I have developed a html file. It is working fine in IE6 and IE7. When I run the same html file in IE8, the design is not the same and the Javascript is not working properly. It is showing browser's "Compatibility view"?
How do I fix this?
It is difficult to really help you as you are not giving us enough information. Your question is very broad in the sense that getting your website to display the same in all browsers is a lot of work and the reasons why a particular layout is not working in a particular browser are just about infinite.
A few important things to get you started on your journey, though:
Use a DOCTYPE or you'll throw browsers into quirks mode.
Reset your CSS so you can apply the styles you want to elements.
Use a Javascript library - the popular one around these parts is jQuery, and it is the one I personally recommend. However, it doesn't really matter which one you go with as long as you use one. A lot of smart guys have put a lot of hours into taking care of all the incompatibilities between browsers. Trying to do a lot of dynamic stuff on your website with pure Javascript is bordering on masochistic.
Once I started doing these things, making my site work the same across browsers got a whole lot easier.
Give this a read, it details the things that cause IE8 to switch to compatibility mode, and how to fix them.
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2009/03/12/site-compatibility-and-ie8.aspx
You must give us some example codes (or even working website) and do something like:
Website validation (html markup, css and javascript)
Test it on another modern browser (opera, firefox, chrome, safari, etc)
Do you adhere to web standard when building web?
Do you rely on CSS hacks?
Did you know that Trident rendering engine on IE6 & IE7 didn't even pass ACID 2 test? which mean have a lot troubles with CSS implementation...
Then we might be can help you
Related
I am trying to validate the JavaScript on my website. The scripts do not throw any errors and run fine on Chrome and Firefox (latest stable version). However, the animated parts absolutely do not work on IE (9)[*1][*solved]. I have used jQuery and jQueryUI for the animation and had hoped that it would be cross browser compatible.
Usually I would not have cared abut IE users, but liked the idea of folks at anybrowser.org and thought of sticking to a standard instead of using the lowest common denominator and leave the graceful degradation to the browsers / JS engines. My page is HTML5 compliant according to the w3c validator and I wanted to do the same with JavaScript, but could not find an acceptable way to do it.
Why JSLint did not work -
It will not take the page and check it like w3c validator.
So there is no way to check jQuery referenced script. (There are a few SO posts on this).
I did find an ECMA-264 test page that would check the browser, but not my JavaScript.
The question after all the preamble is: How do I validate the Javascript on my webpage? Is there an authoritative validator for JavaScript?
*1 Added: The minification has nothing to do with the script not working on IE9. Even the unminified version does not work.
*Solved: The problem with the specific page was solved by this comment.
This started as "What is Javascript?" got closed here and migrated to Programmers. Thanks to YannisRizos for helping me to split the original question to something that was acceptable between Programmers and SO.
A test suite. No really.
If you want to ensure your javascript runs perfectly in every target environment, then you write a test suite for your code and make sure it passes in all your target environments.
A test suite helps find where your code breaks when run on different platforms. And therefore helps you fix it.
But assuming you want something that is less work, http://www.jshint.com/ is your best bet.
Or http://www.jslint.com/ if you like getting yelled at.
But honestly, no validator will ever be able to ensure that your code runs without error and exactly how you expect everywhere. Simply because your code follows best practices correctly, that doesn't mean it will work in an old version of IE.
Standards evolve, but an old browser that never updates get stuck with whatever standard was out at the time that the browser maker may or may not have even implemented successfully or accurately.
Testing, automated or manual, is the only way to ensure things work universally.
I am working on a project to convert a web site that is fully functional in Internet Explorer 8 and lower, but does not work well in Firefox or Safari.
A lot of what will need to be changed is going to be javascript-related (aka methods that exist in IE but not in other browsers).
What I want to know is whether anyone is aware of a fairly comprehensive list of common things that have to be changed to work accross all browsers.
I am starting with quirksmode.org but I don't think it will have quite everything I'm looking for. If anyone knows of a list please let me know.
Your best option here is to go with a Javascript toolkit/library like jQuery, MooTools or Prototype. Such a decision will save you a monstrous amount of work, and all three are constantly being updated which gives you a large degree of safety against future compatibility issues. Especially for DOM manipulation or AJAX, a library is the way to go.
If you absolutely mustn't use one, quirksmode is a good start. I've never found any single source that is comprehensive enough to keep me from running back to Google for each problem area.
