Forum Moderators: open
Even though most browser now support W3's standards, developers tend to focus on MSIE only features. Back in the old days, developers asked Microsoft and Netscape to agree on standards and now, the same(?) developers turn their backs on other browsers and embrace MSIE-only technology.
There are some comments from W3, Opera and Netscape representatives.
Nice article, go read it. :)
Critics call these browser warning pages reminiscent of the bad old days of the Web, when sites routinely sported the tag "best viewed in Navigator" or "best viewed in IE."
This is worse than the "bad old days..." - back then the concept and reality of Web Standards was not a widely known option. Who among today's web developers can say they are not familiar with the concept?
If you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem.
<puts on body armor> One way of looking at this problem is that we, as web developers, should make a concerted effort to AVOID cross-browser compatibility and design only for the major platform. The more users of browsers with a few percent market share find that they can't view sites properly, the sooner they will abandon them. (Or, the sooner the makers of niche browsers will take steps to make they display pages in a fully IE compatible manner.) WE are creating more work for ourselves (OK if you bill by the hour, I guess) by accommodating niche browsers. It's time to let Darwinian selection do its thing and force a single design standard. <jumps into concrete bunker and ducks>
Darwinism has its good points, but on the other side, would you like to have only one car brand?
It is not that difficult to make web sites that look good on all browsers (ok, we DO bill by the hour) and even if you could get every firm to go by a single standard you would still have trouble with people using old versions. I guess everyone's nemesis is Netscape 4.7 (we have a client where it is default browser for all employees). The newer versions are already more in line with IE style code. I tried the NS 7.0 preview version and could not find any page not displaying about right. And I spent time looking for pages with CSS, layers, you name it.
So what does it mean? Most browser are orienting themselves towards IE, but that won't solve the problem as many users don't update. Some will not take the time, others work for big companies that don't allow installation of software by anyone but the IT and so on. Just live with it.
Coding for Web Standards is easy, logical and consistant. Coding for a browser, no matter the market share, that is apt to introduce new rules "on-the-fly," IS problematic, difficult and undesireable.
Sinner_G
Most browser are orienting themselves towards IE...
That is definately NOT the case, as most new browsers are incorporating Web Standards, something that even M$IE is moving towards as long as the proper <!doctype> is offered.
Let's face it, the web standards are mostly defined by what M$IE (I really like that way to write it) does and does not understand.
What is implied in context is that there are premium functions unavailable to Opera users because of the IE propriety coding and Opera's inability to cope.
Missing an ad banner? Surfing through the site, all the "other" ad banners displayed perfectly (oh! lucky me!). The culprit is a poorly written javascript snippet. Page validation? Fugit-about-it!
It's too bad that the majority of people will read the article and take it at face value.
I accept valid points from all sides, but I lean towards the Darwinian model as well. With barely a 5% market share for NS and even less for "Other" (opera, konquerer, lynx, etc), It hardly seems appropriate to worry about.
All software comes with "system requirements". If I want to run new software on my old klunker of my computer, I can moan about standards, or I can buy a new computer.
When I was a die hard Mac fan (I died hard...) I was quite annoyed that software developers didn't write more stuff for the Mac.
Even standards change over time, and in the web business, time moves quickly.
M$ owns the desktop, they might as well own the browser as well. There is room for other players, as long as they conform to standards set by IE.
Opera is great - the shortcuts, the mouse features, the speed. It's a far superior product, but so was the Mac to Windows, and so was Beta to VHS. But unless Opera conforms to the majority standards, I won't be worrying about it.
Depends on the web site. I don't know about global usage, but I have seen up to 20% NS users in some logs.
>it will run my PC software (with only an occasional reboot ).
Reboots have nothing to do with your computer. Just do not install MS software and you will be fine...
The history of Netscape/Microsoft/W3C is complex. Although the W3C includes representatives from the major browser manufacturers, originally they just followed what the browsers were doing. It was Netscape that introduced JavaScript and frames, for example.
When version 4 browsers came out, the W3C suddenly went pro-active, and issued its recommendations for CSS and DOM. Microsoft did its best to implement them (they didn't always succeed), but Netscape, so used to being the innovator here, went its own way. That's why NS4 is such a pain, and why the real NS5 was never released -- they suddenly realized they needed to get back into line or else. They did this hurriedly with the NS5 that was actually released -- which they called Netscape 6, just to confuse webmasters -- resulting in a bit of a disaster.
The reasons people still use Netscape 4 are actually quite easy to understand.
First, many people are nervous about using a Microsoft browser on a Microsoft Windows platform, or even nowadays a MacOS (MS now having a big stake in Apple). It is a potentially massive security hole, and this perception hasn't been helped by various revelations reported in the press about secret ID numbers "hidden" on your PC so that Microsoft can keep track of what you have installed on your machine, and other scary stuff.
