In the last week I've found two pages with forms for me to fill out,
that contain little circles. When I click inside the circle, nothing
happens. No indication I have clicked.

The first time I called the bank to complain and to verify what alerts I
had signed up for.

But today, a doctor's office form gave the same problem. On the same
pae when there was a square and I clicked inside that, a checkmark
appeared.

Here is that page where you can see for yourselves, unless it won't let
you in. It probably won't. It's part of a long pre-appointment form at
the doctor's office, but it's not me in particular, so it's fine to try.
https://z4-mob.phreesia.net/z4/WorkflowRunner/wrunner/index.html

When I didn't click in either the yes or no circle, clicking Continue
didn't make it continue. So I can tell that I didn't click in that
situation, but at the same time when there is only one circle, not a
pair, if I click twice, does the implicit checkmark go away?

I have a jittery finger and I think even my mouse is jittery.

I'm using win10 Home fully updated and the latest version of FF. 114.0.2
64-bit.

Anyone else have this problem? Starting when. Is Firefox getting
arthritis?

On Thu, 22 Jun 2023 15:57:45 -0400, micky wrote:
> Here is that page where you can see for yourselves, unless it won't let
> you in. It probably won't.

It didn't. "An error has occurred
We are unable to complete the interview at this time. Please contact
your practice administrator."

> It's part of a long pre-appointment form at
> the doctor's office, but it's not me in particular, so it's fine to try.
> https://z4-mob.phreesia.net/z4/WorkflowRunner/wrunner/index.html

Have you tried clicking on the text next to the circle? I agree that
the circle should work, but this may be a workaround.

Another possibility is tabbing till the desired circle has focus,
then pressing the spacebar.

If none of those works, I wouldn't rule out bad web page coding.

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

On 6/22/23 15:57, this is what micky wrote:
> In the last week I've found two pages with forms for me to fill out,
> that contain little circles. When I click inside the circle, nothing
> happens. No indication I have clicked.
>
> The first time I called the bank to complain and to verify what alerts I
> had signed up for.
>
> But today, a doctor's office form gave the same problem. On the same
> pae when there was a square and I clicked inside that, a checkmark
> appeared.
>
> Here is that page where you can see for yourselves, unless it won't let
> you in. It probably won't. It's part of a long pre-appointment form at
> the doctor's office, but it's not me in particular, so it's fine to try.
> https://z4-mob.phreesia.net/z4/WorkflowRunner/wrunner/index.html
>
> When I didn't click in either the yes or no circle, clicking Continue
> didn't make it continue. So I can tell that I didn't click in that
> situation, but at the same time when there is only one circle, not a
> pair, if I click twice, does the implicit checkmark go away?
>
> I have a jittery finger and I think even my mouse is jittery.
>
> I'm using win10 Home fully updated and the latest version of FF. 114.0.2
> 64-bit.
>
> Anyone else have this problem? Starting when. Is Firefox getting
> arthritis?
Try another browser?
--
Linux Mint 21.1 Cinnamon 5.6.8
Al

On Thu, 22 Jun 2023 23:09:13 -0400, Big Al wrote:
> On 6/22/23 15:57, this is what micky wrote:
> > [quoted text muted]
> > 64-bit.
> >
> > Anyone else have this problem? Starting when. Is Firefox getting
> > arthritis?
> Try another browser?
>

I'm embarrassed I didn't think to suggest that. If the
OP has the same problem with two browsers, that argues
pretty strongly that the problem is on the website. If
so, the OP can at least not waste time trying to find a
solution to a problem that is actually at the other
end.

