Slashdot Mirror
How to Avoid IE-Specific WWW Development?
IE-less asks: "Can any Slashdot readers help me gather evidence to support the notion that developing an IE-specific WWW site is a bad thing? A state-level US-gov't organization we are contracted with (hence the anonymity) is about to embark on converting a Citrix-based application to a browser-based application, but in order to do so will make it IE Only. Our repeated screams of, 'No! Consider the standards!' have fallen on deaf ears. One of the few things we have found that helps is the Department of Homeland Security's recommendation that people switch browsers (look for 'Use another browser') care of the Get Firefox site. That's the sort of comment that makes people pay attention. The departments in question do not care about monopolies, non-Windows users, closed source expenses, etc. They will pay attention, though, to statements from powerful sources...such as the aforementioned. Anyone else find anything that works?"
One argument I always give for my fellow developers is that standards compliance means your website will work for a lot longer if you adhere to the standards currently in place.. Who says MS is always going to support their IE-specific code? IE7 is supposedly going to have better standardization, which is going to take a lot of work on their part. Browsers have more reasons to adhere to standards that are in place, rather than their own specific little extras they came up with back in the day, which developers are pushing against..
"Better to be vulgar than non-existent" -Bev Henson
Well, for one, they will understand that vendor lock-in is bad.
So, let them know that what they are doing is essentially the same and creating a solution based on standards would create less pain if a transition would occur.
Downmix - The Artscene News Source!
What department it might be? The IRS???
Well, you could simply explain that client-side scripting has matured in modern browsers over the last five years or so, and therefore it's much easier to develop an application that works consistently with modern browsers. Point them to articles about AJAX (such as this one) and explain that it's becoming the rule, rather than the exception. You could point out that most modern web apps (such as almost everything Google develops) use the technologies mentioned above and work well with almost any modern, standards-compliant browser.
German Federal Office for Information Security (BSI), has told the Berliner Zeitung that internet users should switch from Internet Explorer to Mozilla or Opera. Dickopf says Internet Explorer is hazard-prone, attracting too many viruses and worms.
Finnish Gov't says "avoid use of Internet Explorer"
MS's IE blog says "we do not plan on releasing IE7 for Windows 2000" means no more security fixes for people without Windows XP or greater... which would lock out over 20% of the worlds population
man do i hate ie
"Persistence is annoying success." - ghee22 11:28:1999 - 10:53:PM
I really like that Act, not because I'm disabled, but because it forces MORON web designers to actually write web pages to be media-neutral, which was the entire goddamned point of the web to begin with.
I use Firefox, IE, Opera on my 640x480 Zaurus, lynx when I'm ssh'ing, and on occasion I even google via my cellphone. Sites like BBC really shine there. Even slashdot works out as long as you use the "light" rendering option.
The departments in question do not care about [...] non-Windows users
Any particular reason? Do they know that all their clients will be using IE? IE usage in the wild is only at about 85% these days and will probably decrease in the future.
Cite W3C standards. Considering your client is a government one I would imagine that standards compliancy is of the uppermost importance. I work as a web developer in the UK and a couple of our clients are goverment bodies. They have in place the reqirement to adhere to standards such as W3C and bobby compliancy and accessibility such as screen readers etc. If we were to produce an IE only web application the chances are it would fail on all those points.
Personally I think that the cases as I have outlined above are paramount for your situation. You need to point out the reasons why what they are doing is not the best idea. If you are working for a government organisation it is your duty to think about everyone no matter what operating system or browser thet are using.
If your application is rendered useless to anyone (within reason) then you are doing the wrong thing. Regardless of what technologies you are using it would be wrong for a governmental institution to do this.
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
There's very little you can do with IE6 that you can't easily do with Mozilla, Opera, Konqueror, and Safari without difficulty. Cross browser development used to be a burden, but that was like like 6+ years ago. The development speed advantage to only supporting one browser is minimal, and is quickly eaten away if/when you change your mind.
FF doesnt fail nearly as bad as IE. I just did a side by side comparison - in FF, it has a mostly circular shape, and mostly yellow. in IE6, it shows a huge red bar along the bottom, with a couple patches of yellow/black
Because if you're in Texas or Washington, you can bet that MSFT products will dominate the decision makers.
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
How do they intend to make it IE-only? Other than ActiveX or some freaky javascript, I fail to see how you could make a website IE-only. Code to standards, and it should work in any browser. I'm not sure why you even have to tell them it's standards compliant. Stick to standards, develop with whatever browser you want, and deliver.
