This has been bothering me for quite sometime now….

[Gwen]

i use IE simply due to the fact im lazy, and dont care about other browers.

Im with soul on this one. if its copying and pasting one or two lines of code into the page who cares. spending more time bashing IE than it would take to just make it work.

[saadhamza]

Apparently it's the school standard in the US to use IE. I wasn't allowed to download firefox or chrome there. Most people here also cannot use linux, and do not know what a command line is.

[viciousdead]

@Robin:

> It's broken for a reason.
>
> If you're using IE9 then you're not the right material for making a video game.

Yeah, I've had Firefox forever now, just never use it, because I have a favorites toolbar in IE9… Q_Q

[Godlord]

@Soul:

> 1/5 of users here use Internet Explorer. People are more than happy to just flick on compatibility mode for a site than they are to change browsers. Why all the bias against IE9 users? With the same argument I can say we stop supporting every browser for the same reason: none of them conform to standards.
>
> If you look at the shoutbox code, it does about 30 checks for browsers to find out which one is being used, and adjusts appropriately. The hard part about being a webdesigner isn't making code, it's making code that works everywhere.
>
> To be quite honest I could care less whether we force users to switch from Internet Explorer, but I don't feel any compelling reason to do so.

The source code shows me an **excessive amount of Javascript**. Both the [HTML validator](http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.touchofdeathforums.com%2Fsmf%2Findex.php&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0&user-agent=W3C_Validator%2F1.2) and the [CSS validator](http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.touchofdeathforums.com%2Fsmf%2Findex.php&profile=css21&usermedium=all&warning=1&vextwarning=?=en) are complaining about the website.

If the website was made to be conform to the standards, and didn't use an excessive amount of Javascript, you'd have less problems with the browsers that are actually conform or close to being conform to the current web standards.

And there are reasons why Microsoft Internet Explorer is discouraged, one of them is the excessive amount of security leaks, which one simply does not desire. Of course, other browsers do have them as well, but Microsoft Internet Explorer is infamous for them.

Even though Microsoft Internet Explorer 9 is a huge improvement concerning the conformity to the current web standards, Microsoft Internet Explorer 6, 7 and 8 were not, and this is another reason why most people, especially web developers, complain about Microsoft Internet Explorer.

And if you are using a lot of exceptions in web code, then you are not doing the right thing, if I may say so. A website is supposed to render the same everywhere, and currently that is becoming a possibility, where generally Microsoft Internet Explorer is going to be your only exception from time to time (and if it is, I honestly do think you are allowed to ignore that browser, until Microsoft fixes those issues). Because admitting to Microsoft's exception handling, is admitting that you do not care whether their browser is conform or not.

Yours faithfully
  Stephan.

[Medleyy]

Very off-topic, but Stephan, is English your first language?

[Whackeddie99]

@ShawnyBoy:

> Yeah, I've had Firefox forever now, just never use it, because I have a favorites toolbar in IE9… Q_Q

Google. Is. Your. Friend.
Type in how to transfer favorites from internet explorer to firefox.

thats what I did with mine, not hard at all.

[Godlord]

@Aeri:

> Very off-topic, but Stephan, is English your first language?

My native language is Dutch, and solely Dutch.

Yours faithfully
  Stephan.

[Medleyy]

I thought so, but the manner in which you speak threw me off. You seem to be more eloquent than the majority of Eclipse users, who were born and raised in English speaking countries.

Back on topic:
This image seems to clear it all up


[saadhamza]

If the young boys were changed to women, it would be more pleasant to look at,

[Medleyy]


[viciousdead]

@Zonova:

> If the young boys were changed to women, it would be more pleasant to look at,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwp60eYuie0&NR=1

[Anna Comnena]

@Gwen:

> Im with soul on this one. if its copying and pasting one or two lines of code into the page who cares. spending more time bashing IE than it would take to just make it work.