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA
https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

On 6/23/23 01:44, this is what Stan Brown wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2023 23:09:13 -0400, Big Al wrote:
>> On 6/22/23 15:57, this is what micky wrote:
>>> [quoted text muted]
>>> 64-bit.
>>>
>>> Anyone else have this problem? Starting when. Is Firefox getting
>>> arthritis?
>> Try another browser?
>>
>
> I'm embarrassed I didn't think to suggest that. If the
> OP has the same problem with two browsers, that argues
> pretty strongly that the problem is on the website. If
> so, the OP can at least not waste time trying to find a
> solution to a problem that is actually at the other
> end.
>
I may not use them, but I always keep 3 installed, even in Linux. Chrome, FF, Edge. One has to work or all 3 don't.
--
Linux Mint 21.1 Cinnamon 5.6.8
Al

In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Thu, 22 Jun 2023 14:56:44 -0700, Stan
Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>On Thu, 22 Jun 2023 15:57:45 -0400, micky wrote:
>> Here is that page where you can see for yourselves, unless it won't let
>> you in. It probably won't.
>
>It didn't. "An error has occurred
>We are unable to complete the interview at this time. Please contact
>your practice administrator."
>
>> It's part of a long pre-appointment form at
>> the doctor's office, but it's not me in particular, so it's fine to try.
>> https://z4-mob.phreesia.net/z4/WorkflowRunner/wrunner/index.html
>
>Have you tried clicking on the text next to the circle? I agree that
>the circle should work, but this may be a workaround.

Should have thought of that. Diddn't work. ;-)
>
>Another possibility is tabbing till the desired circle has focus,
>then pressing the spacebar.

Actually, I can already get to the circle just by using the mouse. I
know I'm there because the circle gets surrounded by a dashed (dotted)
line.

>If none of those works, I wouldn't rule out bad web page coding.

But a problem that two unrelated pages work like this.

"Stan Brown" <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote

| If none of those works, I wouldn't rule out bad web page coding.
|

It's getting worse and worse. My dentist's site used to work.
My doctor's site never did work very well. Now both are broken.
Despite HIPAA, my doctor's site is run by a 3rd party that calls
in script from several sources, including Google! The doctors and
dentists have no idea what's going on. For them it's just a
subcontract. I've started just telling them I can't get their site
to work. If they want me to fill in their endless forms I do it on
a tablet in the waiting room, or on paper. It's absurd that anyone
should need a special browser and a special operating system to
make script in a webpage work.

In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Thu, 22 Jun 2023 22:44:53 -0700, Stan
Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>On Thu, 22 Jun 2023 23:09:13 -0400, Big Al wrote:
>> On 6/22/23 15:57, this is what micky wrote:
>> > [quoted text muted]
>> > 64-bit.
>> >
>> > Anyone else have this problem? Starting when. Is Firefox getting
>> > arthritis?
>> Try another browser?

I should have thought of that. With Chrome it worked and it showed me
signed up for alerts I didn't want, and not signed up for some I did
want. I must have gone through the list when I first got the credit
card, then gone through it again and reversed the settings I wanted.

Then I simultaneously logged on with FF and tried changing one of the
alerts and verifying what the setting was with Chrome. Nothing I did in
FF changed the setting in Chrome, so my theory in the prvious paragraph
seems wrong, unless things worked differentlly a couple years ago, which
they might have.

I don't use this card much so I haven't noticed the lack of alerts, and
my monthly usage is usually zero, so I think that means some of the
un-asked-for alerts never come anyhow. But I did notice today that
Amex will alert you when you get a business deposit. That's good and I
don't think other places will do that. One time I was waiting for a
large refund and thinking I'd get an email, but most cc's only email you
for charges, not for deposits.

With the doctor's site, as I said, one time I did't click at all and it
wouldn't let me go to the next page, but clicking did. So in that case
clicking must have worked, but it sure didn't with Amex.

>I'm embarrassed I didn't think to suggest that. If the
>OP has the same problem with two browsers, that argues
>pretty strongly that the problem is on the website. If
>so, the OP can at least not waste time trying to find a
>solution to a problem that is actually at the other
>end.

Well the websites (american express and that doctor's office's 3rd party
portal) might both be badly coded, but it would be in FF's interest to
work anyhow. Is there an easy way to tell them about this.

(They're not going to want to sign up with this doctor, but someone
there should have an Amex account. They used to be only for the wealthy
but now any slob can get one.)

I use Eudora, an email program not updated in 20 years. Some emails
come too big to fit in the screen. Katrina, the national expert in
Eudora and email in general, does not whitewash Eudora's faults, but she
says the emails that don't display right** are not written according to
standards. Still, I assume other email programs have learned how to
display them anyhow. IOW, even if theese pages are written wrong, FF
should learn how to handle it.

