Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

Standards - Site Appearance in Internet Explorer 8 vs Anything Else

This is by way of an explanation for those who use Internet Explorer who think this part of the site (at best!) looks something like:

The Residual World’ as presented by Internet Explorer 8

or indeed that the wiki looks something like:
.

The Wiki as presented by Internet Explorer 8

Quite simply, it doesn’t! This is because IE 8, although the most modern version of the venerable browser from Microsoft, does not understand anything later than version 2.1 of the Cascading Style Sheets Standards whereas most others (mostly) suppprt CSS version 3. With older versions such as IE 7 or IE 6 the appearance will be much worse.

Other browsers such as Safari:

The Residual World as presented by Safari

and Firefox:

The wiki as presented by Firefox

are much more standards-compliant which means that the appearance is far more standardised (and predictable) than is the case for Internet Explorer. Simple things like curves and shadows are rendered.

We don’t have the resources or the intent to design for a single browser. Indeed part of the historical problem is that sites have implemented specific fixes for Internet Explorer to compensate for its worst failings which has meant that many will be unaware of its shortcomings. Unless , for Internet Explorer 8, it compromises basic functionality it isn’t likely to get fixed - the appearance will be what is is until Microsoft release something that plays nicely with current standards. Whilst we realise that those of you in a corporate IT environment probably don’t have a choice of browser it is what it is. If you do have a choice of anything other than IE, try that instead.

Comments

Comment on this article

Related Articles

Sharing tags:

• What Would a TRAK View Look Like in a Graph Database? Part 1 (25% )
• Solution Risk, Vulnerability, Threat and Mitigation - Does Risk Need to be Separate from Event? (25% )
• Risk and Threats - The Common Ground Between Security and Safety? (25% )
• Definitions - What Exactly is a Risk? (25% )
• Definitions - What Exactly is a Risk Part 2? (25% )

External Links

• The Web Standards Project - IE8 Has Arrived
• W3C - CSS 2 Standard
• W3C - CSS 3 Standard
• The Stairwell - IE8 Showdown with Safari 4 and Firefox 3

Pulling the MODAF, DODAF, NAF et al Into a Common Frame of Reference

Some of the more observant amongst you might have noticed that we have a wiki that aims to cover multiple enterprise architecture frameworks (DODAF, MODAF, NATO Architecture Framework and TRAK as a minimum) as well as the use of such things in a typical systems engineering lifecycle.

This is a long slow process. The first to be covered was TRAK and now we’ve got decent coverage of the NATO Architecture Framework as well as a sprinkling of MODAF. To date there are the best part of 300 pages. There’s a lot still to do so if anyone would like to help then this would be gratefully received as it takes time to locate source material and extract the essence.

Why go to this trouble? For several reasons:

• To help. Some frameworks either don’t have much of a web presence or provide information in forms that isn’t the easiest to navigate through. MODAF has suffered in navigability as a result of being taken from the site maintained by Model Futures and squeezed into the ‘one size fits all’  corporate MoD structure. The NATO Architecture Framework and some others just offer a set of unlinked PDF documents without supporting web content. If we can extract the bare bones in terms of view definitions and link them to other views, the respective metamodel and other frameworks then this has to be better.
• To compare and contrast. All of these frameworks have a common origin, the DODAF, and have at times borrowed bits from each other so there is a lot of similarity. There are also some important differences reflecting their ages and their respective specification and user communities. It’s very difficult to see this when they are widely separated and presented in very different formats and language or terminology. If we can provide bridges between the frameworks and put the information in a similar way alongside each other then it’s much easier for the user or potential user of the frameworks. I have this belief that there will be a universal metamodel at some point. One of the reasons we separated the definition of the TRAK Viewpoints from the TRAK metamodel was to   allow for the possibility that we’d not got it right and to enable the metamodel to be re-used if needs be).
• To provide points of reference. As a lot of the frameworks are expressed in large documents it’s quite hard to make reference to a particular view or metamodel element. If each view, each term or each metamodel element is a separate wiki page it makes it much easier to make reference to - each element is addressable by a URL (which is where I’d really like the architecture models themselves to be at some point in the future) and within a namespace named after the framework (not all terms have the same meaning e.g. MODAF:View is a singular architecture view, NAF:View is a collection of subviews and TRAK:Architecture View although singular is a response to a view specification (TRAK:Viewpoint).

Being forced to read the documentation in some detail means that you do learn quite a lot. I’ve learnt that NAF:System cannot realise a capability and that NAF:Organisational Resource  (Organisation and Post = ‘Job’)  cannot have functions assigned directly only indirectly via NAF:Role.

I’d be interested if anyone has good pointers to AUSDAF documentation and very much so if any site member wanted to help to start fleshing out other frameworks.

Anyway, you can keep up to date with progress / changes on the wiki by subscribing to the RSS feed.

Comments

Comment on this article

Related Articles

{REL[122][related1_blog]6tzmdoJAREL}

Sharing tags:

• MODAF is Dead - Long Live ‘NAF’? (25% )
• Definitions - What Exactly is a Risk? (13% )
• Just When You Thought It Was Safe - EntiTy Returns (13% )
• What Would a TRAK View Look Like in a Graph Database? Part 1 (13% )
• Solution Risk, Vulnerability, Threat and Mitigation - Does Risk Need to be Separate from Event? (13% )

External Links

• NATO Architecture Framework home - external link
• NATO Architecture Framework Views (Capability View, Operational View, Programme View, System View, Service-Oriented View, Technical View, All View)
• NATO Architecture Framework Subviews
• MODAF Viewpoints
• MODAF Views
• TRAK Views

Support for the ‘AFs - Wiki Now Live

Wiki- With Spaces for TRAK, MODAF, DODAF and Common Process/Problems

After a long time - some months - of effort the wiki has got to the point where it’s sensible to let it loose.

It has something over 550 pages (a devil to keep consistent) and there’s inevitably a lot of explanation to support the recent release of TRAK. It does have a comparison between TRAK and MODAF 1.2 and sections for MODAF, DODAF, NAF as well as for the modelling process.

Any site member can add content as with the rest of this site - if you don’t see the page you wanted help create it!

There’s lots still to do both in terms of content and adding functionality

• wiki page heading links
• linking the wiki to the discussion forums so that comments can be made on each page

Visit the wiki now!

Comments

Comment on this article

Related Articles

{REL[123][related1_blog]6tzmdoJAREL}

Sharing tags:

• MODAF is Dead - Long Live ‘NAF’? (33% )
• Definitions - What Exactly is a Risk? (17% )
• Just When You Thought It Was Safe - EntiTy Returns (17% )
• What Would a TRAK View Look Like in a Graph Database? Part 1 (17% )
• Solution Risk, Vulnerability, Threat and Mitigation - Does Risk Need to be Separate from Event? (17% )

Forums

• See discussion thread in forums

External Links

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >