Explorer Destroyer 417
slayer99 writes "I came across Explorer Destroyer yesterday, which is a project that aims to increase the market share of Firefox in a slightly more proactive way than is usual. They provide some code which you add to your front page which presents a banner to IE users urging them to switch to using Firefox. As a bonus, you can potentially make some money via Google's Firefox referral program."
That's retarded (Score:5, Informative)
Is this easy (Score:3, Informative)
As simple as this:
<!--[if IE]>
<![endif]-->
To get a referral just talk to google [google.com].
--
Superb hosting [tinyurl.com] 20GB Storage, 1_TB_ bandwidth, ssh, $7.95
Re:Is this easy (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Is this easy (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Is this easy (Score:5, Funny)
Re:That's retarded (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:That's retarded (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That's retarded (Score:3, Interesting)
"IE extensions have proven to be a very good thing for the web overall. It has always been IE that has pushed the limits of dynamic web pages through the inclusion of similar extensions (primarily for the development of Outlook Web Access) which have given birth to the technologies that fuel AJAX and other modern web techniques."
What an interesting viewpoint. I couldn't disagree more.
The 'Embrace and Extend' strategy on which Microsoft has relied since about 1998 is designed to be divisive and ultimatel
Re:That's retarded (Score:3, Funny)
"The 'Embrace and Extend' strategy on which Microsoft has relied since about 1998 is designed to be divisive and ultimately to support Microsoft's one interest: by hook or by crook, to land everyone on the Microsoft platform."
Don't like Microsoft's extensions? Don't use them. I've been developing software on Microsoft platforms for years and as far as I know, all Microsoft extensions are clearly labeled as such in the documentation.
For some examples, see:
Re:That's retarded (Score:3, Interesting)
I wrote:
"So feel free to act as apologist for the soulless corporate machine if you must[....]"
To which you replied:
"Real people work at Microsoft. I'm proud to say that I am one of them."
Good for you. I'm glad you take pride in your work. But you've completely misconstrued the purpose of that statement. I'm not arguing that corporations are soulless or inhuman. I'm actually stating the opposite: that it is wrong to defend the image of a corporation as an impersonal and amoral entity. Many people do s
Re:That's retarded (Score:4, Informative)
Unbelievable. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Unbelievable. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Unbelievable. (Score:2)
Re:Unbelievable. (Score:2)
Re:Unbelievable. (Score:2)
But this time it's coming from aparently 'clued up' people, with the promise of a pot of gold just over the hill.
At the end of the day the only thing it's doing is helping to create another mono-browser culture, rather than using standards based websites to provide information to older, future or crippled generations of browsers via graceful use of markup/style
Re:Unbelievable. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Unbelievable. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Unbelievable. (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely.
I would like to point out that this "project" has been pushed (possibly by its creator) on SpreadFirefox.com for quite some time, but it has met with the appropriate response: NO. Link to the post [spreadfirefox.com]. I'm an active SFX member, and I can tell you that most members of the community realize how annoying and stupid this idea is. Browser-detection scripts and browser-specific behavior should be buried and forgotten. Firefox is about standards, and the community acknowledges that.
I know the creator of those scripts is trying to help, but his/her aim is terrible.
OK, let's do this the squeaky clean way. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Unbelievable. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sorry you feel this way, but I understand your position as someone who does a lot of webmastering. I've done it myself, and yes, it's frustating.
I have to disagree with you, though. People have a right to choose, and they have the right to choose the crappy browser that breaks standards and monopolizes the desktops. I think IE will never fall under the 30% market share (note: completely made-up percentage), if only because there's people who just don't use thei
Re:Unbelievable. (Score:3, Interesting)
2. What about my ability to choose? As long as people continue to write IE-only websites, I cannot always use the browser I prefer. As long as IE has bad W3C support, I have to spend 50% of my time tweaking my sites. People force me to use IE, why is it not justified if I do the same to them?
Re:Unbelievable. (Score:4, Insightful)
That's true. But you should ask yourself whether most of these people even care about knowing better. My guess is they don't.
