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?"

2 of 100 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Americans with Disabilities Act by c · · Score: 5, Informative
    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.

    --
    Log in or piss off.