Internet Explorer 10

42 Worgen Druid
525
I (and a number of others) am still getting issues with the site's authenticator popup on IE10, and the fact that pages don't refresh when I switch characters.

Is it not possible until you have made this site compatible with IE10, that you can add the following meta tag in the head element?

<meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=edge, IE=9" >

That might solve the problem for now.
Edited by Gunnathor on 2/25/2013 8:17 AM PST
Reply Quote
100 Draenei Shaman
11125
Sad as it is IE10 is a step backwards in browsers since IE9 meets web standards whereas IE10 the W3C is rejecting it because it stopped being standards compliment. Might wanna think about going back to IE9 for now man.

These days IE is used by very little people funny enough.

Google Chrome took off like a rocket and now 48% of people use it
30% use firefox
only about 14% of people still use IE with most of those using IE8 and the rest IE9

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

It might of cleaned up its act and not be as insecure as it was in IE6 and so but not before most people ditched it for the more secure browsers.
Reply Quote
42 Worgen Druid
525
The only reason IE10 was rejected is because the "Do Not Track" feature is enabled by default in the browser. The rest of the browser is pretty much standards compliant, (strictly so) and has better support for HTML5 compared to IE9 especially where touch is concerned.

The reason why Microsoft made that decision is because they want users' privacy to be respected unless they explicitly tell the browser otherwise, and I think this is fair. The only issue with that is it hurts advertising, which keeps the web free. There's two sides to the coin here.

Overall I am a huge fan of IE10. Not only is it lightning-fast, but it does exactly what I tell it to when I develop CSS and HTML markup for my own websites. Before IE9, that was a massive frustration.

02/25/2013 02:07 AMPosted by Sundarella
only about 14% of people still use IE with most of those using IE8 and the rest IE9

Those statistics are statistics gathered by the usage reports of w3schools. Most people who go to this website are likely using other browsers due to the horrible reputation IE gained from 6, 7, and 8 (which were terrible I agree) in the tech and web-development community. The overall statistics on Wikipedia show a much higher user base for IE (though unfortunately, many of which are still on IE8 and older).

I hope I don't come across as some sort of fanboy or anything, but it would be nice if I can get a good user experience on this site under IE10. This is pretty much the only site I use that simply does not function properly in IE10. I don't claim to be better than the people who are working at Blizzard, but generally speaking, if your code does not work under IE10 (even if it does in other browsers), there is something you're doing that isn't standard.
Edited by Gunnathor on 2/25/2013 8:32 AM PST
Reply Quote
100 Draenei Shaman
11125
The only reason IE10 was rejected is because the "Do Not Track" feature is enabled by default in the browser. The rest of the browser is pretty much standards compliant, (strictly so) and has better support for HTML5 compared to IE9 especially where touch is concerned.

The reason why Microsoft made that decision is because they want users' privacy to be respected unless they explicitly tell the browser otherwise, and I think this is fair. The only issue with that is it hurts advertising, which keeps the web free. There's two sides to the coin here.

Overall I am a huge fan of IE10. Not only is it lightning-fast, but it does exactly what I tell it to when I develop CSS and HTML markup for my own websites. Before IE9, that was a massive frustration.

only about 14% of people still use IE with most of those using IE8 and the rest IE9

Those statistics are statistics gathered by the usage reports of w3schools. Most people who go to this website are likely using other browsers due to the horrible reputation IE gained from 6, 7, and 8 (which were terrible I agree) in the tech and web-development community. The overall statistics on Wikipedia show a much higher user base for IE (though unfortunately, many of which are still on IE8 and older).

I hope I don't come across as some sort of fanboy or anything, but it would be nice if I can get a good user experience on this site under IE10. This is pretty much the only site I use that simply does not function properly in IE10. I don't claim to be better than the people who are working at Blizzard, but generally speaking, if your code does not work under IE10 (even if it does in other browsers), there is something you're doing that isn't standard.


Yeah I agree with you on alot of the points :) HTML5 isn't a standard yet but better support for it in the browser is good. Now if only everyone didn't have thier own version of HTML5 that work different haha.

Myself I don't like the way IE and Firefox have gone with the menus and tabs and with IE's URL bar squashed like it is beside the tabs in 8 and 9 but like Google's way. I also like the way bookmarks are done in Chrome and actually have my bookmark manager in pride of place on my bookmarks bar so I can get to my bookmarks easy. To each their own is my view :) just remember it might not be Blizzards fault given the IE10 is still in beta and it could be a browser bug.

The last sentence of yours is funny because if you look in this section on the forums at my post you can see that blizzard ignored the first rule of website design. No doctype declaration. If Blizzard can't even get the first thing right stands to reason there would be deeper issues as well. I mean it won't stop the website working but it is the first thing you are taught in web design.
Reply Quote
42 Worgen Druid
525
02/25/2013 03:09 PMPosted by Sundarella
The last sentence of yours is funny because if you look in this section on the forums at my post you can see that blizzard ignored the first rule of website design. No doctype declaration. If Blizzard can't even get the first thing right stands to reason there would be deeper issues as well. I mean it won't stop the website working but it is the first thing you are taught in web design.


