Making Bold Claims: The Wrong Way

 |  Interwebs, Review

Some time in 2005 I passed comment on a website. A website that loaded so terribly in Firefox — well, any browser that wasn’t IE actually — that I was rendered speechless. I know! Me! Speechless! It’s as if pigs had learnt to fly and my cold frosty heart melted a little.

OK, maybe not so much the second one.

Baffled by what lay before me, I uttered three simple words: oh. my. gosh. Thankfully, my readers saw my plight and rescued me, filling in the gaps with many pleasant summaries of the site in question. Lo, the world was right again… pigs lost their wings and all was well.

Apparently that site still exists today. Apparently it even works in Firefox. I wouldn’t know; I don’t dare look for fear of repeating the torture that still plagues my very existence 3 years on (I jest). I do know, however, that said site owner is now preaching compatibility to all and sundry. Behold the following words of wisdom, taken from a review she completed for Rhiannon of PSGR:

Even my own website, — Which is well known for its complete disregard of standards compliant coding and use of iFrames — Will load correctly on every single version of Internet Explorer, as well as all versions of FireFox, Safari, Opera, Netscape, Camino, Konqueror, and even obscure browsers such as Iceweasel and SeaMonkey.

…and thus, here is where I take a break from my mocking to … oh wait, no, it’s more more mocking from here on out:


See, the problem with making such a bold claim is that there’s always someone around to point out the flaw in your argument. That, ladies and gentleman, is where I come in… the problem with claiming your iframes-based website works in every single version of Internet Explorer and all versions of FireFox, Safari, Opera, Netscape, Camino, Konqueror — or worse Any browser Any operating system — is that Internet Explorer didn’t support iframes until version 3. Netscape 4 support was lacking, and it wasn’t until Opera 4.0 came out that iframes were introduced as an — albeit disabled by default — option. Most mobile phone browsers, such as the one included on the LG Viewty, also don’t support iframes, and text browsers like Elinks also lack support (obviously).

Because no demonstration of LOLworthy claims is complete without a little graphical evidence:

Opera 3.0

Netscape 4.79


If it hadn’t already been done, I’d award our brave little compatibility warrior a LOLcat :)

Jem Turner +44(0)7521056376

43 comments so far

  1. Catherine said:

    Isn’t there some sort of rule about mixing stripes with dots?

    Anyway, I agree with your comment, Jem. Ha ha ha ha ha.

    Now I am just waiting for to load every browsers’ rendering of

  2. Dee said:

    I feel like I’m not really adding anything to the conversation since all I can really managed to say about this whole thing is, “lol”. But that sums it all up pretty nicely, I think.

    I mean, I just assumed she was wrong; but proof is nice too. :P

  3. Aisling said:

    Oh, dear. I suppose it really is a shame that most of us don’t have the time to make 100s of pages of useless content such as “SpongeBob SquareQuotes,” either.

  4. Brent said:

    Oh Mallory. Endless lulz to be had. I about shat myself when I saw her screenshot sitting in the perfection reviews. Here’s to hoping she never leaves the internet <3

  5. Sarai said:

    I couldn’t believe she was reviewing, I thought it was some sort of mistake. Guess not :(

    I wonder what my website looks in those browsers…

  6. Rachael said:

    Aha, I tell a lie. The Viewty does support iFrames. I do apologise for supplying you with false information about that. :\

    However, I’m an openminded person, so let’s take some screencaps! Well, almost-screencaps. When I say screencaps I mean “photos of the viewty browser taken with a separate camera”

    Here goes then.

    Exhibit A – – The page loads and this is at the top. Makes it look like there’s no site, just an image. The two white rectangles on the right are scrollbars. Let’s scroll down to see some content.

    Exhibit B – – The main content iFrame. Now there’s three scrollbars, and I’m not sure which one is for which frame.

    Exhibit C – – The end of the content and the start of the navigation. There are three scrollbars still and the fact that you have to use one scrollbar to scroll the page so you can get to the other scrollbar to scroll the content 2 lines makes me want to cry. :'(

    Maybe if we try the browser the other way round, there won’t be as much scrolling.

    Exhibit D – – There are still three scrollbars. *kills self* To give you some idea of the size of the Viewty – it’s a phone. These scrollbars are the sort of thing you need to carefully slide with the edge of your thumbnail. You can’t drag the screen with your fingertip (like you would with a frameless site) because the poor browser doesn’t know which part of the screen you wan’t dragging.

    The Viewty understands semantics well. Its tiny screen (240*400) doesn’t lend itself well to large images / CSS, so it’s essential that your HTML is up to scratch. Jem, your HTML is up to scratch. :P The Viewty can tell the difference between your strong / em / blockquote and your main text, and your site renders much more nicerererer.

    Exhibits E and F – – Jemjabella.

    So, um… my point? Yes, the Viewty will display information from an iFrame. How well it displays that information I shall leave up to interpretation.

  7. Nellie said:

    You can probably guess, but I’m going to say ‘You have no idea how much I love you right now!’

    I was actually attempting to get my website back up faster so I could write something similar to this, but you did it for me. Thanks!

  8. Becky said:

    I almost passed out from laughing when her website popped up in the Perfection queue, what she thought she was doing I don’t know. And what Rhiannon was thinking when she let Mallory write a review for PSGR… let’s hope she ran out of whatever it was she was smoking because LOL.

  9. Niki said:

    Two years ago, when I was a n00b, I used to think she was awesome until I gained more experience (unlike she will, bahaha) and now I think she sucks. A whole lot more than I sucked when I started web designer.

    True story.

  10. Vera said:

    LOL, not her again!
    I remember she once argued that her “hug counter” was original as no other website had ever used it. Funny that about 3 livejournal accounts popped into mind at that remark.

