Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 14th Oct 2010 21:23 UTC, submitted by addoula
Opera Software Opera Extensions have been confirmed as a feature of Opera 11. "Extensions in Opera is a way for you to easily add new functionality to your Opera browser experience. Developers can easily create extensions using open standards (HTML5, CSS, JavaScript) and supported APIs. Extensions will be based on the W3C Widget specifications and this is being considered for an Open Standard effort."
Thread beginning with comment 445177
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Wrong priorities
by pandronic on Fri 15th Oct 2010 10:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Wrong priorities"
pandronic
Member since:
2006-05-18

As a webdeveloper, I'm not happy that there are still such sites. I'd like very much to see browser technology evolve at a much higher pace breaking compatibility as needed with older, bad or proprietary standards.

But, also as a webdeveloper I have to understand that people will use older browsers (for one reason or another) and my clients will still want to sell those people stuff.

So, for me that means that I have to STFU and tweak the site to death until in works in IE6&7.

I think the same is true for browser makers. They'd like to leave all the cruft behind, to make their rendering engines modern, to implement the latest standards, but the reality is that there are a lot of sites (the majority?) that are made by half-assed webdevelopers that would break instantly.

So, if I'm a clueless user switching from IE to Opera and find that my favorite recipe site doesn't work anymore, will I blame the site for not respecting web standards, or will I blame my brand new browser?

There's a reason that Firefox was successful in the beginning. It was not the extensions (because at the time there were few and less important than they are now), it was the fact that it rendered the current web the same as IE6 while having Tabs, Security and Speed.

TL;DR: You have to be realistic. Sites and people don't change because one browser developer says so.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Wrong priorities
by vodoomoth on Fri 15th Oct 2010 12:22 in reply to "RE[2]: Wrong priorities"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

Fine. I got you 100%. But then we will see ourselves not being able to exploit the full potential, whatever that "full potential" may mean, and that's for a somewhat long time to come.

Although I understand all you wrote, I still think that there's a point where "legacy" should be ditched (for instance, try to create a folder named "con" in XP or Vista...), all the more when 1- that legacy didn't comply with then-known standards and 2- imposes additional work on browser developers. I don't mention the availability of tools to "standardize" those sites because I know nothing about it, I can only guess such tools are more available now that the open source software wave has reached us than back then, in the late 90's or just after...

Sites and people don't change because one browser developer says so.

I don't have much faith in clueless people's will to exert intelligence or simply put their brain to use. I think they'll eat whatever they are served.

As a web developer who has (had?) to deal with such sites, what are the reasons that prevent some of them from "moving on", redesigning, etc? Is it monetary considerations? service interruption? not seeing the benefit of going clean and standard? or else?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Wrong priorities
by pandronic on Fri 15th Oct 2010 13:26 in reply to "RE[3]: Wrong priorities"
pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

Even if browser makers would behave (and they don't, Microsoft I'm looking at you) the "full potential" is still a moving target. Of course, I can only dream of a time when in my development I'll be looking only to the future without wasting time on the past, but realistically speaking it's not going to happen ... ever.

The problem is that change in standards adoption doesn't happen over night and at the end of the day you have to support legacy as long as there is money in it. For example we've stopped supporting IE6 when it dropped under 10% usage, but I have clients that will still probably demand support (and pay for it) for quite some time.

I don't mention the availability of tools to "standardize" those sites because I know nothing about it, I can only guess such tools are more available now that the open source software wave has reached us than back then, in the late 90's or just after...


There is no tool to change bad code into good code. There are better code editors, better WYSIWYG editors, but still you have to know what you're doing. People think that making sites is something that you can pick up in a week or two. When I tell them that it takes years of learning and experience they look at me like I'm an idiot. This is the attitude that's prevailing among customers and it shows in the quality of the code that's out there.

I don't have much faith in clueless people's will to exert intelligence or simply put their brain to use. I think they'll eat whatever they are served.


True to some extent. Clueless people also have money to spend on-line (so we don't want to piss them off) and also don't like change (I know of a colleague designer that works on Win 98, Photoshop 6, IE6 and Firefox 2 - and he's making good money out of the sites he makes).

As a web developer who has (had?) to deal with such sites, what are the reasons that prevent some of them from "moving on", redesigning, etc? Is it monetary considerations? service interruption? not seeing the benefit of going clean and standard? or else?


The major reason is money and maybe a little service interruption. Clean and standard is not an issue. Clients don't know and don't care what happens under the hood.

Reply Parent Score: 2