While its possible that your state level government doesn't need to comply there are several laws and policies in the US that could possibly apply and at least would make people listen:
w3.org has the list at:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/Policy/
Don't try to appear to be on a moral crusade against MS and IE. But hopefully once the lawyers sniff out that there could be potential hassles from building a website in a non-accessible/standards based manner the development process will be forced to change fairly quickly.
groklaw, wired and slashdot. The holy trinity of work based time wasting.
What about the application would make it IE specific? active X controls?, or using the Browser object as a control? needs a recent feature, that is implented differently?
.PNG's of the text)
Is it simply a means to control costs? the testing and bug fixing time would be much greater if multiple platforms are supported, and for an internal application, where the client is under their control, I can't think of a good business reason not to use the browser that comes with the PC's. Do the PC's even have access to the internet to be vulnerable to attacks?
Firefox is not bug free, for example, if I mouse over to the scrollbar in the text edit box, the left edge of the thumb gets filled with random pixels, this happens on both Windows 98, XP and Linux/KDE for me. Randomly scrambled pixels is not a good sign. Also the more amusing case of the installer saying something like "click 'Next' to continue", when the button was labeled 'Proceed', I forget the exact words, but if the software isn't consistant in a single window, it dosn't install a sense of confidance.
Some applications just don't work within the standards; as far as I can tell, there is no mechanism in HTML, CSS or SVG to rotate characters in a font. Which is something I needed to do in a web application recently. (I ended up sending
I was asked the other day how computers store numbers, and ended up describing fixed vs. floating point, decimal, binary, hexidecimal, COBOL, bc, little endian, big endian, how to do basic math in binary, char/int, signed vs unsigned, wraparound, fibonucci...
Different solutions for different applications.
as the saying goes, "The nice thing about Standards is that there are so many to choose from."
The US Copyright Office asks whether we would have any problem if we were required to use Microsoft Internet Explorer in order to pre-register a work. I sent them an email explaining why this would be a bad thing. Please help me prevent an MSIE-only US Copyright Office website by sending them your views on this issue. Together with more information and links about this issue, you can find my letter on my blog and use it as a base for your letter. The government of Norway recently embraced open formats, it would be a pity to see US government sites to require MSIE!
They also work perfectly in IE.
What, exactly, is your point?
So, if you're on Windows, and you're going to require IE, hence require Windows XP, why in the world would you write a web app?
Write a fat-client app. The Web plays weak second fiddle to a Rich Client UI, even on Windows.
The point of web apps are portability, so if you're doing to dash portability, don't write a web app.
I know, somebody will say, "so you don't have to install any software". Yeah, right, this is being deployed on an Active Directory network with client management and login scripts and full control over the clients.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
The departments in question do not care about monopolies, non-Windows users, closed source expenses, etc.
Perhaps they should start caring about the expenses. It's our damn tax dollars they're blowing.
11*43+456^2
Look at existing logs from their website, or similar (friendly) websites. If they are building for a controlled audience (their employees), then they can do whatever works.
However, if the logs show access from non-IE browsers, then they have to justify why they are refusing to serve those people.
Good luck.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts.
We recently did a project for a company, and we simply said "It doesn't cost any more to support the top two browsers than IE alone". We write the code on Firefox, and then run our full test passes on IE. Our experience has been that only a few minor issues will crop up, even when writing lots of Javascript. Once you understand the few important differences, you should be able to write apps for both platforms with virtually no extra effort. For the record, the app we wrote was AJAX, so it was a non-trivial app.
If you don't want crime to pay, let the government run it.
Management doesn't need to know details about standards and compatibility and such. Just make it work on both browsers. I highly doubt that the business requirements for your project say "Req 43z: Make sure the product does not work on Mozilla, Opera, or Lynx." :-)
If your development team wants it to be cross-browser compatible, then just make it so. If your development team doesn't know about standards or doesn't care, then I might start looking for another job because the product is doomed anyway.
My experience is that development teams tend to use a mix of browsers, so unless they are total newbs they make it work with what they've got, in addition to what management wants. There's nothing insubordinate about that. It's good design and it is planning ahead. So don't fret, just make it work.
Are you the contractor? Then just do it! Make the application browser neutral! It's a no brainer. I seriously doubt your contract will have anything to forbid cross-browser functionality. So make sure the site/app works 100% in IE, then make it work in Opera, Safari, Konqueror, etc.
There's a world of difference between "Must work with IE" and "must work only with IE." Yes, I know that sounds blasphemous to most web developers, but it's true.
p.s. If, however, they are deliberately specifying that it must not work in any other browser, then let a congressman know. Government agencies should not be naming specific products in their specifications.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Go ahead and compile the list of impressive references that say why you shouldn't chain yourself to IE.