It already does work if the _users_ of IE9 would use their browser properly (activate compatibility mode). Why should websites be modified for people who can't even use the browser they have?

[Myron]

Why be dragged in the endless discussion of Firefox, Google Chrome and Internet Explorer, if you can just download Lunascape and use that browser.

[Robin]

@Gwen:

> i use IE simply due to the fact im lazy, and dont care about other browers.
>
> Im with soul on this one. if its copying and pasting one or two lines of code into the page who cares. spending more time bashing IE than it would take to just make it work.

If you read my original post it's not an issue of that. If it was I would have done it originally.

SMF is one of the worst forum software packages I've ever used. The entire thing is stored in flat files which are replaced when Evan upgrades to a new version.

That'd require me to re-add the fix every single time Evan does something with the forum. Same as with the custom shoutbox and fixing the 'hiden' spoiler tags.

Without writing a plugin and getting someone to re-activate it every time anything was done it'd be a lot of work for me to do when I'm trying to phase out my responsibilities here.

[Anna Comnena]

@Rusher:

> Why be dragged in the endless discussion of Firefox, Google Chrome and Internet Explorer, if you can just download Lunascape and use that browser.

Only the IE defenders are making this about browsers. This thread is about not having to modify the website and forums to specifically cater to some stupid aspect of a single browser.

It's a lot like when people suggest game features for the Eclipse Engine; most of the time it's actually a mechanic only specific to their game or maybe very similar games, but it's argued like it's a neccessary engine requirement.

[viciousdead]

@Anna:

> Only the IE defenders are making this about browsers. This thread is about not having to modify the website and forums to specifically cater to some stupid aspect of a single browser.
>
> It's a lot like when people suggest game features for the Eclipse Engine; most of the time it's actually a mechanic only specific to their game or maybe very similar games, but it's argued like it's a neccessary engine requirement.

Umm, the thread was just a simple question, why does the chat box not show up for me. But that's fixed, I'm using Firefox. I don't see why you guys are debating. Lol.

[Myron]

@ShawnyBoy:

> I don't see why you guys are debating. Lol.

Debates come natural to us Eclipsers.

[saadhamza]

What you mean, Rusher, is that the ability to start an argument over nothing comes naturally to Eclipsers :3

[viciousdead]

@Rusher:

> Debates come natural to us Eclipsers.

You refer to us Eclipsers, however, that includes me, and it's not in my nature.

[Myron]

@ShawnyBoy:

> You refer to us Eclipsers, however, that includes me, and it's not in my nature.

Oh.. I also forgot to mention that taking the Internet seriously is also somewhat natural to the MAJOR part of us Eclipsers.

[viciousdead]

@Rusher:

> Oh.. I also forgot to mention that taking the Internet seriously is also somewhat natural to the MAJOR part of us Eclipsers.

-Sigh-

[Myron]

@ShawnyBoy:

> -Sigh-

-Sniff-

[Ruins of Hell]

@Robin:

> Without writing a plugin and getting someone to re-activate it every time anything was done it'd be a lot of work for me to do when I'm trying to phase out my responsibilities here.

I agree that SMF's system is pretty awful, but I could write a plugin for it/activate it, or Marsh could do it himself.

@Anna:

> Only the IE defenders are making this about browsers. This thread is about not having to modify the website and forums to specifically cater to some stupid aspect of a single browser.
>
> It's a lot like when people suggest game features for the Eclipse Engine; most of the time it's actually a mechanic only specific to their game or maybe very similar games, but it's argued like it's a necessary engine requirement.

outerHTML (error line) isn't standard. By using a non-standard function we were bound to get problems eventually. We shouldn't cater to a browser, we should cater to a standard. Obviously the only way to do that is to rewrite the entire shoutbox so that it uses DOM instead. Don't scold Internet Explorer for trying to follow standards.

