Slashdot Mirror


Just what has Microsoft been doing for IE 7?

Jeff Reifman writes "Last week, Windows columnist Paul Thurrott ripped into Microsoft for ignoring CSS standards with its upcoming Internet Explorer 7.0. "Microsoft has set back Web development by an immeasurable amount of time. My advice is simple: Boycott IE. It's a cancer on the Web that must be stopped. IE isn't secure and isn't standards-compliant, which makes it unworkable both for end users and Web content creators." With the redesign of my own site last month, I discovered just how non-compliant IE is with basic CSS: IE 52% vs. Firefox 93%. Is Microsoft purely incompetent and tone-deaf to customers — or simply counting on IE's non-compliance remaining a de-facto standard?"

25 of 354 comments (clear)

  1. I vote de-facto standard by edflyerssn007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I believe that they are just hoping that IE remains the standard as it will come pre-installed with Vista and will be going out on automatic update, so the vast majority of windows users are going to move over to IE7 with-in a year or two.

    -Ed

    --
    So you see what had happened was....
    1. Re:I vote de-facto standard by Silas+is+back · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I hope you are right, since "the folk" is just too lazy (or call it dumb) to download a better browser.

      I'm glad the IE-bashing gets popular even amongst Win-supporters, we Mac- and Linux-users have been alone on that trip for too long.

      --
      this sig is useless
    2. Re:I vote de-facto standard by Deathbane27 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bundling IE doesn't prevent OEMs from doing their customers a favor by installing Firefox and making it the default browser. There's no good reason not to bundle it.

      Plus, I'd rather be able to download and install Firefox on a newly-built computer using IE, than have to download it from another computer and copy it across the network or burn it onto a CD. And what if I don't have access to another computer when build time arrives?

      Not having a browser installed = pain in the ass to get one installed = bad idea.

      --
      If it ain't broke, it needs more features!
    3. Re:I vote de-facto standard by fm6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Hoping" is the wrong word. They know that they're guaranteed 85% of the user base, and don't see any reason they should care about any standards except their own.

      And before somebody says, "OK, IE is the de-facto standard, we can all just code our pages to use it." Ask yourself this: when you write code in C++ or Java or Perl, do you blindly guess what might work? No, you look up the language features and APIs that are documented to do what you need done, and you use them. But when it comes to coding web pages there is no documentation. Yeah, there's the Microsoft documentation, but it's badly written, and it reflects an implementation that nobody outside of Microsoft really understands, and that could change at any time.

      Standard compliance is important. Not to make your web pages work on everybody's browser. But to make them work at all.

    4. Re:I vote de-facto standard by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Bundling IE doesn't prevent OEMs from doing their customers a favor by installing Firefox and making it the default browser. There's no good reason not to bundle it.

      The following are incentives not to bundle Firefox:

      • It costs money and effort to add another browser and keep it up to date.
      • It increases support costs to support multiple browsers and IE can't really be removed.
      • Not working with IE only Websites increases support costs.
      • Kickbacks from IE toolbar spyware would no longer provide extra money.
      • Installing Firefox as default may anger MS, who has them by the short hairs with differential pricing of Windows.

      Plus, I'd rather be able to download and install Firefox on a newly-built computer using IE, than have to download it from another computer and copy it across the network or burn it onto a CD.

      To be in technical compliance with the law, MS would have allow OEMs to place Firefox or another browser on the install disk. Even if they don't OEMs can include an install disk for the browser. You can use the old version of the browser to download a newer copy of whatever you want.

    5. Re:I vote de-facto standard by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, because M$ staffs a free tollfree IE hotline to support this stuff. *lmao*

      There may or may not be good reasons to OEM firefox onto the machines, but this isn't one of them.

    6. Re:I vote de-facto standard by Adam9 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Considering the support costs that go into identifying and removing spyware, Firefox may be a less costly alternative.