Quite honestly, if you don't have lots of experience doing cross-browser development, I suspect the best way to fix your app is to set up a good test environment on each target browser and starting finding where it breaks. You're eventually going to have to test it on each target browser anyway, so you might as well start there. Once you find out what code is failing you for a particular bug, you can do more targeted searches for how to work around that issue in a cross browser way.
You will, over time, build up a good internal knowledge base of what is safe to use in a cross browser way and what is not. Even experienced developers still run into new issues on every project that are only found with testing. One advantage of experience though is that you start to learn when to suspect that something might or might not have cross browser issues and either avoid it (find a safer way) or explicitly test it in several browsers before you use it.
I find that http://jsfiddle.net is awesome for creating very efficient self-contained test cases to either proactively try something in other browsers or to troubleshoot something that's been giving you a problem.
As others have said, one huge advantage of the various browser libraries like jQuery or others is that they have solved a lot of these compatibility issues for you and, in general, if they document a function in the library and don't explicitly warn you about cross-browser issues, then they've already done their homework to make it safe for you.
You may also find out that using a javascript framework such as jQuery, ExtJs, Prototype, Mootols, ... would be very beneficial in writing cross browser javascript.
a web site that is fully functional in Internet Explorer 8 and lower,
but does not work well in Firefox or Safari
I would strongly recommend to develop with a browser that meets the standards (e.g. CSS3).
The process should rather be: to develop with FireFox or Chrome - and fix all IE versions later on.
Well, this is my daily bread... and ordinary it's IE b*tch which makes me loose time...
Years ago I used to design with JavaScript disabled browsers in mind. How important is it nowadays?
Is it really something you need to worry about? I've never come across a user in real life who has JavaScript disabled. Anyone got any figures?
Having had my own company for a year and working at another for a couple of years, none of my direct clients has ever had JavaScript disabled, in one single instance I've had one of my clients customers have JavaScript disabled, so my current guess (purely anecdotal evidence) is about 1/50.000.
My biggest worry when working with JavaScript is and has always been cross browser compliance, what works in FF doesn't always work in Chrome, what works in FF and Chrome doesn't always work in IE 8, and what works in all of the above... doesn't always work in IE 7.....
And then there is IE 6.
Edit, yay data:
By July 31, 2009 firefox had 1 billion downloads
Noscript has as of September 14, 2010 73 million downloads
That tells us that about 7% of the times FF users has downloaded the browser, they have also installed the noscript plugin.
Edit addendum
Making this community wiki, add your math people.
Edit:
In October 2010, Yahoo! published actual stats.
In short, the answer varies by country, but for a US site, you can expect 2% of your users to have javascript disabled.
My tips would be:
Designing a site with a fallback to no JS is usually entirely possible and not all that difficult. You should consider doing it, regardless of what the statistics about JS-disabled browsers say.
However, don't let this stop you from being creative. If you must rely on JS and there's no workaround, don't hesitate. If someone wants full browsing experience and works with JS off, it's his/her fault.
Encoding emails using JS unescape() is always a good idea. In a JS-disabled browser, just display nothing.
You're right: straight up disabling of Javascript is pretty uncommon these days because it is used by so many sites.
However most browsers have more fine-tuned control; ie to turn it on/off per site, which may still be used by paranoid.. uh, security-conscious users.
Even more likely, there's a Firefox extension called NoScript which is actually very popular. This extension gives the user even more control over when to allow Javascript. I don't know whether there's similar plug-ins for other browsers, but I expect so.
Finally, many disabled users will be running screen-readers or other accessibility browsers which may still not run Javascript properly/at all. If you want to support these users, then you'll need to be aware of the unique environments they work in.
So yes, it is still a good idea to support non-JS users, even if they are in the minority. That said, I don't think you need to make everything work for them, as long as your basic site functionality works (ie add to basket, checkout, etc), there's no need to get too stressed about them not getting the bells and whistles.
The NoScript plugin for Firefox has been downloaded 73,063,406 times.
Your site should be usable without JS (so don't replace links with JS voodoo unless you absolutely have to).
Also people that need special output devices (like Braille Readers) will prefer sites that that work without JS.
I agree that disabling javascript is uncommon and i also agree that it's important to build websites while taking javascript-disabled browsers in mind.
