backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 42 comment(s) - last by kelmon.. on Mar 11 at 3:43 AM

The reference rendering for how the Acid3 test should look -- aka the page you aren't going to see on your browser.  (Source: Web Standards Project/DailyTech)
Firefox 3 in Windows Vista and Internet Explorer 8 still receiving failing grades in Acid3

When the Acid3 test came out, most expected it to deal a serious blow to modern browsers, with its array of advanced graphics and compatibility tests.  With a focus on rendering graphics embedded in HTML code, CSS3 compliance, DOM compliance, CSS2 downloadable fonts, as well as handling new graphics formats and Unicode support, Acid3 challenged modern browsers with the web's bleeding edge technology.

It turned out they were even more woefully unprepared then expected for the task.  Now one blog site, Anomalous Anomaly, is taking up the challenge of scoring and compiling scores for all widely available browsers.  The list, which can be viewed here, paints an interesting picture of web compliance.

Contrary to previous reports, the site finds that Firefox 3 and Internet Explorer 8 in their current Windows Vista builds both receive failing marks.  The site notes the OS that the test was performed under, for helpful reference in the case of multi-OS browsers like Firefox.

For the record Firefox 3.0 definitely comes out ahead of IE8 in the Acid 3 tests, for what it’s worth.  Granted, Firefox is in its third beta, while IE 8 is in its first.  Currently the best IE 8.0.6001.17184 (Beta) could muster up was a lowly 17%.  Firefox's 3.0b3 (2008020514) hit a slightly better, but still substandard 58% running in Windows Vista.  The best results for Firefox (and the only passing results for the browser) came with the pre-release of its fifth beta.  Firefox 3.0b5pre nightly (2008030[89]04) received scores of 69% in Mac OS X 10.5.2 and CentOS 5 (Linux, RHEL-based).

Opera 9.5 (beta) leads the browsers running in Windows Vista, providing a score of 60% -- just passing in grade-school terms.  Just ahead of Opera are SeaMonkey for Mac OS X 10.5.2 and Konqueror for Ubuntu 7.10, at 69% and 62% respectively.  Interestingly, IE 5.5 beats the oft maligned IE 6 as well as the better-received IE 7.

The relatively unknown Camino browser for Mac OS X 10.5.2 scored a surprising 69% with its 2.0a1pre nightly (1.9b5pre 2008030800) release, the alpha candidate for its Camino 2 browser.  By far the best scores, though, belong to Apple's Safari browser.  Safari 3.1 scores 74%, while a tuned-up WebKit Nightly (r30881) edition of Safari scored a current record mark of 90%.

Some may perceive the Acid3 test as biased against Linux and especially Windows browsers, after viewing the current marks for the browsers.  Indeed, OS X browsers virtually own all the top marks, with only one Vista browser even passing, and no XP browsers passing.  Others will likely discredit the importance of Acid's testing.  After all, very few pages implement the advanced features found in the test, yet.  Most major pages go to great pains to provide compatibility with Firefox and Internet Explorer, so these browsers' failings in Acid3 have less to do with customer impact and more to do with a critique from a technical standpoint.

Still, the Acid3 test provides an interesting look at the future of web standards.  It also provides another amusing chapter in the battle for browser supremacy between Mozilla and Microsoft.  And to the chagrin of many, it provides Apple users with something more to feel smug about.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
I question the relevance of this
By SeeManRun on 3/10/2008 11:57:53 AM , Rating: 3
It is great to adhere to standards, but these tests seem nearly meaningless considering all the browsers do fairly lousy (60% is crap), yet all webpages in the world are rendered on these browsers, so what good is this test? If a devices fails a test of a feature that is never used, is it a bad test or a bad device? I say bad test.




RE: I question the relevance of this
By wien on 3/10/2008 12:02:01 PM , Rating: 5
The test is constructed specifically to fail in all popular browsers. The purpose of this is providing a goal developers can shoot for on their way to complete standards compliance. Once everyone passes ACID 3, number 4 will surely come along and we'll do this dance all over again.


RE: I question the relevance of this
By Christopher1 on 3/10/2008 12:02:32 PM , Rating: 5
They are trying to make the point that in order to render most webpages, webpage designers have to use 'tweaks' even for Firefox because of them not implementing some web standards correctly.

Most of these things that the ACID3 test checks are used in browsers today to some extent, and the newer ones are in the HTTP standards but are marked for 'future use'.


RE: I question the relevance of this
By Hare on 3/10/2008 12:20:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
newer ones are in the (X)HTML/CSS standards but are marked for 'future use'.

Small fix above :)


RE: I question the relevance of this
By walk2k on 3/10/2008 1:16:35 PM , Rating: 2
Have they fixed the font rendering? I tried the beta when it came out but it made everything look blurry.. out of focus. Major eye strain..


