I never thought, I'd have to ask THIS question:
Is there a cross-browser way to play background MIDI files in a website without the need for a plugin?
(Now, please don't answer with "don't do it! it's annoying as hell!". It's for a kids-page and they love this stuff... And I will give the option to turn it on or off...)
I've found several approaches, each with their own problems:
<bgsound ...>-tag: IE only; must be careful not to use with other tag that IE might interpret also
<embed ...>-tag: Doesn't work in Chrome. Firefox requires a plugin, which it can't even install automatically...
<object ...>-tag: Chrome and Firefox require a plugin. Both suggest QuickTime, but neither installs it correctly...
<audio ...>-tag: Requires HTML 5; also not sure if it supports MIDI across browsers...
use a Java applet: Not available everywhere, and seems like overkill
Is there some way to make this work across browsers (minimum: current Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Opera, IE6+, Android, iOS) without requiring any plugins? Probably some clever mix of all the tags listed above?
I am really surprised that this seems to be so difficult. Is MIDI deprecated? Or background-audio in websites in general?
Why not HTML 5 Audio. After all it is supported in all latest browsers. ( Firefox/Opera can have problem with H.264 files ). And in case of Mobile browsers it should more better choice.
One option you may want to pursue is SoundManager2. An audio project based on JavaScript. I use it in many of my web projects and so far it seems goood. Requires a little bit of a learning curve, but the API is very rich and clear and how to install it and use it for various situations.
http://www.schillmania.com/projects/soundmanager2/
By building a JavaScript package for audio within your web site, you won't have to worry about additional plug-ins that front-end users may need to have for their machines. It works with old and new browsers, MIDI files, MP3's and more.
Related
I was surprised to be unable to find a solid resource that documents browser CSS, HTML and Javascript bugs. Obviously there are sites like http://caniuse.com/ and http://www.quirksmode.org/ which take things from the other direction, documenting feature implementation and sometimes noting bugs and partially implemented features, but is there a site which lists known bugs and workarounds on a per-browser/browser version basis?
I find
http://caniuse.com/
incredibly useful for knowing which features are supported by which browsers. Hope this helps
Just to make things slightly easier to find, here are resources suggested so far in the comments:
http://www.positioniseverything.net/explorer.html
– IE 5+ bugs, though not updated since 2009
http://www.paulirish.com/2009/browser-specific-css-hacks
– Paul Irish's list of common browser hacks, again not updated since 2009.
What I found pretty interesting are the different doctypes. Not only that you can trigger QuirksMode (an IE 5.5-like rendering in InternetExplorer - don't know how other browsers handle that) but also that you can have an Almost-Standard-Mode. http://hsivonen.iki.fi/doctype/#Sending%20XHTML%20as%20text/html%20Considered%20Harmful
Here's a list of bugs in IE8: http://jhop.me/ie8-bugs
All the other stuff I found is most likely gone. IE6 is nearly dead (http://www.ie6countdown.com/#chart), IE7 is also used by just a minority (http://theie7countdown.com/) ... now it's just depending on what you want to support. If you still want/have to support IE7 or IE6, I'd look at the links posted by Pedr. That's where I found all the css-bugs, excepted by one - the IE6 PNG bug. But Safari also has his problems with the PNG transparency and the gamma channel :)
PNG Problem (IE6, IE7 and Safari): http://morris-photographics.com/photoshop/articles/png-gamma.html
That's all coming to my mind. I mostly skip the PNG problem by minifying the png and gif files before uploading them into a live-system by using http://imageoptim.com/.
I don't know if anyone listed the JS-Bugs ... I just know of missing functions and that's where you could use a framework like jQuery or something not that blown-up :)
I would like to use html5 video on our site but wanted to find out if there is any way of adding support for IE6 seeing that some of our clients use old browsers. I am not sure if I inherit the js "modernizr.js" whether this will solve my issue. Please advise or may you please suggest an alternative besides flash?
Straight answer? You simply can't use HTML5 video in old IE.
You'd be best using a jQuery solution. There's a great plugin which handles all this leg-work for you called jPlayer:
http://www.jplayer.org/
Check it out.
