Comments on: Firefox Rendering Bug Fixed in Record Time

By: Juan Pablo

Juan Pablo — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 14:45:02 +0000

And what about firefox gmail problem???

Somebody knows something about that?

Thanks!

By: Kevin Yank

Kevin Yank — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 21:11:48 +0000

HawayanSurfer,

Definitely not seeing the rendering issues you are. Bangkokpost.com, for example, displays just fine in Firefox 2.0.0.11 here. You may need to investigate other possible causes of the problems you’re seeing.

By: HawayanSurfer

HawayanSurfer — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 18:57:31 +0000

Sorry to break the bad news, but the newest release 2.0.0.11 has plenty of rendering bugs for me.
I am unable to properly view sites that used to work in Firefox, and still do in IE, like AT&T Wireless (Account Usage data detail), http://www.Bangkokpost.com (only advertising content displayed), and more….

By: AlexW

AlexW — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 23:26:50 +0000

Whilst this was an obvious bug in Firefox, surely a site that relies on JavaScript for critical functionality should have bigger concerns?

I kinda agree with that. If the functionality is fundamental to your company being able to trade, it’s smart business to design it to fall back to some kind of server-based solution. It will probably be slower and more clunky, but it protects your income from minor technical ‘acts of god’ like this, and provides an accessible version for JS-less devices.

The photo company are unlucky canvas broke, but they’re also quite lucky it was fixed so quickly. Many other bugs have hung around for years.

In fact, this is a nice little example you can quote when clients ask ‘So, why are we paying this extra time to make it accessible?’

By: mrsmiley

mrsmiley — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 22:04:33 +0000

@csswiz, some features can only be used via javascript. Whether your site relies on a particular feature or not, every developer has the right to expect functionality will work as advertised. Somewhere along the line everyone needs to make a call if the grunt work for processing some things is better at the client or server. For a large photo processing site, I’d imagine moving things like what this function allows to the client side would be very beneficial.

By: csswiz

csswiz — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 09:29:45 +0000

Customers are complaining because their Firefox automatically updated to 2.0.0.10 and now they can no longer order photo prints in our shop

Whilst this was an obvious bug in Firefox, surely a site that relies on JavaScript for critical functionality should have bigger concerns?

By: polvero

polvero — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 07:45:30 +0000

At first I was angry with such a short update. Often times the alert can be annoying “Firefox is ready for an update. What would you like to do? [Later] [Cancel] [Restart Firefox]“

But knowing the reasoning behind it is in-fact, quite good to know. Very cool.

By: AlexW

AlexW — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 06:40:09 +0000

This is the second FF release in the last few months that’s introduced a bug that wasn’t there previously, so while it’s commendable that they fixed it so quickly, it would be better if the bugs hadn’t been introduced in the first place.

Agreed. I was actually noodling around with some Canvas code that I didn’t really understand yet. At some point along the way, Firefox asks to upgrade itself, I say ok, and immediately banish all memory of doing it to my ‘useless information never to be needed again’ pile.

Ten minutes later I’m running my Canvas JS and getting a blank screen. “oooooo…kay!, what have I done here!? Undo, undo,.. nothing… undo.. nothing…”.

I briefly considered the Firefox update, but if it comes down to me vs. the browser, the error is more likely mine, so I dismissed that out of hand. Eventually I tried the code in Opera and it worked perfectly. Insert sound of tearing hair here.

By: Tyssen

Tyssen — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 03:55:51 +0000

This is the second FF release in the last few months that’s introduced a bug that wasn’t there previously, so while it’s commendable that they fixed it so quickly, it would be better if the bugs hadn’t been introduced in the first place.