  11. Christine said:

    Hmm.. i wondered when I saw her reviewing for PSGR too. But I try to keep a low profile on the intwerweb so i wasn’t sure. To be honest though, i don’t like her review style at all. I don’t like any of the guest reviewers. None of them have that great “brook no nonsense” style that Rhiannon embodies. Cause she’s straight up with out being cruel, but when her guest reviewers try that, they just sound snotty. ./shrug just my thoughts of course.

  12. Arwen said:

    I don’t have too much to say on the topic since I am friends with Mallory. (OH NOES, I’M HERE TO TELL U TAHT U R RONG N MEEN!!111)

    Aside from the fact that she refuses to adhere to current web standards, I do like Mallory’s designs – I think they’re cute.

    I think it’s rude of Niki to say that “someone like that” will “never improve” because there’s always room for improvement. Some people are faster learners than others.

    I’m not going to argue for what she said, or bitch and whine in defense for my friend, but whatever. Just my two cents.

  13. Joe said:

    Why the use of iframes anyway? She could easily get the same results in php includes, with the added benefit that her content could actually be indexed, as well as displayed by those oh so obscure browsers she boasts about.

  14. Becky said:

    I think it’s rude of Niki to say that “someone like that” will “never improve” because there’s always room for improvement. Some people are faster learners than others.

    In the two or so years since I first visited Mallory’s website is has changed very little. Any attempts (not only by myself) on how she could improve are ignored, whether or not they are valid (larger text size, standards, etc.,). I doubt she’ll ever make any attempts to improve as she’s far too busy being “unique” and “original” to be bothered with listening to other people or trying to be anything other than mediocre.

  15. Aisling said:

    I remember Mallory’s site BEFORE she got her domain, which, according to the Whois, was in 2004. And it hasn’t changed. And I’m sure she is far too stubborn to change it.

  16. Becky said:

    You know I thought about this last night when I was trying (and failing) to convince myself that the wonky lines I had drawn for the face were actually full of character and pizazz (they weren’t). Mallory uses originality as an excuse to be mediocre. It’s much, much harder to stand out above the crowd when you’re doing something up-to-date and popular and I have nothing but admiration for those who can do it (wish I could). She uses a style that is very easy to slap together and tries to pass it off as being original, no really, because it’s anti-whatever it is that’s in at the moment (standards, blogging systems, legibility…. oh those crazy kids) and that must mean it’s original.

    But it’s not. She doesn’t want to have to put the hard work and effort into something that is truly original, so she settles for mediocraty and goes the easy route while trying to convince people that it’s original. Is it any wonder she’s the laughingstock of several communities?

  17. Dee said:

    Considering she keeps checking back at my site every day or so to see if I’ve posted anything else about her… I’d say the answer to your question is, indeed, yes.

  18. Aisling said:

    Ha ha, Kayleigh. Making her more famous? It’s pretty much infamy at this point, which I’m sure she enjoys nonetheless.

    Truthfully, I’d rather be slightly under the radar, with good amounts of readership, a clean layout, up-to-date and useful content, etc. etc. than have people flocking over to visit so that they can laugh at the time warp of unprofessionalism.

    Clearly, she has put time into her site at one point, I wonder why she gave up? I agree with Becky. She uses originality as an excuse to be mediocre. But mediocrity disguised as originality isn’t cute, it’s kind of pathetic.

    Isn’t a personal site supposed to display your personality online? So, we see you (Jem) as a straight-edged, strong-structured person. I suppose I am a slightly odd person. :P And… it can only be assumed that Mallory is a sloppy, out-dated and close-minded person. Not exactly the description I would want for myself, would anybody else?

  19. Camille said:

    @Kayleigh: Famous? On the internet? You’re joking right? It’s not going to make her “famous”. Most people here that go on Jem’s site doesn’t even like that. Sure, they’ll give her hits but hits do not mean a thing if someone likes your site or not. That’s why I don’t bother with hits.

    Besides, I’d rather have someone help me then sugar frost what they think of my site or anything else that I make. It’s the same thing with everything else. How’d you think director’s become better or video games? Art? Pastry? Yes not everyone may agree but it’s always great to have the truth rather than a lie to make you become better.

    I for one ddn’t like it at first, but I love it when people tear at my text or tell me any mistakes that I made so I can become better and, sure as hell, I did. It’s just like school too. Interesting, no?

  20. Panda said:

    I think that bold, italicised, UNDERLINED laughs are much better.
    I probably shouldn’t even be reading this blog.
    But oh well. I don’t like Mallory much. I mean, her site’s fine. The text doesn’t show up too well in my browser (Safari, Mac) though with out my enlarging it 3 sizes. That may be partly my fault.
    I don’t think it’s entirely a big deal that her site doesn’t load correctly in some browsers. Not too many schoolkids using Linux will be viewing her site anyway, and there are far more ridiculous claims out there (like graphics made in paint were made in Creative Suite) then hers.

  21. Julie said:

    Oh, she now added a sMaRtAsS comment on her splash page: “That’s right, any browser, any operating system. Hey, I didn’t state that would work in those … I just stated that you can use whatever you want! LMAO. XD”

  22. Jem said:

    …she must have forgotten writing this bit then:

    Even my own website, — Which is well known for its complete disregard of standards compliant coding and use of iFrames — Will load correctly on every single version of Internet Explorer, as well as all versions of FireFox, Safari, Opera, Netscape, Camino, Konqueror, and even obscure browsers such as Iceweasel and SeaMonkey.

    What a dumbass.

  23. Nile said:

    Cannot even view her website. It says "Cannot find server". I am not going to even bother pinging that site if it is not worth it, which sounds to me like it. Been a while since I have seen that site. Been hanging about WordPress folks a lot these days.