read the article

  • How to write backwards compatible HTML5 ?

    - by Olivier Lalonde
    I'd like to start using HTML5's basic features, but at the same time, keep my code backwards compatible with older browsers (graceful degradation). For instance, I'd like to use the cool CSS3 properties for making rounded corners. Is there any available tutorial for writing gracefully degradable HTML5 ? Additionally, what browsers should I support so that my app. is functional for at least 95% of visitors? What are the ways to test those browsers painlessly ?

    Read the article

  • CSS3 new features...whats the point?

    - by benhowdle89
    I've been reading a lot of ways recently of how to avoid having to use Photoshop for things like gradients and shadows on buttons, when you can use CSS3 Box Shadow for such features. Now this is great, but obviously legacy browsers and most IE browsers don't yet implement CSS3 features, so my question is, why save yourself extra work in Photoshop when you can use CSS3 but then HAVE to use Photoshop for other browsers to see the desired effects? Isn't that just extra work?

    Read the article

  • Is there any Inheritance problem with <table> and it's elements, like <form> elements?

    - by metal-gear-solid
    Is there any Inheritance problem with <table>, tr th td tbody thead tfoot also like form elements? In IE 6+ and FF 3+ with Strict doctype. Tables also have inheritance turned off in some browsers. You may notice that in some browsers, your tables’ text will be larger, clunkier and not so pretty. This is also due to inheritance. Many browsers give tables their own style. It's mentioned here http://www.komodomedia.com/blog/2006/10/css-trickery-part-5-inheritance/ For which browsers author is talking about, it's not mentioned I tested on FF 3.6 and IE7 but unable to find is there any issue. I just wanted to be sure before adding this in my CSS reset. Do i really need this? table { font-family:inherit; font-size:inherit; font-weight:inherit; }

    Read the article

  • Shouldn't we ignore IE6 and IE7 users?

    - by Sebi
    Lately I created two webpages with a simple CMS for a a small club and a private person (http://foto.roser.li and http://www.ovlu.li/cms). I dont really understand much of HTML/PHP/CSS and all this web stuff, but it was enough to adapt the stylesheets and add some javascript functions and so on to make the pages to look more or less nice in firefox and IE8. Nevertheles, if you open the pages with IE7 or IE6, particulary the second home page really looks terrible. So what should I do know? I don't have the know-how to adapt the stylesheets so that it looks good at such browsers. However if I check the statistics of the pages, i noticed that almost half of the visitors uses this kind of browsers. I could put much effort in adapting the stylesheets to look good at all browser but while thinking about this I'm asking myself if this is really the best way. If all developers put effort in providing solutions for really old browsers (like e.g. the IE6), then people who use these brwoser dont have any incentives to update their browsers. Naturally, I as a provider of information should present the content in a readable form to my users, but were should i draw the line? I also saw that some users are visiting the pages with even IE5 or IE4... but I really can't think of a way how to adapt the content in a suitable form for these very old brwosers. I would appreciaed any hints how to handle this balancing between putting much effort into developing a version for very old brwosers and the necessity of providing content to all users which want to visits my homepages. Im also interested in your thoughts about they idea that putting effort in adapting the content for old browsers prevents the users from updating their browsres because they don't see any need.

    Read the article

  • Browser Compatibility

    There are five major browsers available today across the many operating system platforms, with over twenty minor browsers tagging along. With such diversity, the biggest problems a web programmer faces is browser compatibility.

    Read the article

  • Site Studio Mobile Example - WCM Reuse

    - by john.brunswick
    Mobile internet usage is growing by leaps and bounds and it is theorized that in the not-to-distant future it will eclipse traditional access via desktop browsers. Mary Meeker, a managing director at Morgan Stanley and head of their global technology research team, recently predicted that mobile usage will eclipse desktop usage within the next 5 years in an Events@Google series presentation. In order for organizations to reach their prospects, customers and business partners, they will need to make their content readily available on mobile devices. A few years ago it was fairly challenging to provide a special, separate, site to cater to mobile users using technologies like WML (Wireless Markup Language). Modern mobile browsers have rendered the need for this as irrelevant and now the focus has moved toward providing a browsing experience that works well on small screen sizes and is highly performant. What does all of this mean for Oracle UCM? Taking site content from an existing Site Studio site and targeting it for consumption for mobile devices is a very straightforward process that is aided by a number of native capabilities in the product. The example highlighted in this post takes advantage of dynamic conversion capabilities in Oracle UCM to enable site content to be created and updated via MS Office documents. These documents are then converted to a simple, clean HTML format for consumption in the desktop and mobile browsing experiences. To help better understand how this is possible the example below shows a fictional .COM and its mobile site counterpart that both leverage the same underlying content. The scenario is not complete or production ready, but highlights that a mobile experience may be best delivered by omitting portions of a site that would be present within the version served to desktop clients. If you have browsed CNet (news.com) on a mobile device it becomes quickly apparent that they are serving an optimized version for your mobile device. An iPhone style version can be accessed at http://iphone.cnet.com/. In order to do that they leveraged some work done for the iPhone iUi project developed by Joe Hewitt that provides mobile browsers an experience that is similar to what users may find in a native iPhone application. For our example parts of this framework are used (the CSS) and this approach provides a page that will degrade nicely over a wide range of mobile browsers, since it is comprised of lightweight HTML markup and CSS. The iPhone iUi framework also provides some nice JavaScript to enable animated transitions between pages, but for the widest range of mobile browser compatibility we will only incorporate the CSS and HTML DIV / UL based page markup in our example.

