Slashdot Mirror
IE7 Compatibility a Developer Nightmare
yavori writes "Internet Explorer 7 has kicked in at last on all MS Windows OS running PCs because of the fact M$ decided to force it's users to migrate through update. In fact this has started a IE7 Web Developers Nightmare. The article actually explains that most of the small company B2C sites may just fall from grace because of IE7 incompatibility. One of the coolest thing IE7 is unable to do is actually processing form data when clicked on an INPUT field of TYPE IMG... which is pretty uncool for those using entire payment processes with such INPUT fields."
I'm gonna grant the author a free pass on the writing since it's obvious English is not his first language. But the rest of the article seems to be vague hand-wavy FUD and anecdotal complaints. To take two of the more cohesive statements:
The truth is that standards were not the first priority of IE7 (they are an evil mega-corporation after all), but they did do an awful lot of work on them. Just take a look at the list of CSS improvements over at the IEBlog. They acknowledge that there's a lot more work to do, but it's clear from this that they've solved a lot of headaches for CSS developers.
I'm assuming the author means forms won't submit with an <input type="image"> tag. Without even testing it, I can't believe for one second this is true. This is a major backbone of HTML going back to at least HTML 2, and used in millions of websites. If this were broken it would have been fixed during beta. Microsoft may not care that much about web standards but they do care about backwards compatibility, and a lot of their decision making process has centered around not breaking things that worked in IE6.
It's likely IE7 is going to be a headache for web developers, but this article doesn't do anything to support that argument. As a web developer IE7 hasn't really taken any of my time. So far it's been more reliable than IE6, and I look forward to the day when IE7 is the standard and IE6 is an afterthought for picky clients.
Pretty unprofessional to use the "M$" moniker in a submission. But whatever. Also it probably should not say that people were forced since they have to agree to the install and don't need to do it at all. But whatever. Typical biased press you get here from some of the folks. Many folks can be more balanced but lately we hear from a lot of "slashtards".
The developer could use a bit of javascript to hide the submit button, show the wanted image. Then an OnClick event on the image submits the form as per usual. This way it'll also degrade properly when javascript is disabled, seeing as the non-image submit is defaulted to.
Indeed!
It would be nice to see examples of failing code, for instance. I've not tried it myself yet. The author's English skills leave a lot to be desired, to the point of making his complaints a bit vague.
The upside to this is that the same "forced" upgrade procedure MS are using to roll out IE7 can also be used to roll out bigfixes without user intervention, if IE7 was originally installed transparently anyway.
Anyway, I can't say it a big surprise that IE7 has its own foibles. IE6 was also a developer's nightmare, with the DOM and JS environment behaving differently from Firefox, Opera etc, so it's just another workaround. I'm only disappointed that Microsoft didn't make more of an effort to bring it inline with the competition so we could avoid yet another set of JS and CSS hacks. It's not like they have limited resources!
sig:- (wit >= sarcasm)
And the MOST killer thing was the DISability of IE to submit data through "input type img"
Maybe I'm not understanding what the claim is, but it's easy to demonstrate that this is not true. I just tried with IE7 to submit data on a form that uses an input type of image and see that it works fine.
This article has almost no information and it seems the only reason it was posted here is to stir up anti-Microsoft antagonism. (Now someone will say, "You must be new here.") :-)
In my experience, IE7 is much better at supporting standards than IE6. A huge improvement in CSS support, so that now as I design in Firefox 2.0 and occasionally verify things in IE7, I see that they are very, very close. Most of what I'm doing is working with WordPress blogs so it's very possible I'm not using things that are now broken, but if anything Microsoft should be given some credit for improving their browser.
There's plenty of reason to not like Microsoft, but this article doesn't supply much (if any) ammunition, and it doesn't do the free software crowd much of a service to engage in our own unsupported FUD.
As some have pointed out, this appears to be an incomprehensible rant. The "article" referenced says little and backs up that little with less.
