I have read several articles on feature detection and that it is more reliable than browser detection because browsers lie.
I couldn't find any information on why they lie. Does anyone know the reason why they would do that?
As far as I understand it, Webmasters do browser sniffing to find the capabilities of a browser and limit what they send to the browser. If a browser lies about it's capabilities they will receive more from the webmaster, you can read more:
http://farukat.es/journal/2011/02/499-lest-we-forget-or-how-i-learned-whats-so-bad-about-browser-sniffing
http://webaim.org/blog/user-agent-string-history/
The reason is simple:
Because web sites look at the user agent string and make assumptions about the browser, which are then invalid when the browser is updated to a new version.
This has been going on almost since the begining of the web. Browser vendors don't want their new versions to break the web, so they tweak the UA string to fool the code on existing sites.
Ultimately, if everyone used the UA string responsibly and updated their sites whenever new browser versions come out, then browsers wouldn't need to lie. But you have to admit, that's asking quite a lot.
Feature detection works better because when a new browser version comes out with that feature, the detection will pick it up automatically without the either browser needing to do anything special nor the site owner.
Of course, there are times when feature detection doesn't work perfectly -- eg maybe if a feature exists but has bugs in a particular browser. In that case, yes, you may want to do browser detection as a fall-back. But in most cases, feature detection is a much better option.
Another more modern reason is to just avoid demands to install mobile apps (where product owners contol what I can and can't do with content. No thanks!).
Today Reddit started to block viewing subreddits in case they detect a mobile browser in UserAgent so I had to change it just to be able to view content.
Related
I want to add a button to my visual C++ form that will open with a specific browser. So far for links I've been using:
System::Diagnostics::Process::Start("UrlHere")
Which, as standard, opens with whatever your default browser is.
I'm wondering what the process would be to force the URL to open with a specific browser and if it's possible without the use of ShellExecute?
Edit - You are correct, this is C++/CLI. Removed the C++ Tag.
Edit Edit - Apologies if it came across as misleading. Some slight elaboration;
The buttons will launch to application URL's, some of which can only be used in Internet Explorer, others that CAN (and should) be used in Chrome. This is why I need to avoid using the default browser and have different buttons using different browsers when launching URLs
Before answering the 'how', I'd like to ask the question "should you be implementing this?"
By not launching the user's default browser, you are subverting the user's decision.
Perhaps the user prefers a particular interface, and is willing to live with the incorrect renderings that come with it.
Perhaps the user has a browser addon that they really need, such as a screen reader for the blind.
You are requiring additional software installed that the user may or may not want.
Perhaps the user doesn't want Chrome. Perhaps the user prefers FireFox.
You are saying that you know which browser is best, now and forever.
What if the next version of IE makes it work with the sites that are currently Chrome-only? What if the next version of Chrome fixes the sites that are currently IE-only?
What if the site changes so that it works in more browsers?
Do you go back and release a new version of your software that changes the browser for particular sites?
You're trying to solve a problem that may already be fixed.
Both Chrome and Firefox support a addon that will render a tab using the IE engine. It can be set to automatically activate when certain URLs are seen.
Perhaps there is a browser that already works with all your sites, that you don't know about.
Therefore, my recommendation is no, do not do this. The user has decided which browser they want to use, respect that decision and use the default browser.
That said, here's how you would do it: You could use the CreateProcess method, but you're in managed-land, so you might as well use it. Use the Process class to launch the new process for you.
Process^ browserProcess = gcnew Process();
browserProcess->StartInfo->UseShellExecute = false;
browserProcess->StartInfo->FileName = "C:\\Program Files (x86)\\Internet Explorer\\iexplore.exe";
browserProcess->StartInfo->Arguments = "http://www.google.com";
browserProcess->Start();
I've been doing a lot of research on this, but I figure I could crowd-source with what I have and see if anyone can offer additions to what I have. So I want to be able to determine page load time using JS. Not just page load as a single number, but as a breakdown.
First what I found was a new W3C Specification (Draft):
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webperf/raw-file/tip/specs/NavigationTiming/Overview.html
This would be perfect, however its limited to Chrome, and IE, and it's still inconsistent between the browsers.