As already suggested in the comment above, you should utilize some kind of fallback to Flash and/or Silverlight for browsers non capable of HTML5 video.
For example have a look at mediaelementjs, which is working well and has support for IE 6. There's also a chart on their website indicating which technology is used in which browser.
Is there any single framework with which I can build a css3, html5 website that is compatible for all browsers including IE7 and later? Can http://html5boilerplate.com/ boilerplate help me in this?
You will never get the IE7 or IE8 rendering engine to achieve full compatibility with HTML5, CSS3, and other modern technologies. They are simply not capable of it.
However there are some hacks, tools and plugins which can get you part of the way.
Tools like Modernizr will help you by allowing you to detect which features are supported, to give your site a chance to work around it.
jQuery is a great library anyway, but is particularly good in this context because it abstracts a lot of browser differences away from the developer. Some things are easy in most browsers but a real pain in IE; jQuery takes a lot of that kind of stuff and makes it easy regardless.
Dean Edwards' IE7.js and Selectivzr are both Javascript libraries that give IE support for lots of the CSS selectors which were missing in older versions. This allows you to write your stylesheets without worrying so much about what IE supports. (IE7.js also fixes a number of IE's other glitches and missing features too)
CSS3Pie is a hack for IE that adds support for CSS border-radius, gradients and box-shadow.
There are in fact a whole load of hacks along these lines, all aimed at adding features to older versions of IE which it is missing. Modernizr's website has a big list of them here: https://github.com/Modernizr/Modernizr/wiki/HTML5-Cross-Browser-Polyfills
However there is one big caveat to all of this. Speed. IE<=8 is a slow browser. It has a slow Javascript engine. Virtually all of these hacks are javascript based. You might get away with running a few of them on any given site, but trying to use enough of them to give IE anything like full support for HTML5 and CSS3 will slow the browser down to the point of being unusable.
There is one other angle to approach this question though, and that's Google's Frame plugin for IE. This basically installs the entire Google Chrome browser engine into IE. The user is still running the IE shell, but the web page is rendered as it would be in an up-to-date version of Chrome.
This sounds great, but of course it isn't perfect. The main down-side of it is that the end user has to install it manually onto their computer, which means that you as a web developer have no real control over whether it's there or not. So its not something you can just add to your site and expect everything to magically work.
Finally, you may also be interested in CanIUse.com, which gives browser support tables for various features, allowing you to see at a glance what is and what isn't supported in various versions of each browser.
HTML 5 is more an umbrella term for a variety of technologies than any one thing or framework. Really, any implementation you do should degrade gracefully-- and that is what makes the site browser compatible. Detect what the browser supports, and then have alternatives that are legacy friendly.
Check out: http://accessites.org/site/2007/02/graceful-degradation-progressive-enhancement/
And: http://diveintohtml5.ep.io/detect.html
Good luck.
Modernizr is an open-source JavaScript library that helps you build the next generation of HTML5 and CSS3-powered websites.
MS is including it in the ASP.net MVC template projects
html5boilerplate won't help you.
As others have said html5 and css3 are very broad terms, there's no framework that implements all of the features provided by both of these. In fact they are not equally supported in browsers that say that they support them. And more, even W3C guys (who write the specs for html5 and css3) are not yet established on what features they will include or what steps will be required to implement them. You get the idea...
But.. if you narrow your requirements to some specific features, like video, audio tags, canvas drawing, nifty css effects, File API, or others, you CAN find frameworks that implement (or try to mimic) them with available technologies in cross-browser manner (more or less).
What would be the process for ensuring that the code works as expected across multiple browsers. What would be the best answer?
Be XHTML compliant (w3.org validator)
Be CSS compliant (w3.org validator)
Use a JavaScript library that is cross-browser compatible (less direct call to JavaScript as possible)
Test, test, test during development. Not at the end!
Avoid bleeding edge code.
Yeah, I know, many of you will hate that answer. And if you've never worked in a large enterprise environment, you'll think I'm a Luddite. However, I can't tell you how many times the requirements I've been given have specifically listed "No HTML5" or "No CSS3" elements simply because the client was paranoid about IE6 working exactly as the others did.