I also notice the "submitter" seems to be the same person as the blogger for the article. Not saying this shouldn't happen, but this usually shouldn't happen... If it's good enough to get "published", it's good enough to be published by someone other than the author.
This is just fucking ridiculous. This little rant is not only incoherent, but it's 100% wrong. See for yourself.
Jesus, do Slashdot editors actually *do* anything? Seriously. Do any of them actually *read* the articles they're posting, or is it all about pageviews and keywords?
The editors must be desperate today, or else they don't read these things before they post them. I can't find any good reason why I should trust anything this guy is saying on his blog: maybe he has run into a major issue with IE, or maybe he just does not know how to code JavaScript correctly. If his JavaScript is anything like his grammar, error is a high probability.
...En að Besta Sem Guð Hefur Skapað Er Nýr Dagur
It still won't parse the DOM. Stuff that is simple in Firefox, will never work in IE 7.0. I gave up trying to get some features to work.
For instance, I have this js based terminal emulator. I don't want to edit that package, but just use js to read some fields. This is sexy in Firefox, but no chance in IE 7.0.
if (document.Form1.tsprog.value == 'fibfm' || document.Form1.tsprog.value == 'FIBFM'){
var pwrap = document.getElementById("pbsiwrap");
var cells = pbsiwrap.getElementsByTagName("span");
var item = cells[12].textContent;
document.getElementById ("headspot").innerHTML = '';
}
Developers now have to support IE5, 6 and 7. There's more work to do. So how does your argument apply? Standards are what the market demands, not what developers do. IE still owns the market and its the de facto standard, like it or not. Just because some academics came up with a "standard" doesn't mean there's a law that says that everyone needs to follow it. They should be called "suggestions".
I'm sorry to sound like a dick, but isn't this what the massive beta testing period is for? Microsoft release beta versions well in advance so websites can be changed BEFORE everyone starts having forceful upgrades. If you wait until these upgrades to do your porting, YOU are at fault, not Microsoft.
TFA was written by a guy who only recently has started porting sites to Firefox, so it's not really surprising he's finding this to be a pain.
Really, the only people this will bite are people who didn't care about standards compliant cross-browser support before, and now are annoyed because IE7 != IE6.
With easily 50% of the replies to this story in favor of Microsoft and their standards compliance (never thought I'd say that), I feel it's safe to announce that Hell has, in fact, frozen over.
Developers now have to support IE5, 6 and 7.
No, not necessarily. Web Developers are advised to test against all browsers with more than a 3% market share for their site. If your site has 3% share of IE 5, 6, and 7, then you've got your work cut out for you. Most others don't have that problem.
Just because some academics came up with a "standard" doesn't mean there's a law that says that everyone needs to follow it. They should be called "suggestions".
The wonderful thing about standards, when done correctly, is that everyone can support the standard and get essentially the same result.
In all honestly, if your website can't function fine with the minor variations between browsers, then you've got a bad design. (And let's not even get into how bad your site will look in mobile devices, or without images, or for the blind.)
FTA: "I recently needed to rewrite a web site so it works on firefox too..."
I'd take what this guy has to say with a large grain of salt if this is how he treats his sites.
Okay, firstly, I'd be bloody amazed if the pages in question validate. The guy goesn't give any link to the site, though, so I can't tell.
Secondly... if you're using lots of client side Javascript to make a site work, you're asking for trouble. Google can do this, because they have massive dev and QA teams. If you don't have the manpower to do enough testing (for example, in the beta period) and fix problems, maybe you should make your site simpler.
Every single web application I work on, worked perfectly in IE 7. Even, yes, the ones that use Javascript. This is achieved by:
I'm a professional web developer, and I stopped worrying about IE 5 about a year ago. None of my clients seem to have noticed or cared. They're happy as long as IE 6 works (and Firefox if I'm lucky, and soon IE7, though they're generally not there yet).
My web stats aren't showing much if any IE 5 traffic either.