Had a look at your thread. I won't answer in it because I could be wrong, but the reason for the lack of a doctype is likely because they are leaving room for HTML5 in their site, but keeping it strictly XML-based.

The doctype between HTML5 and XHTML5 is the same, thus leaving room for both HTML and XML in the document. However, some websites don't like that - they want to use HTML5, but keep it strictly XML. Those websites (and probably this one too) are doing it like this (without doctype):
<html lang="en" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> Or something similar.

Some websites do this (to have a doctype, but define it as an XML document):
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no" ?>
<!DOCTYPE html>


With my own sites I am simply sticking to HTML 5, but using XML elements. HTML5 accepts both, and is a very 'forgiving' web standard. This is also why simply <!DOCTYPE html> is the same for both HTML5 and XHTML5.

Though what is interesting is that forum posts use "<br>" instead of "<br />" for line breaks, which is not valid for XML. There's likely a different reason for that, probably having to do with BML, their code, and forum post/quote validation.

At the end of the day though, web standards have always been iffy. A lot of web developers do try to stick to standards (except in the mobile world thanks to the Webkit monoculture), but sometimes one just has to disobey standards if what you are doing works in most browsers anyway.

As far as I see, there's not much on this site using anything from HTML5, but this reason above might be why the doctype is omitted. I do seem to recall over a year ago this site was using the standard XHTML 1.0 doctype, but was likely removed for the above reasons.

EDIT:
If you put an HTML5 document through http://www.dirtymarkup.com/, and tell it to use XHTML, you'll notice that it removes the doctype as well. So my above theories are probably right.
Edited by Gunnathor on 2/26/2013 4:07 AM PST
Reply Quote
100 Draenei Shaman
11125
02/26/2013 03:50 AMPosted by Gunnathor
The last sentence of yours is funny because if you look in this section on the forums at my post you can see that blizzard ignored the first rule of website design. No doctype declaration. If Blizzard can't even get the first thing right stands to reason there would be deeper issues as well. I mean it won't stop the website working but it is the first thing you are taught in web design.


Had a look at your thread. I won't answer in it because I could be wrong, but the reason for the lack of a doctype is likely because they are leaving room for HTML5 in their site, but keeping it strictly XML-based.

The doctype between HTML5 and XHTML5 is the same, thus leaving room for both HTML and XML in the document. However, some websites don't like that - they want to use HTML5, but keep it strictly XML. Those websites (and probably this one too) are doing it like this (without doctype):
<html lang="en" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> Or something similar.

Some websites do this (to have a doctype, but define it as an XML document):
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no" ?>
<!DOCTYPE html>


With my own sites I am simply sticking to HTML 5, but using XML elements. HTML5 accepts both, and is a very 'forgiving' web standard. This is also why simply <!DOCTYPE html> is the same for both HTML5 and XHTML5.

Though what is interesting is that forum posts use "<br>" instead of "<br />" for line breaks, which is not valid for XML. There's likely a different reason for that, probably having to do with BML, their code, and forum post/quote validation.

At the end of the day though, web standards have always been iffy. A lot of web developers do try to stick to standards (except in the mobile world thanks to the Webkit monoculture), but sometimes one just has to disobey standards if what you are doing works in most browsers anyway.

As far as I see, there's not much on this site using anything from HTML5, but this reason above might be why the doctype is omitted. I do seem to recall over a year ago this site was using the standard XHTML 1.0 doctype, but was likely removed for the above reasons.

EDIT:
If you put an HTML5 document through http://www.dirtymarkup.com/, and tell it to use XHTML, you'll notice that it removes the doctype as well. So my above theories are probably right.


Yeah but even HTML5 for backwards compatibility is meant to have <!DOCTYPE html> as far as i'm aware?

You sure its just an IE10 issue with authentication popup btw? Seem to recall google chrome and firefox having issues where it was very laggy or totally bugged out at times for me haha.
Reply Quote
42 Worgen Druid
525
Yeah but even HTML5 for backwards compatibility is meant to have <!DOCTYPE html> as far as i'm aware?

If you want to keep it strictly XML, no. The <!DOCTYPE html> allows for various tags that do not translate into XML.

02/26/2013 11:12 PMPosted by Sundarella
You sure its just an IE10 issue with authentication popup btw? Seem to recall google chrome and firefox having issues where it was very laggy or totally bugged out at times for me haha.


They are loading what one calls partial views into a 'modal' div using jQuery. Some parts they are loading <object>s (which contain an HTML document of its own). I have written an entire wizard during a project I was given in December doing a combination of both where needed, and it worked in IE10 without an issue.

Its quite obviously an issue with their code, not IE10.
Edited by Gunnathor on 2/28/2013 10:29 AM PST
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)

Reported!

[Close]