January 18, 2005
(Updated) Why Microsoft Can Suck Our Editorial
Their Bucking Of Web Standards Scuttles Our Advertising Plan
Note: This post has been updated. Any and all updates appear at the end of the original post.
A couple of days ago we posted some early thoughts on our forthcoming new advertising policies.
In that item, we have some detail on how we were going to approach the placement of ads, and how that factored into the question of advertising rates (a question we're still pondering).
Right now we just wanted to make sure we provided some notice that this is on its way at all. When our policies and rates are in place, and when we actually have advertisers, we will be removing our participation in Google Adsense.
Literally in its place -- meaning prominently-located at the top of the page -- will be a banner ad of the traditional 468x60 variety. Currently, the intent is for this banner to be a "run of site" ad, meaning it will display on every page of Portland Communique.
In addition, where we currently have some textual notes from us on the left- and right-hand sides of the page, we will be displaying button ads of either 120x90 or 120x60 in size. Unlike the top-of-site banner ad, these ads (like the current textual notes) will be fixed in place and therefore will not scroll off the screen when a reader pages down.
Each ad type has its advantages and disadvantages, which we believe for the most part cancel each other out. On the one hand, the banner ad will be one of the first things a reader sees, right there at the top any any given page, below our own logo, but it will scroll off-screen when the reader pages down. On the other hand, the button ads will not be one of the first things a reader sees, off to either side, but they will not scroll off-screen when the reader pages down.
As such, both types of ads likely will share more or less (if not exactly) the same rate, once we determine what the Hell that rate is going to be.
Problem is, this scheme depends upon a bit of CSS -- "position: fixed" -- which enables certain bits of the page's design to remain fixed in place within the browser window even as the reader scrolls down the page. Why is that a problem?
Because the wunderkind of Microsoft continue to refuse to code Internet Explorer to adhere to Web standards, including the "position: fixed" required to make this work.
And because the most popular browser doesn't support this (and other) Web standards, we therefore have to abandon the above advertising placement scheme.
And because we have to abandon thet above advertisement placement scheme, we therefore also have to abandon the advertising rate equilvalency between the two types of intended ads.
And because we have to abandon the advertising rate equivalency between the two typed of ads, we therefore are not going to be able to count on as much potential advertising revenue as envisioned.
Which may, in the end, be the difference between the life and death of Portland Communique, because the advertising revenue is the only avenue currently open to close the gap in financing which remains after taking monthly reader contributions and family support into account.
In other words, above and beyond our general distaste for Microsoft's refusal to properly comply with Web standards, they now are going to outright lose us money.
On the other hand, if Bill Gates wishes to send us a compensatory check for those losses, we will merrily continue along our way.
Update
For what it's worth, what follows are screenshots which show what Portland Communique looks like in a browser which does not crap on Web standards.
Proper Portland Communique
Proper Portland Communique, Scrolled
Comments (45)
luke on 18 Jan 2005
Any complaint about IE is also a great opportunity to mention Mozilla Firefox, for anyone who hasn't heard of it. It works great and is very simple to change from IE to Mozilla. While I don't like being a shill, even for a product they give away, its what I use and has served me well.
Jim on 18 Jan 2005
No friend of Gates am I. I heart Firefox. But still, there are some work-arounds for the problem you describe. Yes, they all have pros and cons and require [gag!] hacks which may not be acceptable to you. But you might want to see one of several ways to deal with IE's inadequacies: http://devnull.tagsoup.com/fixed/original.html
And b!X, keep up the good work!
The One True b!X on 18 Jan 2005
I don't mind hacks or kludges, I mind the fact that my lack of a Windows box may result in my trying to implement one of them only to have a reader tell me it doesn't work.
And yes, I encourage people to switch to Firefox as well. On a Mac, at least (and I assume on Windows), this site renders properly under Firefox.
The One True b!X on 18 Jan 2005
Actually, I've looked at that site in the past week, too. Despite years of mucking about with CSS, I still haven't figured out how to translate it into the specific CSS here.
