One Rogers agent I talked to said she also used Windows 7 and Firefox and was disappointed it isn't supported.
The odd (to me) thing is that to an order of magnitude the market share of Firefox is about the same as Internet Exploder. So why exclude it? Maybe just a "typo".
Is the fact that they dont seem to announce any of this stuff ahead of time, or give any statements of direction ("we have exciting new stuff with these features coming ..." " we are about to deprecate Firefox" etc ) laziness or an indication of an actual lack of direction?
The other thing (at the risk of thread drift) is ... isnt the point of html etc to make applications browser independent? So how come we have all this browser specific stuff?
I'm suspecting Rogers web developers are not up to the task of including Firefox.
What do you mean special? Do you mean in terms of problems with Rogers, because lots of people have Rogers website issues with various browsers on various platforms?
Or do you mean why do some people still use FF? I simply use whatever I've been using for years until it becomes a problem or there is a specific reason to change to something else/better. There are almost always "issues" when switching software, along with time consumed and sometimes a learning curve. Also, many people don't like change for change sake.
It is my understanding, from reading elsewhere, that with competent programmers using established standards, the website should be "browser agnostic". Meaning, if it's done right at their end, it shouldn't matter what "established browser" you use. Obviously, this is not the case at Rogers.
The least Rogers should do is to allow access to the "old" website, which worked, especially for "Manage PVR" functionality, which isn't even available, no matter the browser.
Here's another odd statistic.
Views of this thread (only) 340 odd. That seems very low, given as far as i can tell its the only relevant thread for people concerned with this topic.
(Versis 5000 plus views on a non-specific thread on AnyPlace TV).
It makes me wonder
- how many people use RAPTV At Home - on mobile app / on web app
- how many calls has Rogers had on this issue
Is it possible that Rogers thinks there isn't much of a problem. (Basically either people have given up; or 99% are using Mobile App or no app at all, ie they do it all on the TV).
Were assuming this is a huge problem - perhaps it isnt?
Another thing I have noticed about the new site is the lack of functionality in the Guide. On the old site, it was very easy to move down the page to a different channel by clicking a channel number on the right side of the page. You could also select a different time using a drop down menu at the top. The new guide features neither of these. The only way to change the channel or the time is through incessant scrolling. There are also no descriptions unless you click on a specific show to see it, but clicking the "back" returns you to the current time as opposed to the later time you previously scrolled to. Many listings are stuck on "loading" or state that "Info not available". Great job rogers - you have removed the ability to manage our PVR and given us a useless guide to boot.
Don't get me started! 😡
As usual with this its its one step forward, one step back. The differences in functionality between the web app and the mobile app has long been one of my issues and in my view an instance of lack of management. The mobile browser has been missing the time of day drop down for a very long time.
Another feature that disappeared a long time ago was a setting for a default time of day for the display at launch. I suspect many people like me want to go straight to the evening schedule.
These are exactly the sort of thing that would have emerged from some user input at the start of the project.
It did seem like mouse shell scrolling down the channel list is speed sensitive. I was able to get down to the 500 block very fast. And there is the favourites list which is probably the intended way to simplify channel navigation.
At at least on my monitor it looks good visually (except for the tile nonsense). And there seems to be more complete synopsis and cast info, although many of the cast pictures are blank and they lack links to cast bio pages.
i would say that the content is a reasonable "beta". Indeed that's how this whole thing should have been handled.