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

well..

[SocialEngineer]

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..

Re:well..

[cloak42]

The biggest reason I'd use is the lawsuit argument. IE is a horrible browser for disabled persons (screen readers, for example, have a great deal of trouble with IE, I've heard). As a government agency, they're required to give equal access to all people, and by making it IE only, they're limiting access to a government resource. That's just waiting for a lawsuit to happen.

Simple solution: Don't tell them.

[MobyDisk]

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.

Re:What are the requirements?

[flex941]

Is it simply a means to control costs? the testing and bug fixing time would be much greater if multiple platforms are supported

Actually depends. My experience shows that when you use IE as development browser (and are clueless about standards) it takes later significantly more time to get this working in Firefox.
But using Firefox (forces standards on you) as dev browser means you probably get it working in IE later with almost no additional time.
And since Firefox javascript debugging capabilities and overall usefullness to developer is greater than that of IE .. everything is clear at least to me.

Accessbility is your friend

[Dracos]

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.