In article <45a90cfb$0$9718$ec3e2dad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"amicus_curious" <ACDC@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Microsoft continues to deliver tools whose design is intended to
> > punish the competition and snub standards/recommendations.
>
> The author seems to miss the incongruity in blaming Microsoft proprietary
> methods for his problem. He states:
>
> "For example, last night I was investigating the electronic bill-payment
> features on Fidelity.com. The site tries to work with Firefox and Safari,
> but it's inconsistent. Sometimes the pages would display, and other times
> one page would redirect to the second, which would redirect back to the
> first, and so on, until Firefox displayed an error message. I called up
> Fidelity for tech support. Its people said that they would try to help me
> configure Firefox so that it could work with the site, but it would work
> better with IE on Windows. Then, once I fired up IE, I discovered that I
> still needed to adjust at least 10 different settings in the Internet
> Options window before the Bill Pay website would work properly."
>
> He describes a web site that will not work with Safari, Firefox, or IE and
> somehow asks the reader to accept that as proof of some Microsoft
> malevolence. This is just another whining rant from an anti-Microsoft
Also, there is no mention of what tools were used to make the site.
There are plenty of non-Microsoft web authoring tools that will spit out
pages that don't work right outside of IE. It's Roy who is saying it
was a Microsoft web authoring tool, not the article.
--
--Tim Smith
|
|
