6 ms·

> Browser not currently supported Firefox that is.

jlongster 14y ago
Wow, what a turn off.
mojuba 14y ago
Just asked one of the developers, they are working on it. There is nothing that stops the web site from working on FF other than additional testing and small fixes, which simply should be done, and is underway.
trailcable 14y ago
Turn off that it doesn't state anything else about the project, or what it offers. Just tells me no, you're not a fit for it. ...
ntkachov 14y ago
I was looking for an new UI mockup tool, too. Looks like I'll keep looking.
- IanHannigan 14y ago
  We are really sorry that you are annoyed by the lack of FF support. We will get to it as soon as we can - hope you might give Fluid UI a try at that point.
daveKearney 14y ago
Sorry to disappoint on the firefox front, we'd love to support it and we will as soon as we can, but we're a small startup and sometimes we need to make tough decisions about where we spend our time and resources. We'll get to it!
- shenberg 14y ago
  Please please please don't require a user of some sort to submit feedback - I don't need another set of credentials for this and you don't want more friction for users who want to help you out. Also, please add tooltips for various icons - they aren't all self-explanatory.
  - IanHannigan 14y ago
    Thanks for that - we wish anonymous feedback was an option - we use Get Satisfaction, it's a great service but it does require some form of sign in. We will keep your feedback in mind and maybe there are other things we can do.
- Osmose 14y ago
  You could at least let me look at the site with a warning that my browser is unsupported rather than blocking me. I can understand the view that this would make you look worse, but my personal response is that I don't want to give your tool a second chance because of the annoyance (if everyone says it is the best thing since vim, of course, I'll get over myself and look :P). If it was truly broken in Firefox I would've been curious enough to try it in Chrome. Sorry.
  - IanHannigan 14y ago
    Fair points.
- jabits 14y ago
  Tough decision, nonsense. This is a total cop-out! Edit: Toned it down a bit, but I hate this kind of thing.
  - ehsanu1 14y ago
    Eh, small teams have to have focus. Of course they'll get around to fixing it in Firefox, but maybe they needed to work on something else first.
    - IanHannigan 14y ago
      Thanks for that follow up - we do understand the annoyance of FF users - we will put that right ASAP. Thanks, Ian
- rurounijones 14y ago
  It takes 10 seconds do add a little message saying: "We currently do not support Firefox but are working on it; for the moment proceed at your own risk, it may not work 100%". Wasn't there an article recently about not treating early adopters like idiots. At least give us the benefit of the doubt. Blocking outright just frustrates those of us who know better.
- darklajid 14y ago
  So.. What are the challenges? Right now, being blocked like this, I'm assuming by default - You sniff the UserAgent (didn't test) instead of using feature detection - You're basing a product on non-standard web technologies and will, like Google does, later provide 'Please UPGRADE to Google Chrome' (emphasis mine) links all over the site, as on this FF landing page. Worse: There's no introduction to the site at all. So the topic says 'Mobile Mockups', but I don't even see an about page, some introduction stories, images or whatnot. I end up with a bullshit message that tells me to install a different browser for a product that I cannot check out without doing just that. There's not much room to present a product less favorable.
- qw 14y ago
  I get that you don't have time to support all browsers, but you should at least allow users to try the app. I'm using Opera, but I have a suspicion that it will work well with your app
SCdF 14y ago
It's interesting that this is generally not frowned upon from the hacker community, even though only supporting Webkit is clearly the same fragmentation issue we've all been upset about for so many years. I imagine if it was "Sorry, we only support IE9" you'd get a different reaction.
- ehsanu1 14y ago
  I would say that we don't mind because we understand that there are many features on "modern browsers" that are not available on IE 9 and below, but yet are web standards (ok, not all the time). Hackers also tend not to use IE, so that also helps explain it. It really only sucks for general consumer-facing apps to not support a large variety of browsers. Otherwise, for specific apps with more tech-savvy users, just supporting a couple of modern browsers is just fine IMO.
  - harisenbon 14y ago
    The problem is that this is the same argument about why we had the "only supports ie6" way back in the day (and ie5.5 before that). While I don't think that webkit will stagnate the way ie did, it's really amusing to see the webdev community repeating the exact same arguments supporting webkit-only sites that we were about ie5-only sites 12 years ago.
- seivan 14y ago
  IE9 is not available on OS X and most Linux distros. Not the same :)
  - radicalbyte 14y ago
    Exactly. The reason that there's so much focus on web standards is because Microsoft used their browser to force platform lock-in. I don't see going webkit only as being a problem: Chrome is available on the three major PC operating systems (Windows, MacOS, Linux), it's free and it's not owned by a PC OS vendor. Now if it was Safari-only or IE-only, then that would be a problem.
alcuadrado 14y ago
I can't believe that demo can't support firefox, it doesn't make anything that special :s
Egregore 14y ago
I think that google did a good job of providing chrome for almost all platforms, so I see it as a good cross platform deployment environment, now better than Java. For most developers who will use such a tool it's not a problem to install a webkit browser.

