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.

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.

use written evidence

[ghee22]

CERT says to use a different web 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

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.

Re:Americans with Disabilities Act

[c]

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

Amen to that. The Canadian government has a set of web guidelines which, among other things, say:

• meet W3C Accessibility guidelines level 1 and 2
  
• W3C formats are primary. Sure, go ahead and post that Word document, but the primary format has to be an accessible HTML doc.
  
• if you do anything with JavaScript, there's gotta be a non-JavaScript implementation too. None of that onClick instead of href crap.
  

I couldn't even begin to count the number of times I've been able to shoot something down because of CLF compliancy issues.

c.

You might want to consider accessibility.

[Artega VH]

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.

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.