But now I have found Real User Monitoring (RUM) by New Relic that is based off of a Javascript Library by Steve Souders. From what I can tell they can determine the same data that I saw from the new w3c Draft.
It seems that they are using HTTP Archive: http://code.google.com/p/httparchive/
However, I cannot seem to find any information on page performance or load, so I wasn't sure if I was looking at the correct library.
Now of course, if there is anything else out there, that could provide more information on page profiling, I am welcomed to the information.
Have a look at Boomerang.js (https://github.com/yahoo/boomerang) by Yahoo.
Should allow you to roll your own RUM and does graceful degradation so you should still get some information from browsers without navigation.timing.
Also if you've got access to Windows have a play with dynatrace's tools - gives quite a good insight into what it going on during page load (in IE and FF)
I am looking for something that will help me learn how to set up my site so that when people go to it there is the regular version and the mobile version. Problem I am having is that most of the sites I see on google are pay sites that help you set that up. Can I just make two versions of my site and load them both on my hosting? Also how does it know when to load the mobile versus the regular? These are the types of things I am looking to learn, any suggestions of places to start?
Please please please make sure you do the following:
Only do a mobile version if it adds value.
If a user requests a deep link from a mobile device, don't redirect to the mobile home page
Allow the user to choose to view the full version
Make sure tablets such as the iPad uses the full version by default
Don't serve WML to the hi-res smartphones such as the iPhone
If your full sized website is unusable on a phone, consider tweaking it to be more suitable (don't print content text too wide).
Modern iPhones and iPads are perfectly capable of handling most full sized websites, there is little need for a mobile version unless it actually improves the user experience. I hate to get redirected to a baby interface that doesn't provide the information I need.
Good examples of mobile versions include:
Google website
Gmail website
Mediocre examples include:
Any blogpress site
Bad examples include
anything that uses WML
Here's Apple's advice on providing mobile versions to the iPad:
Note that the Safari on iPad user
agent string contains the word
"Mobile", but does not contain the
word "iPhone". If you are currently
serving mobile content to any browser
that self-identifies as "Mobile", you
should modify your user agent string
checks to look for iPad and avoid
sending it the wrong version of your
site. The version numbers in this
string are subject to change over time
as new versions of Safari on iPad
become available, so any code that
checks the user agent string should
not rely on version numbers.
Something to look into would be the #mobile css media type, which is used to load a different styles when loading in a mobile device. I am not sure which devices support it, but I imagine it would be most of the popular models. As far as your suggestion, you can certainly host two separate sites, but I would defiantly go through Alex's suggestions before you go through the trouble.
http://www.w3.org/TR/css-mobile/
Alex had some good suggestions, but if you really want to serve up a specific version based on mobile or non-mobile you can take a look at the http header. In some cases the User Agent will give it away, but not always. Check out this link for details: http://detectmobilebrowsers.mobi/
I was thinking to add meta tag always in all the websites.
That will trigger google chorme frame to load for users who already installed. I can see the benefits but is there any concerns or facts that I should know before I do that?
Testing in google chrome is enough or testing in google chrome frame explicitly required?
Thanks
Note: please do not mention current know problems "print" and "download" issue. I'm sure those will get fixed soon :)
The only argument against chrome frame that I have seen so far is Microsoft's - "Google Chrome Frame running as a plugin has doubled the attach area for malware and malicious scripts."
Also, you may run into problems with frames. If you have chrome frame on your page and someone has that page iframed on their site you may run into some problems. More info:
http://groups.google.com/group/google-chrome-frame/browse_thread/thread/d5ffe442658bc60e/e6d7a4c1c179c931?lnk=gst&q=iframe
You should only need to test in Chrome Frame for (X)HTML, CSS, and JavaScript...basic stuff. If you are using AJAX (while trying not to break the back button), worried about caching, cookies (accessed via javascript), or other potentially browser-specific browser interactions I suggest testing on the IE+CF platform...at least until the CF team announces 100% interoperability between CF and IE.
