7:20 a.m.
Has anybody else found that the iGoogle page no longer displays on
Netsurf?
Certainly it was alright until two days ago but now I just get the
background tint. It never displayed fully but always enough to get at
the essential parts to use (it used javascript heavily).
It was just useful that Google knew what you had been looking at if I
subsequently searched on the PC - the functionality is there in the
basic page of course.
I'm not using the latest NS version but I'm pretty sure this problem
must be the result of a change in the page that Google is sending.
Chris
--
Chris Shepheard writing as himself
chris.shepheard(a)chrispics.co.uk
from far west Surrey www.chrispics.co.uk
7:31 a.m.
On 24 Mar, Chris Shepheard wrote:
Has anybody else found that the iGoogle page no longer displays on
Netsurf?
Certainly it was alright until two days ago but now I just get the
background tint. It never displayed fully but always enough to get at
the essential parts to use (it used javascript heavily).
It was just useful that Google knew what you had been looking at if
I
subsequently searched on the PC - the functionality is there in the
basic page of course.
I'm not using the latest NS version but I'm pretty sure this
problem
must be the result of a change in the page that Google is sending.
On the latest version (r12128) it just displays the page's background
colour as well. View Source shows that pretty much the whole page is
Javascript, so it's no wonder NetSurf fails to render it.
--
Brian Howlett
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is more money being spent on breast implants and Viagra today
than on Alzheimer's research. This means that by 2040, there should
be a large elderly population with perky boobs and huge erections and
absolutely no recollection of what to do with them...
8:59 a.m.
In article <d170f6b851.Brian(a)bhowlett.plus.net>, Brian Howlett
<brian.groups(a)brianhowlett.me.uk> wrote:
On 24 Mar, Chris Shepheard wrote:
> Has anybody else found that the iGoogle page no longer displays
on
> Netsurf?
[Snip]
> I'm pretty sure this problem
> must be the result of a change in the page that Google is sending.
Indeed.
On the latest version (r12128) it just displays the page's
background
colour as well. View Source shows that pretty much the whole page is
Javascript, so it's no wonder NetSurf fails to render it.
There is a <noscript> section which should display: it tells you to
enable javascript!
--
Tim Hill
..............................................................
www.timil.com
3:45 p.m.
In message <51b8fe8642tim(a)timil.com>
Tim Hill <tim(a)timil.com> wrote:
There is a <noscript> section which should display: it tells
you to
enable javascript!
Very helpful!
Especially as that does not display either.
I used to get the top of the page, complete with personalised
background image and search entry box, with that "warning" just
beneath it.
Chris
--
Chris Shepheard writing as himself
chris.shepheard(a)chrispics.co.uk
from far west Surrey www.chrispics.co.uk
2:53 p.m.
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 19:45:13 GMT, Chris Shepheard wrote:
In message <51b8fe8642tim(a)timil.com>
Tim Hill <tim(a)timil.com> wrote:
> There is a <noscript> section which should display: it tells you to
> enable javascript!
Very helpful!
Especially as that does not display either.
That's obviously a bug, has it been raised on the bug tracker?
Chris
3:39 a.m.
Chris Young <chris.young(a)unsatisfactorysoftware.co.uk> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 19:45:13 GMT, Chris Shepheard wrote:
> In message <51b8fe8642tim(a)timil.com>
> Tim Hill <tim(a)timil.com> wrote:
>
> > There is a <noscript> section which should display: it tells you to
> > enable javascript!
>
> Very helpful!
>
> Especially as that does not display either.
That's obviously a bug, has it been raised on the bug tracker?
http://www.google.com/ig
With a not entirely straight face and the good offices of (what do you want
to use that pile of old junk for) Fresco, which does render the site, I was
directed to this :-
<div class="article_content" id="article-content-div">
<p>iGoogle is compatible with the following browsers:</p>
<ul>
<li>Google Chrome</li>
<li>Internet Explorer 7.x</li>
<li>Internet Explorer 8.x</li>
<li>Firefox 3.x</li>
<li>Safari 3</li>
<li>Safari 4</li>
</ul>
<div class="lightbulb">To get the full functionality of iGoogle, make
sure
you have the latest version of your browser. Please note that you need to <a
href="answer.py?answer=23852">enable JavaScript</a> to view and edit
your
iGoogle page.</div>
"make sure you have the latest version of your browser" indeed!! The latest
mainstream browsers are Safari 5, Firefox 4 and IE9.
Back to the plot, I found that by commenting out a wodge of script NetSurf
would light up, somewhere in that commented out section is the reason why
the noscript section is missed.
http://pittdj.co.uk/temp/igoogle.zip
The really clever bit is that guess what disabling javascript in Safari 5
and Firefox 4 does, up comes the same pale blue screen the Netsurf displays
with no sign at all of the noscript message. So it is not a Netsurf
bug/issue at all.
If Netsurf had any money they could sponsor students to help Google with
their code.
--
David Pitt
5:32 a.m.
