Slashdot Mirror
Why are Websites Still Forcing People to Use IE?
DragonTHC asks: "I just visited Movielink's website for research. Their site has a nice message saying, 'Sorry, but in order to enjoy the Movielink service you must use Internet Explorer 5.0 (or higher) or Mozilla/Firefox with an IE Tab Extension (IE installation required).' While allowing the IETab Firefox extension is somewhat progressive, why do companies still force people to use Internet Explorer? Surely the site should work just fine in Firefox? With Firefox's steady gains in market share, you would think that webmasters would get the hint. If you are a webmaster, what are your reasons for forcing IE?"
I think you mean forcing people to use other sites.
As I understand it, IETab simply embeds Internet Explorer inside the Firefox window and allows the chrome to control it. As far as the website can tell, IETab is IE.
What's (somewhat) progressive about MovieLink isn't that they're allowing IETab... but that they're recommending it.
They have no power over you. Just go somewhere else for your research. That's what I do when I come across a stupid website like that.
but probably so that they only have to test for one browser's compatibility. Each browser has its own quirks (incorrectness?) in dealing with things like CSS transparency, and DIVs, etc. and the lowest common denominator for the vast majority of people browsing the web is, Internet Explorer. It's bundled into Windows. Knowledgeable people seek out others like Firefox or Opera, but your average person setting up their phat myspace profile.
People just need to realize that a web browser should be used for browsing the web and the websites should be HTML compliant.
--
So who is hotter? Ali or Ali's sister?
I work for a major company and externally they make a bit of effort to make the website run on Firefox and IE.
However, internally they don't give a damn and most of the apps don't work - its very very frustrating. See below for reasons:
Lack of training
Lack of funding
Lots of Apathy
Business risk
Well, however it may be, browsers still display different content differently. There is still no full consensus over how certain things should be displayed.
Now, of course, everyone has to use the latest technology in webpage design. In other words, the most incompatible technology. What looks lovely in IE looks aweful in Firefox and even worse in Opera. Ok, ok, maybe not aweful. But not JUST the same way. So you'd have to do the page two or three times to make it compatible with every browser. But that, in turn, would cost more money.
And here's where corporate design comes into play. It HAS to look exactly the way intended. The colors have to be JUST right, the placement, the spacing, everything has to match so it is immediately identified as THAT page. Since this cannot be warranted, the powers that be usually decide it's the lesser evil to "force" people to use a certain browser. Since you can assume that everyone has IE (at least everyone who uses Windows), but the amount of people who'd have Firefox is way smaller, IE is usually the browser of choice.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I would guess two reasons, which are related. IE was VERY popular a few years ago. It was a relativly good browser, up to date, and thanks to Windows coming with IE by default it held a massive market share. The biggest competitors were Opera (not free) and Netscape. Even Macs had IE. If you made a website, you had to make it work in IE, and making it work in something else was a luxury, it wasn't that necessary.
I think what we are seeing is the result of that, at least in part. Web sites were designed for that and things have continued. You update your site, update your site, update your site. It's still setup for that browser. You may bother to fix it for FF and such.
Don't get me wrong, I HATE this. I especially hate sites that tell me I must use IE then work fine when I tell Safari to fake being IE. And this is becoming less of an issue as the market share of Macs goes up, and FF reaches like 20% here in the US and up to 50% in some European countries (see story from the other day).
Ignoring other browsers used to be safe. Now it can mean a big share of the market.
Also, in the (smaller) shop where I work, things MUST work on IE simply because it is such a big part of the market. That said, we all use FireFox and design for it first then go fix stuff for IE. Safari tends to work with whatever FireFox does for the most part.
PS: Installing IE tab is not a solution. Saying you are "FireFox compatible with IE tab" is like saying a paddle boat is gas compatible when you duct-tape an outboard motor on it.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
I'm sure this is a great way to propagate malware -- force the user to use an insecure browser so that the site can install malware on the person's PC.
