Talk:Acid3/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Mobile Safari (iPhone)

The current version of Mobile Safari (iOS 4.2.1) passes the test 100/100 without any rendering errors. The results list should be updated to reflect this change.

Can you upload a screenshot? I tried many versions (don't know, if 4.2.1 was in the test) and no one passed the rendering. Also the 4.3.3 mobile safari fails (that is why i change it to no). I have a screenshot of the fail in the German wiki section.--46.5.68.10 (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about 4.x but the new Mobile Safari (iOS 5.0 iPhone) definitely appears to pass without any rendering errors for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.226.201.66 (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Netscape 9.0.0.6

Netscape got a result of 59/100, [1] Was going to ipload the image, but didn't quite know what's the licence of it... so.. I'll just leave this here.My Sistemx (talk) 01:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Epiphany passing ACID3

From the page history it is evident that test results of Epiphany 2.28 are often mistaken for passing the test. The sources say on topic:

Epiphany is quite snappy in GNOME 2.28 and scores 100/100 on the Acid3 test.

— Ryan Paul, "Linux garden gets a new GNOME with version 2.28". Ars Technica. 2009-09-24.

The GTK+ port achieved initial Acid3 conformance last month, but didn't perfectly match the reference rendering until earlier this week.

— Ryan Paul, "WebKit GTK+ port passes Acid3 on Linux", Ars Technica, 2008-04-23

which means that Epiphany passes the rendering test (it renders the page without deviations from the reference image). Still to pass ACID3 the browser should not only render the page right, but also perform well in process. The same source says on the performance part of the test:

It still needs smoother animation in order to officially meet all of Hickson's criteria.

— Ryan Paul, "WebKit GTK+ port passes Acid3 on Linux", Ars Technica, 2008-04-23

That is: the source explicitly states that Epiphany 2.28 failed the test. I use this browser daily and love it, but that's not the reason to make the untrue statements that fail verification of sources they are backed up with. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

We agreed years ago that browser would go into the Browsers that pass section even if they don't pass the performance aspect of the test. That's why Firefox and Opera are there. But in any case, when I try Epiphany it does pass the performance aspect. In short, the article does not make an untrue or unsourced statement about Epiphany. -- Schapel (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, may be now this agreement should change: these days there are browsers that indeed pass the test. P.S.: on one of my computers Epiphany indeed passes the test, but basing article on personal experience is something we should avoid per WP:OR. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I am completely open to the agreement changing. I am not open to you unilaterally deciding not to honor the agreement. Please begin discussion if you want to change the agreement rather than engaging in a edit war. Thanks. -- Schapel (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know about this local consensus, so I just used to global one: WP:V. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Browsers that pass

What should be the criteria of listing the browser in "Browsers that pass" section? The choices are:

• rendering (100/100 tests passed and rendering is identical to the reference)
• passing the test (previous criteria and no issues in performance report)

Note: reportedly, years ago the consensus was to include browsers with correct rendering only. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• passing the test per principle of least astonishment: the section heading implies that the list only contains the browsers which passed the test. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps more to the point, what should we do with browsers for which we have no information on whether they pass an aspect of the test, such as the performance aspect? Whichever section we put them in (pass or don't pass), someone can claim we're adding unsourced information to the article. I suppose we could add a third section, Browsers that might pass. Or we could agree to ignore all rules and allow original research in this one problematic case. It's silly not to be able to say that a browser passes or doesn't pass Acid3 when there is no disagreement about which do and don't pass. Epiphany passes, and Firefox and Opera don't. In this case, a hard line of no original research prevents us from adding useful information. -- Schapel (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe we shouldn't list the browsers that don't pass as such. Instead IMHO we should list the known browsers' results with the browsers known to pass listed separately. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I just suggested two ways of doing exactly that (add a third section that represents a gray area, or put original research in the article). Which of those two ways would you prefer, of would you like to suggest another way? Just to let you know, I don't like putting browsers that don't pass in the passing section either, but that's what other contributors wanted to do years ago, and there was a consensus at that time. It appears those contributors might have gone by now, because I don't see them expressing an opinion here. -- Schapel (talk) 12:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