Wow, what a turn off.

Just asked one of the developers, they are working on it. There is nothing that stops the web site from working on FF other than additional testing and small fixes, which simply should be done, and is underway.

trailcable 14y ago

Turn off that it doesn't state anything else about the project, or what it offers. Just tells me no, you're not a fit for it. ...

ntkachov 14y ago

I was looking for an new UI mockup tool, too. Looks like I'll keep looking.

IanHannigan 14y ago
We are really sorry that you are annoyed by the lack of FF support. We will get to it as soon as we can - hope you might give Fluid UI a try at that point.

daveKearney 14y ago

Sorry to disappoint on the firefox front, we'd love to support it and we will as soon as we can, but we're a small startup and sometimes we need to make tough decisions about where we spend our time and resources. We'll get to it!

shenberg 14y ago
Please please please don't require a user of some sort to submit feedback - I don't need another set of credentials for this and you don't want more friction for users who want to help you out. Also, please add tooltips for various icons - they aren't all self-explanatory.
- IanHannigan 14y ago
  Thanks for that - we wish anonymous feedback was an option - we use Get Satisfaction, it's a great service but it does require some form of sign in. We will keep your feedback in mind and maybe there are other things we can do.
Osmose 14y ago
You could at least let me look at the site with a warning that my browser is unsupported rather than blocking me. I can understand the view that this would make you look worse, but my personal response is that I don't want to give your tool a second chance because of the annoyance (if everyone says it is the best thing since vim, of course, I'll get over myself and look :P). If it was truly broken in Firefox I would've been curious enough to try it in Chrome. Sorry.
- IanHannigan 14y ago
  Fair points.
jabits 14y ago
Tough decision, nonsense. This is a total cop-out! Edit: Toned it down a bit, but I hate this kind of thing.
- ehsanu1 14y ago
  Eh, small teams have to have focus. Of course they'll get around to fixing it in Firefox, but maybe they needed to work on something else first.
  - IanHannigan 14y ago
    Thanks for that follow up - we do understand the annoyance of FF users - we will put that right ASAP. Thanks, Ian
rurounijones 14y ago
It takes 10 seconds do add a little message saying: "We currently do not support Firefox but are working on it; for the moment proceed at your own risk, it may not work 100%". Wasn't there an article recently about not treating early adopters like idiots. At least give us the benefit of the doubt. Blocking outright just frustrates those of us who know better.
darklajid 14y ago
So.. What are the challenges? Right now, being blocked like this, I'm assuming by default - You sniff the UserAgent (didn't test) instead of using feature detection - You're basing a product on non-standard web technologies and will, like Google does, later provide 'Please UPGRADE to Google Chrome' (emphasis mine) links all over the site, as on this FF landing page. Worse: There's no introduction to the site at all. So the topic says 'Mobile Mockups', but I don't even see an about page, some introduction stories, images or whatnot. I end up with a bullshit message that tells me to install a different browser for a product that I cannot check out without doing just that. There's not much room to present a product less favorable.
qw 14y ago
I get that you don't have time to support all browsers, but you should at least allow users to try the app. I'm using Opera, but I have a suspicion that it will work well with your app

SCdF 14y ago

It's interesting that this is generally not frowned upon from the hacker community, even though only supporting Webkit is clearly the same fragmentation issue we've all been upset about for so many years. I imagine if it was "Sorry, we only support IE9" you'd get a different reaction.

ehsanu1 14y ago
I would say that we don't mind because we understand that there are many features on "modern browsers" that are not available on IE 9 and below, but yet are web standards (ok, not all the time). Hackers also tend not to use IE, so that also helps explain it. It really only sucks for general consumer-facing apps to not support a large variety of browsers. Otherwise, for specific apps with more tech-savvy users, just supporting a couple of modern browsers is just fine IMO.
- harisenbon 14y ago
  The problem is that this is the same argument about why we had the "only supports ie6" way back in the day (and ie5.5 before that). While I don't think that webkit will stagnate the way ie did, it's really amusing to see the webdev community repeating the exact same arguments supporting webkit-only sites that we were about ie5-only sites 12 years ago.
seivan 14y ago
IE9 is not available on OS X and most Linux distros. Not the same :)
- radicalbyte 14y ago
  Exactly. The reason that there's so much focus on web standards is because Microsoft used their browser to force platform lock-in. I don't see going webkit only as being a problem: Chrome is available on the three major PC operating systems (Windows, MacOS, Linux), it's free and it's not owned by a PC OS vendor. Now if it was Safari-only or IE-only, then that would be a problem.

alcuadrado 14y ago

I can't believe that demo can't support firefox, it doesn't make anything that special :s

Egregore 14y ago

I think that google did a good job of providing chrome for almost all platforms, so I see it as a good cross platform deployment environment, now better than Java. For most developers who will use such a tool it's not a problem to install a webkit browser.