"This site works best (for us, not for you) with Internet Explorer"
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
The only people who require IE are the ones that purchassed some dumb HTML book by some other clueless n00b that uses IE, realised it was all too hard and went out and got frontpage to do the dirty work for them. There's a proliferation of them out there. They jumped in at the dot bomb boom thinking that calling themselves "web developers" would make them rich. It probably did, but it doesn't mean they're any good at it.
I mean c'mon it's not hard to write a brilliant page that works everywhere. Look at how Gmail works. IE, FF and Opera all render it correctly. Even Konqueror does a good job but its javascript implementation is a bit lax.
We have two "web applications" that we need to run at work. One is a time management package that used to be simply web-based using forms/java. There was nothing wrong with it except Java took a little time to start. They upgraded to the latest and greatest version that is now fantastic ActiveX. I pointed out that now us Linux users can't use it and will have to revert to the paper forms. Their first solution was "but everybody has 'The Internet'". It took over a week to demonstrate the Linux doesn't come with that (Internet Explorer) installed by default. They then reverted to "just borrow someone else's PC when you need to use it".
The other is an employee workflow manager. It works in FF but only barely. The HTML is that crap that you can hardly figure out what it's doing. Funnily IE renders the poo just fine, and is the only browser that does.
The people who recommend, install and run these services know nothing about Linux and wouldn't know what a web browser was if you showed them. They actually think "The Internet" is the Internet Explorer icon on their desktop.
I drink to make other people interesting!
Never mind IE, the idiots I'd like to kick the shit out of are the ones who do a website entirely in Flash!
You're using her as bait, Master!
Such as? What necessary piece of functionality does IE have that Mozilla (or Opera, or others) don't have?
The GP is absolutely correct most of the time: In the vast majority of cases there is no justifiable reason, and the only explanation is a lazy and/or dumb development team that couldn't be bothered to support another browser. Many of these projects were developed or began back when such a lazy choice wouldn't impede them much, but nowadays it can be deadly (if I encounter an IE-only site, I presume the operators are just grossly incompetent and go elsewhere).
Certainly, it's easier to write one-platform one-browser code. I guess as long as the extra effort would cost more than you're losing in users, it makes sense...
A browser displays a mark-up language. It was never designed to be a page layout language.
If you want that kind of control over presentation, use GIFs, PDF or Flash to do your presentations.
Of course, if you're too lazy to do all that work go ahead and assume that all IE users have their system set up exactly like you do--same screen resolution, same color depth, same fonts, no changes to default browser settings--and, by all means, use IE. Every once in a while someone gets it but I think, as another poster mentioned, they're too lazy to bother.
My company is very near releasing an update to our web application that will provide 100% support of both IE and Firefox (our next major revision will be out next month). There are a number of reasons why we are only just now adding support for Firefox. Though my company is only 6 years old, as far as browser development goes, a lot has changed. When version 1.0 of our application was written, mozilla based browsers lacked a lot of the functionality they have now. For instance, a central part of our application is a rich text editor that creates text and html formatted email content. Up until Firefox 1.3 with the introduction of Midas, only IE supported editable regions in web pages. This was a major hurdle for us.
In the mean time, we continued to add features and pages to the application which was only targeting IE, so most of the application was not 100% standards compliant. We've wanted to do Firefox support for a long time, but sometimes the need to add new features for existing customers outweighs the need to provide support for a very small number of people who complained. Additionally, web developers who are trained in cross-browser coding are a rare commodity (much rarer than the number of people who complain about the lack of firefox support).
Also, adding firefox/mozilla support isn't just code and forget it. Even though the code for firefox on PC and firefox for mac may be similar (I haven't looked, sorry), they still have slightly different rendering practices. Just to name one, a file upload input box with a size attribute set to 50 will be much longer and take up more screen than on a PC. So you have to do a platform check in javascript to set the size differently on a mac or a PC so the screen looks the same. Nope, the CSS width attribute is completely ignored in both platforms.
These are just a few reasons, and your mileage may vary. We have a very complex application with a lot of complex scripting, so our effort is likely more than most would have to do. A firefox user simply impersonating an IE user agent would not have had any luck in making our app work.
today is spelling optional day.
