Slashdot Mirror
US Copyright Office Considering MSIE-only website
wikinerd writes "The United States Copyright Office asks whether you would have any problem if you were required to use Microsoft Internet Explorer in order to pre-register a work via their website. The Norwegian government recently said no to proprietary formats, but it seems that the US government sites should be informed about the existence of non-Microsoft Web browsers, such as Firefox, Konqueror, Opera, and Safari. I have written a letter about this issue, which is posted on my blog for everyone to copy and base on it their own response. If they see how many people use alternative browsers, they'll probably reconsider and stay within the W3C standards."
...how should I learn to care about copyrights of others when I can't access this site?
m$ is hogging all the patents anyways... so we might as well use their browser!
From TFA:
"Support for Netscape 7.2, Firefox 1.0.3, and Mozilla 1.7.7 is planned but will not be available when preregistration goes into effect."
So support for other browsers is already planned. I imagine that if enough people complain about it starting out as only IE, they will just postpone this preregistration plan until they have the other browser support ready. All that does is make people who want to use IE wait longer.
Stupid.
USPTO?
Excuse me but isn't this not the US Patent Office page?, I think copyright and patents are two different things no?
If it is not, then I guess IBM will be kind of pissed off as they are the company that makes most more patents than everyone each year IIRC.
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
Hahaha, I kid, I kid.
I find it extremely interesting that the government in the past has brought an anti-trust suit against Microsoft for being a monopoly, however they themselves would help to propagate this by using their software. Not to mention allowing ONLY their software, they are ensuring that any user who wants to visit their site also must "pay" Microsoft, thus even further contributing to the "monopoly".
I would have thought that if the government was under the impression that Microsoft was a monopoly (true or not), they would have taken steps to help prevent adding to that situation, and support a different browser for their site, or *gasp* don't require *ANY* browser, but rather just design it to be functionally usable by any W3C compliant browser. Add in the 508 compliance for web accessbility, and you can't go wrong.
Government, make up your mind.
And they said zombies weren't real!
Just stick to the standards, then all browsers will be able to access it.
Haha aHahaHaha HahaHaha
HahaHahaHa
haHahaHahaHahaHah
aHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHaha
etc.
Get the EULA T-shirt
Browsers should support HTML. Websites should be written in HTML.
These are not fundamentally architecturally different pieces of equipment. If you can't create a website that works adeqautely with all browsers, then you don't deserve to be employed as a web designer.
I have a big problem with "protest form letters". On the surface it seems like a pretty good idea. Get a lot of people mobilized using an easy to duplicate form and get your collective voice heard by those in power. However, the reality is more likely to favor individually written letters that express original sentiment, or at the very least an original statement of a widely-held sentiment.
Yes, it's bad that the copyright office wants to make the website IE-only. But look at their reasons, try to address their reasons without sounding condescending and elitist or like a victim of some huge crime. Better yet, get involved in your local politics and make a real difference in your government.
There are many ways to make political hay. Sending form letters to your representatives is, in my opinion, one of the least productive methods of making your voice heard.
Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
Don't let them make the mistake.
Write an intelligent and well-informed comment to:
Copyright GC/ I&R
P.O. Box 70400
Southwest Station, Washington, DC 20024-0400
My blog
It'd be easier to respond to their question if they posted an estimated date for when other browsers will be supported.
If you actually read the article, you would see that they do know about Mozilla, Firefox etc because they will be writing stuff to allow these browsers at a later date.
This is just 'in the first instance'.
No sharp objects, I'm a programmer!
Do you think that Microsoft have given them some sort of incentive for this new rule, or is it just a case of a bureaucratic organisation randomly generating rules just for the hell of it?
1729 = 9^3 + 10^3 = 1^3 + 12^3
If they use a webboard, set the scrollbar to be the same color as the background of the board - ie, impossible to see for a lot of people. This stylesheet command is *ignored* by Firefox, but is rendered by MSIE - don't tell me that isn't harassment of MSIE users. So it goes both ways.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
First, this is the Copyright Office, not the Patent Office.