And throw in some references to companies or organization's that have successfully abandoned IE.
It would be nice to see if IBM or your favorite local contractor will give you a quote for software support of Firefox/Mozilla/Opera/etc (I'm sure they will), just so you can prove that support IS available. The cost doesn't matter, just the proof that support exists.
But be sure to wrap it all in an obsequious concern for the reader's well-being...
"Sir, there's some rumors of a nasty goomba-virus out there, and what with all these references about how bad IE is, well, I'm just concerned that the senior management might take it poorly if they found out that we had committed to use IE in the face of all this, if we should spend a lot of money recovering from it, like we did for that Code Red thing, or the XYZ worm, that is. I just wanted to make sure you had all the information so you could support your decision should any questions be raised down the road, sir..."
Self-preservation is the only currency one has with pointy-headed management...
That if you don't make it fully standards compliant you are screwing over disabled people, especially those who use screen readers to browse the web. I don't know what the laws are like where you are but government organisations in Australia MUST make their websites fully compliant with the w3c. I assume you don't have any such laws where you are at the moment (or else standards compliance would probably be part of the contract), so a demonstration of how a non-compliant site sounds in a screen reader compared to a compliant site might be the way to open some eyes. There really is NO excuse in this day and age to be making new yet half-broken sites that don't have the capability to provide the same information to those disadvantaged with poor vision or other disabilites.
The standards are there for a lot more reasons than just making your website look the same in different browsers.
This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
JavaScript/ECMAScript is a huge gaping security hole in your browser.
Nine out of ten serious security advisories[1] are due to problems with scripting (and the temporary workaround until a fix is issued is frequently "disable JavaScript").
Any person who is serious about security will disable all browser scripting.
If a site insists that scripting be enabled in order to browse it, well then, I just won't browse it.
Instead, I'll go to some other site that doesn't demand that I compromise my system's security.
[1] Statistic pulled out of my rectal region, but my guess is that it's not far off.
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
Perhaps you should tell them about future maintenance costs: revising or rewriting everything with each new IE release (at least with IE7 that is supposed to "break things" by partially following standards). Then about the cost of making the system accessible, and rewirting it from time to time when regulations about "what is accessible" change. Then about possible legal costs because of not being accessible. Or because of having to provide alternative way to get the info to non-M$ customers (such as manually collecting and sending the info). Do they need to insure themselves against possible law suits relating to unavailability of the info they are supposed to serve? (at least unavailability to the few US citizens that are not customers of M$).
Is there a partnership between the US government and M$? Are US citizens required to also be M$ customers?
Assuming that it is the use of Active X that will make the planned approach IE-only (and there isn't much else it could be), I would point out that Active X is an enormous security problem. State agencies that don't care about standards, lock-in, and non MS Windows users may well care about security.
the point of web apps are portability, so if you're doing to dash portability, don't write a web app.
No. THey're currently using Citrix, and for a reason (most organizations who use citrix use it because of this reason): your fat client app works on any system where citrix runs on. No client-side crap, conflicts with dll's etc.
A webapp simplifies this: no more citrix installations, the browser is already there. This means even less maintenance for sysadmins as no installation crap on the client has to take place.
I also fail why the topic starter wants to whine about browsers. It's a closed app, for a single client. Who cares if it's for a single browser: it has to WORK. If everyone has IE and it offers more ways to develop the webapp-, DO IT and with IE.
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
Hope that helps
-Jamal.
My last sig was ridiculed
If this is a public site tell us what agency in what state and we will arrange for them and the legislators they work for to hear from voters.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
http://www.access-board.gov/508.htm
Any mention of breaking the law and violating the rights of those with disabilities will get the attention of any decision maker. (Think lawsuits!!!)
Go not unto/. for advice, for you will be told both yea and nay (but have nothing to do with the question)
All federal, state, and local government websites are required to comply with section 508 of the Americans With Disabilities Act.
Developing an IE-only web application makes this compliance impossible.
Tell them that any preferential treatment of a particular class or category of users (only users who own a copy of IE) is considered discrimination. Maybe Apple/Linux/etc. users should/would submit a lawsuit of their own, considering how their own government is discriminating against them. The only way to avoid a lawsuit is to follow agreed upon web standards. This lawsuit can easily be won be a first year law student, let alone by all of the professional lawyers that would come out of the woodwork.
Quit playing Monopoly with Bill.
Linux - of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Umm, sadly I can't find the link wasn't IE declared a National Security Risk by some important agency?