RE: I question the relevance of this
By walk2k on 3/10/08, Rating: -1
RE: I question the relevance of this
By kextyn on 3/10/2008 1:35:16 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't call them "obscuro-browsers-of-the-week." It is true that they have very little market share. But it is also true that they have been around for years. Firefox forked from Mozilla, which forked from Netscape, which came before IE. Opera was released less than a year after IE. If it wasn't for MS integrated IE in Windows you wouldn't be saying IE is the standard.


By Spivonious on 3/10/2008 1:55:13 PM , Rating: 4
Last I checked, Firefox had roughly 40% of the browser market. Quite a bit more than 0.2%.


RE: I question the relevance of this
By kelmon on 3/10/2008 1:56:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They code for IE since it's the standard and maybe if they care about the other 0.2% they run it thru those obscuro-browsers-of-the-week if they really care.


If a business cares about customers then you make damned sure that your site works in at least IE and Firefox. I'm not a Firefox user (I side with Safari) but given that customers complain if your web site doesn't work in their browser then you ensure that it does else you'll lose them. Firefox is hardly an obscure browser so don't code for it at your peril.

IE is probably still the standard in companies but it's definitely not a standard on the Web in general.


RE: I question the relevance of this
By omnicronx on 3/10/2008 1:46:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but these tests seem nearly meaningless considering all the browsers do fairly lousy (60% is crap),
These tests are suppose to push the browsers to their limit. What I do not understand is the variance between OS's. I've looked over the Test and I can not seem to find anything that is really OS reliant, that would change scores by up to 10%. Unless i get an answer to this, these tests to me mean little or nothing to me, unless you want to test on an per OS basis as the playing field does not seem to be level.


RE: I question the relevance of this
By prenox on 3/10/2008 5:34:01 PM , Rating: 5
I have to agree that trying to bring OS into this is really not that relevant. Using nightly builds only leads me to say that the tester was showing bias


RE: I question the relevance of this
By Domicinator on 3/10/2008 4:53:46 PM , Rating: 2
The relevance of the article is that Jason Mick has to push Apple products at least three times a week, and this is one of those times.


By mankopi on 3/10/2008 6:57:55 PM , Rating: 2
Thank goodness, I thought I was the only who noticed how much Jason Mick pushes apple.


RE: I question the relevance of this
By B3an on 3/10/2008 7:30:50 PM , Rating: 1
"It is great to adhere to standards, but these tests seem nearly meaningless considering all the browsers do fairly lousy (60% is crap)"

Most bizarre logic ever. Because the Browsers do bad, the tests are meaningless?

"yet all webpages in the world are rendered on these browsers, so what good is this test?"

Whats that got to do with anything? Wouldn't it just make it more important that they pass these standards? Standards are there for a reason.

"If a devices fails a test of a feature that is never used, is it a bad test or a bad device? I say bad test."

If i make a website that uses a feature which is part of a STANDARD i expact a web browser to be able to make use of it.

It's just as disappointing to see your comment has actually been rated up at time of posting this. WTF is all i have to say at your way of thinking.


The Real Question
By Goty on 3/10/2008 1:44:37 PM , Rating: 2
Who cares if the browsers can correctly render a single webpage if they're slower and generally less pleasant to use than other widely available browsers? (I'm looking at you, Safari)




RE: The Real Question
By heffeque on 3/10/2008 1:55:38 PM , Rating: 1
I guess you didn't read the article about Safari's nightly builds being faster than Firefox's nightly builds.


RE: The Real Question
By Runiteshark on 3/10/2008 4:02:01 PM , Rating: 1
It don't suprise me, Firefox went from wicked awesome and fast to suck pretty quickly.

I love it when flash randomly gets uninstalled for no reason.


RE: The Real Question
By kelmon on 3/10/2008 1:59:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Who cares if the browsers can correctly render a single webpage(?)


Isn't that the whole point of a web browser? A browser can be slow but it's a better browser if the content is displayed correctly. At the end of the day, I want to see the page as the web developer intended it to be seen.


RE: The Real Question
By Goty on 3/10/2008 7:00:26 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, but as stated in the article, most developers go for compatibility with the most popular browsers, not those that conform best to standards.


RE: The Real Question
By kelmon on 3/11/2008 3:43:57 AM , Rating: 2
Ah, but that's different to the point that you were making that speed and pleasure of use is more important than the ability to render a web page correctly. It's subjective, of course, but I don't think many people would argue that IE is a faster or more pleasurable browser if they took the time to compare it with the competition but clearly this is the one that is coded for the most. Regardless, this is an important subject and it is not as though these standards do not exist - there is no excuse for not conforming to them and we certainly shouldn't defend a browser because it is faster. The sooner designers can write code that display