[Javascript] problem to print embdad pdf which is in object tag in Fire fox

[Terry Riegel]

Mike,

Thanks for the thoughtful response...

This has sort of digressed into some of the philosophical motivations that drive each of us. So... since Mike and I have started down that path I will add my 2 cents to Mikes 2 cents :)


> Consider the mythological "fold" - as in put your important content 'above
> the fold.'   That concept applied to newspaper headlines/articles appearing
> where they could be read while a fresh paper was unopened on a stack.  I
> think it is fundamentally wrong to discuss the fold on a webpage (even the
> terminology is silly).  We can't assume 800x600 resolution (or
> 1024x768/etc.)  We can't assume windowed/maximized browser.  We can't assume
> toolbar heights.  We can't assume font sizes even after specifically setting
> them.  Add to these permutations of browser configuration a number of smart
> phone browsers, game consoles w/ web access, and media provider embedded
> systems.  It becomes intractable to expect a page to look the same for all
> audiences.  If we accept that fact, then the experience for non-html content
> should be no different.

Even though this list is about Javascript I would argue we can't even assume javascript unless it becomes part of our specification for usage. I would argue that in many cases it doesn't have to be.


> With that caveat already stated, the inevitable exception is the company
> intranet.  If you constrain your use-case(s) to only the supported user
> agents in the approved configuration then you might have some hope of
> providing a consistent user experience (to the extent that you are ever
> provided consistent users).  It seems IE always requires an alternate method
> for accomplishing a task that you've already implemented and tests well in
> otherwise "standard" browsers.  Which version of IE are you going to
> support?  Are you expected to provide a consistent experience across every
> instance of IE - all the way back to what version?  You can see that it
> quickly gets to be too difficult to be all-inclusive.

I think this sort of thinking is also misguided. I offer as proof IE6. Many companies decided to dictate IE6 for their internal stuff but that dictate has affected all of us as these users are locked into a browser because of corporate policy but then these same users expect to be able to use the web for other things.

I think it would be better for companies to try and build intranets that follow the same rules as the web. 


> I think it is more productive to provide some reference on your FAQ/Help
> page that describes the configuration of browser+plugin that has been tested
> and is supported.  A disclaimer that variation from that expectation may
> lead to suboptimal user experience absolves you of the need to support every
> permutation found in the wild.  Power users accept the risks implied by
> their own modifications.  Non-power users generally are happy to click a
> button to become compliant and get to the content they want.
> 
> btw, I use Foxit Reader instead of Acrobat Reader. How could you attempt to
> predict my user experience if you didn't know about Foxit and assumed only
> Acrobat Reader?

Mostly agreed on that point. I think disclaimers can scare users. I would suggest that our disclaimers be more mild. Instead of saying "Only works with..." perhaps we would be better to say something like "Tested with... should work with W3C compliant..."