**They come from the Washington Post but not all the emails from them
are like that, only one category.

Anyhow, it's all set up now. Thanks a lot Al and Stan.

On Fri, 23 Jun 2023 07:16:35 -0400, Big Al <Bears@invalid.com> wrote:

>On 6/23/23 01:44, this is what Stan Brown wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Jun 2023 23:09:13 -0400, Big Al wrote:
>>> On 6/22/23 15:57, this is what micky wrote:
>>>> [quoted text muted]
>>>> 64-bit.
>>>>
>>>> Anyone else have this problem? Starting when. Is Firefox getting
>>>> arthritis?
>>> Try another browser?
>>>
>>
>> I'm embarrassed I didn't think to suggest that. If the
>> OP has the same problem with two browsers, that argues
>> pretty strongly that the problem is on the website. If
>> so, the OP can at least not waste time trying to find a
>> solution to a problem that is actually at the other
>> end.
>>
>I may not use them, but I always keep 3 installed, even in Linux. Chrome, FF, Edge. One has to work or all 3 don't.

I keep only two browsers installed:

Firefox, my favorite and the one I use almost all the time

Edge, the one I hate the most, and use only if Firefox doesn't work on
a particular web site.

"Ken Blake" <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote

>
I keep only two browsers installed:

Firefox, my favorite and the one I use almost all the time

Edge, the one I hate the most, and use only if Firefox doesn't work on
a particular web site.
>

Just like old times. Remember when websites had notices
such as: "This is my amazing work of art. To view it properly
you will need Flash Player and Internet Explorer v. 5.41.6754." ?

Now they're not even that polite. They just block the whole
thing and say, "Please enable script, disable your ad blocker,
and use this morning's latest Chrome update. Otherwise, screw
you."

Related to OP, I'm inclined to believe that the problem described comes
from a page that is coded with the assumption that everyone is using
Chrome. Even without an explicit error message complaining, it seems
likely that the page is using something unique to Chrome that Firefox
doesn't support.

Ken Blake wrote:
>> I may not use them, but I always keep 3 installed, even in Linux. Chrome, FF, Edge. One has to work or all 3 don't.
>
> I keep only two browsers installed:
>
> Firefox, my favorite and the one I use almost all the time
>
> Edge, the one I hate the most, and use only if Firefox doesn't work on
> a particular web site.

Unfortunately, Chrome's dominance is such that there are a lot of page
developers that only pay attention to Chrome. That includes not only
their own coding, but what external scripting engines they use.

If the page works in Chrome then it works (or "WFM"), and everything
else is irrelevant, and where they don't bother to test anything else.
That includes current versions of Firefox, but also Safari, as well.

Since I normally browse with Seamonkey, I'm used to seeing sites that
won't work there, and that's usually an effect of scripting that
requires at least Firefox 78, and I do a lot of switching to other
browsers. However, I've seen a few sites that won't work with any
version of Firefox -- only Chromium-derived browsers, and I don't know
that I haven't seen one or two pages that will work only with Chrome proper.

One thing that I've found useful with Seamonkey is an extension called
Open With that allows for right-clicking on a link, a tab or a bookmark,
and then opening the corresponding URL in another browser. I have about
6 options configured, including multiple Firefox profiles, a portable
version of Chrome, Edge, Pale Moon, and a couple of others. Open With
is actually a Thunderbird extension, but the old XUL version works quite
will in the Seamonkey browser.

I haven't played with the WebExtensions version of that one, even in
Thunderbird, and I have no idea if it might work in Firefox. Somewhere
along, when I have a little time, I might take a look at that.

Open With doesn't really solve the problem of sites that don't support
anything other than Chrome, but it does make it a little easier to
switch to another browser on the fly.

One other note, if you do need to move to a different browser to handle
proper page support, it is possible to drag-and-drop a tab from one
browser to another browser. You don't have to copy-and-paste a URL.
That might lessen the need for using Open With.

Smith

In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Fri, 23 Jun 2023 08:49:54 -0700, NFN
Smith <worldoff9908@gmail.com> wrote:

>Related to OP, I'm inclined to believe that the problem described comes
>from a page that is coded with the assumption that everyone is using
>Chrome. Even without an explicit error message complaining, it seems
>likely that the page is using something unique to Chrome that Firefox
>doesn't support.