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
I believe that the government should not be allowed to enforce support for any single browser, such as IE. We (the people) keep talking about anti-trust lawsuits and here we are, allowing the government to force it's users to own or purchase M$ based solutions to use "our" services. So, our tax dollars go to promoting M$ products, without the option for these funds to go elsewhere? That really bites. I think governments should have to support open standards on the net. It's the only way to make sure that the freakin' net works.
I know this is a simple argument, just wanted to say, is all.
Is this you? http://www.mugshots.com/Favorites/Roberto+Sanchez. htm
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
I won't give it away, but you've sure got your work cut out for you... :)
.Net, and not C# either -- VB.Net, to calm down the old timers. Just play along, build the app properly and keep mum.
.Net works perfectly well with FireFox if you set it up to be compatible with multiple browsers. All you have to do is make sure your build target isn't I.E.
Here's my advice:
1. If it works in Firefox, it'll work fine in I.E... BUT NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. So as you build your web pages, test in Firefox, THEN in I.E. for good measure. Pay special attention to tables and stylesheets. If you stick to plain-vanilla JavaScript you should be mostly ok, but if you're going to do something fancy, get the O'Reilly pocket guide. It arranges features by browser so you can see what is supported where.
2. When the agency management tells you they want you to only support I.E. say very carefully "yes, yes, don't worry, I'll support I.E. fully". Don't elaborate! Let them think that Firefox interoperability is a happy accident. Play dumb. Trust me on this, I've had the "IE sucks" argument with them over and over, they will NEVER get it. They're in love with Microsoft products; they're practically addicted to them. At a time when many other agencies in this state are going with Java on Linux, they're going
3. Although you shouldn't discuss this with the agency management (it'll just spook them),
Good luck!
Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
Actually, IE is the only browser (besides IBM's Homepage Reader which is based on and dependent upont IE) that uses MSAA to the degree that actually works with most screen readers. All the other browsers simply do not have the level of support.
- writting using JAWS, IE, under windows.
~Gildas
If they are going to lock onto only one browser, and one that is not particularly hot on standards how are disabled people going to be able to use their website?
threadeds blog
I haven't looked at this document myself but have you looked at this recent slashdot post?
There is an even more powerful argument than W3C WAI paired with the ADA. You'll also want to visit the Section 508 website. A quote:
In 1998, Congress amended the Rehabilitation Act to require Federal agencies to make their electronic and information technology accessible to people with disabilities... The law applies to all Federal agencies when they develop, procure, maintain, or use electronic and information technology. Under Section 508 (29 U.S.C. ' 794d), agencies must give disabled employees and members of the public access to information that is comparable to the access available to others.
Don't, under any circumstance, deviate from what your contract states - if it states IE-only, make it IE-only. Do an insanely supurb job on making it IE-only. Make them remember you for it, but provide commentary in the code where IE-only stuff is on how to make it cross-browser (general ideas - don't spend a ton of time on it, just note it). Tell them when the job is complete and they are happy with it that it isn't cross-browser, that it is IE-only, per contracted specification. Re-iterate that it should have been made cross-browser, that you could have made it cross-browser, but that you were obligated by contract and spec not to.
In the future, if they get enough complaints, perhaps they will remember your name, and call you up again, allowing you to bill them again for work you could have easily done the first time around. Your previous comments will help you get back up to speed for the changes. Worse case scenario, if you aren't hired, the comments will be an "I told you so" to the next shlub who has to mod it, and they will probably bring them up to your former employer as to why they didn't pay attention to you in the first place - one way or the other, it will be pounded into their heads that you knew what you were talking about.
If you are a contractor, never do work for free unless you are clearly getting something in return.
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
It has been interesting to note the assumptions made by other /.ers about the circumstances related to this request. Some are right on...others are just
funny. I wish I could respond to them all to clarify things, but doing so is likely to identify me. Which would be No Good.
Finally, I am responding to seek clarification on what seems to be the most consistent suggestion: looking at Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. That seems like an important site regardless of one's browser. However...I don't see any obvious correlation between the 508 materials and the impact on IE. Is IE somehow non-compliant with Section 508? Is not adhering to W3C standards somehow a problem (relative to 508, that is)?
Any help clarifying this is greatly appreciated. Thanks!
...if I wanted to read garbage like that, I'd go to \.
http://www.carto.net/papers/svg/samples/text.shtml
Since it is government, I would say that you are screwed. Civil servants have no reason to be concerned for cost, quality or even project success. Someone is getting paid to make this decision. If you you can figure out who and how and don't mind becoming a whistleblower, that is the only way to change course on this thing. Note that being in a government union, the corrupt official behind this decision will not see any penalties or consequences and, in all likelihood the project will just go ahead as planned on an extra ladelful of lard.