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."

Comments

Slashdot Considers Dupe Free Website

[Quarters]

Hahaha, I kid, I kid.

Interesting

[Sierpinski]

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.

Re:Interesting

[jwhitener]

It really baffles me that designers/coders actually feel like it is some sort of huge challenge to make a site work with all browsers.

If you do a bit of homework (or google it) you'll see a pretty stable set of common code that works with all browsers.

The next step is designing a site only using that code. It really isn't rocket science.

Do you sacrifice some cutting edge features? Of course. But unless your purpose is to wow your audience with cutting edge stuff, there should never be a reason to use those cutting edge features.

One of the sites I'm working with now has over 12,000 pages, and is controlled by 3 style sheets. It is clean, compliant code, that has only THREE browser based changes to the stylesheet (in order to make IE work on a couple newer featurs).

The site has forms, online bill pay, dynamic content, flash, rollovers, and is comprised entirely of divs and css.

Sites that say "IE Only", or "Requires standards compliant browser", or any other variation of saying, in essence,

"Please be inconvienced because of my limitations as a designer"

Need to hire a new web team.

It is quite literally zero extra work to make a complex site work with all browsers if you know what you are doing.

And before someone posts 32 specific code examples showing how its impossible, ask yourself, How could I have done that differently? Why did I need to use that code? I will guarantee that there is another way that will work with both browsers, and if not, that you didn't need to implement that in your site.

Standards

[alnapp]

Just stick to the standards, then all browsers will be able to access it.

Haha aHahaHaha HahaHaha
HahaHahaHa
haHahaHahaHahaHah
aHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHahaHaha

etc.

Stop. Supporting. Browsers.

[91degrees]

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.

Have an opinion? Express it

[ReformedExCon]

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.

Re:Swings and Roundabouts

[morgan_greywolf]

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

Re:RFTA

[1u3hr]

they will be writing stuff to allow these browsers at a later date.

Without a deadline, it can easily get pushed back and back, until they can say it's working fine with IE only; why bother?

From TFA...

[jpellino]

"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."

What about Section 508?

[jafiwam]

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.)

MS Patents

[jim_v2000]

In other news, Microsoft filed a patent today for an "Interface for accessing an online database of patents".

Re:Swings and Roundabouts

[aisaac]

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.