Second, they're not looking for, nor will they likely accept, arguments along the lines of "single-standards are dangerous". And they claim that Firefox and Safari standards are planned for the future. So you need to give them a good reason, now, not to do this.
What are such good reasons?
Well, for one, preregistration is for copyrighted works that "have a history of pre-release infringement". And, as a publisher in such a field, there's no way in hell you're going to expose that information to known security risks, such as MSIE. It's like starting an antitheft service for cars likely to be stolen, then requiring the owners to leave the cars in an unguarded lot with the keys in the ignition.
Likewise, you can argue that no ultra-secure, enterprise-critical information, such as copyright pre-registration data, resides on any machine capable of running MSIE. Again, it's an issue of security. Denying this service to all but MSIE users effectively removes it from all except those who really need it.
Now all you need is someone willing to fire off a letter in sextuplicate.
ID Number: G00125170, "Design Web Applications for Standards, Not for Browsers", (2 March 2005)
In addition to being a dupe and a rather obvious attempt to self-promote, it's also a non-story.
E -only+OK/2100-1038_3-5827627.html)
"In its request for comments, the office made clear that it plans to support other browsers in the future. In an interview, an attorney with the office said that the sticking point was Siebel software that guaranteed compatibility with only selected browsers--including both IE and Netscape 7.02, a browser with negligible market share--in the current Siebel 7.7 software.
The Copyright Office said it planned to upgrade to Siebel 7.8, which supports Netscape 7.2, Firefox 1.0.3 and Mozilla 1.7.7, but not in time for the Oct. 24 launch."
(http://news.com.com/U.S.+Copyright+Office+poll+I
Assuming they're sincere about their intent to support other browsers in the future it's better to have a limited site now rather than no site at all. (Demographically IE does still cater to the largest audience)
It would also be a pointless waste of tax dollars to come up with an interim solution for other browsers when it's already slated to happen for the next revision anyway.
Perhaps the Copyright Office doesn't have enough cash to pay a competent Web developer to create its site?
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
Umm, the Copyright Office isn't the same thing as the Patent and Trademark Office. They're not even in the same state ...
"If hand delivered by a private party, an original and five copies of any comment should be brought to Room LM-401 of the James Madison Memorial Building between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. and the envelope should be addressed as follows: Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Copyright Office, James Madison Memorial Building, Room LM-401, 101 Independence Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20559-6000. If hand delivered by a commercial courier, an original and five copies of any comment must be delivered to the Congressional Courier Acceptance Site located at Second and D Streets, NE., Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. The envelope should be addressed as follows: Copyright Office General Counsel, Room LM-403, James Madison Memorial Building, 101 Independence Avenue, SE., Washington, DC. If sent by mail, an original and five copies of any comment should be addressed to: Copyright GC/ I&R, P.O. Box 70400, Southwest Station, Washington, DC 20024-0400. Comments may not be delivered by means of overnight delivery services such as Federal Express, United Parcel Service, etc., due to delays in processing receipt of such deliveries."
..."
Which is French for...
"But Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months."
"Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them had you? I mean like actually telling anybody or anything."
"But the plans were on display
"On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."
"That's the display department."
"With a torch."
"Ah, well the lights had probably gone."
"So had the stairs."
"But look, you found the notice didn't you?"
"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of the Leopard."
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
A reasonable number to shun, a sizeable chunk being American. Regardless, I'm increasingly seeing browser/OS statistics that look more and more like this site's. On my own site Firefox useage is twice that of MSIE. Linux useage has grown a great amount in the last year and our audience is largely comprised artists, those perhaps interested in registering a copyrighted work.
Netscape can use the IE renderer... This is why they say they can support it. New Netscape is just IE in sheeps clothing. Therefor, as a result, the content in question would still be IE only.
Why is it web designers aren't expected to achieve the same level of competency as any other professional? All I ever hear is how hard it would be to make a site cross compatible.