Don't more poeple use Firefox than use Chrome? At the least, FF has
advantages Chrome doesn't have and I don't know of any that go the other
way.

Does MS bribe places to promote Chrome? Or Edge? or Intenet Explorer?

>Ken Blake wrote:
>>> I may not use them, but I always keep 3 installed, even in Linux. Chrome, FF, Edge. One has to work or all 3 don't.
>>
>> I keep only two browsers installed:
>>
>> Firefox, my favorite and the one I use almost all the time
>>
>> Edge, the one I hate the most, and use only if Firefox doesn't work on
>> a particular web site.
>
>
>Unfortunately, Chrome's dominance is such that there are a lot of page
>developers that only pay attention to Chrome. That includes not only
>their own coding, but what external scripting engines they use.
>
>If the page works in Chrome then it works (or "WFM"), and everything
>else is irrelevant, and where they don't bother to test anything else.
>That includes current versions of Firefox, but also Safari, as well.
>
>Since I normally browse with Seamonkey, I'm used to seeing sites that
>won't work there, and that's usually an effect of scripting that
>requires at least Firefox 78, and I do a lot of switching to other
>browsers. However, I've seen a few sites that won't work with any
>version of Firefox -- only Chromium-derived browsers, and I don't know
>that I haven't seen one or two pages that will work only with Chrome proper.
>
>One thing that I've found useful with Seamonkey is an extension called
>Open With that allows for right-clicking on a link, a tab or a bookmark,
>and then opening the corresponding URL in another browser. I have about
>6 options configured, including multiple Firefox profiles, a portable
>version of Chrome, Edge, Pale Moon, and a couple of others. Open With
>is actually a Thunderbird extension, but the old XUL version works quite
>will in the Seamonkey browser.
>
>I haven't played with the WebExtensions version of that one, even in
>Thunderbird, and I have no idea if it might work in Firefox. Somewhere
>along, when I have a little time, I might take a look at that.
>
>Open With doesn't really solve the problem of sites that don't support
>anything other than Chrome, but it does make it a little easier to
>switch to another browser on the fly.
>
>One other note, if you do need to move to a different browser to handle
>proper page support, it is possible to drag-and-drop a tab from one
>browser to another browser. You don't have to copy-and-paste a URL.
>That might lessen the need for using Open With.
>
>Smith

On 6/24/23 08:12, this is what micky wrote:
> Don't more poeple use Firefox than use Chrome? At the least, FF has
> advantages Chrome doesn't have and I don't know of any that go the other
> way.
>
This might give you some ideas of usage.
https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share

Interesting to change the view to just Desktop, then Europe, USA etc.
Chrome kinda beats them all in every area I looked at. It's the race for 2nd that changes.
--
Linux Mint 21.1 Cinnamon 5.6.8
Al

On Sat, 24 Jun 2023 08:12:01 -0400, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com>
wrote:

>In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Fri, 23 Jun 2023 08:49:54 -0700, NFN
>Smith <worldoff9908@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Related to OP, I'm inclined to believe that the problem described comes
>>from a page that is coded with the assumption that everyone is using
>>Chrome. Even without an explicit error message complaining, it seems
>>likely that the page is using something unique to Chrome that Firefox
>>doesn't support.
>
>Don't more poeple use Firefox than use Chrome?

No, not by a long shot. There are many more Chrome users.

> At the least, FF has
>advantages Chrome doesn't have and I don't know of any that go the other
>way.

Although I agree with you, most people don't.