    7. Re:I vote de-facto standard by fm6 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      No, no compiler actually meets the C++ standard, at least not completely. But, unlike IE and CSS, they make a decent effort. Just think about what life would be like if there were no basic rules in writing a C++ program. When you claim that defacto standards are worth more than formal specifications, you're ignoring how much of programming comes from specifications. You don't know them, because you've never read them — they're just something you take for granted. Imagine what would happen if compiler writers didn't read the spec before implemnting a for loop, or decided to get creative with the way output strings are formatted.

      Rules are necessary for any game. The fact that you can't get 100% compliance is beside the point.

  2. Boycott by kevin_conaway · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Boycott I.E.? How are people supposed to do that? Just code to the standards and screw the users?

    Most users don't care about your ideology or standards. Some of them aren't even aware that there are other browsers, much less why they would want one. If your site doesn't work, they'll just move on to one that does, not complain to Microsoft that xyz.com doesn't render properly.

    1. Re:Boycott by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sad but true.
      I would vote for people recommending FireFox or Opera on every website. Maybe adding functionality for standards compliant browser that IE lacks.
      The main thing is NO IE ONLY WEBSITES.
      Don't make them and don't use them.
      Yes sites need to support IE but they better support browsers that support standards just as well if not better.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    2. Re:Boycott by kevin_conaway · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Maybe you weren't around then, but it didn't bother people one bit to put "Best viewed in Netscape" or "Best viewer in IE" on their site.

      You're referring to the golden era known as HTML 3.2?

      "Best viewed in any W3C compliant browser"

      Thats the problem, none of the browsers fully implement any of the standards. Some are just better than others.

    3. Re:Boycott by the_duke_of_hazzard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      BOC Customer: "Why does my site not work in the new version of IE?" Me: "Well, Mr Big, I'm afraid Microsoft does not conform to the CSS standard, so we're boycotting them." Customer: "What the fuck are you talking about? Make my site work or you're fired." EOC

    4. Re:Boycott by Anitra · · Score: 4, Insightful
      If your site doesn't work, they'll just move on to one that does, not complain to Microsoft that xyz.com doesn't render properly.

      If you're lucky, they'll complain to someone at your company that the site doesn't work...

      As a web developer, I can't afford to ignore IE. It is what 95% of my clients use to review their sites. "But it works in every other browser!" won't encourage them to keep their business with us.

      As a website visitor, though, I use Firefox and Safari. And I complain to the webmaster@blah of any site I that tries to force me to use IE.
      --

      Have you read the Moderation Guidelines Addendum?
  3. De-facto standard not difficult for them by SirTicksAlot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It will not be MS that will make it the de-facto standard, but the people that code websites. Most commercial websites "code for IE" only and therefore force it's customer base to have IE wether they want it or not. The only workaround is to not use that company's service. But then again the people that actually use these services may not have a say as to which services they use because these services are mandated by the companies they work for.

    Hopefully this will change soon.

    1. Re:De-facto standard not difficult for them by Tokin84 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hopefully places will stop coding for IE since they dropped Mac support. While the Mac user is not the biggest user, it is a percentage, and coding to IE will certainly remove their ability to use the site. Just stick to open standards... is it really that hard?

      --
      Most human beings have an almost infinite capacity for taking things for granted. - Aldous Huxley
  4. Don't ask by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't ask what Microsoft can do for IE7; ask what IE7 can do for Microsoft.

    --
    It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
  5. "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Is Microsoft purely incompetent and tone-deaf to customers - or simply counting on IE's non-compliance remaining a de-facto standard?"

    Microsoft's business model is heavily dependent, not on actually giving customers what they want, but on tricks like "embrace, extend, extinguish". Microsoft will make more money if everyone follows Microsoft's non-standard way of doing things, because then everyone will need Microsoft software to see web sites.

    If it weren't for the fact that it is temporarily possible to trick users who have little technical knowledge, Microsoft might be only barely profitable.