Well, you know what? Tough shit. Life's hard all around. Let me tell you some day about the vpn solution I had to implement across a dialup link. Oh yeah, and it had to support a full sql application. Any other professional is expected to show, you know, *professionalism* in their field.
Not web designers tho. They expect to be coddled, and allowed to half ass it.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Yes, browsers change faster than the archived information. I'm tired of playing this "cat and mouse" game with browser updates causing one to reedit html files. The US Copyright Office should consider adopting html standards. If MS doesn't want to play along then they can't go screw themselves. Here's the standard I think they should use:
For reference:
XHTML 1.0 The Extensible HyperText Markup Language (Second Edition)
XHTML
If you can't create a website that works adeqautely with all browsers, then you don't deserve to be employed as a web designer.
If you understand how to correctly use html and css then your site should work with all properly written browsers. The parent is bang on the mark.
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
When you write, remember to include five copies plus an original.
(For some reason, they require that "if sent by mail, an original and five copies of any comment should be addressed to...")
I don't see where support for Safari is planned. I think it's worth asking them to support that browser, since it's been the default browser on Mac OS X for years. It also has 1-2% usage share, comparable to Mozilla and Netscape, both of which they're also planning on supporting. Not supporting Safari encourages the use of IE for Mac, which used to be the default browser on the Mac and has several serious unpatched security holes.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
As covered on Groklaw, this is due to the fact that the Copyright Office is using an old version of Seibel CRM.
Opinion:
Of course, why they'd use some substandard MS-only piece of garbage is beyond me, but it's not because they were actively looking to cut out non-MS people...just someone suggested a crappy product and standardized on it.
Nothing new.
Without constant feedback from their constituencies legislators are operating in a vacuum, with only their own interests and opinions to guide them. Do you trust a politician to operate honorably in that condition? Making yourself personally heard is important if only to remind politicians that you are listening.
On the other hand, this particular letter sucks. Not only are there a number of innacuracies (IE ONLY runs on Windows? Then how is it possible that I've used it on a Mac?) but his tack is all wrong. The argument for an "open" patent office site has nothing to do with Linux users. It has everything to do with competition, standards, choice in the marketplace, and remaining consistant the government's anti-trust stance with MegaSloth.
useless sig advice - Read Nabokov.
Uhm... Doesn't Section 508 HTML/design standard make it ILLEGAL for a government web site to not follow the standard?
Section 508 has all sorts of stuff that goes beyond W3C to include formatting, layout, table naming, etc. to ensure that a web site is easily browsable by non-sighted users' browser tools. (i.e. Lynx-like)
They can't do what they are saying they want to do without breaking the law.
(It's not that hard to make a compliant web site, you just need to work it in the process from the beginning.)
You must be new here...
- Most web designers aren't programmers or even that techincal. They can see that there is a problem if they test with other browsers, but have no idea how to fix it.
- This is because fiding out how different elements behave in different browsers is incredibly difficult.
- As an example, I found after many hours of frustration that when using nested tables, IE will only size properly when each row element is sized where as netscape will enforce the widest size
- I looked and looked for examples or explanations and found nothing but I was determined to make sure the site worked cross browser.
- So I get it all done, test it in Opera, and guess what, the fucking fonts are not taking styles. Great.
- This leads me to stating that people who write browsers interpret the standards in different ways, making life difficult for web site designers.
- I have stopped sending webmasters emails pointing out that I won't visit thier IE only site and I point out the problems and I eithger get ignored or flamed. I haven't sent in a complaint in years and won't.
- I can tell you from a corporate point of view that as long as people don't complain about non-compliance, the PHBs assume that as long as there are no complaints, then all is well.
- Many of the books and other resources on HTML and web design blather on about non-essential issues and many of the browser compatablity charts are woefully out of date. Yet adding yet another chart or tutorial is pointless because you won't find it in the morass of bad information.