In article <mpro.lilry000003ap0068.pittdj(a)pittdj.co.uk>,
David Pitt <pittdj(a)pittdj.co.uk> wrote:
"make sure you have the latest version of your browser"
indeed!! The latest mainstream browsers are Safari 5,
Firefox 4 and IE9.
This is not really on topic, and I do not use Safari, and
only very rarely IE.
My version of Firefox is 3.6.16, to which it was updated by
the autoupdater two nights ago, so I would have thought it
perfectly correct to say that Firefox 3.x is the latest
version. I have heard of rumours of Ver 4 - but that,
presumably, is a development version only and not something
that should be quoted to the general user as 'the latest',
surely? (I also one heard a reference to a horrible new user
interface...).
And what about Opera?
What does amaze me, looking at my web servers logs, is the
number of people still using IE5 and IE6 and Safari 3 + 4,
as well as all the countless versions of Firefox 3.x.yy
--
Russell Hafter - Mailing Lists
rh.lists(a)phone.coop
Need a hotel? <http://www.hrs.com/?client=en__blue&customerId=416873103>
(NB This link needs Firefox to work)
6:02 a.m.
Russell Hafter - Lists <rh.lists(a)phone.coop> wrote:
In article <mpro.lilry000003ap0068.pittdj(a)pittdj.co.uk>,
David Pitt <pittdj(a)pittdj.co.uk> wrote:
> "make sure you have the latest version of your browser" indeed!! The
> latest mainstream browsers are Safari 5, Firefox 4 and IE9.
This is not really on topic, and I do not use Safari, and only very rarely
IE.
My version of Firefox is 3.6.16, to which it was updated by the
autoupdater two nights ago, so I would have thought it perfectly correct
to say that Firefox 3.x is the latest version. I have heard of rumours of
Ver 4 - but that, presumably, is a development version only and not
something that should be quoted to the general user as 'the latest',
surely? (I also one heard a reference to a horrible new user
interface...).
You could check your facts, Firefox 4 was released on the 22nd of this
month.
http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/new/
Its "tabs on top interface" is the current fashion. Denigrating something as
yet unseen does nothing to promote RISC OS. Firefox 4, and the new IE9, are
both very good browsers indeed, a measure of their fitness for purpose is
that they do resolve iGoogle just like NetSurf doesn't.
And what about Opera?
What about it, it is not supported by iGoogle, end of.
--
David Pitt
MessengerPro 2.66.6 on Windows 7
9:08 a.m.
In article <mpro.lilyjl0012a6p03m0.pittdj(a)pittdj.co.uk>,
David Pitt <pittdj(a)pittdj.co.uk> wrote:
You could check your facts, Firefox 4 was released on the
22nd of this month.
As I said, FF advised of the upgrade to reach 3.6.16 after
that date - from which it was reasonable to deduce that
Mozilla did not think that Ver 4 was ready yet.
I was ignoring beta versions.
Its "tabs on top interface" is the current fashion.
Denigrating something as yet unseen
I think I am entitled to repeat a comment I have seen
elsewhere, unless I have reason to mistrust it.
True, I cannot remember who made it, but it was not someone
whose opinions I normally mistrust, and the comment about
the UI was far stronger than mine.
--
Russell Hafter - Mailing Lists
rh.lists(a)phone.coop
Need a hotel? <http://www.hrs.com/?client=en__blue&customerId=416873103>
(NB This link needs Firefox to work)
9:38 a.m.
Russell Hafter - Lists <rh.lists(a)phone.coop> wrote:
In article <mpro.lilyjl0012a6p03m0.pittdj(a)pittdj.co.uk>,
David Pitt <pittdj(a)pittdj.co.uk> wrote:
> You could check your facts, Firefox 4 was released on the 22nd of this
> month.
As I said, FF advised of the upgrade to reach 3.6.16 after that date -
from which it was reasonable to deduce that Mozilla did not think that Ver
4 was ready yet.
I am sure we have been here before, Firefox 4 is a new version not an update
and so is not installed on auto-pilot.
How about this for coincidence, as I write Firefox 3.6.16 is downloading on
a Windows 7 machine. Having now upgraded itself the the page presented has
this, "You're now running Firefox 3.6.16. For security reasons, we recommend
downloading the latest and greatest version", which is Firefox 4.
Here is a bit of OT fun, http://glow.mozilla.org/
--
David Pitt
8:11 a.m.
In article <51b96f647crh.lists(a)phone.coop>,
Russell Hafter - Lists <rh.lists(a)phone.coop> wrote:
In article <mpro.lilry000003ap0068.pittdj(a)pittdj.co.uk>,
David Pitt <pittdj(a)pittdj.co.uk> wrote:
> "make sure you have the latest version of your
browser"
> indeed!! The latest mainstream browsers are Safari 5,
> Firefox 4 and IE9.
This is not really on topic, and I do not use Safari, and
only very rarely IE.
My version of Firefox is 3.6.16, to which it was updated by
the autoupdater two nights ago, so I would have thought it
perfectly correct to say that Firefox 3.x is the latest
version. I have heard of rumours of Ver 4 - but that,
presumably, is a development version only and not something
that should be quoted to the general user as 'the latest',
surely? (I also one heard a reference to a horrible new user
interface...).