That's what it takes you to install Firefox. You do realize there's people that never download or install programs, and people who don't even know what downloading or installing means, don't you? How many people know what a browser is? And again, how many people care? That point is mute unless you plan on going around the world installing Firefox on all computers and showing people how to use it. No, it's not the same. The icons are different. Laugh all you want, that's the reaction of a real user.
Your second point is, again, very true, but unrealistic. People don't care about this. They want their browser to work. Is it unfair that Micrsoft is taking advantage of this and promoting the creation of IE-exclusive websites? Hell yes! But, in the end, it's all about giving the users the best experience possible. You're not doing that by supporting a project like this.
My only hope is that webmasters will become more aware of web standards and develop sites that are compatible for most browsers, IE tweaks and all. That's as good as it gets, IMO.
Re:Unbelievable. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Unbelievable. (Score:4, Interesting)
You seem to assume that because it's on Slashdot, Slashdot and its readers think it's a good idea. I don't believe that's the case.
It's a stupid idea, and it's against ideas that are more important than open source. It's against the idea that the network protocols should be client-neutral, and that graceful degradation should take place when you use a client that (like IE) sucks.
It's stupid, and it won't work.
Not that i personally approve (Score:2)
Re:Unbelievable. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Unbelievable. (Score:4, Insightful)
Look at all the IE-only websites. Firefox has reached about 10% market share now, yet there are still people out there who develop for IE only, with no legitimate reason to do so. If you speak to those webmasters, you'll probably hear something like "I don't care about the minority". Why is this a problem? Because as long as IE has the most market share, it holds back the W3C standards!
This has got to stop. As a webmaster, I'm sick of hacking my website to be IE-compatible while I'm already W3C-compliant, and I'm sure many webmasters are sick of it too. The only way to fight this is to ensure that IE loses more of it's market share. We cannot wait for IE7, that takes too long and who knows what else Microsoft refuses to fix. Yet Firefox still doesn't have more than 10% market share. It's time for more aggressive weaponry, because apparently you can't win by playing the nice guy. Plus I'm sick and tired of all the IE-specific sites. The only way to get rid of them is by decreasing IE's market share.
I don't care what browser will have the most market share, as long as it's not IE (or IE shells). Every single modern browser out there has good support for W3C standards - except IE.
Re:Unbelievable. (Score:4, Informative)
+ Sending a XHTML DOCTYPE to IE actually breaks it by putting IE in "legacy CSS" mode. Send a HTML4 DOCTYPE and it's not perfect, but margin and em will work at least.
+ No browser has any sort of XHTML support except for Mozilla Firefox. The rest just fake it as HTML4, except for IE which correctly doesn't accept a MIME type for a document it can't handle correctly. So IE & FF are correct, Safari and Opera are broken.
But here's the fun part: even though Firefox correctly accepts XHTML, it disables progressive rendering and makes your site load much slower. Why would you want to do that?
So, while making XHTML compliant pages is admirable, realistically you want to serve HTML4 to current browsers.
Re:Unbelievable. (Score:3, Informative)
As will IE7's. They confirmed a while back (on the IEBlog, I believe) that there won't be any support for the application/xml+xhtml MIME type.
Re:Unbelievable. (Score:3, Interesting)
Hate rain on your parade, but neither does firefox/mozilla (for printing anyway):
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23509
-- Rex
Re:Unbelievable. (Score:3, Interesting)
That's not necessary, that's what the "Accept" HTTP header is for. Put this or something similar in your .htaccess:
Re:Unbelievable. (Score:3, Insightful)
Almost? The IE dev team has Fucking Killed(TM) XHTML. XHTML is useless to the point where usually the only sen
Re:Unbelievable. (Score:3, Insightful)
as long as it's not IE..."
There is a name for those people who visit your site while using IE. They are called your customers. You sounds as if you do not care about your customers. We all know how well an attitude like that has worked for companies over the years.
Some people don't use Firefox because they already have IE and it works. Others don't use Firefox because of how it works.
They
Re:Unbelievable. (Score:3, Insightful)
WaSP Browser Update Campaign (Score:5, Informative)
The Web Standards Project (WaSP) ran a similar Browser Update Campaign [webstandards.org] a few years back.