>Does MS bribe places to promote Chrome? Or Edge? or Intenet Explorer?
>
>>Ken Blake wrote:
>>>> I may not use them, but I always keep 3 installed, even in Linux. Chrome, FF, Edge. One has to work or all 3 don't.
>>>
>>> I keep only two browsers installed:
>>>
>>> Firefox, my favorite and the one I use almost all the time
>>>
>>> Edge, the one I hate the most, and use only if Firefox doesn't work on
>>> a particular web site.
>>
>>
>>Unfortunately, Chrome's dominance is such that there are a lot of page
>>developers that only pay attention to Chrome. That includes not only
>>their own coding, but what external scripting engines they use.
>>
>>If the page works in Chrome then it works (or "WFM"), and everything
>>else is irrelevant, and where they don't bother to test anything else.
>>That includes current versions of Firefox, but also Safari, as well.
>>
>>Since I normally browse with Seamonkey, I'm used to seeing sites that
>>won't work there, and that's usually an effect of scripting that
>>requires at least Firefox 78, and I do a lot of switching to other
>>browsers. However, I've seen a few sites that won't work with any
>>version of Firefox -- only Chromium-derived browsers, and I don't know
>>that I haven't seen one or two pages that will work only with Chrome proper.
>>
>>One thing that I've found useful with Seamonkey is an extension called
>>Open With that allows for right-clicking on a link, a tab or a bookmark,
>>and then opening the corresponding URL in another browser. I have about
>>6 options configured, including multiple Firefox profiles, a portable
>>version of Chrome, Edge, Pale Moon, and a couple of others. Open With
>>is actually a Thunderbird extension, but the old XUL version works quite
>>will in the Seamonkey browser.
>>
>>I haven't played with the WebExtensions version of that one, even in
>>Thunderbird, and I have no idea if it might work in Firefox. Somewhere
>>along, when I have a little time, I might take a look at that.
>>
>>Open With doesn't really solve the problem of sites that don't support
>>anything other than Chrome, but it does make it a little easier to
>>switch to another browser on the fly.
>>
>>One other note, if you do need to move to a different browser to handle
>>proper page support, it is possible to drag-and-drop a tab from one
>>browser to another browser. You don't have to copy-and-paste a URL.
>>That might lessen the need for using Open With.
>>
>>Smith

On 6/23/23 4:54 AM, micky wrote:
> In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Thu, 22 Jun 2023 14:56:44 -0700, Stan
> Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 22 Jun 2023 15:57:45 -0400, micky wrote:
>>> Here is that page where you can see for yourselves, unless it won't let
>>> you in. It probably won't.
>>
>>It didn't. "An error has occurred
>>We are unable to complete the interview at this time. Please contact
>>your practice administrator."
>>
>>> It's part of a long pre-appointment form at
>>> the doctor's office, but it's not me in particular, so it's fine to try.
>>> https://z4-mob.phreesia.net/z4/WorkflowRunner/wrunner/index.html
>>
>>Have you tried clicking on the text next to the circle? I agree that
>>the circle should work, but this may be a workaround.
>
> Should have thought of that. Diddn't work. ;-)
>>
>>Another possibility is tabbing till the desired circle has focus,
>>then pressing the spacebar.
>
> Actually, I can already get to the circle just by using the mouse. I
> know I'm there because the circle gets surrounded by a dashed (dotted)
> line.
>
>>If none of those works, I wouldn't rule out bad web page coding.
>
> But a problem that two unrelated pages work like this.

Any chance you turned javascript off?

--
Cheers, Bev
Bluetooth is especially problematic in San Francisco because it
makes it nearly impossible to tell who is hearing voices and who
is just talking on the phone, and in this city their numbers
seem about equal. --Shaun Nichols

In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Sat, 24 Jun 2023 07:26:52 -0700, Ken
Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Jun 2023 08:12:01 -0400, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Fri, 23 Jun 2023 08:49:54 -0700, NFN
>>Smith <worldoff9908@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Related to OP, I'm inclined to believe that the problem described comes=
>=20
>>>from a page that is coded with the assumption that everyone is using=20
>>>Chrome. Even without an explicit error message complaining, it seems=20
>>>likely that the page is using something unique to Chrome that Firefox=20
>>>doesn't support.
>>
>>Don't more poeple use Firefox than use Chrome?=20
>
>No, not by a long shot. There are many more Chrome users.

Is this largely because Chrome is included with windows and FF isn't?

Wasn't Netscape better than Internet Explorer but also less popular?
>
>
>> At the least, FF has
>>advantages Chrome doesn't have and I don't know of any that go the other
>>way. =20
>
>
>Although I agree with you, most people don't.