Take a site that is for an airline. They have it available in heaps of languages. So I click English, and then click something else, and it takes me back to the front page. Why the fuck cant' it use server side sessions?
Because HTTP is a stateless protocol. When implementing user sessions, you have to rely on extra-protocol information, either with cookies or by including a session id in the url. Cookies tend to be easier to work with.
After all, I am strangely colored.
"And there's nothing wrong with that. Isn't it, ultimately, about choice? Right?"
I got the impression that the article was discussing the server-side requirement for IE, not the user's voluntary browser selection. If you like IE, good on you.
But if, as you say, it's ultimately about choice, the article is pointing out how odd it is that people running websites would still design new sites demanding one particular browser.
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
Ever heard the phrase "you only have one chance to make a first impression?"
Applies to software, too.
Sure you say he should try Firefox again now that it's bumped up a version and improved. But I'm going to wager (this being Slashdot) that you're unwilling to install and try out RealPlayer again. Right?
Comment of the year
Wow. So many of the comments here just assume the worst about people. The users are lazy or stupid, the developers are "n00bs" or the people that run the websites are arrogant. And, yeah, I'm sure that's the case for some.
I propose a much simpler answer: Return-on-investment.
Here's an example: When the site was created, it was around the time that building for IE was considered a must-have and getting a presence on the Internet meant untold riches coming your way. Companies hired designers based on those premises. The designers delivered. The companies sunk a chunk of money into it.
A few years later, designing for _ALL_ browsers is a must-have, but... The company didn't make the untold riches they were promised (turns out people would rather buy tube bending by phone and email). They don't see the point in sinking money into a redesign for a website that doesn't amount to much in the company's overall income.
Yeah, it annoys me when Firefox doesn't work on a site, but I have alternatives and, for the most part, some of those sites are indeed being retooled little by little. All of my bank sites support Firefox without question. Something not true a couple of years ago.
Cheers,
Mike...
If Nalgene water bottles are outlawed, only outlaws will have Nalgene water bottles.
> Ever heard the phrase "you only have one chance to make a first impression?"
> Applies to software, too.
Unless it's Microsoft s/w, apparently - I don't recall it being particularly good when it first came out, but they have the 'advantage' of being able to put it on everyone's desktop, so people used it, *despite* their first impression.
Max.
True, and, further, more than Z% of the market will not use your site. Even though I have IE available to me, and even though 90% of IE-only sites render just fine if I spoof the user agent, I usually don't go back to sites that are IE-only because I assume the operator will be similarly myopic in other respects.
Consider also that non-IE users are likely to be disproportionately tech-savvy, and therefore will probably have an outsize word-of-mouth impact.
I don't know how many users feel like me, but it's got to be enough to change the "extra effort > cost of lost users" equation a bit...
The thing is, it shouldn't be harder to support multiple browsers because if they could quit comparing epeens for a moment and actually agree on published standards, they would all work with the same HTML and it would truly boil down to features and personal preference. As it is now, the browser war is about compatibility more than personality, in which case diversity is actually a detriment.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Not sure your exact meaning of authentication cache... however if you are talking http authentication (Popup login password window brought on by .htaccess or such) then I know that it can be done with the web developer plugin in Firefox.
Miscellaneous -> Clear Private Data -> HTTP Authentication
It should be a quick trip through their code to find out how they did it and make a little plugin of your own to do it for you.
In fact... while you are in there grab the code that lets it clear session cookies and run that at the same time also. That will kill ANY authorization system they have been in for 99.999% of the web.
Telcos have alot of dark fibre in the States. Most people assume that's optical fibre...but it's actually moral fibre.
no...no it's not
TFA is about websites which are coded to be IE only.
Any web developer who does not know about Firefox is stupid or lazy.
In any event, there is no need to support Firefox, Safari, IE or any browser at all. There is only a need to code to W3C standards, not to browser-specific hacks. IE's extensions to standard HTML were made specifically to Embrace, Extend, then Extinguish the free internet. Don't contribute to the trap.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
And there's nothing wrong with that.