BUT javascript is strongly invloved in modern & large websites now (google, youtube, facebook). without javascript you can't build AJAX supported websites and you can't also use the power of jQuery or any js library.
and if you are worry about cross browser compliance, you might wanna consider using jQuery because it abstracts away the famous cross-browser issue.
personally, i'll be always using javascript in any website i build :).
I'm a bit late to the party, but about a month after this question was asked, Yahoo! published actual stats.
In short, it depends on where your visitors are from, but in the US, you can plan on about 2% of your visitors having javascript disabled.
Here's a couple of general guidelines. People who use different browsers with accessibility in mind, or run in a terminal with no graphics toolkit (text based) are most likely to not run JavaScript. If you want to cater to these people, all you need to do is use JavaScript if you want, but only use it to enhance, not provide the content.
By this, I mean, for example, you can enhance a table by adding sort controls with JavaScript, but don't use JavaScript to parse a data file and create the table. Use a server-side program to handle a database or data file instead.
However, there becomes a grey area, and this all has to do with what kind of user base you are targeting. If you are writing a Chrome experiment then by all means, write it all in JavaScript; it's about the JavaScript.
If, however, your website aims to provide information, it's best to avoid using JavaScript to provide content wherever possible; only enhance it.
I'm developing a web application that uses lots of Javascript and CSS, both of my own creation and through third-party libraries. These include jQuery and Google Maps & Visualization JS APIs.
I've been testing everything in Firefox 3. Things are peachy until it turns out the main target of this webapp is (cue sad trombone) IE7. I'm looking for caveats, advice, libraries, or other references to help make this transition as easy as possible (not that it's actually going to be easy).
I've already tried IE7.js though it hasn't yet shown itself to be the silver bullet I was hoping for. I'm sure that it works as advertised, I think it's just not as all-encompassing as I'd like (example: colors like #4684EE and #DC3912, which are correctly rendered in FF3, are rendered as black in IE7, with or without IE7.js). Are there other libraries out there to help bring IE7 (more) in line with FF3?
A corollary question: what debugger would you recommend for IE7? I'm currently using Firebug Lite, but it runs painfully slowly. Is there anything out there with similar features that I might have missed?
As far as libraries go, jQuery is compatible across all major browsers, so at least you've got that going for you. Without knowing exactly which plugins/modules/libraries you're using, I can't recommend alternatives that are cross-browser compatible.
You could take a look at the Internet Explorer Developer Toolbar. It isn't nearly as good as Firebug, but it's better than nothing.
Get the IETab add-on for Firefox so that you can fire up IE right inside the same tab you test Firefox in. Get the FULL version of Firebug. It will be perfect for you to deal with HTML, CSS, and scripting. HTMLValidator for validating your HTML and CSS. The Web Developer toolbar is a MUST if you don't have it. I can't even go into a fraction of the benefits it has, from images to source viewing to validating scripts it has a lot.
I use a separate stylesheet for IE7. It doesn't have many changes from the original stylesheet, but enough to make viewing in IE7 close to FF. I try not to do ANYTHING for IE6. In fact I encourage the "downfall" of IE6. It's almost ten years old, and full of bugs, and unsupported now!
Unfortunately, Microsoft doesn't really want to be on the same page as the W3C and developers that want web standards so that you don't have deal with what you're going through right now. Regardless of what they SAY, they're still "competing" against the other browsers for control, and it's hurting the developers.
Writing cross browser code is a big topic - you can't really generalize it into "don't float left and padding-left" statements and be done.
Separate stylesheets for ie are messy and not needed IMO.
Generally speaking, firefox fixes broken code in a good bit of cases, so there is a chance that at least some of your stuff looks bad in IE because of open tags that firefox is fixing for you.
Re-slicing a site that's already done might be your easiest way. You should be able to completely redo the CSS from scratch in a few hours tops.
But all this is advice that may not apply - it would be easier to see the code you're talking about.
I'm not a JavaScript wiz, but is it possible to create a single embeddable JavaScript file that makes all browsers standards compliant? Like a collection of all known JavaScript hacks that force each browser to interpret the code properly?
For example, IE6 does not recognize the :hover pseudo-class in CSS for anything except links, but there exists a JavaScript file that finds all references to :hover and applies a hack that forces IE6 to do it right, allowing me to use the hover command as I should.
