3 ms·

> tl;dr: You can now use our searchable database (works best on Chrome) We've really gone back to how it "used to be" :( http://i.imgur.com/NXf6Ibz.png http:/

> tl;dr: You can now use our searchable database (works best on Chrome) We've really gone back to how it "used to be" :( http://i.imgur.com/NXf6Ibz.png http://i.imgur.com/NXf6Ibz.png

petertodd 9y ago
Sorry about that! I'm not totally happy with that myself. I didn't write the website - and I'm not a web-dev myself - but I'm sure the guys who did would appreciate any pull-reqs to improve on the situation: https://github.com/eternitywall/internet-archive-ots https://github.com/eternitywall/internet-archive-ots
uuoc 9y ago
This is, of course, the reason why some worry about any browser having a huge market share over all the others. It becomes simply too easy to decide to just support that one to the detriment of proper open standards simply because 85+% of the usage one sees is "that one browser". And the same goes for any of them, Chrome, IE, Firefox, Safari, Opera, etc. No single one should have such a huge share above the others, or else exactly this starts to appear all over again.
- petertodd 9y ago
  Ironically in this case, I myself kept on nagging the web dev team to try to have better compatibility, as I'm a Firefox user. :) Though as this was a pro-bono spare time effort, I'm not going to criticize them for that - they put the website together in about a two or three days of work, with essentially no help from me other than some design suggestions and proof-reading.
Nadya 9y ago
But now for a mostly different reason: web standards. Chrome is usually leading the pack with implementing new Javascript features, CSS features, performance optimizations, etc. Browsers with weird quirks or that aren't properly written to spec (eg: older IE versions of Flexbox) won't work as well. Some developers, such as myself, think users should be updating their software if they really care that much about some things being broken. If my Javascript uses .map() and your browser doesn't support it, too bad. I'm not including the polyfill for everyone just because some small minority of users need the polyfill. Those users can update their browser. Resources spent trying to support people who refuse to update could be better spent on providing more benefit to everyone else. With rare exceptions, anything that "works best in Chrome" works just fine in Edge/FF. Usually Safari is the new IE6 with everything being broken. In the 'What's Next' section: *>Browser Compatibility Currently the database UI works fine on Chrome, but has issues with Firefox and Safari; we’re working towards supporting all major browsers.*

> tl;dr: You can now use our searchable database (works best on Chrome) We've really gone back to how it "used to be" :( http://i.imgur.com/NXf6Ibz.png http://i.imgur.com/NXf6Ibz.png

petertodd 9y ago

Sorry about that! I'm not totally happy with that myself. I didn't write the website - and I'm not a web-dev myself - but I'm sure the guys who did would appreciate any pull-reqs to improve on the situation: https://github.com/eternitywall/internet-archive-ots https://github.com/eternitywall/internet-archive-ots

uuoc 9y ago

This is, of course, the reason why some worry about any browser having a huge market share over all the others. It becomes simply too easy to decide to just support that one to the detriment of proper open standards simply because 85+% of the usage one sees is "that one browser". And the same goes for any of them, Chrome, IE, Firefox, Safari, Opera, etc. No single one should have such a huge share above the others, or else exactly this starts to appear all over again.

petertodd 9y ago
Ironically in this case, I myself kept on nagging the web dev team to try to have better compatibility, as I'm a Firefox user. :) Though as this was a pro-bono spare time effort, I'm not going to criticize them for that - they put the website together in about a two or three days of work, with essentially no help from me other than some design suggestions and proof-reading.

Nadya 9y ago

But now for a mostly different reason: web standards. Chrome is usually leading the pack with implementing new Javascript features, CSS features, performance optimizations, etc. Browsers with weird quirks or that aren't properly written to spec (eg: older IE versions of Flexbox) won't work as well. Some developers, such as myself, think users should be updating their software if they really care that much about some things being broken. If my Javascript uses .map() and your browser doesn't support it, too bad. I'm not including the polyfill for everyone just because some small minority of users need the polyfill. Those users can update their browser. Resources spent trying to support people who refuse to update could be better spent on providing more benefit to everyone else. With rare exceptions, anything that "works best in Chrome" works just fine in Edge/FF. Usually Safari is the new IE6 with everything being broken. In the 'What's Next' section: *>Browser Compatibility Currently the database UI works fine on Chrome, but has issues with Firefox and Safari; we’re working towards supporting all major browsers.*