Re:WaSP Browser Update Campaign (Score:3, Interesting)
Your Mission: Get Under 50 (Score:5, Informative)
this project's goal is not to get people using any better browser but Firefox.
O rly? "Your Mission: Get Under 50" in the article [explorerdestroyer.com] describes a stats page that tracks sites that have fewer than 50% page views from Microsoft Internet Explorer. The end is less IE; the means is more Firefox. If the goal were to advocate Firefox to replace Opera or Safari or Konqueror, the mission would be "Get Over 50".
Annoyance as a marketing technique? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think if I were an IE user I'd refuse to use Firefox on these grounds. Impress me on technical or philosophical merits, not by being a bully.
Re:Annoyance as a marketing technique? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Annoyance as a marketing technique? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Annoyance as a marketing technique? (Score:5, Insightful)
I come across this kind of thing all the time. Way to often. And while *I* turn away from such sites, regular blow joe users will stop using whatever non IE-browser they may be using and "just use IE because everything works in IE". And it is damn near impossible to convince these people to not use IE.
It is high time to start fighting fire with fire (and Firefox!).
I don't see why people are getting so uptight about this. People are free to use their own judgment as to how to inform, warn, or outright block IE users. If these people want to design sites so they work in Mosacic and Netscape 2.0 they are free to do that too, but the web is moving on with or without them.
Re:Annoyance as a marketing technique? (Score:2)
Remember, membership in PETA is a strong indicator of vegitarianism, and we all know that the meat of herbivores tastes much better than the stringy, gamey meat of omnivores and carnivores. Yep, PETA stands for People Eating Tasty Activists!
Re:Annoyance as a marketing technique? (Score:2)
Re:Annoyance as a marketing technique? (Score:4, Funny)
For example, whenever I meet militant PETA people I really want to go kill baby bunnies, skin them, and wear their bloody firs as a coat... and I'm vegetarian!
My argument exactly . . . if we're not supposed to eat animals then why are they made of meat? ;-)
Re:Annoyance as a marketing technique? (Score:2)
The point being that when someone is particularly annoying I often feel the urge to do exactly the opposite of what they advocate. Mindlessly slaughtering bunnies for wasteful coats is pretty diametrically opposed to the stance an annoying PETA person would take.
As an aside, not all PETA people are annoying, just
Re:Annoyance as a marketing technique? (Score:2)
Re:Annoyance as a marketing technique? (Score:2)
You didn't say you were going to eat them. Vegetarians can wear fur coats too.
Re:Annoyance as a marketing technique? (Score:2)
Re:Annoyance as a marketing technique? (Score:2)
Paranoia about IRCing as root (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see it any different than web browsing as root, and guess what, there has been far more exploits against M$IE than there have against mIRC. Or xchat.
Melissa
but explorer is needed (Score:2)
No, it isn't (Score:3, Insightful)
There are plenty of banks whose websites conform to W3C standards, and which consequently are usable with Firefox. I don't have any problem with my on-line banking (with Firefox, of course). Maybe you should change to a better bank? If your bank is backward in the way you describe, it probably has other problems which are not yet apparent to you.
Re:No, it isn't (Score:2)
Anyway, I emailed them to bitch about it. I imagine that others did too, as the site is currently down.
My point is that even WaMu (the "better bank" in many regards) still
Oh, lovely, it's spyware (Score:5, Informative)
if (document.getElementById)
{
var img = document.getElementById(image);
}
else if (document.all)
{
var img = document.all[image];
}
else if (document.layers)
{
var img = document.layers[image];
}
img.setAttribute('src','http://getunder50.com/pin
}
Re:Oh, lovely, it's spyware (Score:4, Informative)
Oh lovely, site owners can opt out (Score:3, Informative)
And not only that, but web site owners can also opt out of this statistics collection. From the "Your Mission: Get Under 50" sidebar in The Article:
Re:Oh, lovely, it's spyware (Score:3, Interesting)
Fact is, the script does not collect any personal information. All it does is collecting the host address of the site that has that script. It's entirely anymous. It does not breach privacy in any way. There is no rational reason to oppose it.
not keen (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:not keen (Score:2)
That's what I will do on my site, at least.
