Sat, 2007-04-07 13:52
Its not normal to highlight deficiencies in others websites on these forums. We never know the constraints under which a site had to be produced. I think large companies are the exception, especially those in the IT sector. They (a) can afford to do things properly and (b) have the technical know how to not be fobbed off with some second rate crap.
Not for VMWare -- http://www.vmware.com/products/beta/fusion/
VMWare released Fusion Beta 3 earlier this week. Below is a screen shot of how the site looks in FF/Mac (link to full size image). It looks the exact same in Safari and Camino and in FF/Win. I can't say how it looks like in IE as I shut down those VMs to get the update.
All the pages in that section of the site are the same. So not only do you have to put up with VMWares stupid registration system (stupid because it requires you to register -- name, address, email, shoe size, etc -- even though you are logged into their site and have provided the exact same information for the previous two versions of their beta), you have to do it on a suite of web pages where the designer and company are too ignorant to test it in a browser used by their users. .
PS.
- IE is mostly fine. The out-of-place monospace text is still there.
- Removing that text in Firebug, reduces the distance the content is shifted right to half the page.
Sat, 2007-04-07 14:23
#1
yikes there's simply
:shocked: yikes there's simply no excuse for that, and they are deservedly named and shamed.
No excuses.. I'm currently doing a clean up on a intranet only app that is .aspx driven , no DTD and some dubious code, my remit is limited to CSS and HTML where I can get access to it, but will stay in quirks mode *sigh*; I guarantee though that I will have it checked and working across all the major browsers, displaying near as damn it the same, perhaps the odd 1 pixel here and there, if I can do that then they have absolutely no excuse whatsoever.
Sat, 2007-04-07 14:38
#2
It's a shame because their
It's a shame because their underlying HTML code is half decent (if a little list-heavy 
)
Sat, 2007-04-07 14:58
#3
bit of a non-sequitur but
bit of a non-sequitur but it's really hard to establish what products what, confusing product range!
Sat, 2007-04-07 17:46
#4
They seem to have fixed it
They seem to have fixed it now. The stray characters still exist on some of the pages, however the two I tried now display correctly.
Sat, 2007-04-07 17:50
#5
Minor glitch? are we
Minor glitch? are we retracting the naming and shaming then? with full and public apology.
Sat, 2007-04-07 18:39
#6
They were probably looking
They were probably looking through their referrer logs, found this site, and thought they'd better fix it sharpish
Sat, 2007-04-07 19:54
#7
Hugo wrote:Minor glitch? are
Hugo wrote:
Minor glitch? are we retracting the naming and shaming then? with full and public apology.
Nah. Whatever it still speaks of inadequate testing or code control on their site.
Even if it was a minor problem it highlights the potential problem with CMS style system that allow site owners to directly edit their site content. Many of the solutions which allow direct content modification don't provide any form of versioning or live preview or those features are not used. If something goes wrong, it goes wrong in public view.