The One True b!X on 18 Jan 2005
Actually, I take that back. That particular hack (or rather the related one that's supposed to work for IE versions 5 and up, fails because the conditional that's supposed to serve a different stylesheet to IE is not ignored by Safari or Firefox and results in a buggered layout in those browsers.
fwwpenguin(aero) on 18 Jan 2005
More acclaim for Firefox right here. Have you considered using a PHP/MySQL setup for the site. PHPNuke is quite nice across the board for browser compatiblity. You would still use SOME CSS likely though. I can't belive you have done this all w/o a PeeCee to test it on. ouch. Although I understand why you haven't. Good luck on figuring out how to monkey a fix for it.
The One True b!X on 18 Jan 2005
The CMS and database the site runs on isn't the issue. The problem isn't on the server end, it's with the fact that IE is crap.
The One True b!X on 19 Jan 2005
IE users, tell me please what this page is and is not doing.
Jalpuna! on 19 Jan 2005
Microsoft is the great Satan. Period. I simply cannot stress that enough. Microsoft is the great Satan. Grrrrr!
I might be opening a giant can of worms here - apologies if I do - but, it is possible to build a site that can detect which browser you're using and direct you to the a particular page based on that.
Is this possible for CSS stylesheets? I assume so, though I'm not sure.
I own Adobe GoLive and build my sites with it, though I'm doing more and more by hand these days.
Even if you aren't using GoLive at all, this is a phenomenal resource!
Very best of luck.
The One True b!X on 19 Jan 2005
Technically, browser detection followed by delivery of different stylesheets is an option, as far as I know. Problem is, that increases the overhead (even if slightly) when any given page loads.
Basically, the issue is that while I don't always succeed, my goal is to adhere to standards. M$ inevitably prevents me from doing so. The other issue is that M$'s tendency to be crap in this area leads to lost and/or wasted productivity, time, and energy because we're forced to spend all this damned time coding alternative versions of things, or applying kludges and hacks.
And last I knew, M$ wasn't compensating any of us for that lost productivity, time, or energy.
The One True b!X on 19 Jan 2005
Maybe I should just send Gates a bill for the costs of my productivity, time, and energy and see what he does.
no one in particular on 19 Jan 2005
Maybe he'll climb up on his desk and coyly throw a floppy disk at you. God that would be hot.
Adam Saxton on 19 Jan 2005
Personally i just don't think you are trying hard enough. You can do a lot of great things with Internet Explorer that you cannot do with any other browser. As a web developer, there is always a way to do what you are trying. I use IE and thought your site was weak with this browser and i could have done a much better job with making it look exactly like your screenshot with no issue. However, I'd be using ASP.NET to do it. But I'm sure it's possible with other technologies as well.
Lea on 19 Jan 2005
I tried to open the test page and got a 404 error, regardless of which browser I used. Typically that would be FireFox, but I keep IE current because my online banking vendor won't talk to anything else. :P
The One True b!X on 19 Jan 2005
Re: The "not trying hard enough" post. No, you couldn't have made it look like the screen shot, at least not if you were sticking to proper Web standards and avoiding tables. Nice snark, though.
Re: The test page giving a 404. That's my fault, because it was this site's 404 template that I used for the test page. So if you go to the test page and see a 404, that's actually ot wrong. I should probably go add "just kidding" after "404 error" or something, heh.
doretta on 19 Jan 2005
I have to chuckle when you young-uns blame Microsoft for lack of standards.
Don't even get me started on what software development used to be like in the old days, next thing you know I'd be talking about riding my bike home from school without pedaling on Columbus Day or the Great Flood (which did NOT happen in 1996).
If you want to do a code and test session sometime, I'd be willing to provide an IE-running PC.
Aaron on 19 Jan 2005
Let's summarize:
b!X doesn't like IE.
b!X's readers do like IE.
b!X won't code to IE because he doesn't like it.
b!X's readers will see a crappy site because b!X writes code that looks like crap in IE.
Therefore, b!X blames Bill Gates for his readers seeing a crappy site, and b!X not getting ad revenue.
Take some responsibility here. Bill Gates isn't forcing you out of business, your own stubbornness is. Plenty of ad-supported websites look just fine in IE and Firefox.
Surely you can toss a little of your lofty CSS ideals out the window and be pragmatic enough to join the rest of the internet, at least until IE gets some standards or everyone else starts using Firefox.