    Read the article

  • Download Internet Explorer 9 RTM

    - by Harish Ranganathan
    The much anticipated RTM release of Internet Explorer 9 (IE9) happened today.  IE9 preview release was first showcased at MIX 2010 and post that there were 7-8 Platform Preview releases.  Also, IE9 Beta came out in September 2010 with close to 10 million downloads within a month.  More recently, the RC version was out with much improved performance.  Today, marks the launch of IE9 RTM.  What this means is that, within an year, the IE Team has shipped the stable product, much faster than the earlier cycles for IE8 and IE7.  I wanted to clarify a few things (myths) that arise in common 1. I am already using Chrome and its faster for me, why would I need IE9 IE9 uses 100% hardware acceleration which means, you are going to get the best of performance compared to any other browser that shipped/will ship in future.  With native Windows support, IE9 will outperform all other browsers in terms of performance. 2. What about standards and security Agreed IE6 hasn’t been in the best of standards, but why would someone compare IE6 which was released almost 10 years back.  Later, we shipped IE7 and IE8 which had the best of standards and supports during their timeframes, but one would agree that standards and specifications keep getting updated and its hard to keep pace with the same for older browsers.  Example. HTML5 support is not there in IE8 but it is very much there in IE9.  IE9 supports most of the stable standards of HTML5 and its going to provide preview releases for the work-in-progress standards. 3. IE doesn’t keep in pace with other browsers Agreed! we don’t force/release updates on major versions in very short time periods.  What we do is provide Windows Update that provides security updates/patches and other critical updates for not just IE but the whole of Windows operating system 4. I am running Windows XP, what do I do? This is the trickiest part.  Windows XP isn’t the supported operating system for IE9 and there are various reasons to it.  The recommended operating system is Windows Vista and Windows 7.  In the interest of technology and its pace, we had to discontinue Windows XP both from a retail selling perspective as well as IE9 support.  But, the recent 2 years has seen PCs/Laptops only shipped with Windows Vista or Windows 7 so, it shouldn't affect them. 5. Where do I verify IE9’s performance/standard support and other information. http://samples.msdn.microsoft.com/ietestcenter/  Here below is a snapshot of one of the tests. Clearly IE9 outperforms all other browsers and will continue to outperform them in future.  You can download IE9 from www.beautyoftheweb.com Cheers!!!

    Read the article

  • Silverlight for Everyone!!

