Firefox is better than IE

>>It's not hard to implement XHTML 1.1 support. I, on my own, could probably do it on my own in a month, if given an XML parsing engine... XHTML 1.1 should use the MIME type application/xhtml+xml and specifically should not use text/html. My site is not usable in IE for this reason.<< Given the way IE7 is coded, as the blog post I linked says, it would take a lot to make it strictly XHTML compatible. They give a fairly easy workaround for it: Conditionally pass it as text/html if application/xhtml+xml is unavailable. Supposedly it's somewhat easy to make this condition, and it's what any major sites that are coded in standards are doing. I'm arguing that _from the vantage point of a user_, Firefox is not better than IE. Since one of the only things we can know about everyone on debate.org is that they use web browsers, I would think the user's perspective is the default, given the context under which you brought it up. So basically: if your site doesn't work in IE, work around it like everyone else does. While standards might sound nice, it's not viable as a developer to only use standards yet - you must use workarounds to ensure compliance with a variety of browsers, especially IE, since it has the most users. >>IE does now have add-ons, but not nearly as many as Firefox. Does IE have a free adblocking add-on? There are numerous extensions for Firefox that do even seemingly minor things-- one of my favorite minor extensions is ColorfulTabs...<< As far as I know, IE does have free adblocking. It comes with IE. I don't know if it's an add-on. Also, do you realize that extensions are quite capable of compromising your system's security? Unless you go through the code of each extension you use, it is a potential security threat. This is not something users want to do. Even knowledgeable users like yourself. It's probably the same for IE's add-ons. Also, since you brought up tabs, I'll say that firefox does not have Quick Tabs. In IE, just hit Crtl-Q or the Quick Tabs button and you see thumbnail versions of the pages you have up. This allows people to see their pages before they switch tabs, so they don't have to hunt for the right one. Some people use a lot of tabs. >>Firefox is also open-source, and as such is infinitely customizable.<< As soon as you customize the source, it ceases to be Firefox. You can make a Firefox-based browser with any features, but it won't be Firefox. >>Firefox is more secure.<< True, Firefox had 2 less advisories and 2 less outstanding advisories. This is likely because those who attempt to compromise your computer's security assume that you're using IE. The efforts to compromise Firefox's security are far less than those for IE. I would correlate the extra advisories to the increased vigor with which IE is assaulted, not its actual security. The most popular browser would likely be shown as least secure by such data regardless of which browser it was. Assuming that they are all roughly just as secure as each other, that is. >>ActiveX=insecure<< Not so much anymore. The user is now notified and must allow a web page to access ActiveX it didn't install. Also, users must allow ActiveX controls to be installed, so saying that it's insecure is like saying downloading programs is insecure because Trojans exist. Only download ActiveX from trusted sites. >>ActiveX features could be done in Java or Flash<< No, since neither of these have access to your computer's data. at least as far as I knew. Sites that make validated benchmarks often must use ActiveX, Windows validation has to be done through ActiveX, basically anything that needs to know about your computer more than a server already knows. >>ActiveX for Firefox exists, link<< Nice, a test version for Firefox 1.5. Not only that, but it's over 2 years since the site's been updated. While that looks tempting, I'm going to have to stick with a known, trusted source for using ActiveX - IE7. That thing probably does an even worse job at being secure than IE6's implementation of ActiveX. >>IE7's minimalism is at the expense of easily being able to access those menus.<< Anything useful is 2 clicks away, just like Firefox. The 'page' and 'tools' menus contain anything users actually use. Anything I use at least, and I can't tell what's harder to access in IE. Maybe if you gave me something specific that's harder to access? >>If the FF page zoom feature is so bad, report it on Bugzilla. Or you could even fix it yourself-- again, Firefox is open source, so people can do such things.<< We're not arguing about which is better: IE or what FF could be. It's what FF is. Also, the zooming done on FF isn't supposed to be real zooming. It's supposed to be a font size changer. However, this changes the fundamental look of the page, and often messes up the layout as well. Zooming the whole page rather than just changing font sizes looks much better, and is much more helpful for those with bad eyesight, since it also enlarges text in images. Bottom line: It's an advantage of IE over FF. Yes, it could be changed in Firefox. If FF gets changed enough, maybe it'll be as good as IE. Until then... >>But web sites should not have an expectation of looking identical for everyone. If something needs to look identical for everyone, then it should be in a PDF.<< Coming from Mr. Standards? As a web developer, you surely want the site to look a certain way, correct? Whether you do or not, most developers have a specific look in mind when they make a layout. The fact that FF's zooming completely compromises this look is a very real problem. >>Unless the images is at too low a resolution and is made blurry. Users who need such features have alt text available to them.<< Yeah, I could just see my grandmother doing that. "What? Why didn't _this_ text get bigger, but the rest did? Maybe I just have to mouse over it right quick to check the alt-text!" Not all users are computer-savvy, not all sites use alt text that says what the image says, etc. >>The fact that Firefox works natively on so many platforms is just another one of its advantages.<< It doesn't work in a command prompt OS like DOS. However, those who use DOS are a fringe group whose needs are more suited to other browsers anyway. That was an analogy, please see it. >>Again, that's the advantage of open source. You can report it on Bugzilla or fix it yourself.<< Well, once they do fix it, we can have this debate again. Maybe by then Firefox will actually be better for the average user. >>It's understandable if you don't want to program things yourself. It's unreasonable to assume everyone is able to do so. But you certainly could report your complaints to the people who do program the browser. The site you're looking for is [link].<< You can also contact the IE7 devs. Imagine that! Also, Firefox isn't an FTP client. So basically: Site developers make sure first and foremost that their sites work with IE. IE is therefore the most compatible. IE has the ability to be used as an FTP server. IE can use ActiveX. There are reasons (see above) a windows user (overwhelming majority) would use IE rather than FF. There's no reason that the windows user would use Firefox over IE, save for certain extensions not having IE versions. We're arguing the actual browsers though, not possible modifications thereof.