Check out the CF Google group for more issues.
Are there any concerns or facts you should know? Yes: Not everyone has Google Chrome Frame installed.
You are adding a new user agent that you will need to test and debug against, without removing the need to test and debug the user experience for other browsers (notably plain IE by itself).
If you don't make the IE user experience equivalent to the Google Chrome experience, then you are alienating a significant percentage of users. Depending on your website and its expected users, the impact of this may range from undesirable to unacceptable. If you do make the user experience equivalent, then there is no point in adding the meta tag.
I'm tyring to get phonegap up and running on blackberry storm (9530 simulator). I had been testing my webapp from withing BB's built in browser, and it was looking ok, but then it totally bit once I tried to look at the some code from within phonegap, even though I was pointing phonegap to the same url (I hadn't yet gotten to the point of running code locally on the device).
I tried a test case on google and got similiar results. see below. I suspect that I'm missing something basic here. I would have expect both images to be nearly identical.
Browser
http://www.eleganttechnologies.com/outside/ImgDeviceBB9530WebGoogle.jpg
Phonegap
http://www.eleganttechnologies.com/outside/ImgDeviceBB9530PgGoogle.jpg
[Update]
To shed some light on what is happening, I ran the browser and the embedded browser (phonegap) against the W3 mobile web acid test: http://www.w3.org/2008/06/mobile-test/
I definitely notice differences between the two, but I don't yet know the 'why' and the 'how-to-address'.
Acid via built-in browser
(source: eleganttechnologies.com)
BTW - I ran this earlier today and got a couple more green square than just now.
Acid via browser embedded into phonegap
http://www.eleganttechnologies.com/outside/ImgDeviceBb9530PgAcid.jpg
Disclaimer: I don't know anything about phonegap, but have a pretty good theory. By default the embedded browser control on BlackBerry uses an older version of the rendering engine than the BlackBerry browser itself does.
At the BlackBerry developer conference last year, a talk was given about this, and there's an undocumented option to use the newer rendering engine. \
The option ID is 17000 (yes, a magic number, which could change, use at your own risk etc), and should be set to true. Not sure how you'd pass this option through phonegap (I'm not familiar with the toolkit) but using the BlackBerry APIs it's something like:
BrowserContent content;
...
content.getRenderingOptions().setProperty(RenderingOptions.CORE_OPTIONS_GUID, 17000, true);
I don't know the specifics of the browsers you are using, but I do know that most of the big sites will detect your OS + browser combination to decide what HTML to show you.
If Google is seeing a different user agent, you might get a generic mobile version of the HTML instead os the Blackberry specific HTML you get for the built in browser.
If you have access to a web server, try hitting it with both browser setups and see if there is any difference in the log file. That might tell you something interesting.
As we can see in your Acid tests...
One browser (the built-in one) is reporting correctly as a BlackBerry9530, and the other (phonegap) is not presenting the user-agent ["Testing with ."].
In this case, Google is providing you with the default view of their homepage, whereas when you are reporting yourself as a BlackBerry device, you will get the BlackBerry specific rendering.
By the sounds of things, using phonegap is removing the default user-agent (most probably because it's not recognising your device). As phonegap is open-source, the best bet is to get in there, and debug it and find out what happens with the user-agent when the http requests leave the device and track it back from there.
Maybe one browser has capabilities that another one does not?
Hm. By looking at the screenshot I would say that the second page is probably missing some resources. It may be missing some images, scripts and the CSS files, which would explain different l&f. Knowing how Blackberry Browser Field API works, I would guess that the implementation that uses the BrowserField was not done correctly. Just my guess. In addition to that, when the browser field is initialized the caller needs to configure it properly by enabling the appropriate browser features - scripts, styles etc. Again, the API is done in a very weird way, I have gotten myself into this trap once. When setting the options, you cannot just create one mask (like CSS | WML | SCRIPT) and make one call. Options are numeric and, I believe, non-overlapping - but you still need to call the API for setting each option independently.
Also the way asynchronous loading of the resources for BrowserField takes time to understand.
Just my $0.02.