Comments on: WASP Sheds Browse Happy

By: Andy @ Yellow Swordfish

Andy @ Yellow Swordfish — Fri, 10 Jun 2005 09:18:41 +0000

I tried to find out if Omniweb was still native. Thanks for the info.
I am MOST impressed with iCab 3. There is one page on this web log that it fails with (Gallery > The Pearl Gallery) which validates OK, but other than that it is looking very good and does a better job than Firefox. Gosh! Did I really just say that?

By: Kelson

Kelson — Fri, 10 Jun 2005 00:40:52 +0000

Just a nitpick — OmniWeb used to be made from scratch, but since version 4.5(?) it’s been based on WebCore, the KHTML fork used by Safari.

iCab, however, does seem to still be entirely its own thing, and I can’t believe the difference between 2.9.8 and 3.0 in CSS rendering. It used to be as bad as Netscape 4, and now it seems to handle everything I tried throwing at it.

By: Andy @ Yellow Swordfish

Andy @ Yellow Swordfish — Tue, 07 Jun 2005 15:44:38 +0000

Thanks MacManX. The interesting news this morning is that iCab – also a bottoms up browser for the Mac – has passed the Acid2 test. I downloaded it as it was new to me and it looks promising. I like the idea of supporting these. Em,,, I wonder if it works on Intel

By: MacManX

MacManX — Tue, 07 Jun 2005 15:04:39 +0000

Good catch on OmniWeb and Camino. I would say that the focus of Browse Happy should be on cross-platform browsers only, but then again, Safari is on the list. If I had to guess, I’d say that it’s for the same reason that Kelson suggests. The goal may be just to keep the list to a minimum. But, Unadulterated Arrogance also makes a good point when he suggests that OmniWeb (at least) is a self-contained browse made from scratch whereas the rest are derivatives of either IE or Mozilla. I’m sure that the WordPress team has some enhancements in mind, so I’ll put in a good word for their addition, see if they’re interested in adding them at all, and maybe do some preliminary write-ups as well.

By: Unadulterated Arrogance

Unadulterated Arrogance — Sat, 04 Jun 2005 08:16:43 +0000

On the windows platform, there are three main browsers viz. Opera, Firefox and Internet Explorer. Majority of the other browsers are derivatives of Internet Explorer and Firefox, maybe thats why only these three are mentioned.As for Safari and the Mac platform its a complete ballgame alltogether, so there is scope for a few additions there.

By: Andy @ Yellow Swordfish

Andy @ Yellow Swordfish — Fri, 03 Jun 2005 14:19:07 +0000

Good and valid points. It has also been pointed out that they very nearly do focus on just Firefox in any case. But my argument stands all the same. They are either a pressure site to wean people from IE and on to other browsers (which is what they claim) – or a pressure site to wean people on to Firefox – which is what they appear to be. I’d prefer to see them concentrate on the former. Like it is I don’t want to support them but WILL firmly support the efforts of WASP.

By: Kelson

Kelson — Thu, 02 Jun 2005 16:47:57 +0000

The friend who pointed me to Browse Happy back in August brought up this same point: why just these four browsers?

My assumption at the time was that they wanted to keep the message simple. It’s an advocacy site, not a reference site, and simpler messages are easier to convey—and, more importantly, easier to make stick—than more complex ones.

Compare:

“IE is dangerous, so try Firefox, Opera, Safari, or Mozilla.”

“IE is dangerous, so try Firefox, Opera, Safari, Mozilla, Netscape, OmniWeb, Camino, Konqueror, K-Meleon, Galeon, or Epiphany.”

Plus all but Safari are cross-platform, so they don’t have to add an extra layer of “Are you on Windows or Macintosh?” to the mix.

Maybe a list of additional browsers would be useful, but profiling them to the same extent would dilute the message and probably make the site less effective. Heck, if it were up to me, I’d leave out Mozilla too, and just focus on Firefox, Opera and Safari.