InterviewSolution
Saved Bookmarks
InterviewSolution
| 1. |
Solve : Are Internet Explorer users dumb?? |
|
Answer» Quote Are Internet Explorer users dumb?No comment from me. Internet Explorer is the best browser for downloading a better browser. LOLdoes using a browser that runs on the IE kernel count as using IE? They're not dumb, many of them just don't realise other browsers exist because it's the only browser which came preinstalled of machines in the past. I'd imagine Browser Choice is making a difference to that.Per the article: Quote Users of Opera, the Norway-based browser, scored the highest at well over 120. (What AptiQuant called its complete results included a bar graph showing the scores, but didn't appear to have text giving the EXACT numbers.)Guess what I'm using? No. The only reason that Firefox, Opera, and Chrome are getting popular is because their main feature is BASICALLY: -not Internet Explorer! People have started to- for whatever reason- associate Internet Explorer with "bad security" even though FF, Chrome, and Opera have just as many shortcomings in that area, if not more. The Browsers are functionally equivalent, and come down to preference. People like to assume "oh, they just don't KNOW about other browsers" as if there simply being an alternative browser is somehow justification for a switch. It isn't. Having to of course google for the source, Since geek-pm likes to completely ignore the fact that sources ought to be quoted for easy reference, it seems they only tested IE6 users, and from what I can tell, completely ignored users of IE7,8 and 9. This is called a "bias" and after revealing that there is one, the motives of the "study" become quite clear. It's a bunch of people using other browsers that want to make themselves look smart. IE isn't part of the 'browser cabal'. The W3C only has two real implementers: IE, and everybody else. Everybody else, when they're confused about a spec, will look at whichever browser (other than IE) has already implemented it and copy it. Sometimes literally copy the code. The fact that IE has an independent implementation is a GOOD thing, and I don't see how anybody can claim otherwise. What (for example) Chrome should do when confused about an aspect of the spec is go to the W3C and force them to make an official decision on the behavior required and update the spec. They don't do this; instead they just look at what Firefox did and copy it exactly. They also make no effort to get Firefox's behavior codified by the W3C and updated in the spec. Thus: the spec remains vague. Thus: it's fully possible for IE to implement the spec word-for-word and yet show a different result, or fail the "acid test" because the acid test isn't actually testing the standard but RATHER how close the implementation is to "everybody else". Thus: web developers *censored* at IE being different because they have the gall to actually implement based on the spec, when all the other browsers are not. The reason "web developers", at least the whiny ones, are frustrated with IE are: 1) Most of them have the Slashdot-esque generic Microsoft hatred, where Microsoft is a scapegoat for everything wrong with computers ever 2) Most of them are lazy, and (not realizing how easy the task is compared to most) don't want to have to QA their products in more than one browser 3) Most of them value some abstract academic bullcrap like "style separate from content" "semantical purity" "HTML needs to be XML-compatible" over getting their job done. Anybody griping about IE being "behind" other browsers simply hasn't used IE. The real fact of the matter is: -The 'standards' often do things in the most illogical, confusing way possible (getComputedStyle vs. currentStyle, textContent vs. innerText) -The IE developers frequently (and rightly, IMO) call these confusing standards out and make their own version as well, which makes 50 times more sense -The fact that the W3C ignores IE's innovations (99% of the time; there's always xmlHttpRequest) is a crime against all web developers everywhere. Note: Microsoft is a member/sponsor of the W3C, and they get TREATED like crap by them. Oh, and look at the W3C standard for figuring which mouse button was pressed on a mouse event. It's so retarded, your brain will explode out your ears-- nobody at the W3C ever heard of holding down TWO mouse buttons simultaneously? IE, once again, implements it in a easy, rational fashion. Which makes more sense: Code: [Select]element.innerText="hi I am text in an element"; or this: Code: [Select]document.getElementById('element').firstChild.data = "hi I am text in an element"; The former is only possible in IE. the latter is what the W3C recommends in place of innerText. Compare IE's currentStyle property with the W3C's retardly inefficient "getComputedStyle" function-- what is a 12-character property in IE becomes 40 characters and two function calls in "everybody else". (IE supports the standard way, as well, I think, but the "standard way" is stupid and the fact that the IE-specific implementation is so much cleaner is a failing on the part of the standards body. They should be choosing the most obvious, simplest approach, not forcing web developers to use a 40 character properly and two function calls for no reason at all. Another, more conspiratorial theory is that the W3C ignores things like "innerText" and "currentStyle" specifically to spite Microsoft.And, Lastly: BBC: Internet Explorer story was bogus Quote from: BC_Programmer on August 03, 2011, 11:21:46 AM And, Lastly: Next... Are CNN reporters dumb and BBC people smart?Next...isn't this Topic Dumb ? ? ? Quote from: Geek-9pm on August 03, 2011, 12:50:51 PM Next... Are CNN reporters dumb and BBC people smart? You could try reading. from the BBC article. the very first paragraph: Quote A number of media organisations, including the BBC, reported on the research, put out by Canadian firm ApTiquant. But to answer your question, that's a false dichotomy. Why are they CNN reporters, but only BBC people, for one thing. Quote from: patio on August 03, 2011, 01:08:43 PM Next...isn't this Topic Dumb ? ? ?Is that a rhetorical question? Pretty much...now that i think about it.... Note to Self: Turn rhetorical brain alert back on. Quote from: BC_Programmer on August 03, 2011, 11:21:46 AM And, Lastly: Think this story would have made a perfect April fools joke , when I first read it I thought it as to be a jokeThe results of the iq test make sence to me. People who use computers more often in their daily lives are usually smarter than people who dont. They probably dont have as much street smarts but iq tests dont test that aspect of knowlege. The people that have to use computers more often find the need for a quality browser while the peoplewho dont just live with what is preinstalled. I am sure you would see a difference inresults if windows didnt ship with a web browser. Quote from: Linux711 on August 04, 2011, 08:44:06 AM The results of the iq test make sence to me.There was no IQ test. the "results" are fabricated. Quote People who use computers more often in their daily lives are usually smarter than people who dont.No they aren't. THat is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever heard. Quote The people that have to use computers more often find the need for a quality browser while the peoplewho dont just live with what is preinstalled.Again, this is only a valid statement if you assume that Internet Explorer isn't a quality browser. It is. There is no significant difference between IE and the other browsers, aside from what I stated above, that they are the only ones who try to implement the spec independently. Quote I am sure you would see a difference inresults if windows didnt ship with a web browser.Again, the "results" were fabricated so they were only made to further a specific agenda. On that note, I got another link covering the hoax: http://siliconfilter.com/the-internet-explorer-iq-hoax-and-the-state-of-tech-blogging/ |
|