Let's stop turning this into a fanboy fight: I run Linux and I use Firefox on it. I don't use Internet Explorer for anything, the only reason I first investigated this is because Gwen pointed it out. It's simply silly to use something that shouldn't work and then blaming IE when it doesn't work. Compatibility is what makes web design hard: not the actual code.

IE is 1/5 of the users. It doesn't fit a small area: it's the highest browser being used here (just ahead of Firefox) and far higher on the global market. We're not talking about changing support for a minority, this is a huge amount.

I'd like to point your attention to this code:
```
var ua = navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase();

var is_opera = ua.indexOf('opera') != -1;
var is_opera5 = ua.indexOf('opera/5') != -1 || ua.indexOf('opera 5') != -1;
var is_opera6 = ua.indexOf('opera/6') != -1 || ua.indexOf('opera 6') != -1;
var is_opera7 = ua.indexOf('opera/7') != -1 || ua.indexOf('opera 7') != -1;
var is_opera8 = ua.indexOf('opera/8') != -1 || ua.indexOf('opera 8') != -1;
var is_opera9 = ua.indexOf('opera/9') != -1 || ua.indexOf('opera 9') != -1;
var is_opera95 = ua.indexOf('opera/9.5') != -1 || ua.indexOf('opera 9.5') != -1;
var is_opera96 = ua.indexOf('opera/9.6') != -1 || ua.indexOf('opera 9.6') != -1;
var is_opera10 = (ua.indexOf('opera/9.8') != -1 || ua.indexOf('opera 9.8') != -1 || ua.indexOf('opera/10.') != -1 || ua.indexOf('opera 10.') != -1) || ua.indexOf('version/10.') != -1;
var is_opera95up = is_opera95 || is_opera96 || is_opera10;

var is_ff = (ua.indexOf('firefox') != -1 || ua.indexOf('iceweasel') != -1 || ua.indexOf('icecat') != -1 || ua.indexOf('shiretoko') != -1 || ua.indexOf('minefield') != -1) && !is_opera;
var is_gecko = ua.indexOf('gecko') != -1 && !is_opera;

var is_chrome = ua.indexOf('chrome') != -1;
var is_safari = ua.indexOf('applewebkit') != -1 && !is_chrome;
var is_webkit = ua.indexOf('applewebkit') != -1;

var is_ie = ua.indexOf('msie') != -1 && !is_opera;
var is_ie4 = is_ie && ua.indexOf('msie 4') != -1;
var is_ie5 = is_ie && ua.indexOf('msie 5') != -1;
var is_ie50 = is_ie && ua.indexOf('msie 5.0') != -1;
var is_ie55 = is_ie && ua.indexOf('msie 5.5') != -1;
var is_ie5up = is_ie && !is_ie4;
var is_ie6 = is_ie && ua.indexOf('msie 6') != -1;
var is_ie6up = is_ie5up && !is_ie55 && !is_ie5;
var is_ie6down = is_ie6 || is_ie5 || is_ie4;
var is_ie7 = is_ie && ua.indexOf('msie 7') != -1;
var is_ie7up = is_ie6up && !is_ie6;
var is_ie7down = is_ie7 || is_ie6 || is_ie5 || is_ie4;

var is_ie8 = is_ie && ua.indexOf('msie 8') != -1;
var is_ie8up = is_ie8 && !is_ie7down;

var is_iphone = ua.indexOf('iphone') != -1 || ua.indexOf('ipod') != -1;
var is_android = ua.indexOf('android') != -1;

```
In addition to that: we have around 15 functions to define code for browsers that may not support it. The entire source is [here](http://www.touchofdeathforums.com/smf/Themes/default/scripts/scripts.js?rc3). If you look at it you can see the browser dependent code for Firefox, Opera, Internet Explorer, Chrome and Safari. They're all guilty of the same thing: they don't support nonstandard function or don't fully support standard function .

Now: I'm done arguing. Until Internet Explorer is dead and gone, we should continue supporting it.