Closed Bug 85009 Opened 24 years ago Closed 23 years ago

bmwusa.com - Top portion of the window is garbled

Categories

(Tech Evangelism Graveyard :: English US, defect, P1)

defect

Tracking

(Not tracked)

VERIFIED WONTFIX

People

(Reporter: SalmanAshfaq, Assigned: bc)

References

()

Details

(Whiteboard: [aok])

Top portion of the window is not displayed correctly. Netscape 4.77 displays it correctly. If you do a side by side comparison with Netscape and Mozilla then you will know what I am talking about.
I only see the top and bottom parts of the page. Moz pegs the cpu at 100% for approx 20 seconds before rendering anything. Using today's tip on linux.
Keywords: perf
OS: Windows 2000 → All
Interesting page source: </frameset></html> SRC="/site_layout/navigation/copywrite/copywrite.cfm" NAME="foot" MARGINWIDTH="0" MARGINHEIGHT="0" SCROLLING=NO NORESIZE> <frame SRC="/site_layout/navigation/BMWBotNav/menu.cfm" NAME="foot2" MARGINWIDTH="0" MARGINHEIGHT="0" SCROLLING=NO NORESIZE> </frameset></html> Investigating further...
The middle frame is blank because it's source is three lines: <script language="javascript"> if (navigator.appVersion.indexOf("Macintosh") == -1) { document.domain = "bmwusa.com"; } </script>
I spot layers in the top frame's source. --> Evangelism. Eric: you might want to look at why we're so slow at rendering this page regardless of it source.
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
Component: HTMLFrames → Evangelism
Ever confirmed: true
Hardware: PC → All
Reassigning.
Assignee: pollmann → bclary
QA Contact: amar → zach
*** Bug 85818 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Priority: -- → P2
Summary: Top portion of the window is garbled → bmwusa.com - Top portion of the window is garbled
All Evangelism Bugs are now in the Product Tech Evangelism. See bug 86997 for details.
Component: Evangelism → US English
Product: Browser → Tech Evangelism
Version: other → unspecified
This bug seems to have fallen off the radar... If you go to the site now, you get redirected to a page with the following text: Welcome to bmwusa.com. We detect that you are using the Netscape 6x browser. We are working to make our site compatible with Netscape versions 6.0 and 6.01. For smooth browser performance at bmwusa.com, we recommend using Netscape 4.7 or Internet Explorer 4.0+.
Priority: P2 → P1
I visited this site today, still same result but no noted that they are working on changing anything. Is this a site problem or Mozilla problem ?
they just block ns6, they miss mozilla. However, they still don't work with us.
Keywords: perf
Whiteboard: [aok]
Just a remark: http://www.bmw.de works. It looks quite similar to the american site (didn't look to close). They could probably share some code.
*** Bug 121099 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Depends on: 111966
reassigning to Mgalli who has fully analyzed the issues, contacted the company who designed the site and done a sample page recoding....for naught as they don't plan to fix soon. Irate letters from customers would help push the issue! (there is a "contact the site representative" link on the Contacts page)
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 23 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
argh reopening to assign to marcio
Status: RESOLVED → REOPENED
Resolution: WONTFIX → ---
marked wontfix due to explanation above
Status: REOPENED → RESOLVED
Closed: 23 years ago23 years ago
Resolution: --- → WONTFIX
i'm in an endlessloop.com. next job is to get checkboxes here instead of radio buttons to change status and assignee at same time. i will leave it assigned to bob and cc marcio.
Verified 2002030908/WinXP
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
The javascript on that site (http://www.bmwusa.com/library/navigation/menuFunctions.js) shows an error at line 22 and line 30 when using Mozilla 2002031209 at line 22, the error is ObjectId is not defined, at 30 is masterArray[itemId] has no properties. It's not clear whether this is a bug in the javascript (i.e. ObjectId should be ItemId) or not.
Why is this tech evangelism bug marked WONTFIX? This doesn't make any sense at all. I was about to file this as a new bug until I came across this. Specifically, the "Contact Us" button at the bottom right doesn't work, although it works fine in IE. I thought the point of tech evangelism is that we keep on their ass until they fix their bugs. How can this be marked WONTFIX? It should remain open until they fix their bugs, yes? Obviously I'm missing something here. - Adam
The explanation for WONTFIX is in comment #13.