Yes, there is. It's fucking selfish. As an "intelligent, hard-working geek", you know how much Internet Explorer users are holding back the web. And yet you continue to be part of the problem.
It's people like you that make it impossible for web developers to use CSS described in a specification nine years old. It's people like you that make it impossible for web developers to use PNG functionality described in a specification over a decade old. It's people like you that make it impossible for web developers to use HTML features described in specifications over a decade old.
You are holding back the web, causing web developers all over the world to give up on going home to see their kids early because they have to nail that elusive Internet Explorer bug or the website update can't go live. You are causing a ton of absolutely needless work because you insist on using a retard web browser. You are, for all intents and purposes, polluting the web.
"The boss wants to cut costs and doesn't see the choice driving away clients."
..."???? Come ON!
And then you say "Nobody here is dumb
About three comments further up, someone posts a story about trying to use an IE only site to open an account. The poster in that comment went through a long, fruitless call to the companies tech support, complained bitterly to them that they did'nt support firefox, and then caved in and used IE.
The simple fact is that Windows has over 90% of the OS market, (Probably over 99% of certain demographics) and every single windows user has a copy of IE. If a firefox user tries to access a site and gets an "IE only" message, he will just click the blue E and get on with it. Both my desktop and my laptop run ubuntu, but if I really needed to access an IE only site, I'd just boot into windows.
It's not a question of how many people use firefox. It's a question of how many people will boycott your site rather than use IE.
"I realise this is not a very popular opinion but it's the truth, and there for needs to be said" -Bill Hicks
I want the audience to read this thread because it proves my point. MS says "You have a problem? I have a solution". The OSS community starts you off with a "you don't have problem". The poster didn't even suggest OpenOffice or any other OSS software that might give the needed solution (assuming it can). That's why some sites code to IE, and if they're "stupid and lazy" for solving problems instead of denying them? Then so be it. IE will still be there to take up the OSS slack.
I believe it's more like website project managers saying:
92% of our server logs show people using IE7.
Except that there are two problems with that argument.
1) It's not 92%. I mean I *suppose* there could be some Microsoft fansite out there that does nothing but talk about how great Microsoft is all day that gets 92% of their audience from IE. But at my company, which is a mainstream entertainment company, IE usage is currently at 64%. That's all versions, including AOL, including IE4, even including Opera identifying itself as IE.
2) So the question then is how does that website project manager turn to his executive VP for marketing and say "oh, sorry, we're not going to develop for that other 36%, even though that's a couple million visitors per month." If you're at all familiar with the modern corporate environment, you know that the "but we don't have time!" excuse doesn't fly anymore - whether it's actually the case or not. Every web department I've ever worked in has been staffed with overworked, burnt-out, disgruntled workaholics that are on the job 18 hours a day, about 15 of which are spent doing browser QA. (Yeah, you can tell I'm saying this from experience.)
Even if it *is* only 8%, that's still potentially a million visitors or more at some sites. No company in the world is going to say that's not worth making an effort for, even if it means hiring one more person.
We've leveraged scripting technology that only works with ActiveX. If you want to replace it, I'm going to need the following additional server, developers, and it's going to delay the $NEW_CONTENT_PROJECT by 4 months and cost $LARGE_AMOUNT_OF_MONEY.
Or, in other words, time to start looking for a new job while your boss hires somebody who will actually do the work he wanted you to do. It sucks, but that's modern corporate life.
So really, the only reason a modern site would be developed for IE only is gross ignorance on the part of company executives. They'd have to have no interest in or knowledge of the company's own web site. That's certainly possible, but less common these days than it used to be. Because no company these days would knowingly exclude a large portion of their potential audience unless they had some vested interest in doing so (e.g. an MS-affiliated company - though even sites like msnbc.com now use Flash video made to work across all browsers, rather than the ActiveX-enabled Windows Media that they used to use).