The obvious overall answer is testing, but I'd go one step further. If you're worried about 100% operation in all browsers, you have to define your standards. For example, if you have to code back to IE6, do you have to worry about mimicking rounded corners, which is always a hack on IE6 and below? Or, will the client accept progressive enhancement such as square corners for those on browers from the dark ages and rounded for the rest of us? Does the client specify fonts that can't be told apart when pulling the page up side-by-side, or do they understand that browsers use different font rendering engines? Is it ok to work just in IE6, or do you have to also support quirks mode? What about rendering with a screen reader (accessibility) or without CSS or Javascript. How about mobile devices? All these were valid and measurable issues with my last major corporate client.
I like Adobe's Browser Labs as my first line of defense for testing. However, it's just one of many steps I take including multiple physical computers on multiple OS's connecting via multiple connections through different network proxies. You just can't test enough....and even then expect to find an error as the site is launched and matures.
Take each browser and test :D
You can use websites like browsershots.org to see how it looks on different browsers and platforms.
The most comprehensive way of doing that is to actually test in different browsers. A simple solution would be to create a virtual machine hosting server, set up multiple VMs, and then install a different browser version to different VMs to fully test your application.
Absent that, there are tools that can emulate (but not fully) browsers and you can test through those.
The best measures to adopt are:
Use a CSS Reset (read about it at the link, implement it however you like)
Use a Javascript Framework like jQuery (This will abstract a lot of cross browser quirks)
Validate your HTML and CSS. Make sure you are specifying a Doctype
You can test most browsers via Chrome, Firefox and IE8. IE8 has an IE7 mode that can be used to test for IE7. Press F12 in IE8 to get the developer window to debug and solve issues. Make sure you are prompting for all JS errors. IE6 is a tough one, but there are a number of resources available that you can probably find to help you with this.
Hope this helps. Good luck.
http://browsershots.org/
thats the site you looking for. You need to put in the url of your website, select the browsers that you want to check and click submit. It will return screenshots of the your website based on the browsers that you have selected.
There is no one way to test the app's compatibility for web browsers. First thing to keep in mind is understand the standards set for the app, define the number of browsers and versions to support. Once we know what we need to support we can keep the following points to ensure compatibility:
Test during development. Not at the end.
Avoid bleeding edge code. New functions that come with ES5 or ES6 standards would only be supported by modern browsers, hence would need polyfills in older browsers. Therefore use the most native form of Javascript wherever possible.
Use jQuery functions if it's included in the project. It helps take care of most javascript cross browser issues. If not included, use just bring its particular function in your project that you might need.
For CSS, try to use the traditional methods of layout and styling instead of the latest CSS3 one's which might not be supported by old browsers(like transform property).
Tools like Browserstack can be used to see the screenshots of how the CSS turned out on different machines.
Actually test on different machines and browsers. Although chrome provides a superb emulator but when code actually runs on that particular OS and ecosystem, then it may misbehave. So the best way to ensure is actually test them in every ecosystem.
Use Tools like VirtualBox to be able to test old browsers and different OS.
There is no way to ensure it aside from testing testing testing :-)
Is anyone writing applications specifically to take advantage of google chrome?
Are there any enterprise users who are considering using it as the standard browser?
Yes, I have started to pay very good attention to Google Chrome for my applications. Recent analytics show that between 6%-15% of my users are accessing my applications (varies between 6 to 15 in different applications) on Chrome. And, this number looks on an upward trend.
Thus, I can't really ignore it for testing right now.
As far as taking it as a standard goes, thats a long way off. I still have to test for IE6! :( Though, we have been planning to start using features like Gears (inbuilt in Chrome - downloadable elsewhere) once Chrome crosses the 25% mark. Thats when I believe that we will be looking at Chrome to be our preferred browser. I hope that we have Chrome 1.0+ by then! ;)
I switched to Chrome and haven't looked back except for the occasional site which doesn't work properly, forcing me to load it in Firefox. All my existing web applications work fine on it, and I'm using it for primary testing on my current development project.
