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?"

Comments

AJAX

[pokka]

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.

Re:AJAX

[WebCrapper]

The main problem is that the government uses IE on almost every single computer on their network. You're lucky to get other types of browsers anywhere in the gov. On top of that, you're even luckier to get your home computer to connect to something that is even half important to anything...

They get discounts on MSFT products, therefor use IE specific development programs (IE: Word/Frontpage).

Now, on the other side of things, I have started seeing a move in GS postings towards Handwritting code and using non-Frontpage programs like Dreamweaver.

Americans with Disabilities Act

[Clueless Moron]

Stick that in their stupid faces: If it won't work with lynx, it ain't no good.

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.

What are the requirements?

[Kaenneth]

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?

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 .PNG's of the text)

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."

MSIE-only US Copyright Office? Say No!

[wikinerd]

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!

What's the Point?

[bill_mcgonigle]

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.

Expenses

[photon317]

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.

Look at existing logs

[dreamer-of-rules]

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.

Appeal to their sense of self-preservation...

[constantnormal]

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...

Re:Vendor lockin = Bad.

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

Of course vender lockin is bad. But at least with the Air Force (my employer), that's the way it is, they have standardized on Microsoft, there is nothing anyone can do about it, so it doesn't make any sense to concern myself with browser nutral apps. We use IE. That's it. So, I develop apps based on using the non-standard MS technology, to do anything else would be silly. I think for the story submitter, this is the situation, so it makes little sense for him/her to bother thinking about it.

Anyway, you start talking Opern Source or "evil Microsoft, blaw, blaw, blaw.." to the people that have the pwoer to make these decisions, maybe you get branded unreliable and lose your clearence...

Re:Just say "NO" to AJAX and scripting

[Bitsy Boffin]

It's all very well to say "do it without scripts", but in practice, as web applications get more complex using client side scripting gives developers the opportunity to make the user interface much more useful, more efficient and much more pleasant to use. Take gmail for example, without javascript it would be much, much, much less pleasant to use, constant back and forth to the server, google would be serving hundreds of times more bandwidth, everything would be much slower - but with scripting, well, you must have used gmail by now - it's responsive, efficient, fast and more or less pleasant to use. Same goes, perhaps even more so, for google maps - without scripting it would be no where near as pleasant to use.

Sure, you could come up with a script-less interface for most anything but if your application is anything more than the very basic stuff of yesteryear it's going to be vastly inferior in many ways to the client side script enabled system.

Of course that said, script should be used judiciously. Anybody who requires javascript for LINKS to work deserves a serious kicking.

IE Only == ActiveX

[magnus_1986]

You dont need any high profile announcements or other such declarations to convince them, just point them to this info:

1. The only thing they can use to make an IE only web application is ActiveX and tell them how vulnerable THAT is. You can use Secunia for that. The last thing they would want is government computer security being compromised by a script kiddie who has just enough skill to navigate BugTraq
2. If in the future they wish to move to a non-Microsoft or even a non-Windows platform, they would experience first hand what vendor lock-in means
3. If you make it standards compliant (with a few hacks, ofcourse) it will be IE compliant anyway.

Hope that helps
-Jamal.

Rehabilitation Act

[tiny69]

Mention that the new web app would violate the Rehabilitation Act and deny those with disabilities from being able to access the information.

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!!!)

I know what app, agency, and state you're with.

[crazyphilman]

I won't give it away, but you've sure got your work cut out for you... :)

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 .Net, and not C# either -- VB.Net, to calm down the old timers. Just play along, build the app properly and keep mum.

3. Although you shouldn't discuss this with the agency management (it'll just spook them), .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.

Good luck!