So I can't completely beleive that all web designers are inept. And to be frank, it's eaiser and more cost effective to design for one browser than all of them. Now don't tell me about how great standards are, I am a believer, but I also know that having a deep knowledege of IE and ActiveX will allow designers to do more, easily.And they should. Why release something half-@$$ed that works in some browsers and not others? It means they'll make their page in Frontpage and then change things until it works in other browsers- it's a hack job.
Please- Planned means nothing. It means it might be months out when it makes no sense. I can understand Google Toolbar coming out late for Firefix (it's a whole new program), but this is HTML that should display in all browsers.
And a large part of patents is (supposed to be) fairness to all parties. I shouldn't have to go find a Windows machine with IE to hog for a few hours and transfer all my documents over to paste into their Web form. It's something I should be able to do right away. If I can't do it, nobody should be able to (in this case). Otherwise it gives some people *cough* M$ *cough* an advantage on Patents.
Though I'm not a fan of that guy's letter. He touts lists of acronyms like CSS, XHTML, IE, OSX, etc that the developers would know but the _managers_ won't. A simple:
"Internet Explorer, while being used by the majority of Web users, is not used by all Web users. This is in favour of countless browsers (some of which are listed below) which offer considerable advantages to non-Windows users (Mac, Linux) as well as Windows users who are looking for superior alternates to Microsoft's Web browser. Statistics on the number of users utilizing each browser are available at http://..../ Please do not underestimate the 10% of hundreds of millions of US and foreign Web users who choose to utilize alternate technologies. It is unfair to provide an advantage to Windows/Internet Explorer users over others, when it is entirely unnecessary. All Web browsers support standards, such as those set by w3c (http://www.w3c.org/ which your developers should build their Web site to conform to rather than utilize proprietary methods exclusive to IE.
Simple, to the point, doesn't tout acronyms and explains most of them when it does. References a statistic, and really emphasizes the number of people affected and how common they are.
-M
when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
To whom it may concern,
m l
At the URL:
http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2005/70fr44878.ht
I read a proposed policy with title "Preregistration of Certain Unpublished Copyright Claims" which asks me as a member of the public to inform your office if I would have any problem if I were required to use the Microsoft Internet Explorer browser for preregistering a work.
Below you can read my personal opinion and feedback on this issue.
I have no access to Microsoft Internet Explorer because I chose to prevent access to it (for security reasons) on all my personal computers and use the Mozilla Firefox browser instead. Whilst my job provides me with access to Internet Explorer, I would be unwilling to submit personal copyright claims through my employer's systems for a variety of reasons related to privacy, intellectual property, and ethical standards.
Microsoft Internet Explorer uses proprietary technology, such as ActiveX, which other Web browsers usually do not support. It also fails to correctly implement a number of crucial Web standards which are critical to interoperability of HTML web pages across different browsers. As a result, I regularly have difficulty navigating websites that are designed exclusively for Internet Explorer, but which are often otherwise compliant with international standards.
As an IT professional with considerable experience in web development for multiple browsers, I know that it is possible to design a website accessible with any modern Web browser, by using Web standards such as XHTML and CSS, and - whenever interactivity is needed - JavaScript and Java applets (which can run on most operating systems).
Requiring users to use a particular Web browser causes disruption, especially for Apple Macintosh and GNU/Linux or BSD operating systems users, who often have no access to Microsoft Windows and may have never used Microsoft Internet Explorer before. When a user community such as yours extends across (potentially) many millions of users, excluding these groups potentially disenfranchises them altogether, and at the very least can cost them significant time and effort (and potentially money) to access a service such as yours that forms one of the underpinnings of the copyright system. This can only be a bad thing.
Please consider the difficulties of non-Microsoft operating system users, as well as those who choose not to use Microsoft's Internet Explorer on their Windows PC's, and try to provide a standards-oriented Web design, which would make their life (and ultimately your IT staff's life) much easier.
Yours
your name goes here!
The problem is that, thanks to MS, your perfectly designed site won't work properly with the most used browser. Remember - MS does NOT support CSS (or html) correctly to standards. They're not going to even try to pass the acid test.