In this case I would oppose using original research to add browsers as passing (though turning the table into a gallery with screenshots would make this original research not so damaging). Instead the viable option would be to omit entirely the browser if no reliable source ever discussed its ACID3 status and assume that browsers reported not to pass still failing the test until independent reliable source is claiming otherwise. I would also place in "passed" section the browsers with primary source claiming the ACID3 passed, tagging the primary source with {{primary source-inline}}. IMHO in this case it is the most straight-forward policy based decision. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I suppose we could do that. Which browsers would we say pass and don't pass under this policy? Would we say IE 9 passes? -- Schapel (talk) 11:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether it indeed passed the test (the performance part, namely), but I believe it should be placed in "passed" section according to WP:V. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't pass the rendering (no text shadow) and is far from passing the performance aspect of the test. I also think that information should be correct before we put it in Wikipedia, so the article shouldn't say that IE 9 passes, according to Wikipedia policy. In other words, just because a reliable source says something doesn't mean it should be added to an article if it's untrue. At least, that's my understanding of the policy of verifiability -- information added to Wikipedia should not only be true, but also verifiable. I'm against your idea. Wikipedia should be useful and should contain truthful information, first and foremost. If anything, I think we should bend the rules and allow original research in this one case, because the "reliable sources" contain misleading information about which browsers pass Acid3. -- Schapel (talk) 11:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

As is stated in WP:V, "Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia; truth, of itself, is not a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement." This is a typical case here: if the source lies, there should be another source debunking it to allow any opposition to inclusion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Uh, no. A piece of information should be true before we add it to Wikipedia. You can't just take a random incorrect statement from a reliable source and add it to Wikipedia whether it's true or not, then claim someone has to show another source that specifically claims that the information is incorrect. WP:V states that in addition to truth a statement should be verifiable. We are currently collowing all those rules; all the information in the article is indeed true and verifiable. You are proposing adding incorrect information to the article, which directly contradicts your own principle of least astonishment because we would be stating that browsers pass when they do not pass. I don't think we're going to come to any agreement about changing the article. As is, it diligently follows all of Wikipedia's rules. -- Schapel (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

We are only allowed to make judgment by using reliable sources. Unless you can prove that this source is wrong without original research, this source is true. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

No, statements are true or not true no matter what reliable sources say. Let's not get silly. -- Schapel (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Opera Mobile and Google Chrome Screenshot

Opera Mobile 12.0.4 in Android fully passes Acid3 100/100 score and rendering portion. Zoom must be set to 100 to see it.

Also the Google Chrome screenshot with the caption "Google Chrome fully passing the Acid3 test" should be replaced as Chrome 21 fully passes the performance test (the Alert box must state "Failed 0 tests. / Total elapsed time: ###s / No JS errors and no timing issues. / Was the rendering pixel-for-pixel perfect too?")

Google Chrome fully passing the Acid3 test.

Derek255 (talk) 14:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Do we have a reliable source that states Opera Mobile 12 fully passes? Chrome has fully passed for years now -- the results don't need to be absolutely perfect to pass: a 100/100 score, the rendering pixel perfect, and all subtests passed in 33 ms, is sufficient. -- Schapel (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope I am not able to find an official statement from Opera but you (or anyone) can try with Opera Mobile emulator or with an Android or Nokia device, or the Android emulator, install Opera Mobile there (Not Opera Mini), set the zoom at 100%, disable Small Screen Rendering and text wrapping (if enabled), and see yourself (I see it matching pixel-for pixel with the reference rendering), I suppose a screenshot of mine wouldn't be sufficient, right? Besides, Opera Mobile uses the same layout engine as its desktop counterpart version 12, so it should pass it anyway if you disable the mobile rendering techniques as render it as a desktop browser. -- Derek255 (talk) 13:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

We really need a reliable source; seeing yourself is original research, which is technically disallowed on Wikipedia. I actually have no problem allowing some original research as long as everyone agrees on what should go in the article. Another complication is whether we've really checked every pixel. Did you really do that, or does it just seem to look right? -- Schapel (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

So would an official article or statement from Opera Software be the only way to mark Opera Mobile as successfully passing the rendering part Acid3 in this article instead of the question mark "?" in the table? (which is under "Browsers that pass").
To test for pixel-to-pixel accuracy, I have been repeatedly changing from the test to the reference rendering and vice versa, both in the same exact screen position, within Opera Mobile, and they match 100%.
I could upload a video or screenshot proving this but I am currently not allowed to upload copyrighted screenshots and would it still be original research.
Derek255 (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Any reliable source will do. We could change that cell in the table to Yes, but you'd have to understand that if anyone at all challenges it, they could remove it, unless we can find a reliable source. -- Schapel (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