    - by subodhnpushpak
    Someone asked me to compare Silverlight / HTML development. I realized that the question can be answered in many ways: Below is the high level comparison between a HTML /JavaScript client and Silverlight client and why silverlight was chosen over HTML / JavaScript client (based on type of users and major functionalities provided): 1. For end users Browser compatibility Silverlight is a plug-in and requires installation first. However, it does provides consistent look and feel across all browsers. For HTML / DHTML, there is a need to tweak JavaScript for each of the browser supported. In fact, tags like <span> and <div> works differently on different browser / version. So, HTML works on most of the systems but also requires lot of efforts coding-wise to adhere to all standards/ browsers / versions. Out of browser support No support in HTML. Third party tools like  Google gears offers some functionalities but there are lots of issues around platform and accessibility. Out of box support for out-of-browser support. provides features like drag and drop onto application surface. Cut and copy paste in HTML HTML is displayed in browser; which, in turn provides facilities for cut copy and paste. Silverlight (specially 4) provides rich features for cut-copy-paste along with full control over what can be cut copy pasted by end users and .advanced features like visual tree printing. Rich user experience HTML can provide some rich experience by use of some JavaScript libraries like JQuery. However, extensive use of JavaScript combined with various versions of browsers and the supported JavaScript makes the solution cumbersome. Silverlight is meant for RIA experience. User data storage on client end In HTML only small amount of data can be stored that too in cookies. In Silverlight large data may be stored, that too in secure way. This increases the response time. Post back In HTML / JavaScript the post back can be stopped by use of AJAX. Extensive use of AJAX can be a bottleneck as browser stack is used for the calls. Both look and feel and data travel over network.                           In Silverlight everything run the client side. Calls are made to server ONLY for data; which also reduces network traffic in long run. 2. For Developers Coding effort HTML / JavaScript can take considerable amount to code if features (requirements) are rich. For AJAX like interfaces; knowledge of third party kits like DOJO / Yahoo UI / JQuery is required which has steep learning curve. ASP .Net coding world revolves mostly along <table> tags for alignments whereas most popular tools provide <div> tags; which requires lots of tweaking. AJAX calls can be a bottlenecks for performance, if the calls are many. In Silverlight; coding is in C#, which is managed code. XAML is also very intuitive and Blend can be used to provide look and feel. Event handling is much clean than in JavaScript. Provides for many clean patterns like MVVM and composable application. Each call to server is asynchronous in silverlight. AJAX is in built into silverlight. Threading can be done at the client side itself to provide for better responsiveness; etc. Debugging Debugging in HTML / JavaScript is difficult. As JavaScript is interpreted; there is NO compile time error handling. Debugging in Silverlight is very helpful. As it is compiled; it provides rich features for both compile time and run time error handling. Multi -targeting browsers HTML / JavaScript have different rendering behaviours in different browsers / and their versions. JavaScript have to be written to sublime the differences in browser behaviours. Silverlight works exactly the same in all browsers and works on almost all popular browser. Multi-targeting desktop No support in HTML / JavaScript Silverlight is very close to WPF. Bot the platform may be easily targeted while maintaining the same source code. Rich toolkit HTML /JavaScript have limited toolkit as controls Silverlight provides a rich set of controls including graphs, audio, video, layout, etc. 3. For Architects Design Patterns Silverlight provides for patterns like MVVM (MVC) and rich (fat)  client architecture. This segregates the "separation of concern" very clearly. Client (silverlight) does what it is expected to do and server does what it is expected of. In HTML / JavaScript world most of the processing is done on the server side. Extensibility Silverlight provides great deal of extensibility as custom controls may be made. Extensibility is NOT restricted by browser but by the plug-in silverlight runs in. HTML / JavaScript works in a certain way and extensibility is generally done on the server side rather than client end. Client side is restricted by the limitations of the browser. Performance Silverlight provides localized storage which may be used for cached data storage. this reduces the response time. As processing can be done on client side itself; there is no need for server round trips. this decreases the round about time. Look and feel of the application is downloaded ONLY initially, afterwards ONLY data is fetched form the server. Security Silverlight is compiled code downloaded as .XAP; As compared to HTML / JavaScript, it provides more secure sandboxed approach. Cross - scripting is inherently prohibited in silverlight by default. If proper guidelines are followed silverlight provides much robust security mechanism as against HTML / JavaScript world. For example; knowing server Address in obfuscated JavaScript is easier than a compressed compiled obfuscated silverlight .XAP file. Some of these like (offline and Canvas support) will be available in HTML5. However, the timelines are not encouraging at all. According to Ian Hickson, editor of the HTML5 specification, the specification to reach the W3C Candidate Recommendation stage during 2012, and W3C Recommendation in the year 2022 or later. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5 for details. The above is MY opinion. I will love to hear yours; do let me know via comments. Technorati Tags: Silverlight

    Read the article

  • Where to draw the line between development-led security and administration-led security?