You can say that's MS's problem but it isn't - if your site doesn't render correctly for 90% of the population, then for all practical purposes you're wrong. You may be morally/ethically/ideologically right, but users don't care and neither does your employer.
I guarantee, if you don't support MSIE, and you have a job as a web designer, and you're not working for FSF or someone similar...you'll hear from your boss. If you refuse to support MSIE, you'll get fired.
Does that suck? Yes. Unfortunately, it's also the real world, and the people paying your bills don't give a shit. Specifically, ideology doesn't make money.
I guess I might object to being required to use IE, since I don't have a windows computer!
My bank tried the same thing, and refused to cooperate with me at all. When I spoofed Mozilla and Konqueror to report IE6, everything started working fine.
I smell something offensive here.
Michael
In other news, Microsoft filed a patent today for an "Interface for accessing an online database of patents".
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
Here's roughly the letter I'm sending, please adapt it and use it as you see fit. Note that you need to send a total of six copies.
% 20MSIE%20Requirement%20-%20Generic.sxw
m l
t =%22using+a+different+web+browser%22) is a strong argument against another government office requiring its use.
This is on a personal home server over broadband, please be nice.
http://www.mynamehere.com/dave/Copyright%20Office
Text follows in case the server chokes...
August 15, 2005
Full Name
Street Address
City, State, ZIP
Copyright GC/ I&R
P.O. Box 70400
Southwest Station, Washington, DC 20024-0400
Subject: Proposed MSIE requirement for online filing of copyright preregistrations
RE: The open letter published at http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2005/70fr44878.ht
To whom it may concern;
As a governmental body, I feel the copyright office should give accessibility to citizens a very high priority. This accessibility is best met with the use of tools that function on a broad range of browsers and operating systems by adhering to open and well-documented standards, such as those of the World Wide Web consortium (W3C).
Introducing a requirement for a proprietary browser supplied by a single party goes against this ideal, especially when that party has a history of illegal behaviors that include anti-competitive practices.
Support for open standards is clearly possible, as the open letter states that support for various open and non-Microsoft browsers is planned. It seems a waste of effort to develop a MSIE-only version followed by an open standards version when the open standards version can work with MSIE to begin with.
There is certainly an argument to be made to ensure that the browser used by the majority of Internet users is well-supported, but it is a fallacy to believe that this support must come at the expense of support for browsers unable to support proprietary features.
It will be further troubling if the reason for the lack of support for open browsers is an ActiveX requirement. ActiveX technology has been dogged by security problems for years, and its use cannot be justified given the availability of secure, open alternatives. The suitability of alternatives is demonstrated by the planned support of non-MSIE browsers.
While any complex web browser is subject to security problems, the fact that the US-CERT has repeatedly recommended using a non-Microsoft web browser (http://search.cert.org/query.html?col=vulnotes&q
A requirement for businesses and individuals to use MSIE to make submissions to the copyright office is an onerous burden in terms of time, money, and security for those relying on non-Microsoft solutions in their affairs.
Sincerely,
Full Name
I keep reading about sites that are IE-only, yet I rarely run into a site that doesn't render in Mozilla. The only exception I can think of is a gaming site whose patch downloader will only work with IE, and Microsoft's own update site.
Maybe if I were visiting more home-brewed sites instead of commercial/large sites I'd have more problems.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
But how many of you have ever registered a copyright? If you haven't, isn't it a little disingenuous to write to the Copyright Office complaining?
I'm seeing a lot of comments demanding plain-jane HTML, and denying that it costs anything to support multiple browsers, because you just check for "standards compliance". I used to think this. It's completely wrong today. Many web applications today have rich interfaces approaching desktop apps. Getting them to work cross-browser is damn hard. It is definitely worth doing for a mass-market thing like gmail, but for a niche site used by a handful of attorneys? Hard to justify.
Of course, the rich interface is probably not needed or justified in this governmental site.