But: this is Movielink, a service that is renting and selling movies over the internet. In other words, they are selling something that you cannot get by fax or phone - you need an internet connection, a computer, and a reasonable amount of knowledge to be their customer in the first place.
So: by restricting their customer base to IE only, they are artificially limiting their customer base. They could target 100% of people on the Internet, but they choose voluntarily to limit themselves to only selling to people who are able to (and want to) run a recent copy of IE.
In short: they are artificially limiting themselves to maybe 50% (and falling) of their potential customer base. What a grand business model that is.
When I learned how to use Frontpage, the only other web page editors I had heard of were the one built in to Netscape, and very expensive ones from Macromedia or Adobe or something. At that time, I had just ditched Netscape 4.x or so because it crashed all the time. So, I wasn't going to reinstall Netscape to see if its web page editor was any better than its unreliable browser. Lots of people I knew knew a bit about using Frontpage. Now, I use Firefox as my only browser, except for paying my bills. But I still make webpages with Frontpage, because I know how. Sometimes, those pages don't work in Firefox. But that doesn't bother me, because I know that less than 20% of my visitors will be on Firefox, and it is a lot easier to lose them than to learn a new editor. I could attract a lot more than 20% more visitors by spending time and effort on improving my pages or on working to get them linked more, etc. Is it lazy to not learn NVU or something? I don't think so, it is a choice, a decision on what is the most effective use of my time. If we Firefoxies ever get to be 50% of users, many people may feel it is worthwhile to learn how to make pages for us. But for now, it isn't worth my time. Should a business rework a lot of code to satisfy 20% of users out there? That is for them to decide. Boycott them if you like, or email them to have our voice heard, but if they feel it is not worth the expense, they are ENTITLED to make that choice. And it may be the wisest choice for their bottom line.
Nobody here is dumb or lazy.
Yes they are - the boss deciding this policy is fundamentally stupid. If he worked for me he'd have 1 month notice to realign his attitude or it's goodbye. Anyone stupid enough to reduce the availability of a commercial website by making it browser specific doesn't deserve a job in the IT industry (unless he's downgraded to Janitor!).
As a maintainer of a Top 10 website (it's the only British one listed in the Netcraft Top 10), I can tell you that Internet Explorer accounts for less than 50% of our visits right now and has IE use has visibly declined in the last year. Indeed "other" Operating Systems now account for over 45% of our site visits. We will not be using proprietary codecs in future for our on-line programme services.
Game Over, Microsoft!
User agent switcher
I really hate using it though, because if the webmasters care at all (and are looking at their logs), it just looks like "oh everyone is using IE anyway, who said Firefox is gaining in marketshare?"
3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.
Yes, after you turned off the "downlevel" browser feature that treats IE as CSS 2 compliant
Or you could not use all the compound controls and wizards, and just code it by hand. People bash ASP.Net for the poor automated HTML output. Well you don't have to use that.
Obviously the typical answer to why some sites still only work in IE is "stupidity" and "laziness" but it boggles my mind that there are still sites out there like this. It is 2007 for crying out loud!
Just a few weeks ago I went through and updated my "Sites that Make Firefox sad" page: http://toastytech.com/good/badsitelist.html I was able to remove a large number of sites from this list as they appeared to be working in Firefox now, but I wound up ADDING almost just as many new sites to my list.
And my list still focuses mainly on sites that completely forbid Firefox, there are incredibly many sites that have various small glitches (like menus or spacing) in Firefox and no fix in site. And the WORST offenders are corporate Intranet applications. Companies are still "sold" on Microsoft. Heck, brand new "web" apps from Microsoft such as Exchange Web Access, Sharepoint, Project Server Web Access still either require IE or give other browsers a "downlevel" experience.
And the thing that really gets me is that Firefox can be a very good thing for companies - it is available for so incredibly many different platforms and works mostly the same on each - Firefox can help turn operating systems in to a true commodity! Each app that only works in IE (and arguably if it is IE only it really can't be called a true web application) just ties you down to Microsoft just that much more.