Blacklac
New member
Heh, the Blackberry Playbook scores higher than any other browser (Desktop included) except Chrome on the Desktop. Who fell behind now...
its like the old acid3 test debates. Opera got a perfect score but still could not properly render some sites, especially opera mobile. Now on IE9M I haven't encountered any rendering problems. That site linked was probably designed to not let other browsers access it so that point is moot especially since it was the only example given m
I perfectly agree with the observation you made explicitly by linking to a site that has "experiments" in its name. Chrome is an experiment and should not be rolled out in production. This is precisely why I do not use Google products except the search engine. They are experiments. The GMail even had a beta tag for many years. No betas on my phone, thank you. Go download IE developer preview or whatever...
I think you can answer your own question by the looking at how many features an Android device has vs Windows device. On top of that, majority of Google services are highly revered by the consumers. From Google Docs, to calendar, to Gmail, to search engine and so on an so forth. All of those services were "experiments" that made Google stock skyrocket and secure them giant market share. Just face it, the reason why they are doing so well is because they make pretty damn good software that public likes. You can't deny that.I already pointed out how these experimental features are bad to consumer experience (existing websites break because the implementation of a feature has changed).
Please point out how these experiments are adopted by consumers in the real world. I have failed to see them possibly because I use IE as my primary browser (as a developer I have all of them installed).
I am not talking about Windows Phone here I am talking about browsers in general.
thewildernessdowntown.com
That is the sort of pants sites that really annoy me. They make them knowing that it will only work on X browser. Now this is an extreme example but plenty of developers seem to developer for their own wants and needs rather than working on a general experience which is exactly why standards matter. This business of inventing standards and hoping it takes off is nonsense.
Unfortunately this silent rebellion by these web developers is just making it move full circle, whats worse is you need 2 or 3 browsers now just to view a bloody website. At least during the last browser war you pretty much got by with one albeit IE with its own propiertary plugins.
Actually, that's exactly part of my point. I'm not saying that that particular site is meant to be optimized for other browsers, but I'm also pretty confident no one "blocked" other browsers either. As a matter of fact Safari has started playing the site decently when it rolled out HTML5 update months after the site went online.
But the point is, that there is a large community of HTML5 developers writing for Chrome because they believe that is the browser of the future more or less. They have a reason to believe that. And I already explained why in earlier posts (and why IE needs to catch up fast to stay relevant). BTW, you can find tons of HTML5 projects @ Chrome Experiments - Home
At least Microsoft's site doesn't change your score based on user-string.
Edit: As for Chrome's tests, they are using web kit specific html5 tags. That is not a good practice.
Sent from my Titan using Board Express
Agreed that the browser needs work, but I'd rather they fix good old HTML4 and CSS3 before worrying about HTML5. The fact that it doesn't pass Acid2 is pretty sad.
That's great that it passes Acid3, but Acid2 and Acid3 test different things. Acid3 is more for javascript. Acid2 is for CSS.But it passes acid3, see my post above. Opera passed both acid2 and3 but yet still couldn't properly display some websites that worked flawlessly without compatibility view in IE.
That's great that it passes Acid3, but Acid2 and Acid3 test different things. Acid3 is more for javascript. Acid2 is for CSS.
CSS has been around for a while and it's not going away any time soon. MS really needs to make sure they implement it properly.
If Opera passed Acid2 but didn't display websites properly, then that's probably because they coded Opera to pass it, but were lax on some things that Acid2 didn't test. Either that, or the website wasn't coded properly.
But that's not really the point. The point is not to actually pass the test, it's to make sure that they're implementing CSS properly. The test simply shows that they are not (and interestingly, it also shows that IE on the phone and IE on the desktop are not the same, despite what MS has told us).