The One True b!X on 19 Jan 2005
The aren't "lofty ideals" they are standards, and they exist for a reason.
Let's take an example. I could code the site using tables, but tables aren't for layout. Why? Not because I'm being snobby or elitist, but because HTML tags are supposed to designate/describe the content they contain. A table is for tabular data. An h1 is for a header. An ol/li set is for an ordered list. It's setup that way intentionally.
Standards aren't just some whim. And they have the added advantage -- if everyone (read, mainly, M$) adhered to them -- of not requiring people to have to do extra coding just to support a willfully-broken browser.
Why should I have to spend twice as much time designing a site because M$ won't use proper standards? Who's going to reimburse me for that doubled workload? It's a waste of time and productivity.
torridjoe on 19 Jan 2005
The move is already afoot towards Firefox. I say code on the Netscape model, and explain why you are not coding to IE specs. Easy for me to say, but if you think Bill is doing you wrong, don't continue catering to him.
JS on 19 Jan 2005
Not that Aaron's snark deserves a reply, but...
Many of biX's readers, as posted in these comments, prefer Firefox to IE.
Alan DeWitt on 19 Jan 2005
"b!X's readers do like IE."
The hell you say. I typically look at sites in Opera 6. If that doesn't render right, then I use Mozilla. If *that* doesn't work, I still only use IE if it's something I *have* to look at, like a Microsoft technical site for work.
Harumph.
Anyway, b!X, I seem to recall that you use OpenBSD on your server. Maybe you can somehow exploit the OS fingerprinting in pf to help narrow the field a bit? It wouldn't help *much*, but at least you could be pretty sure the browsers claiming to be IE and running on linux were pulling your leg.
MarkDaMan on 19 Jan 2005
I started using Firefox two weeks ago and wouldn't change back to IE for any reason. No pop ups, easing tabbing between pages, it even seems faster, and best of all...I don't have to deal with M$'s BS!
Adam Saxton on 19 Jan 2005
WOW! That's all i have to say. There is nothing wrong with using tables. Following standards is nice but man, you can do what works too. there is nothing wrong with having a Netscape/Firefox version and an IE version. Personally i wish mozilla and the WC3 would just take on what IE can do because it's a hell of a lot better than Firefox will ever be.
I also love how people think Firefox will take over IE. That will be the day. it will never happen at least not anytime soon and not as fast as IE took over Netscape. Microsoft has the machine behind it to finally get the improvements that every is asking for (Tabbed Browsing, etc...) it may take a wake up call for them (which i think firefox will provide) but MS will come around. IE is a great browser and blows Mozilla out of the water... How else do you think it's been #1 for so long. It's not because it ships with every machine... that's such a lame excuse. I know plenty of OEM's that ship netscape along with it. It's because it's better and does a lot more in terms of coding.
The One True b!X on 19 Jan 2005
Following standards is nice but man, you can do what works too.
Standards work. Except in IE. How does that not make IE a problem? On the matter of tables, the reason why you don't use markup for layout is that the markup is supposed to mean what it says so that content is separate from presentation. Not for some lofty ideological stance, but because it ultimately makes the Web better for everyone.
Anyway, moving along, someone in IE please check the original test page which is uing a Javascript-based "solution" and tell me, please, what it does.
In theory, it should: Fix the navigation bar at the bottom of the browser window; fix two text notes to the leftside and one to the right; put the top of the Google Adsense banner flush against the bottom of the Portland Communique logo, rather than being well below it.
When you scroll, it should keep the above "fixed" elements in place while everything scrolls. (Note: The Google bit should scroll with the page, not stay fixed on-screen.)