This is just a fucking whiny blog post. Give me a break.
"And let's not even get into how bad your site will look ...for the blind.)"
;)
I'm guessing it'll look like a series of dots.
Oh really? I still have IE6, although I never use it except when forced to. Who are these people who have been "forced" to upgrade?
Our brick and mortar business went through exactly the same thing. Henry bloody Ford and his evil empire released their latest and greatest product on consumers and it really screwed us businesses that had hitching posts and stables.
One of the worst things about "Model T" was that it belched out carbon monoxide. Seriously! Compare this to a horse where the worst you have to worry about is methane! For brick and mortar store owners who didn't want to pay once again to upgrade from barns for their customers, this caused all kinds of ventilation issues. People could actually die from this stuff!
Some people say that keeping up with the times is part of the cost of doing business. But where will it end?!
Replacing the G in GNU with a hammer and sickle or peace sign would seem fair as a rebuttal to "M$", but /. doesn't support the character.
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
For those of you who don't like babel fish:
Because M$ decided on a forced upgrade migration path, Internet Explorer 7 has finally kicked in on all of their MS Windows OS running PCs. In theory, there isn't much wrong with this, but IE7 has failed to comply with many fo the standards it was supposed to.
IE7 is a nightmare of crossbrower compatibility. I recently needed to rewrite a web site so that it works on firefox... and surprisingly enough, when testing the new and the old site on IE7 I discovered that many elements do not function as expected. And "not function as expected" doesn't really cover it, it was more a question of not working at all.
I found some pretty large incompatibilities in their JavaScript submission systems. While I can understand the behavior migration, some functions did not pass parameters correctly etc.. The worst thing was that they disabled submitting data through "input type img" (which in this case was the entire sites data)... I don't blame the programmers for setting things up this way, but I do blame IE for not keeping with standards again.
So with IE7 we come to a new era of "web developers nightmare." It will cause many smaller websites to need to be rewritten, and therefore will crush some of the associated small companies' business.
And a final tip from me! Try to avoid writing JavaScript without testing it 100% on all of the major web browsers: FireFox, IE7, Opera and Safari.
Just a clue:
According to W3C, the web browser market share of IE7 for the previous month is: 7.1%
and for IE6 is: 49.9%
So with a bit of analyzing as well as some math we can say that IE7 will show a market share of about 60%... which isn't the best picture for us, the developers.
And for those that do like babelfish... English via Italian.
The Internet Explorer 7 has given of soccer to within in end on all the OS of MS Windows that ago to work the PC because of determined the M$ fact in order to force it is customers to migrare through the modernization. The sink really is not much evil with the this here but IE7 has been supposed to more join the champions who what in effects is not to align. IE7 is a cavalla of night for the greater part of the sviluppatori that try to join to the champions for crossbrowsing. Recently I have had to rewrite a Web site so as to it works to firefox equally... and the surprise element was that when examines the new and old place on IE7 I have uncovered that many things does not work as previewed and "the function poichè previewed" it is not the just word for it, it was more one issue than operation at all. I have found that submiting with the Javascript it has some graceful things of uncool that incolpo of the IE but some functions really did not work when no-go gage all the parameters and therefore via. And the GREATER PART of the thing of the assassin was the incapacity of the IE in order to introduce the data through "the type img of the input" that really it was the entire data of the places... Really not incolpo of the programmatori that have made it therefore but of the IE not to still maintain with the champions. Therefore really with IE7 we come to one new was "of the incubus of the sviluppatori of fotoricettore" poichè will demand the EVIL and perhaps DEFECTIVE places therefore of fotoricettore will not be rewritten and this with crushing some of the commerce of the small enterprises. And a final TIP from me! Tests to avoid the Javascript of writing without to verify it 100% on all the browsers used main of fotoricettore like FireFox, IE7, the work and the safari. As soon as for having an indication: According to W3C the percentage of the market of web browser of IE7 for the previous month is: 7.1% and for IE6 are: 49.9% Therefore with a little analyzing to the situation and the facts therefore as to make a sure one for the mathematics we can say that IE7 will show a percentage of the market of approximately 60% according to W3C... which is not the better image for we the devs.