On hardcoded spying

What about netstat (or equivalent) as an additional criteria? If the browser connects ONLY the remote address of the page you ACTUALLY browse it's very secure and private (in this order), innit? My UNgoogled FF with NoScript, RequestPolicy, Adblock Plus and a certificate validator @unaffiliated with commercial registration of domains (control on cookies unrelated) can do, I'm not sure about "Norwegian" Opera, even less on "Chromebot" (so "magical" as its homonym search engine), as for my experience... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.14.220.38 (talk) 09:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Internet explorer Acid3 test result.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Internet explorer Acid3 test result.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Internet explorer Acid3 test result.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I've removed visuals and elements of proprietary software from the image, so it should be good for Commons. Some space in the image is still superfluous, so it may need further work going forward. -Mardus (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The test won't launch anymore in IE7

Since about September-October 2012 the test won't launch in IE7 (Windows XP SP3) and therefore it's impossible to see the test score. I assume the test won't run in IE6 (and earlier IE browsers) anymore either. -Mardus (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Internet Explorer

The pictures show Internet Explorer 8 scoring 20/100, contrasted with the other browsers that score 100/100. However IE8 is an old version. It looks like the article's author may have chosen an old version of IE to discredit the browser in comparison to the others. This should be updated to IE10. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

No, that screenshot is in the section that talks about the test and how to interpret the results. There are examples of poor results and good results and how those results are interpreted. The purpose of those screenshots is not to compare how well different browsers perform on Acid3 -- those sections come later in the article. -- Schapel (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I am inclined to assume good faith when you tell me that the intention is to contrast good results with bad results. However, directly below IE8's poor score are perfect scores for Midori, Safari & Google Chrome. To me, this looks more like anti-IE marketing. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Above IE's screenshot is an one of an old version of Firefox showing a poor score. Is that anti-Firefox marketing? If we can't show any bad scores for any browsers, how can we show what a non-perfect result is or how to interpret it? Additionally, IE 8 is still widely used, as opposed to old versions of Firefox, Chrome, Safari, and Midori that perform poorly. -- Schapel (talk) 11:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Mobile Firefox (Fennec) image with a score of 89? You think that's comparable to a score of 20? Anyway, I've made my point. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

IE scored far lower than other browsers for years after the test was released. Firefox never scored lower than 50-something, and at the time the test was released IE 7 scored 12/100, although the rendering was so bad it was difficult to even see the score. Additionally, IE 8 is commonly used even today, so I think it is appropriate to use that browser to demonstrate a poor Acid3 test result. IE has traditionally performed poorly on the test, until IE 9 fixed the numerous issues previous versions had. It's just a fact. -- Schapel (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Time for a change?

With the release of Internet Explorer 10, all major desktop browsers score 100/100 and render Acid3 correctly. However, it is becoming difficult to find references that state that the rendering is correct, and it is nearly impossible to find a reference that discusses the performance aspect of the test. For those browsers that do not pass, it looks like the information on them is quite outdated. I propose simply removing the Browsers that pass and the Browsers that don't pass sections, and simply stating that all major browsers score 100/100 with correct rendering. I also propose removing the very detailed play-by-play history from four years ago, which I don't think anyone is interested in reading now. Perhaps we should explain that Internet Explorer 8 is still widely used and performs poorly on the test -- it is by far the most used browser that performs poorly. We should also get a new screenshot of how IE 8 scores since the test was updated most recently. For a screenshot that shows silver boxes, perhaps we can use Konqueror or Camino screenshots instead of an old version of Firefox mobile that no one uses. -- Schapel (talk) 13:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Internet Explorer, New test

I saw score 24/100 in Internet Explorer. Which it was version? Also a new test: http://html5test.com. Latest versions does not score 555/555. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.193.247.8 (talk) 12:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• this is no longer relevant, IE section is expanded now Pallinger (talk) 08:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Browsers that do not pass

Why is Chrome being added to the section on browsers that do not pass? The screenshots and references show that Chrome does pass. -- Schapel (talk) 12:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

When I use Chrome to test Acid3, red letters appear on the top left corner, saying, "YOU SHOULD NOT SEE THIS AT ALL". -- anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.103.72 (talk) 03:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I also got the same problem with firefox 15.0.1 Does that mean, ff does not pass the test? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.130.141.14 (talk) 08:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The "YOU SHOULD NOT SEE THIS AT ALL"-Text is with Chrome/Chromium in incognito mode -- 2003:5B:4900:3B00:4DD2:7DD9:4EAF:86D8 (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC) (btw: yea, IPv6 :-P)

I change where said Chrome and Opera did not pass, because they do, thats what said the sources. If you have some reliable sources saying they don't pass, then put it WITH reference.

Also, it obviously said the "YOU SHOULD NOT SEE THIS AT ALL" in incognito mode, because it is testing if the link was visited. It is the expected behavior that does not remember in incognito mode.--Eloy (talk) 07:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)