    - by haylem
    There are cases where you have the opportunity, as a developer, to enforce stricter security features and protections on a software, though they could very well be managed at an environmental level (ie, the operating system would take care of it). Where would you say you draw the line, and what elements do you factor in your decision? Concrete Examples User Management is the OS's responsibility Not exactly meant as a security feature, but in a similar case Google Chrome used to not allow separate profiles. The invoked reason (though it now supports multiple profiles for a same OS user) used to be that user management was the operating system's responsibility. Disabling Web-Form Fields A recurrent request I see addressed online is to have auto-completion be disabled on form fields. Auto-completion didn't exist in old browsers, and was a welcome feature at the time it was introduced for people who needed to fill in forms often. But it also brought in some security concerns, and so some browsers started to implement, on top of the (obviously needed) setting in their own preference/customization panel, an autocomplete attribute for form or input fields. And this has now been introduced into the upcoming HTML5 standard. For browsers who do not listen to this attribute, strange hacks *\ are offered, like generating unique IDs and names for fields to avoid them from being suggested in future forms (which comes with another herd of issues, like polluting your local auto-fill cache and not preventing a password from being stored in it, but instead probably duplicating its occurences). In this particular case, and others, I'd argue that this is a user setting and that it's the user's desire and the user's responsibility to enable or disable auto-fill (by disabling the feature altogether). And if it is based on an internal policy and security requirement in a corporate environment, then substitute the user for the administrator in the above. I assume it could be counter-argued that the user may want to access non-critical applications (or sites) with this handy feature enabled, and critical applications with this feature disabled. But then I'd think that's what security zones are for (in some browsers), or the sign that you need a more secure (and dedicated) environment / account to use these applications. * I obviously don't deny the ingenuity of the people who were forced to find workarounds, just the necessity of said workarounds. Questions That was a tad long-winded, so I guess my questions are: Would you in general consider it to be the application's (hence, the developer's) responsiblity? Where do you draw the line, if not in the "general" case?

    Read the article

  • Development-led security vs administration-led security in a software product?

    - by haylem
    There are cases where you have the opportunity, as a developer, to enforce stricter security features and protections on a software, though they could very well be managed at an environmental level (ie, the operating system would take care of it). Where would you say you draw the line, and what elements do you factor in your decision? Concrete Examples User Management is the OS's responsibility Not exactly meant as a security feature, but in a similar case Google Chrome used to not allow separate profiles. The invoked reason (though it now supports multiple profiles for a same OS user) used to be that user management was the operating system's responsibility. Disabling Web-Form Fields A recurrent request I see addressed online is to have auto-completion be disabled on form fields. Auto-completion didn't exist in old browsers, and was a welcome feature at the time it was introduced for people who needed to fill in forms often. But it also brought in some security concerns, and so some browsers started to implement, on top of the (obviously needed) setting in their own preference/customization panel, an autocomplete attribute for form or input fields. And this has now been introduced into the upcoming HTML5 standard. For browsers that do not listen to this attribute, strange hacks* are offered, like generating unique IDs and names for fields to avoid them from being suggested in future forms (which comes with another herd of issues, like polluting your local auto-fill cache and not preventing a password from being stored in it, but instead probably duplicating its occurences). In this particular case, and others, I'd argue that this is a user setting and that it's the user's desire and the user's responsibility to enable or disable auto-fill (by disabling the feature altogether). And if it is based on an internal policy and security requirement in a corporate environment, then substitute the user for the administrator in the above. I assume it could be counter-argued that the user may want to access non-critical applications (or sites) with this handy feature enabled, and critical applications with this feature disabled. But then I'd think that's what security zones are for (in some browsers), or the sign that you need a more secure (and dedicated) environment / account to use these applications. * I obviously don't deny the ingeniosity of the people who were forced to find workarounds, just the necessity of said workarounds. Questions That was a tad long-winded, so I guess my questions are: Would you in general consider it to be the application's (hence, the developer's) responsiblity? Where do you draw the line, if not in the "general" case?

    Read the article

  • Restore Recently Closed Tabs in Chrome, Firefox, Opera, Internet Explorer 9, and Safari

    - by Lori Kaufman
    Recently, we showed you how to automatically open tabs from your last browsing session when you run one of the five most popular browsers. However, what if you accidentally close a tab or two while browsing, and you want to reopen it? We’ll show you how to easily open the last closed tabs in these five browsers. How To Create a Customized Windows 7 Installation Disc With Integrated Updates How to Get Pro Features in Windows Home Versions with Third Party Tools HTG Explains: Is ReadyBoost Worth Using?

    Read the article

  • How do I make Chromium use Flash from Google Chrome?

    - by Ubuntuser
    Now, that Adobe has stopped issuing new releases for Linux desktops, the only option for users is to use Google Chrome, for those who want to use the latest Flash updates. I use Chromium. Is there any way to get Chromium use the Flash from Google Chrome? The reason I as this question is that I have noticed both these browsers run in the background, so technically, the browsers' plugins are available to use.

    Read the article

  • Best approach to creating self-updating content - i.e. chat rooms, shoutboxes and so on

    - by Anonymous -
    The only way I can think of to have a shoutbox or similar element update itself when somebody posts a new 'shout' and it needs to be loaded in everyone else's browsers is to have Javascript check every x seconds for any updates... This could get a bit resource intensive though I expect if many people were to leave their browsers open on the page, idling. Is this the only way or am I missing something? I've prefer to stick to only html, css, javascript (AJAX) and php.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28  | Next Page >