There is an unbelievable amount of time (and thus money) that every webmaster has to spend on learning all these hacks. Imagine if there was an open source project where all one has to do is add one line to the header embedding the code and then they'd be free to code their site per accepted web standards (XHTML Strict, CSS3).
Plus, this would give an incentive for web browsers to follow the standards or be stuck with a slower browser due to all the JavaScript code being executed.
So, is this possible?
Plus, this would give an incentive for web browsers to follow the standards or be stuck with a slower browser due to all the JavaScript code being executed.
Well... That's kind of the issue. Not every incompatibility can be smoothed out using JS tricks, and others will become too slow to be usable, or retain subtle incompatibilities. A classic example are the many scripts to fake support for translucency in PNG files on IE6: they worked for simple situations, but fell apart or became prohibitively slow for pages that used such images creatively and extensively.
There's no free lunch.
Others have pointed out specific situations where you can use a script to fake features that aren't supported, or a library to abstract away differences. My advice is to approach this problem piecemeal: write your code for a decent browser, restricting yourself as much as possible to the common set of supported functionality for critical features. Then bring in the hacks to patch up the browsers that fail, allowing yourself to drop functionality or degrade gracefully when possible on older / lesser browsers.
Don't expect it to be too easy. If it was that simple, you wouldn't be getting paid for it... ;-)
Check out jQuery it does a good job of standardizing browser javascript
Along those same lines explorercanvas brings support for the HTML5 canvas tag to IE browsers.
You can't get full standards compliance, but you can use a framework that smooths over some of the worst breaches. You can also use something called a reset style sheet.
There's a library for IE to make it act more like a standards-compliant browser: Dean Edwards' IE7.
Like a collection of all known
javascript hacks that force each
browser to interpret the code properly
You have two choices: read browser compatibility tables and learn each exception a browser has and create one yourself, or use avaiable libraries.
If you want a javascript correction abstraction, you can use jQuery.
If you want a css correction abstraction, you can check /IE7/.
I usually don't like to use css corrections made by javascript. It's another complexity to my code, another library that can insert bugs to already bugged browsers. I prefer creating conditional statements to ie6, ie7 and such and create separate stylesheets for each of them. This approach works and doesn't generate a lot of overhead.
EDIT: (I know that we have problems in other browsers, but since IE is the major browser out there and usually we need really strange hacks to make it work, css conditional statements is a good approach IMO).
Actually you can,there are lots of libraries to handle this issue. From the start of the time, javascript compliance issue always was a problem for developers and thanks to innovative ones who developed libraries to get over this problem...
One of them and my favorite is JQuery.
Before JavaScript 1.4 there was no global arguments Array, and it is impossible to implement the arguments array yourself without a highly advanced source filter. This means it is going to be impossible for the language to maintain backwards-compatibility with Netscape 4.0 and Internet Explorer 4.0. So right out I can say that no, you cannot make all browser standards compliant.
Post-netscape, you can implement nearly all of the features in the core of the language in JavaScript itself. For example, I coded all methods of the Array object in 100% JavaScript code.
http://openjsan.org/doc/j/jh/jhuni/StandardLibrary/1.81/index.html
You can see my implementation of Array here if you go to the link and then go down to Array and then "source."
What most of you are probably referring to is implementing the DOM objects yourself, which is much more problematic. Using VML you can implement the Canvas tag across all the modern browsers, however, you will get a buggy/barely-working performance in Internet Explorer because VML is markup which is not a good format for implementing the Canvas tag...
http://code.google.com/p/explorercanvas/
Flash/Silverlight: Using either of these you can implement the Canvas tag and it will work quite well, you can also implement sound. However, if the user doesn't have any browser plugins there is nothing you can do.
http://www.schillmania.com/projects/soundmanager2/
DOM Abstractions: On the issue of the DOM, you can abstract away from the DOM by implementing your own Event object such as in the case of QEvent, or even implementing your own Node object like in the case of YAHOO.util.Element, however, these usually have some subtle changes to the standard API, so people are usually just abstracting away from the standard, and there is hundreds of cases of libraries that abstract away.
http://code.google.com/p/qevent/
This is probably the best answer to your question. It makes browsers as standards-compliant as possible.
http://dean.edwards.name/weblog/2007/03/yet-another/