The problem is not solvable by standards compliance, at least in the automatable sense. You can have CSS that passes validation, looks fine in IE, and piles things on top of each other in other browsers.
Oh no. You don't get to pass it off as laziness. You didn't need to read the article or the summary, the title clearly states that it's referring to the copyright office. This was clearly a bad case of dumb.
That's it, give me your mouse and glasses, you're suspended.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Ah, but did your vpn support VOIP, with QoS guarantees? Why not? Because it wasn't part of the requirement, right?
Web developers work within finite time and resource to hit specific requirements. When fancy bells and whistles are part of the requirement, and cross-browser support is not, off-brand browsers will suffer. Speaking only for the web developers I've worked with, they are quite capable of making sites cross-browser, and in fact usually advocate this to their employer/customer.
When you are writing the checks, the web developers will do what you say.
I read the notice, and, seeing they didn't have an official email address or Webmail site to submit comments, called them.
./, and that she now understood why I'd said that if they had an email address for comments, their server would have crashed....
I then spoke to one of the lawyers.
She tells me that
- this spring, Congress mandated that they set up to do this "preregistration" business online by late October;
- that they're funded mostly by registration fees, unlike the patent office, and so do not have a huge budge;
- they're, ahhh, somewhat behind the curve on technology (quote from nice person: "I won't say neanderthal, but..."), and
- the department that's implementing this (direct quote) "will guarantee that the forms will work with IE, but won't guarantee that it will work with other browsers."
I explained how, though I am very much not a Macaholic, most of the artists I have read of or know personally use Macs, which would preclude them from using this system. I also pointed out that not a single Website that takes your credit card requires IE.
She and I had a nice conversation, and she requested that I send the letter w/ five copies. So, folks, send the letters, ASAP.
mark
PS I told her, at the end, that I'd heard of this on slashdot, and her response indicated that she may have heard of
And make sure you do RTFA because it says that Support for Netscape 7.2, Firefox 1.0.3, and Mozilla 1.7.7 is planned but will not be available when preregistration goes into effect. Present users of these browsers may experience problems when filing claims. Meaning this is a temporary problem, albiet a needless one.
If it's Siebel powered, the site will probably be Windows-only even when it supports more browsers. Last time I encountered Siebel, it used an ActiveX control in the browser. That is really a bigger story than what browsers they support this week.
...and that is that there's no real special needs for MSIE tchotchkes in patent reviews and filing. Never mind the top of the line standards, basic HTML 3.2 and before will more than convey any amount of data for the USPTO and its customers. There's no need for any high-end database connectivity that wasn't being done with CGI years ago. If they are going to do anything that requires MSIE most proprietary and non-standard things, then they are asking for trouble from a security standpoint.
That being said, most corporations are Windows/IE houses and since it comes with Windows, they will use it by default. As another poster mentioned, better than 90% of end-users are Windows users with MSIE and a lot of Mac users are still out there who use the Mac version of IE often but won't admit to it to avoid opprobrium from the anti-MS zealots in the Mac camp.
To the USPTO this will look like a tinfoil hat FUD paranoia fest in a teacup. To the corporations filing patents with abandon, they won't notice and won't care. To the people having to handle security for the USPTO IT systems, it will no doubt come back to haunt them.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
It should be illegal for any government office to do this kind of thing. I see this more and more, with documents in proprietary formats (like Word, Realplayer) and formats intended to be non-copyable (like streaming media). Any government website or document should be in the format that is best suited for automated access (for example, for gathering information for an FOIA request), from the broadest possible range of clients (browsers, etc).
The government can't plead expense for new services at least, because there are plenty of good, cheap-or-free engines available for just about anything they need to do.
At the very least, the existence of an adequate free alternative should be an absolute bar to creating new documents or websites in a proprietary format or accessible only to prorietary tools.
It may even be unconstitutional, under similar arguments to those used to prevent the copyrighting of typefaces.
