Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Emi]

It probably should be reiterated that they're not saying "no IE support ever," they're saying "not until after v1."

Because editing is magic!

The OP didn't contain it -- but I mentioned it lower down on the first page.

[Shades]

4

Internet Explorer

28,591

6.53%

Why are we worried about IE support, again?

Because the wiki should be for everyone and that is over 6% of the user base?
Besides which as long as your writing vaguely sensible html it shouldn't be any hassle to support.

[Emi]

4

Internet Explorer

28,591

6.53%

Why are we worried about IE support, again?

Because the wiki should be for everyone and that is over 6% of the user base?
Besides which as long as your writing vaguely sensible html it shouldn't be any hassle to support.

I think this has become unclear. We're not saying it simply won't work in IE. We're just saying, while developing, we're not going to be testing it in IE constantly as it is both tricky for us to personally do as Mac and Linux users. However, you are very correct, for the most part IE will do just fine -- infact, currently everything works just fine. The idea is to write to standards and then go back and add in support for IE, assuming it's not a completely pain in the ass to do so -- which for most things, it shouldn't be.

[Kogan Loloklam]

I think this has become unclear. We're not saying it simply won't work in IE. We're just saying, while developing, we're not going to be testing it in IE constantly as it is both tricky for us to personally do as Mac and Linux users. However, you are very correct, for the most part IE will do just fine -- infact, currently everything works just fine. The idea is to write to standards and then go back and add in support for IE, assuming it's not a completely pain in the ass to do so -- which for most things, it shouldn't be.

Which, had that been clear in the first, unedited post, would have been perfectly acceptable. Alas, you expect people to care about edits and non-op statements. It takes longer than the length of a single post for you to undo what you have said earlier.

I find it interesting that we got 1% wiki views from the PlayStation.
(Edit: Just to be clear, that is you in a general sense, referring to the development group, not you in a specific sense, which would be Emi. Emi clearly wasn't the OP, even though he has spent effort to correct the OP in advance of the edit that the OP gave)

[Locriani]

I think this has become unclear. We're not saying it simply won't work in IE. We're just saying, while developing, we're not going to be testing it in IE constantly as it is both tricky for us to personally do as Mac and Linux users. However, you are very correct, for the most part IE will do just fine -- infact, currently everything works just fine. The idea is to write to standards and then go back and add in support for IE, assuming it's not a completely pain in the ass to do so -- which for most things, it shouldn't be.

Which, had that been clear in the first, unedited post, would have been perfectly acceptable. Alas, you expect people to care about edits and non-op statements. It takes longer than the length of a single post for you to undo what you have said earlier.

I find it interesting that we got 1% wiki views from the PlayStation.
(Edit: Just to be clear, that is you in a general sense, referring to the development group, not you in a specific sense, which would be Emi. Emi clearly wasn't the OP, even though he has spent effort to correct the OP in advance of the edit that the OP gave)

Emi is female.

I did correct that statement in the OP quite a while ago.

[Atanamis]

Ruby is a programming language, Ruby on Rails is a web application framework that supports rapid application development.

Which is about all I know.  They don't teach it in college.

I'm sorry, but if you're expecting a college to teach you programming languages you're going for the wrong reason. By my junior year, I had professors throw out random programming languages that they wanted their assignments to be written with. Ruby was one of them, as was Python, Perl, ML, Prolog, Java, etc. It's a programming language, and like any language takes minutes to learn and a lifetime to master.

Because the wiki should be for everyone and that is over 6% of the user base?
Besides which as long as your writing vaguely sensible html it shouldn't be any hassle to support.

The developers don't have anything against IE. If you want to test and bugfix for it, I'm sure they wouldn't complain. If you've ever done any real web development work, you'd be well aware that IE often has massive holes in its support for basic html constructs. This was painfully true for IE6, to the point that even Google no longer wants the hassle of supporting it. To the extent that IE supports html, there will be no problems with its support for Magmawiki as described. Expecting other people to cater to a small minority who use a non-standards compliant tool is really not reasonable.

Why are we worried about IE support, again?

Any detail on what versions of IE are being used? As you mentioned earlier, later versions of IE are far more standards compliant and therefore more likely to work properly.

[Calhoun]

Analytics information of dwarf fortress wiki visitors (since I began collecting statistics, about 6 months ago):

Position	Browser	Unique Visitors	Percentage of Visitors
2	Chrome	56,204	12.84%

Glad to see that Chrome is gaining popularity. I used to be a hardcore Firefox fan, But i'm all Chrome these days.

[Shades]

The developers don't have anything against IE. If you want to test and bugfix for it, I'm sure they wouldn't complain. If you've ever done any real web development work, you'd be well aware that IE often has massive holes in its support for basic html constructs. This was painfully true for IE6, to the point that even Google no longer wants the hassle of supporting it. To the extent that IE supports html, there will be no problems with its support for Magmawiki as described. Expecting other people to cater to a small minority who use a non-standards compliant tool is really not reasonable.