However, I do have reports that while the fixed elements stay fixed, they "jerk" during page scrolling. So I need some reports on that as well -- one person says that using the mousewheel results in no scroll, but scrolling by other means results in scroll.
myrln on 19 Jan 2005
Since I know squat about the technical aspects being discussed, I will only say that I understand the problem: how do you charge a potential advertiser for one kind of ad which will not be that kind of ad for viewers using IE? It would be more than problematic, it would be dishonest. If on the other hand, however, an advertiser was told of that problem and he was willing to take the ad despite that problem, then there IS no problem. So maybe simply being upfront about it is the answer.
paul_lukasiak on 19 Jan 2005
the elements on the left of the page stay in position, but do "bounce" if you use the mouse on the "scroll bar" at the right of the page. There is no "bounce" if you use "pg dn" or the "down arrow" key however.
paul_lukasiak on 19 Jan 2005
oh yeah, and using the mouse wheel (which I never do) to move up and down also delivers no bounce.
So maybe simply being upfront about it is the answer.
he's a techie. if it doesn't look right, its never the right answer
Jalpuna! on 19 Jan 2005
It amazes me how many people accept 'bad' if it's what they're used to. Using IE is akin to being in a relationship with someone who abuses you. Get therapy, get out, move on.
Then again, viruses and pop up ads might be fun for some. Who knows.
Firefox is free, and it will love you better :)
b!X said: "you couldn't have made it look like the screen shot, at least not if you were sticking to proper Web standards and avoiding tables."
EXACTLY.
Yes, it could be done, but not by adhering to proper web standards.
Adam said: "Following standards is nice but man, you can do what works too."
Right, until the next version of IE comes out and breaks your fudged code. I've had that happen to me in years past (though my code was badly mangled and I deserved what I got. Hey, I'm honest)
Someday, some way, I hope someone can convince Gates & Co to create products that work rather than products that bloat.
Oh, who am I kidding.
The One True b!X on 19 Jan 2005
Ok, so it seems that the most recently-posted Javascript-based kludge works in terms of fixed position, but the user may encounter some jerkiness or bouncing when scrolling.
I'll have to go to borrow someone's Windows box and see just how jarring and/or annoying the jerkiness is.
Thanks.
The Majority on 19 Jan 2005
Wow, All I Have to say is how lame your rant session is. You guys as an entrepreneur should cater to your biggest clients. You work for who pays the bills. Right now on the web that is IE. Like it or not they have 90% of the market. GO ahead hate MS all you want but its not going to change that fact. Obviously you are a mac developer and thats mistake one. Use what your bloody audience is using. I can't believe how pretentious you are.
For this site maybe you have more firefox users, but I would do some digging in your log files. My bet is that you are wrong. I can't believe this website has a big readership anyways. Because in all honesty the site kind of sucks. And your advertising ideas are kind of dumb. Good luck to you.
The One True b!X on 19 Jan 2005
That comment from The Anonymous Majority rocked. I especially liked the part where The Anonymous Majority thought it was a neat idea to attack me more personally bacuse I dared to question its religion.
Neat!
Bob R. on 20 Jan 2005
Part of the reason this discussion has touched such a nerve is that there is still room in tech work for personal design philosophy. That is a good thing. It goes way beyond "Ford vs. GM" agitation because computers are unique among tools in that they are mutable to our desires and expectations.
The appeal of open standards on the web is that they are developed in the light of day, and if you really care about the standards it isn't too hard to get involved in the process.
Ceding everything to Microsoft because their platform is overwhelmingly dominant is ceding control to a few unknown insiders. This dominance is not purely about the marketplace, either. This dominance was arguably achieved through market manipulation. Just because "90%" of the world uses IE doesn't mean it was a conscious or informed choice. It is because, for many reasons good and bad, IE is is the default installation and until you actually go out an install and compare to something else, you don't really know what your choices are.
I think it is fair to say that telling someone who ardently adheres to open standards that they should give up on them and switch to todays MS way of doing things (which could change without notice), is like saying Democrats should become Republicans because that's who dominates the market, and to dispense with any ideas of open government because it isn't going to happen.
Bob R.
Whatever on 20 Jan 2005
After reading your column and subsequent comments, I am voting for you going out of business. You obviously don't like IE, Windows or anything Microsoft and haven't for a long time prior to writing your column.
Your problem has nothing to do with CSS or open standards - your problem is obviously a lack of READERS to drive your ad revenue.
However, I am sure you know that and are throwing a bomb at Microsoft in the hopes of generating controversy. I guess it worked because this is the first time that I have checked out your site. But I won't be sticking around long and I paid no attention to your advertisers whatsoever.