Re:not keen (Score:2)
Please, please don't! (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, it's not really a program I can support. Inform those that don't know about their options, but don't get on their nerves. Ever opened an IE (when your standard browser is something else) and noticed how it bugs you with "IE ain't your standard browser, do you want it to be?"?
And how annoying this is?
And how it doesn't want you to make IE your standard browser even MORE?
Why would you think it makes someone use FF instead of IE if you keep bugging him just the same way IE pesters you?
Re:Please, please don't! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Please, please don't! (Score:2)
"Ethic" hackers vs. "commercial" trojan writers (Score:3, Insightful)
Trojans are a business. The amount of POCs and ego-boosters is dwarfed by the number of commercial trojans and worms. Hacking servers and taking down sites is no business. Trojans is.
Now, to be profitable, trojans need a high penetration. And for thi
Re:Please, please don't! (Score:3, Insightful)
1) IIS only runs on Windows, and so the host is definitely Windows, and so your pre-packaged exploit has a greater chance of running if you manage to crak the server (not so a *nix, which you don't have a 'spolit for)
2) *nix admins are more diligent/security aware than Windows ones
3) the attackers do it because they hate M$
4) IIS is a softer target than Apache (definitely true historically, not so much so now)
5) Apache doesn
Why not just keep crashing IE? (Score:2)
Anyway, my thought was, wouldn't it be better to just include all the common code in you page that crashes IE? If suddenly, IE started crashing on lots of sites, that might upset the users enough.
Mind you, I have a friend (who used to be a Unix admin), and when I advised his girlfriend to use Firefox, he said, No, no point. Not sure what the motto is there.
Re:Why not just keep crashing IE? (Score:2)
Shit, I just did it for the cause! (Score:3, Interesting)
Grab it here: [GOOGLE BANNER PLUG]
1. You need a Google AdSense account to make referral money for each user switched. If you don't already have an account, click this button to sign-up: [GOOGLE BANNER PLUG]
Then he goes below down to wash his hands clean by explaining that Google won't go bankrupt from this campaign, so it's perfectly ok to be retarded and lock out 80% of your visitors.
Oh and by the way this "script" shows the "you use IE" message on many builds of the original Mozilla Suite. Amateur.
Firefox Deterrent (Score:5, Insightful)
Huh? This is the same type of bull that makes me hate IE only websites. At least most IE-only problems can be attributed to stupidity instead of malice. If someone tried to deliberately hinder my access to their site because I use Firefox, I'd likely never visit the site again.
Worryingly, the wording of this site makes it sound as though Google is affiliated with ExplorerDestroyer, which is very far from the truth. In fact, I imagine that Google would be worried by this page as it detracts from their "do not evil" ethos.
The Browser Wars 2.0 (Score:2, Interesting)
I for one expect that the competition between IE and the Google-backed FF is only going to increase in the months to come. I am torn. I can't help but approve of this, simply because it will diminish the market share of IE further. On the other hand, as others have mentioned, being harassed leads to resistance; the project might backfire.
Note: my anti-IE bias is based soley on being a web developer. MS has been fighting the interweb from day one, and IE is all the proof you'll ever need of this.
Related:
Baad Idea (Score:3, Interesting)
All the websites made by frontpage, and whatever servers running IIS, suddenly boot firefox..
seriously, this is a terrible idea. Let's not stoop to their level!
Also, Is it possible some users would think it's some kind of spyware? Users that were advised not to install stuff just because a website asks them too?
How about older opera users who identify as internet explorer?
Re:Baad Idea (Score:2)
Shouldn't they follow their own rulez?!?! (Score:2, Insightful)
gg hypocrits; nextmap (Score:2, Insightful)
Annoying (Score:5, Insightful)
Your users will have a reason why they use a particular browser, and often it's not because they're too lazy/dumb to install a "better" one.