    --
    Will the violence of the U.S. government will end the 3,000 years of violence in the Middle East, or increase it?

  6. Paul Thurrott? by R.Mo_Robert · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In the linked article, he describes CSS as "an HTML-like technology that Web developers use to create Web sites." That's really a stretch, especially on a site like Windows IT Pro. (Couldn't he have said, for example, that it's used to style pages?) But I digress.

    In any case, he can complain about IE being stuck in the 90's all he wants--I get as frustrated with it as the next Web developer--but has anyone looked at his site (or Windows IT Pro, for that matter, except I doubt he has much control over that one)? It's a mess of tables, inline Javascript and CSS, and it doesn't even have a DOCTYPE. And he's complaining about standards? IE's buggy rendering and the compatibility mode in Firefox and other browsers is probably the only thing holding that site together.

    The article reads like just another attempt to bash Microsoft. It's even a bit hypocritical (see my last paragraph)...

    --
    R.Mo
  7. Auto-boycot by soloport · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Simple way to boycot:
    if IE --> Download Firefox Link
    else --> Welcome visitor!

    1. Re:Auto-boycot by Joe+U · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's because it's a blitheringly stupid idea.

      1. Don't block your target audience.
      2. Don't force them to do something they don't want to.
      3. Don't try to fragment the web, it won't work anyway.

      If they want to use a broken browser, have a popup window say 'your browser is broken, use firefox', and that's it, end of story.

      Your end users DO NOT CARE about your personal crusade to rid the Internet of poorly designed browsers. Really, they don't.

  8. ACID2 - Whoopdeedoo! by kthejoker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously, they're complaining about the Acid2? The most irrelevant web standards test ever devised?

    Seriously!?

    IE7 fixes the Holly Hack, the box model, PNGs, the pixel jog, the double margin float, child selectors, position:fixed, the XMLHttpRequest object, XML degradation, the phantom box, percentage vs. auto, the PEEKABOO bug (Oh My God - line-height bug, too!), EMACScript degradation ...

    IE7 is waaaaaaaaaaaaay closer to Firefox and Opera than IE6. And because they have a new product, they're going to work harder on CSS2.1 for the next year while they claw their way back into their 90+% market share.

    I could honestly care less about ACID2 compliance, and the people who do are impractical pedants. ESPECIALLY when IE6 fails so many more basic standards tests than ACID2, all of which IE7 is fixing.

    It is like complaining that you passed calculus without knowing how to use a slide rule. Ridiculous.

    1. Re:ACID2 - Whoopdeedoo! by Bogtha · · Score: 5, Insightful

      IE7 fixes the Holly Hack, the box model, PNGs, the pixel jog, the double margin float,

      All of these are bugfixes, not additional support for CSS.

      child selectors, position:fixed,

      Yes, these are improvements to CSS support.

      the XMLHttpRequest object,

      This is only part of draft specifications at this stage.

      XML degradation

      This is a workaround for proprietary behaviour that gives false positives in Internet Explorer 6. Doctype switching isn't part of any specification, it's intentional misrendering. Not to mention the fact that it wouldn't even be a problem if Internet Explorer supported XHTML in the first place.

      the phantom box, percentage vs. auto, the PEEKABOO bug (Oh My God - line-height bug, too!),

      More bugfixes, not additional support.

      EMACScript degradation ...

      What are you referring to? They haven't made any changes to their JScript engine, which is their implementation of ECMAScript.

      All in all, I see a lot of bugfixes, but hardly anything in the way of adding missing support for parts of CSS. Sure, they added selectors, but they missed out tables and generated content, which are huge parts of the specification. Sure, they added a workaround for people using faux XHTML, but they didn't actually add XHTML support. And I don't know what you mean by "ECMAScript degradation", but they still have a non-standard event model instead of the DOM event model.

      IE7 is waaaaaaaaaaaaay closer to Firefox and Opera than IE6.