Rumours? of a version 4, keep up that man at the back, Beta 4 versions
have been out and about for ages... Well I've had them on my machines for
what seems like ages. ;-)
Version 4 RC was released last weekend(ish), followed by it being uprated
to the V4 official release at the beginning of the week.
Yes it is a bit different in the default state, but it can easily be
reconfigured back to a 3.nn like appearance.
I dislike the Tabs on top, so I have them switched back in the correct
place (As they were before).
Menu bar is still available if you should want it, and so on.
There are a few other minor UI changes...
Bottom line is it's still Firefox, albeit a bit difference in appearance,
but then Firefox 3 is somewhat different in appearance to early FireFox
version.
I still have both 3.6.16 and 4.0 installed because some addons have not
yet been updated for Ff 4.
And I often use them both at the same time.
And what about Opera?
She is very good at interviews... ;-)
What does amaze me, looking at my web servers logs, is the
number of people still using IE5 and IE6 and Safari 3 + 4,
as well as all the countless versions of Firefox 3.x.yy
As I understand it, this is mostly due to the Dumbass users, computer
arrives with IE whatever installed, and that's how it stays, mostly as
time passes, they don't know or care that newer versions are available, or
that Firefox, Opera, Shiny thing... exist.
Dave
--
Dave Triffid
9 a.m.
In article <51b97dea78dave(a)triffid.co.uk>, Dave Symes
<dave(a)triffid.co.uk> wrote:
As I understand it, this is mostly due to the Dumbass
users, computer arrives with IE whatever installed, and
that's how it stays, mostly as time passes, they don't
know or care that newer versions are available, or that
Firefox, Opera, Shiny thing... exist.
But I mentioned older versions of Firefox too.
That, at least, comes with autoupdates by default, so if
they do not update, they either ignore the updates, or have
actively disabled them.
--
Russell Hafter - Mailing Lists
rh.lists(a)phone.coop
Need a hotel? <http://www.hrs.com/?client=en__blue&customerId=416873103>
(NB This link needs Firefox to work)
9:02 a.m.
In article <51b97dea78dave(a)triffid.co.uk>, Dave Symes
<dave(a)triffid.co.uk> wrote:
Rumours? of a version 4, keep up that man at the back,
Beta 4 versions have been out and about for ages... Well
I've had them on my machines for what seems like ages. ;-)
Version 4 RC was released last weekend(ish), followed by
it being uprated to the V4 official release at the
beginning of the week.
So why did my version update to a later version of FF3.6
days after Ver. 4 release?
Yes, if I check manually today, it does offer me FF4
--
Russell Hafter - Mailing Lists
rh.lists(a)phone.coop
Need a hotel? <http://www.hrs.com/?client=en__blue&customerId=416873103>
(NB This link needs Firefox to work)
3:09 p.m.
New subject: OT other browsers (was Re: iGoogle not displaying?)
In article <51b97dea78dave(a)triffid.co.uk>, Dave Symes
<dave(a)triffid.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
Rumours? of a version 4, keep up that man at the back, Beta 4
versions
have been out and about for ages... Well I've had them on my machines
for what seems like ages. ;-)
Though (very) OT for this group new adopters of FF4 may wish to take care.
Since the last few iterations of the beta version (and the release
candidate!) of FF4 I have had many problems with its inability to
correctly work alongside Adobe Viewer in some cases. Being unable to
print postage created on the Royal Mail's site is a pain in the bum. FF
is also dreadfully slow to load compared to Chrome10 and MIE8. And there
are other things FF and MIE can do that Chrome can't. I am sorry to
report I find myself using MIE more and more these days.
Mozilla's FF has, unfortunately joined the slow bloatware club with a
platinum membership. Others with faster, newer PCs may not notice quite
so much.
(Any responses elsewhere please)
--
Tim Hill
..............................................................
www.timil.com
3:46 p.m.
In message <51b8fe8642tim(a)timil.com>
Tim Hill <tim(a)timil.com> wrote:
In article <d170f6b851.Brian(a)bhowlett.plus.net>, Brian Howlett
<brian.groups(a)brianhowlett.me.uk> wrote:
> On 24 Mar, Chris Shepheard wrote:
>> Has anybody else found that the iGoogle page no longer
displays on
>> Netsurf?
[Snip]
>> I'm pretty sure this problem
>> must be the result of a change in the page that Google is sending.
Indeed.
> On the latest version (r12128) it just displays the page's
background
> colour as well. View Source shows that pretty much the whole page is
> Javascript, so it's no wonder NetSurf fails to render it.
There is a <noscript> section which should display: it tells
you to
enable javascript!
More and more this notice tells you to enable javascript. It used to
be rare but now it happens nearly all the time. Will NetSurf ever be
able to cope with this. Excuse my lack of knowledge?
Alan
--
4209
days inactive
4211
days old
netsurf-users@netsurf-browser.org
15 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
Brian Howlett -
Chris Shepheard -
Chris Young -
dave higton -
Dave Symes -
David Pitt -
Dr Alan Leighton -
Russell Hafter - Lists -
Tim Hill