On Sun, 25 Jun 2023 10:12:45 -0400, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com>
wrote:

>In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Sat, 24 Jun 2023 07:26:52 -0700, Ken
>Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 24 Jun 2023 08:12:01 -0400, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Fri, 23 Jun 2023 08:49:54 -0700, NFN
>>>Smith <worldoff9908@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Related to OP, I'm inclined to believe that the problem described comes>>=20
>>>>from a page that is coded with the assumption that everyone is using=20
>>>>Chrome. Even without an explicit error message complaining, it seems=20
>>>>likely that the page is using something unique to Chrome that Firefox=20
>>>>doesn't support.
>>>
>>>Don't more poeple use Firefox than use Chrome?=20
>>
>>No, not by a long shot. There are many more Chrome users.
>
>Is this largely because Chrome is included with windows and FF isn't?

No, Chrome is not included with Windows. The only browser included
with recent versions of Windows is Edge (the worst of all browsers, In
my opinion),The latest version of Edge is based on Chrome, but that
doesn't make it Chrome.

>Wasn't Netscape better than Internet Explorer but also less popular?

Was Netscape better than IE? I don't remember.

>>> At the least, FF has
>>>advantages Chrome doesn't have and I don't know of any that go the other
>>>way. =20
>>
>>
>>Although I agree with you, most people don't.

In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Sat, 24 Jun 2023 13:50:16 -0700, The
Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 6/23/23 4:54 AM, micky wrote:
>> In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Thu, 22 Jun 2023 14:56:44 -0700, Stan
>> Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 22 Jun 2023 15:57:45 -0400, micky wrote:
>>>> Here is that page where you can see for yourselves, unless it won't let
>>>> you in. It probably won't.
>>>
>>>It didn't. "An error has occurred
>>>We are unable to complete the interview at this time. Please contact
>>>your practice administrator."
>>>
>>>> It's part of a long pre-appointment form at
>>>> the doctor's office, but it's not me in particular, so it's fine to try.
>>>> https://z4-mob.phreesia.net/z4/WorkflowRunner/wrunner/index.html
>>>
>>>Have you tried clicking on the text next to the circle? I agree that
>>>the circle should work, but this may be a workaround.
>>
>> Should have thought of that. Diddn't work. ;-)
>>>
>>>Another possibility is tabbing till the desired circle has focus,
>>>then pressing the spacebar.
>>
>> Actually, I can already get to the circle just by using the mouse. I
>> know I'm there because the circle gets surrounded by a dashed (dotted)
>> line.
>>
>>>If none of those works, I wouldn't rule out bad web page coding.
>>
>> But a problem that two unrelated pages work like this.
>
>Any chance you turned javascript off?

Maybe, I seem to be learning how the phone works and forgetting how the
PC works. But I didn't turn it off on purpose. Other pages work but
maybe they don't use javascript. Thanks. Anyhow as I learned below
Chrome actually showed the check marks.

On Sun, 25 Jun 2023 10:12:45 -0400, micky wrote:
> Is this largely because Chrome is included with windows and FF isn't?
>

Huh? "Included with Windows"?? Where on earth did you
get that idea?

I had to install Chrome on Windows 8, 10,and 11 before
I could use it.

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA
https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:

>>. . .

>Is this largely because Chrome is included with windows and FF isn't?

Chrome is the Google browser, not the Microsoft browser. Edge is the
Microsoft browser that replaced Internet Explorer.

>Wasn't Netscape better than Internet Explorer but also less popular?

Netscape wasn't standards compliant during the bad old days of browser
wars. But then the standard got updated into a form that no major
browser incorporated.

Web sites stuck with compatibility with one browser at a time. It was a
huge pain in the ass and I largely stuck with lynx throughout to see
what I could read as text.

Firefox, unlike its Netscape predecessor, enthusiastically conformed
with standards but then it participated in the standards-writing process.