Netscape can use the IE renderer... This is why they say they can support it. New Netscape is just IE in sheeps clothing. Therefor, as a result, the content in question would still be IE only.
From the article:
At this point in the process of developing the Copyright Office's system for online preregistration, it is not entirely clear whether the system will be compatible with web browsers other than Microsoft Internet Explorer versions 5.1 and higher. Filers of preregistration applications will be able to employ these Internet Explorer browsers successfully. Support for Netscape 7.2, Firefox 1.0.3, and Mozilla 1.7.7 is planned but will not be available when preregistration goes into effect. Present users of these browsers may experience problems when filing claims.
Translation:
Yeah, we know that we're supposed to provide uniform access and all that, but those stupid hack developers went and built an IE only site. Now we're staring down a government mandated deadline and there's no way we can fix it fast enough. We're kind of fucked at this point, so we'd better bite the bullet and come clean. Lets see if we can marginalize the issue as we do it, then we kill two birds with one stone and maybe even keep our jobs.
So, um, yeah... this has nothing to do with Netscapes IE renderer. Nice try though.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Here is a possible letter body that is less tendentious than that linked in the article.
--
Dear Copyright Office:
I am responding to your August 4 notice on Preregistration of Certain Unpublished Copyright Claims (37 CFR Part 202 [Docket No. RM 2005-9]), in which you ask whether potential preregistrants will unable or unwilling to use Internet Explorer 5.1 or higher with the new electronic form. I am one of an estimated 20% of browser users who does not use Internet Explorer.
I understand that the problem is that you will not be able to upgrade to Siebel 7.8 in time for the October 24 launch, and that Siebel 7.7 offers inadequate guarantees of multiple browser support. I understand that you plan to offer multiple browser support "in the future".
I commend your for developing an electronic form and allowing preregistration. However your announcement of this implementation limitation is worrisome for three reasons.
- You do not identify the source of the limitation. If the electronic form will be compliant with modern web standards (http://www.w3.org/) but will not have been fully tested with other browsers, that is a minor concern. In this case there is high likelihood that all modern browsers will work with the site. If on the other hand the electronic form will actively block other browsers or will contain IE specific code in violation of web standards, this is a larger concern.
- You do not explicitly address section 508 compliance, which as I understand it is a legal requirement upon the Copyright Office. http://www.section508.gov/ It is hard to understand how section 508 compliant website would be unusable with essentially any modern browser.
- You do not identify a time frame for removal of this limitation. If you will fix things in a few weeks, fewer users will be affected than if you will take a couple years.
In israel, every government or municipal website requires IE - some don't even let you in if you run something else, others just don't work. You can't pay a bill or file a form with any other browser.
.doc format! Same goes for all our major portals, news sites, and online communities, not to mention e-commerce sites...
This is not just the government, IE is actually considered a proper standard here. One of our biggest universities, Tel Aviv university, where I go to school, uses an online course system for bulletin boards and knowledge bases that you can't login to without IE, and sends students messages in word
You must stamp it with a "COPY" rubber stamp. Duh.
So you need to go by a rubber stamp to write to them... I am giving up.
OMGWTF!!! U = N00BS!!!1 F1r3f0x pwns IE.
K BYE..
gg
Your Name.
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
I'd want to find out why they even suggested this. I'd be looking at the source of the request and trying to determine the reasons/motives for this question.
If their office can't write a submission web site that accomodates other browsers, then there's a question of competence. If there's a problem with the competence of the staff at that office, let's get the real problem fixed.
Best regards.
Isn't there something in the Constitution about no Government establishment of religion? 'nuf said
"Any other professional is expected to show, you know, *professionalism* in their field."
Now if only builders had to deal with clients like that... "and the house has to have light shows like las vegas, and we don't care if 15% of people can't fit through the door... now redesign it with a different sort of flashing light... and replace the brick with papier mache, oh you have to work overtime to keep it upright during the storms...
I'm not a professional webdesigner, but I think they're allowed to start acting like professionals when they started getting treated as such...