      Come off it. Bugfixes are not a great leap in functionality. Sure, it's great that we finally have them, but to characterise this as closing the gap between the browsers in any meaningful way is exaggeration beyond belief.

      I could honestly care less about ACID2 compliance, and the people who do are impractical pedants.

      Er, some of the things that Acid2 tests for are things you are describing as fixed in Internet Explorer 7, so obviously some of the things in Acid2 are important to you.

      And, wearing my impractical pedant hat, I have to point out that you are saying that people who care about Acid2 less than you are impractical pedants, which makes no sense.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    2. Re:ACID2 - Whoopdeedoo! by nine-times · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is like complaining that you passed calculus without knowing how to use a slide rule. Ridiculous.

      Not to be pedantic, but isn't it more like complaining that someone passed calculous when they have shown an inability to pass a calculus test?

      ACID2 is not the end-all and be-all of web standards compliance, but it does give an indication of how well a browser is rendering certain kinds of CSS with reference to the W3C standards. It was devised on feedback from web developers to be a collection of common rendering inconsistencies between the major browsers. It's not completely meaningless.

    3. Re:ACID2 - Whoopdeedoo! by Bogtha · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unfortunately, from what I've seen, they have added more hacks to the clunky rendering engine from IE5 (or earlier), instead of developing a new rendering core from scratch.

      Backwards compatibility with all the crappy proprietary behaviours of older versions of Internet Explorer is pretty important to Microsoft, which is why they are still using their older rendering engine instead of replacing it with something better. They can't make big changes because they are afraid they'll break things.

      Internet Explorer 8 is where you're likely to see a change like this. From what they've been saying, I think it's likely that they'll not add a further doctype switch, but implement a new rendering engine for XHTML only. Everybody using text/html will be stuck with Internet Explorer 7-level support for CSS, and everybody using application/xhtml+xml will get the new rendering engine. This has the added advantage of zero regressions - so Microsoft won't have to worry about backwards bug-for-bug compatibility.

      Unfortunately, to do this, they actually need to implement XHTML...

      MS has specifically stated that IE7 will not support the application/xml+xhtml mime type. This is a simple thing that most people overlook the importance of.

      No, it's not. I know it looks quite similar when you are writing it, but supporting XHTML isn't just a case of adding "application/xhtml+xml" to the list of media types that get chucked through the HTML rendering engine. Apart from the obvious fatal-error-on-malformed-documents behaviour, there are changes to the DOM, changes to CSS, changes to page structure, and so on. For instance, the following code means different things in HTML and XHTML:

      <table><tr><td>...</td></tr></table>

      In HTML, this code creates four elements. In XHTML, it creates three elements.

      There's all kinds of subtle ways in which XHTML differs from HTML, and if Microsoft don't get it right, it's going to cause a whole load of problems further down the line. XHTML is a golden opportunity to leave cruft like doctype switching and stupid CSS bugs behind once and for all, and if Internet Explorer 7 includes premature broken support for XHTML, it will be a squandered opportunity, and it will cause all kinds of problems further down the line.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
  9. How to defeat IE by onlyjoking · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The crucial argument against IE is its terrible CSS support but it's very difficult to get this across to ordinary users. Here's my suggestion. Create your site with as many features as possible which fail in IE but render perfectly in Firefox, Safari etc. Next insert Javascript or CSS IE browser detection into your home page which inserts into the IE rendered page something along these lines:

    This site will display better in a browser which supports web standards. Here's an example to show you the difference.

    The example is a link to a screenshot of the home page rendered in Firefox and a link to the Firefox download page should also be added. This way we don't lock out IE users but make IE's shortcomings as obvious as possible thus dispelling the pernicious M$-cultivated illusion that sites with IE workarounds are the standard. For this to work it needs to be a standard response developed by the web standards project so that it becomes familiar when users see it on different sites. The only way to defeat M$ is to play them at their own game.