Yes, I've spent years doing web development and if you read my earlier posts you'd realised as I've mentioned the problems regarding IE. The point was the op originally said he would not support IE at all and our earlier comments reflect that. He then altered that to being support after version one provided it's not too hard which we also agreed with. He then posted stats and asked why we should care and hence my reply. Please read the thread before making such comments, it's only short at this stage.

[Atanamis]

Yes, I've spent years doing web development and if you read my earlier posts you'd realised as I've mentioned the problems regarding IE. The point was the op originally said he would not support IE at all and our earlier comments reflect that. He then altered that to being support after version one provided it's not too hard which we also agreed with. He then posted stats and asked why we should care and hence my reply. Please read the thread before making such comments, it's only short at this stage.

Then provide the support to the code base. That's generally how features are added to open projects which the original author isn't personally concerned about. Has he ever suggested he would reject such contributions? I don't see any such statement, but maybe it was edited out?

[Shades]

Then provide the support to the code base. That's generally how features are added to open projects which the original author isn't personally concerned about. Has he ever suggested he would reject such contributions? I don't see any such statement, but maybe it was edited out?

He asked why we were worried about IE support I was replying to that. I personally think that was reasonable even though the author isn't concerned about it. I didn't say he should give up or not do it because of that.

As to why I haven't offered support to the code base the main reason is I don't see the need for a new wiki and feel that it is a waste of time. I didn't say that before because I don't think people should be discouraged from being creative, and it is up to them how they use their time.

[Draco18s]

Ruby is a programming language, Ruby on Rails is a web application framework that supports rapid application development.

Which is about all I know.  They don't teach it in college.

I'm sorry, but if you're expecting a college to teach you programming languages you're going for the wrong reason. By my junior year, I had professors throw out random programming languages that they wanted their assignments to be written with. Ruby was one of them, as was Python, Perl, ML, Prolog, Java, etc. It's a programming language, and like any language takes minutes to learn and a lifetime to master.

I didn't go to college to learn programming, actually.  I wanted to make games which was (curiously) the Digital Arts department (which also owned Fashion, Interior Design, Photography and Film).  I just happened to take a large number of computer science courses along the way.  What I meant was, I could not have taken any class that touched on any language other than C++, a little Perl, and some Java.*

I could not have gotten any experience without studying on my own, which I have learned I don't do very well.

*With a sole exception of one class** that required all assignments to be submitted in java, perl, bash, C, C++, C#, and python.
**Except Systems Architecture which used VHDL--Virtual Hardware Design Language--which I'm sure is very good at what it does, but its synax is worse than MindFuck.  It took three source files to write out the hardware equivalent of an AND circuit, one of which was 30 lines long.  A second file was the input, to the effect of:

Code: [Select]

<< 00 << wait 10 << 01 << wait 10 << 10 << wait 10 << 11
At which point I called bullshit, because any circuit more complex than 4 inputs took more time to write the input file than it did to write the circuit itself.  There was no way to auto-generate this file, no way to fiddle with the inputs at runtime, or any other time-saving feature other than to type it out...Imagine Sys Arc 2 where you write a 32 bit CPU (from scratch).

Code: [Select]

<< 00000000000000000000000000000000 << wait 10 << 00000000000000000000000000000001 << wait 10 00000000000000000000000000000010 << wait 10...

[The_Fool76]

Ah the good old battle between developers and users.
The developers want to do what's easy and fast and the users just want it THEIR way no matter what.

Really though, the bottom line is that explicitly adding IE support tends to add an additional non-trivial chunk of time to development.  No other browser has quite the impact IE will on how long a project takes.

I've seen that not doing explicit IE support on a site can remove as much as 10-20% off the development time.  Not sure how made up those numbers are though.

[Calhoun]

Ah the good old battle between developers and users.
The developers want to do what's easy and fast and the users just want it THEIR way no matter what.

Really though, the bottom line is that explicitly adding IE support tends to add an additional non-trivial chunk of time to development.  No other browser has quite the impact IE will on how long a project takes.

I've seen that not doing explicit IE support on a site can remove as much as 10-20% off the development time.  Not sure how made up those numbers are though.

THOSE NUMBERS ARE 80% LIES.
(Sorry for derailing the thread)

[Shades]

I've seen that not doing explicit IE support on a site can remove as much as 10-20% off the development time.  Not sure how made up those numbers are though.

Probably high for IE 7 or later, for IE 6 it's possible for small projects or as a ratio of the css/scripting work. For IE 5.5 (especially the mac version) it's a wild underestimate

[Mason11987]

The fact that 6% of the wiki visitors use IE has made me feel better.

I was thinking it'd be closer to 20.

Those are unique visitors though, do you have stats on individual pagehits?

Obviously frequent editors would skew it towards the browsers of the editors, but single glance users would not have as large of an impact (just as it should be for future plans).

I'm not sure if my reading of a few posts here is accurate but I feel like there is a little bit of hostility.  I'd like to encourage everyone to remember that it's not easy to guess at the tone of the word of other people on the internet, so assume the best.  Obviously the OP and Emi want to create an awesome tool for this community and want it to be useful to everyone without significant effort.  Obviously everyone else just wants to make sure their tool continues to be useful.