The ______ Agenda
In Soviet Russia, communist icon supports YOU.
-David
Then you are very likely the only person in the entire multiverse who takes this view.
Microsoft's first major product was a BASIC interpreter, where a postfix $ designated a string variable. FSF's first major product under its GNU label was a text editor that included a Lisp interpreter, where every subexpression needs a pair of parentheses. Thus, your insult might be (f (s (f))) or (g (n (u))).
Yes:
http://tredosoft.com/Multiple_IE
(link on that page for standalone IE7, too)
All our developers at work have this installed, plus all the other windows browsers, plus a Mac with a few relevant browsers. In fact if they weren't devout Windows/Linux developers I'm sure they could do the whole thing on a mac using parallels.
We have a webapp that was built for our call centers. It started out in IE 4 and then later we did some updates for IE5. IE6 came out and there were a few JavaScript things to fix-up (nothing huge) but by then we had ditched almost all of the non-standard code and moved from table layout to pure CSS layout. When IE7 came out we didn't need to make a single change to the JavaScript, CSS, or HTML. All 200+ pages just work.
Everyone was worried that because of our choices and how heavily we rely on CSS and JavaScript that we would be in for a nightmare. Luckily, not so. However, two of the products we purchased for time tracking and for defect reporting both DIE because they have user agent checks built into their javascript. When they run into the unknown IE7 string they just chirp back a warning message and don't even try to load up. How many times do web developers need to be told "browser detection is bad use object/feature detection" before they'll get it.
I don't think that I've had any problem with any of the normal sites that I use when using IE7 over the last couple of months (banking, news, mail, social). I get the feeling that the author of this article just doesn't know what he's talking about.
"Do not be swept up in the momentum of mediocrity." - anon
Well, there's the fact that they barely improved actual W3C compatibility while making itself incompatible with previous versions.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
Dude, you seriously need to clean up that HTML. There are validation errors galore (object in the head, mis-nested table/form tags and an open option tag, for example. Second, the CSV file has five columns for the header but only four for the data. Third, you refer to the wrong column names in your data fields. And fourth (and this is causing the crash) your data filter is messed up. Remove the filter parameter from the data object and it no longer crashes the browser.
That javascript could use a good going over, too. You've made it way more complicated than it needs to be.
I'm amazed that page works in any browser.
Without Microsoft / IBM, we would have had Apple, Acorn, Commodore and many others competing for the desktop market. All of these got GUIs as standard before any Microsoft platform. In addition, I suspect that the lack of a single strong player would have encouraged the widespread adoption of open standards much earlier; how else would you with your Mac be able to work with your customer and his Amiga?
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
This is flat out wrong. IE7 only runs on winXP and newer. So all the people running win2000, NT, 98 and 95 are stuck with IE6. Likewise pre-XP users are stuck with the 'old' media player version 9.0. Later the article implies that the current 49% of IE6 users will migrate to IE7. This shares the same flaw mentioned above. Anyway, people who don't want IE7 can either decline the install, or set a registry value to opt out forever. Or just don't use IE7; any product they give away for free has some ulterior motive.
I think he meant Link.
As an anti-Microsoft, pro-Linux, Mac-using, pro-Firefox web developer that works for a University and thus has to cater to IE users, this writer was pleasantly surprised when he experienced very few issues even during his first IE7 compatibility tests. As none of the issues he did encounter were show-stoppers, he has been forced to conclude that IE7 is a huge leap forward, and the rapid replacement of IE6 with just about anything, Microsoft or otherwise, can only mean good things for the web as a whole.
/usr/games/fortune
Hey, that's nothing. In my day, I had to walk 14 miles through the snow, uphill, just to get to Slashdot. It's actually easier to get to now that it's gone downhill!