In evangelism, if a site tells us they have no intention of fixing their site there is nothing we can do about it. We mark those bugs as wontfix to indicate their unwillingness to support the standards. If at some later time, we have the time and resources we will revisit wontfix bugs and recontact them. We do not harrass or act in an objectionable way if someone tells us they have no intention of fixing their site. That is just the way things are. However, as an individual customer you are free to complain to them. However, as someone who receives feedback from external aliases, if you are obnoxious or rude, you are very much less likely to achieve a positive result. To put it bluntly, whenever I receive feedback from a person who resembles a rectum, I ignore them.
LOL. Ok, I get it. But "Resolved" implies "complete." Shouldn't we have some other tag than WONTFIX so we could leave the bug unresolved, but explain that the site operators have no intention of fixing the site? That way, it doesn't come up on anybody's operator, but it DOES come up in searches so the bug doesn't continually get put into the system and resolved WONTFIX again? Also, this way it's very clear that a site's operator is being unreasonable, which might get the community to turn up the pressure on them to fix their site. - Adam
sure, i could change this bug from (verified)'resolved'[wontfix] to 'closed'[wontfix] that really doesn't improve anything. and it's not really useful to make any sort of distinction.
I don't think you understood the point of my message. I understand a differentiation between "Resolved" and "the site developer doesn't feel like fixing this." Don't you? By marking this Resolved Wontfix, the impression I get is that Mozilla.org doesn't wish to fix the bug, or doesn't feel like doing anything to get the site developer to fix their site. And by extension, that means that Mozilla users don't feel like doing anything (or can't do anything) to get the site fixed either. And that is incorrect. To me, the point of "evangelism" is that people push the site developer to fix their bugs. At first, gentle prodding and offers of help are useful. But when that doesn't work, then it's probably time to turn up the heat. It's not the time to mark the bug "resolved" so nobody knows there's still a problem. This system of resolving evangelism bugs when the site isn't fixed appears broken to me. Once again, my suggestion would be that the bug should be left open, but a new resolution should be created ("obstinate?") to identify site developers that don't feel like fixing their site. My personal belief is that when a site developer says they don't feel like fixing something to accomodate Moz, our emails have likely landed with a Microsoft-loving weenie. They figure anything from Microsoft is wonderful, and screw alternatives. Why should email landing with one technie moron keep us from getting a site fixed? Chances are, we simply haven't reached the email box of the site admin's boss, who wants to sell things no matter which web browser a user wishes to use. We talk to that guy, and the site gets fixed. And that's why I think this bug should remain open, and a new resolution should be used as an identifier. - Adam
some future version of bugzilla will support custom resolutions. until then, we use the features we've been dealt.
Adam, Evangelism is it's own universe. We reuse bugzilla which is set up for developers for our own purposes. When people have been exposed to evangelism issues for any length of time, our reinterpretation of resolutions, etc is quite clear. As for searching for existing evangelism bugs, you should always include resolved bugs to see if sites with reported problems that have been resolved have regressed. If a site has regressed on the *exact* same issue as the one you have discovered, you can reopen the bug. Otherwise file a new bug on the site. As for WONTFIX, unless you want to take ownership of contacting the site, and take the bug yourself, leave them alone for now. We will readdress the WONTFIX bugs at the appropriate time. See http://mozilla-evangelism.bclary.com/ for more details.
*** Bug 139932 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 148388 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
If you want to give bmwusa feed back the link is http://ntisweb3.salessupport.com/bmw_vc/feedback.asp The link given in comment 13 did not work(their javascript is busted), which is what is the point of this bug.
I haven't gone through the whole site but It seems that if you tell Mozilla to identify as IE 5.5 (I don't like it but for testing purpose and for reaching my Internetbanking service I have to live with it now and then) The site comes up ok and works. So fixing the site might for them be a question of serving Mozilla the same code as they serve IE. And that can't take many minutes to implement.
Product: Tech Evangelism → Tech Evangelism Graveyard
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.