Second, NS4 employs a much more effective model for preventing malicious client-side scripts from compromising your privacy. For example, MSIE can open a window and move it off-screen so that you can't easily close it. From there it can track your movements through a website and/or lie in wait to spawn more popups at you. NS4 will not allow a script to move a window off-screen unless the script has been digitally signed and the user has given it permission. Little things like that make nervous computer-savvy users feel safer without having to disable JavaScript altogether (and so make a lot of sites unusable).
Third, many people don't want to use MSIE on principle.
Fourth, many people didn't upgrade to NS6 because they were so disappointed with it. They often installed it, tried it out, and then went back to NS4, swearing never to upgrade again. (Or often merely swearing.)
Cross Browser Compatibility is one thing -- I agree that we should all do our best to accommodate the major players in the market (IE, NS, W3 and Opera). In nearly all cases, it's actually not that hard to do. NS can be a royal pain some times, mostly because it should support some feature, but it's got a bug instead.
The real issue IMHO are the users who never upgrade! I still get visitors to my site running Netscape 2.x or 3.x. Those things are 7 years old! At some point you just have to draw a line and say, if you can't keep up to a reasonable standard, you're going to get left behind. You don't need to be running the most recent release, but at least stay withing 1 or 2 versions of recent. NS 4.6 or 4.7 instead of 6.0 for example. IE 5.0 or 5.5 instead of 6.0 -- that sort of thing.
Maybe only supporting IE is going too far, but rogerd's point about letting natural selection take over. At some point, you just have to drag your audience forward.
You can't play DVD's on your VCR, and if your VCR is VHS, you can't play Beta
In other words, if you don't want to upgrade browsers, that's fine, but don't expect to see what everyone else does.
If I want the latest game to function on my computer, I might have to upgrade my computer. Darn.
Just want to chime in with the "corporate view" here. My international company
has tens of thousands of desktop machines, some Windoze, some Linux, some
Solaris, etc. - depending on the users' applications. All of them are
currently running Netscape 4.79. Why? Because of the aforementioned security
problems with M$IE, and also because Netscape supports all of these platforms.
As a user at work, I have no choice. I cannot upgrade my browser - the IT
department has to do it. And they won't do it until they have finished
thoroughly evaluating the replacement from a security standpoint. It'll be
awhile...
So... If you want to sell me (or any of my tens of thousands of co-workers)
anything from your sites while we're at work on lunch break, make sure your
site functions with old non-M$ browsers. It doesn't necessarily have to look
pretty, just make sure it works.
Bottom line: Compatibility = sales.
Jim
I am also doing work for an International Company - in fact, a VERY major US bank to whom security is a major concern.
They recently upgraded every machine across their system to IE 5.5, citing compatibility with current software. I'm sure they checked out security as well.
So the answer is still unsolved.
If we don't code for older browsers (or NN at all) then we takes we chances on losing customers.
I was around when Netscape lost its dominant position in the market...that wasn't a slow process...the most used browser changed over a matter of months...last time I ran a complete overhaul on our site it took me 5 months to complete
so I simply can't afford to build to any particular current browser...things can change faster than I can rebuild the entire site...so I have made it compliant with w3c standards and generally suitable for most browsing situations
only AFTER the bulk of the design was completed did I look at exactly how it worked in any browser...that is the only way to be safe over the medium term
the key is to envisage a web site as what it actually is, not simply what you see rendered on your monitor at a particular momeent...that isn't what I'm creating...I'm creating something that exists in literally thousands of different ways at any moment...including as sound and printed paper...the way it looks and works in a particular version of IE is a very small part of the overall thing
They recently upgraded every machine across their system to IE 5.5, citing compatibility with current software. I'm sure they checked out security as well.
So how do they prevent any one of the nineteen (19!) unpatched IE vulnerabilities
It's a bank. Banks don't worry about that kind of stuff. Tee hee. ;)
The only system I've every worked on that was (seemingly) un hackable and un-virusable was the AS/400.
Anyway, about supporting minority browsers - some of my clients look for just one or two contracts a year from their websites. One good prospect who comes in on Netscape 4 can mean 6 or 7 figures, so I do my best for them.
Other sites are playing the volume game, and them the rules change.
You're absolutely right, however, every platform has it's security flaws and bugs. That includes Apache and Linux.
I generally try to get the site to validate in most browsers, back to 1999 style. I use it as a place to start and get more creative from their.
I try never to close any doors, as that may be a customer with a big chunk of ROI, behind doors number 2, 3, 4, 5, etc.