Re:Annoying (Score:4, Insightful)
I have a huge project I'm working on right now to upgrade my company's website design and functionality, and I would be lying if I said refactoring proper valid HTML into some mess of shit to get IE to render it properly wasn't taking up 25-30% of our development time. And by development time, I'm including not only totally new HTML/JSP pages, but new backend Java, new Javascript and new SQL tables, procedures, views and a new SQL database. Thirty percent. We cannot use any select controls because Microsoft managed to design IE in such a way that the select bar, out of all the controls on the page, is the lucky control to get its own HWND. This somehow precludes it from obeying z-ordering. So I had to write some javascript to emulate that behaviour. Let that sink in. I had to basically emulate a simple HTML form control because IE was designed by what I can only presume are retards.
So your opinion about having web developers "aim to make their sites usable for as many different browsers as is reasonably possible", to me, is poorly thought out. Instead of forcing hordes of web developers to pour hundreds of extra hours into basically developing shit, why can't Microsoft write a browser that simply TRIES to not suck? Cut the infection off at the source instead of trying to force everyone else to deal with it. It doesn't even need to be too much better, but all these hacks are the epitome of poor design and they certainly don't promote best practices. What happens to my hacks when IE7 comes out? Am I going to have to refactor my fucking code? I should send a goddamn bill to Microsoft for the fucking coronary I'm going to experience from being so pissed at their incompetence. Sorry, I got a little hot headed there. Goddamnit I'm tired of IE.
Better approach to a bad idea (Score:2, Informative)
IE is obsolete! (Score:2)
Sure too many people are still using it. But if 90% of the world were still running Netscape 2.0 just because they didn't know any better, would you REALLY want to continue designing for that or just tell people that they need to get off their lazy butts and upgrade already?
IE is holdi
Stupid, stupid... (Score:3, Informative)
I've been using Opera for a long while but lately I've given Firefox a try... It's nice and all, but Opera has some neat details that Firefox lacks. A very simple and frivolous example: I can move my tabs from the top to any other the side! Yeah! Oh, Firefox has an extension for it? Is it the one that breaks with every new Firefox version? You get my drift...
Anyways, I see less and less advantages in Firefox when compared to Opera. So Firefox is opensource... well, I couldn't care less. It's the same if someone said "hey, don't drink Coke, drink Shomke, because we know the recipy and we can all change it!". I don't give a flying rat's ass about code and source code, I, as a end user, just want things to work a certain way. And Opera does work that way, and does let me change things around out of the box. In Firefox, we need a stupid "extensions" just to clip a toenail in the interface.
"Firefox can't do this" "Hey, here's an extension" "Firefox can't do that" "Here's another extension". Prety quickly you will have a handfull of extensions, that might or might not break with the next Firefox version...
Heck, I'll give you another example! There is an extension to (gasp!) minimize Firefox to the system tray, right next to the clock. In one of the last Firefox updates, that extension stoped working at my computer at work. Yes, FF is updated to the latest version and so is that extension, but everytime I use both together, FF just displays a big, empty window, with *nothing* to click or any menus. And guess what! At my home computer, I have the *same* version of both and it runs fine! And don't go blaming it on Windows, because I'm using the same Windows XP in both computers. Oh and in Opera, the hotkey for that specific funtion is Ctrl-H. No extensions, no breakups...
So, about this whole "holy-war" agains IE... I'm just sitting and watching, waiting for the inevitable moment when this will blow on the face of the zealots... remember folks, FUD works both ways, and if you spread FUD to suport your product of choice, sooner or later it will bite you in the ass.
And heres a little site for you to read: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/FirefoxMyt hs.html#Security [comcast.net]
Re:Stupid, stupid... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is problem #1 for Firefox (with the memory leak being #2), and is very stupid: Say you have five or six extensions, they discover a huge security leak, and you lose those extensions, at least until the developer catches up. And some of them are part of the reason you use Firefox. You're between a rock and a hard place. (Way back when 0.9 came out, I didn't update to it until damn near the time 1.0 came out bec
Browse Happy (Score:5, Informative)
http://browsehappy.com/ [browsehappy.com]
R.
I take the passive aggressive approach (Score:3, Interesting)
Why we exclusively develop for IE (Score:4, Informative)
Imagine, for example, that you're a retailer called "The Void". Your internal IT department can't do much, as you decided long ago that it is best to outsource all development. You approach your IT services vendor and say:
"I want a retail website where I can sell my goods".