Much as I despise Microsoft, fixing IE7's rendering (at least partially) was a good move. Not only did it move closer toward the standard, but it *broke* a bazillion web pages that were non-compliant but displayed as intended on IE6 or earlier.
Previously, if you told those lazy web developricks, "Hey, your web site doesn't display properly on Firefox, which is a whopping 4% of the market!" then they would answer, "Works fine with my computer --your Firefox must be broken." Well, guess what? Now it doesn't display properly on the latest IE either, and with Microsoft forcing IE7 down everyone's throats, it's not just going to be some insignificant minority who complain. More considerate developers who slave away at making those IE-specific adjustments can now say, "You need to get the latest version of IE in order for the web site to work," and then wash their hands of maintaining any more IE6-or-earlier hacks. IE7 will have a beneficial effect even for those of us who never use MS products, because it will have a profound effect on the WWWeb.
And those poorly designed websites mentioned in TFA, which will have to be redone to be IE7 compatible thus driving small businesses to bankruptcy? Well, cry me a river. Reminds me of the early days of the web when people just cut'n'pasted other web pages to cobble together their own Frankenstein[1] of a web site, which displayed perfectly on Netscape 3.1 but whose source code was an abomination.
You know when the Slashdot community bitches about Microsoft, and some MS supporter always asks, "You guys are never satisfied! What's Microsoft gotta do to make you admit that they are doing something *good*"? Well, fixing IE7 numbers among the answers (right under "Open up the MS Word format"). Keep up the good work, Microsoft, and someday your product might be as good as Firefox.
_____
[1] Yeah, I know Frankenstein is the creator of the monster, not the monster itself, but I'm using the term in the popular culture sense.
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
including my sister, whose work recently won awards for degrading nicely.
Does she know you're telling people this?
We are all just people.
Erm, I think you need to recap your history of the personal computer.
When IBM finally decided to sell PCs, Apple had a damn good run at first-mover advantage. IBM wanted to keep Apple from getting the same kind of lock with the Apple ][ that it now has with the iPod, so they decided to rush a disposable launch-vehicle product into the market, then evolve what it considered a 'good' product once its place in the channel was secure. They gave the job of designing the new product to an engineer who had the good sense to run a production capacity baseline, and realized that it would take something like 18 months to open a factory that did nothing but ship empty boxes. Any product design, supplier contracts, and production setup would have to be added to that time.
Instead, he proposed a radical solution: build the initial product from off-the-shelf parts, using third-party assembly houses for the actual production. That would put the new product in the market fast enough for IBM to build a place in the channel, and would buy them time to work on setting up production for an all-IBM product. Trouble was, that model would be vulnerable to copying, so IBM needed something to keep its proprietary lock on the product.
The result was the BIOS chip. That was IBM property pure and simple, and no computer could run (or at least be compatible with IBM's machines) without one.
The plan was approved, and IBM established contracts with a whole slew of outside vendors to supply parts of the initial system, including a tiny little place in Washington called Microsoft.
Then some bastard from a company called Compaq reverse-engineered IBM's BIOS chip and developed a brutally legal clean-room copy.
That opened the floodgates of commodity PCs. Not anything IBM or Microsoft did by choice. In fact, since the OS was the only thing that made an IBM computer distinct in the market, IBM suddenly found itself needing Microsoft more than Microsoft needed IBM.
And that's how a tiny little company with a crap product came to inherit one of the largest and best organized sales channels in the world, and bootstrapped itself into one of the largest companies of all time.
Nice history, but largely irrelevant to my point. Proprietary computers would have never gained a foot hold. Apple may have had the largest marketshare, but there were be 10 or 20 competing products that would all be incompatible with each other. Regardless of whether or not it happened by plan or accident, the fact that the IBM PC was relatively open that could be easily reverse engineered and commoditized is what made the PC industry take off, not Apple or Commodore.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here