I'm not actually targeting chrome, but I have added chrome to my browsers to test sites on. I've found some odd quirks in this product where some plugins cause the browser to hang, or run really slow in some environments, but they are still in beta in active development. But I definately now make sure sites I work on render well in chrome, as well as firefox, latest versions of IE, safari, Konquerer and opera. I usually check out how it looks on lynx as well, that helps me catch "un-alternated text" in images. Yeah, I know that isn't a word, but some people will understand what I'm saying.
Because chrome uses the webkit to render HTML, you can be assured if it works in safari, it'll work under chrome, however it's rendering engine isn't up to scratch quite yet. I think writing applications that take advantage of it is similar to writing iPhone applications, remember chrome is expected to be adopted by android to make it similar to iPhone. That way it pretty much takes advantage of all those iPhone apps.
Would I install it as the browser of choice? not yet - but i'll certainly work on valid web pages that will render across all browsers.
One of our major customers has outlawed Chrome because it installs on the C drive without asking. They deploy a standard image with a small C drive and large D drive so they can easily re-clone the system part of the image on C without destroying the client's personal files on D. Most software allows you to choose the install directory. Anything that violates this is disallowed, and they're a big enough company to have some weight with most vendors.
We have enough headaches trying to support
Firefox
Two versions of IE which have their own iffy bugs
Safari
I'm not sure why we continue to support Safari. Most of our users (corporate) use IE6 or IE7. We try to make sure that things work in both of those.
Maybe not for programming purposes but Chrome w/ Google Reader makes for the most powerful RSS reader. Can handle up to 1500 feeds w/ performance still ok, managing subscriptions still functioning.
I'm using it on my work machine, but that's about it. It's been stable for me, and I like the barebones UI. I'll still switch to Firefox for the web developer extensions however.
I'm liking some of GoogleChrome- the Start page with your 9 most recent is the winner for me. The interface takes a little getting used to, but the speed is impressive, especially with Gmail.
However, it glitches with Java, which rules it out for serious work at the moment. I use FireFox mostly and have Chrome for the "other" websites at work.
I'm considering using GWT on an intranet project and considering suggesting to the users that use Chrome to take advantage of the enhanced Javascript performance. Any AJAX-heavy app would be a great candidate to target Chrome.
At my company, we're not targeting it, but we're definitely paying attention to it. My boss is using it as his primary browser, and I have implemented browser detection for it in our scripts in case we ever to need to target it for some reason.
Chrome has the .png opacity bug where the transparent parts of the .png are a solid color if you try to transition the opacity from 0 to 1. In IE7 the opaque parts are black, and in Chrome, they are white. Today, I decided to go ahead and account for this bug in my JavaScript. I don't really test sites on Chrome that often, but I am actually using it for almost all of my browsing.
I will target Chrome as soon as a stable Linux and OSX client is available.
Targeting Chrome/Chromium right now, I think is like targeting Konqueror web browser. It will get popular, but you should wait to a more stable beta, and/or some Linux and OS X client.
My website statistics shows 3.xx % visitors using Chrome which arrived just few weeks back. And Opera is only 4.xx % which has been around for several years.
Easily you can see that rate at which Chrome is picking up.
You can see how easily Google takes over all areas of your computing world and personal world too.
Since Chrome uses Webkit, it has the same rendering engine and DOM support as Safari (not necessarily the same revision of Webkit though). By testing in Safari, you can generally get by without worrying about Chrome. Any differences you find are probably just bugs that you should file on instead of work around.
However, because Chrome uses a different JS engine, there may be a few incompatibilities with Safari. So, if you're doing anything with JS, you might as well fire up Chrome and see if there's anything obviously wrong.
Generally though, you don't target browsers, you target rendering engines (with their associated DOM support and JS engines).
I am using Google Chrome, so far all the web apps I have work fine in it with no modifications.
No.
Why help Google further build an evil empire? In this particular case it is so obvious that they do not care about users but only obsessed with gathering usage info.
It's not any major player yet