Your vendor says:
"Great! That'll cost you $8 million, and we'll give you a pretty site"
The vendor writes up a contract, you sign, and you get a web site.
Then, once you go live, you get all these complaints from customers. WHAT is going on? You hire an expert to find out. It turns out that no one at "The Void" was smart enough to actually understand the ramifications of the contract. The site, as built, only works with IE.
You open a discussion with the firm you contracted with:
You: "Oh, you guys screwed up. Fix it."
Them: "No, you signed off already. You even paid us. Sorry."
You: "Fix it"
Them: "It'll take another $1 million"
You: "No budget."
Them: "Bye!"
It is easy and inexpensive to design and build for all modern browsers. It's just that many IT contractors like to milk money out of their customers. Building for IE alone is an easy way to milk money.
this doesn't even link to getfirefox.com... (Score:3, Interesting)
If I were going to direct people to download Firefox, I would send them directly to getfirefox.com.
Been there, done that (Score:3, Interesting)
My online game has 2 points where it tells people to switch. One is an occasional (once a week or so) friendly reminder to IE users that they should consider upgrading.
The other is a page that simply doesn't work in IE. It's valid HTML 4, CSS 2 and IE breaks it horribly. So I catch IE users, tell them about the problem (i.e. IE doesn't properly support web standards) and then allow them to continue on and see the train wreck with their own eyes.
For the past year or so, Firefox has been the #1 browser in my statistics (currently 51%, IE 37%). It works. It takes time, but it works.
And before you cry - this isn't a personal "me and my dog" homepage, I have around 1500 players and 120,000 visits a month. And it's not a Linux site either, the OS statistics say 93% windows.
Re:Been there, done that (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps not, but that's how you manage it. The studio producer used to say to the man with a cause: "If you have a message to deliver, take it to Western Union."
Re:That's _exactly_ what we need... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:That's _exactly_ what we need... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:That's _exactly_ what we need... (Score:5, Interesting)
There are already plenty of web sites that say they only work on IE using Windows and won't let you in. The other day I even saw one that explicitly and snobbishly said the only way they would "support" using a Mac was with Windows and IE loaded in VirtualPC.
Re:If blocking users is wrong,it's wrong for every (Score:5, Interesting)
Why is it that nobody can frustrate IE users, in your view, but its perfectly acceptable to frustrate non-IE users (which has already been going on for years)? IMHO, this is long overdue and it is about time the IE users get some of the treatment dished out on the rest of us who don't use IE.
Re:If blocking users is wrong,it's wrong for every (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd agree with you, if it was their fault; but it isn't. As it is, preventing access to IE is every bit as bad as preventing access to non-IE browsers.
If you want to code to the standards as Opera and/or Firefox implement them and let IE fend for itself, fine. If you check the user agent and simply block IE, then that's just plain dumb.
Re:That's _exactly_ what we need... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:That's _exactly_ what we need... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why not? Because it ends up with people who employ such tactics resorting to the same tactics that they complain about so much.
So it's ok for web sites to require FireFox but the moment they say that about IE it's suddenly wrong? No... It's hypocritical.
Last I checked, FireFox and OSS was about choice and forcing people to change sure seems to disregard choice and adds to the general perception of snobbery on the OSS side.
Re:That's _exactly_ what we need... (Score:2)
Re:That's _exactly_ what we need... (Score:2)
You missed an important point (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong. A user who comes to the site with Opera or Mozilla or Safari, or in fact any W3C-compliant browser, will not see the message (unless browser options are set to lie about its identity, which is probably not a smart thing to do anyway). This initiative is not intended to lead to a browser monoculture.
Having said that, I would have preferred to see a script which detects grossly non-standard behavior, rather than a specific browser. I'd have no problem with MSIE being dominant if it respected agreed W3C standards.
Re:That's _exactly_ what we need... (Score:2)
Re:Using it (Score:2)
1) Are visitors using IE switching to Firefox?
or
2) Are visitors using IE annoyed with your use of the banner and not coming back?
Both of these options will show a rise in Firefox (percentage wise) and a decrease in IE (percentage wise and absolute figures).