Whatever...
You're kidding, right? on 20 Jan 2005
A lack of readers? What? On this site? Scroll down to the bottom of the page: "164,932 readers, 1555 entries, and 4628 reader comments."
The One True b!X on 20 Jan 2005
Actually, I have more than enough readers to drive ad revenue. I also have potential advertisers awaiting my decision on rates. So again, so sorry you and your M$ religion can't handle a statement of fact about IE. That aversion to fact probably explains why you considered it reasonable to make statements about readership and ad revenue about which you had no knowledge whatsoever.
Carry on. I enjoy the rather flaccid attempts.
myrln on 20 Jan 2005
What could we possibly expect from those stuck with the monstrously problematic M$? Having nowhere to turn after their investment in an endlessly fault-ridden system, they have to defend it.
Whatever on 20 Jan 2005
The inconsistency of the following statements:
"Which may, in the end, be the difference between the life and death of Portland Communique..."
"Actually, I have more than enough readers to drive ad revenue. I also have potential advertisers awaiting my decision on rates."
Proves the following statement:
"However, I am sure you know that and are throwing a bomb at Microsoft in the hopes of generating controversy."
But why am I bothering, you are just a guy with an opinion and a website - who came up with the "Microsoft complaint du jour".
Congratulations to you and the other zealots for reeling in a new person to hate. I hope your anti-Microsoft column tastes good when that is all you have to eat.
Whatever...
pdinxs on 20 Jan 2005
What happened to the advertising that used to be on the site? It was on the right hand side if I remember correctly. Siprelle coding company and many many more..hmm. Just curious.
allehseya on 20 Jan 2005
I dont envy anyone the position of having to please all of the people all of the time.
b!X is in that unfortunate position due to his readership's use of diverse platforms and browsers to access his site.
Instead of condemning the man that provides his readership (and there are many of us in this city) with the information they regularly seek here -- the man should be commended: for his efforts in maintianing those services to the best of his abilities -- while keeping his readership's needs in mind.
Whether those readers are users of mozilla, IE, netscape, etc, or not -- he IS addressing their needs in the hopes of providing them with a service that they DO value.
In light of the many obstacles he is faced with overcoming-- it's a testament to his commitment and vision -- that he continues at all.
His regular readers are grateful for that strength of his character an appreciate his efforts and endurance reflected here.
no one in particular on 20 Jan 2005
Did this entry get posted on some "Microsoft Devotees" blog or something? There's all these people who clearly aren't readers coming out of the woodwork to slam you. Bizarre.
The One True b!X on 20 Jan 2005
The answer to Comment #40 is: Yes.
anonymous on 21 Jan 2005
No, it looks like all of those comments were posted by the same person.
Bill on 25 Jan 2005
It's nice that FireFox follows web standards, or at least more than IE (It doesn't follow all of them either) However, the page breaks standard GUI design practices. The scroll bar should be inside the scrollable area of your web page. The way it is designed, the scroll bar extends past the scrollable area.
You can design it "correctly" with a single solution that works in both IE and FireFox using web standards.
The One True b!X on 25 Jan 2005
If the bottom navigation bar was a frame, the scrollbar for the main page would stop above it. But it's not a frame, it's a position:fixed div.
Bill on 25 Jan 2005
You can use a DIV with the ccs overflow-y property set to scroll and you would get the correct GUI behaviour. However the CSS (standard) only supoorts the overflow property and not overflow-x and overflow-y (which IE does support - non standard). You could use overflow:scroll, but you would see a bottom scroll bar always, or overflow:auto but the content will shift when the y scroll bar becomes visible.
Sometimes the standards fall short of real world needs. I value good GUI design over HTML standards and the non standard stuff in IE makes it easier to code. If anyone thinks that "margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto" makes sense for centering an object is nuts.
IE became #1 by embracing the major "standards" (I'm including the proprietary netscape stuff) of the time and then extending it. I would love to see other products overtake IE and increase functionality. However, I believe that in any software category, a newcomer must embrace the leader and then extend if I am going to be an early adopter.
BTW: overflow-x and overflow-y are recommendations for CSS3 (which IE supports now)