Ken Blake wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jun 2023 08:12:01 -0400, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com>
> wrote:
>
>> In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Fri, 23 Jun 2023 08:49:54 -0700, NFN
>> Smith <worldoff9908@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Related to OP, I'm inclined to believe that the problem described comes
>> >from a page that is coded with the assumption that everyone is using
>>> Chrome. Even without an explicit error message complaining, it seems
>>> likely that the page is using something unique to Chrome that Firefox
>>> doesn't support.
>>
>> Don't more poeple use Firefox than use Chrome?
>
> No, not by a long shot. There are many more Chrome users.

Besides statistics posted elsewhere in this thread, that's also what I'm
seeing from the activity logs on the small site that I maintain.

>> At the least, FF has
>> advantages Chrome doesn't have and I don't know of any that go the other
>> way.
>
>
> Although I agree with you, most people don't.

For better or worse, in popular understanding, Chrome is pretty much
considered to be the "standard". On new computers (at least Windows) if
Chrome isn't already pre-installed, then the first thing that a
significant number of users do is to go download Chrome. Same applies
to Mac users, although a larger proportion (although still a minority, I
think) are willing to accept Safari as the default.

>
>> Does MS bribe places to promote Chrome? Or Edge? or Intenet Explorer?

I don't think so. Microsoft is pushing pretty hard to get people to use
Edge, including doing some of the sneaky things that they've done in the
past. I haven't yet spent a lot of time with Windows 11, but I've found
that there are more system processes that have HTML content, and where
Microsoft will render those in Edge, regardless of what's designated as
the default browser. And Microsoft has been more aggressive in pushing
users to change the default to Edge.

I also agree that there are a lot of things that are preferable about
Firefox (and not just that it's not connected to Google's
infrastructure), but the proportions borne by the actual statistics
indicate that a significant number of developers consider the number of
Firefox users to be too few to care about.

It may be that everybody that Micky knows uses Firefox, but for
developers that develop for Chrome, everybody they know uses Chrome, and
they may not even know anybody that uses anything else.

Smith

On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 08:41:51 -0700, NFN Smith <worldoff9908@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Ken Blake wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Jun 2023 08:12:01 -0400, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In alt.comp.software.firefox, on Fri, 23 Jun 2023 08:49:54 -0700, NFN
>>> Smith <worldoff9908@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Related to OP, I'm inclined to believe that the problem described comes
>>> >from a page that is coded with the assumption that everyone is using
>>>> Chrome. Even without an explicit error message complaining, it seems
>>>> likely that the page is using something unique to Chrome that Firefox
>>>> doesn't support.
>>>
>>> Don't more poeple use Firefox than use Chrome?
>>
>> No, not by a long shot. There are many more Chrome users.
>
>Besides statistics posted elsewhere in this thread, that's also what I'm
>seeing from the activity logs on the small site that I maintain.
>
>>> At the least, FF has
>>> advantages Chrome doesn't have and I don't know of any that go the other
>>> way.
>>
>>
>> Although I agree with you, most people don't.
>
>For better or worse, in popular understanding, Chrome is pretty much
>considered to be the "standard". On new computers (at least Windows) if
>Chrome isn't already pre-installed, then the first thing that a
>significant number of users do is to go download Chrome.

Yes, I know. I don't. As far as I'm concerned, Chrome is the
next-to-worst of all the browsers I've tried. Only Edge is worse.

> Same applies
>to Mac users, although a larger proportion (although still a minority, I
>think) are willing to accept Safari as the default.
>
>>
>>> Does MS bribe places to promote Chrome? Or Edge? or Intenet Explorer?
>
>I don't think so. Microsoft is pushing pretty hard to get people to use
>Edge, including doing some of the sneaky things that they've done in the
>past. I haven't yet spent a lot of time with Windows 11, but I've found
>that there are more system processes that have HTML content, and where
>Microsoft will render those in Edge, regardless of what's designated as
>the default browser. And Microsoft has been more aggressive in pushing
>users to change the default to Edge.
>
>I also agree that there are a lot of things that are preferable about
>Firefox (and not just that it's not connected to Google's
>infrastructure), but the proportions borne by the actual statistics
>indicate that a significant number of developers consider the number of
>Firefox users to be too few to care about.
>
>It may be that everybody that Micky knows uses Firefox, but for
>developers that develop for Chrome, everybody they know uses Chrome, and
>they may not even know anybody that uses anything else.
>
>Smith