How to Avoid IE-Specific WWW Development? 100
IE-less asks: "Can any Slashdot readers help me gather evidence to support the notion that developing an IE-specific WWW site is a bad thing? A state-level US-gov't organization we are contracted with (hence the anonymity) is about to embark on converting a Citrix-based application to a browser-based application, but in order to do so will make it IE Only. Our repeated screams of, 'No! Consider the standards!' have fallen on deaf ears. One of the few things we have found that helps is the Department of Homeland Security's recommendation that people switch browsers (look for 'Use another browser') care of the Get Firefox site. That's the sort of comment that makes people pay attention. The departments in question do not care about monopolies, non-Windows users, closed source expenses, etc. They will pay attention, though, to statements from powerful sources...such as the aforementioned. Anyone else find anything that works?"
well.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:well.. (Score:2)
While passing the Acid2 test would be a great thing, it tests things to an extreme, and doesn't really test realistic web design. Firefox does a MUCH better job of standards compliance than IE - You can still design standards compliant websites, and have them display properly in Firefox (on the rare occasion do I need to actually tweak something to make it work in FF).
Opera is a great browser for ensuring pages display according to standards compliance, but Firefox has the features, speed, and stability
Re:well.. (Score:2)
The user's browsing experience what? And what features does it have that Opera is lacking? If anything, I'd say Opera is the one with features on its side, especially out of the box, and I haven't seen any problems with stability or speed, even in beta versions.
Re:well.. (Score:3)
Doh, sorry. I was trying to do 2 things at once, and I didn't finish my point :) ..to ensure that the user's browsing experience is a pleasant one. There :)
Firefox's extensions are a great boon to functionality. It suits me, and it suits all the other people I have recommended it to. As well, Firefox runs much faster on my 300mhz 192mb ram laptop compared to Opera.
I'm not saying anything is wrong with Opera necessarily, it just doesn't suit me or a number of my friends. I do have friends (and numer
Re:well.. (Score:2)
Hmmm, well it could be argued that Opera doesn't need any, and is therefore superior... most of the extensions I have installed on FF (tabbed browsing control, state saving, mouse gestures, image control) are simply to make FF more Opera-like, though I will grant than some of the extensions (text box alteration, especially) can come in handy, once in a while.
It suits me, and it suits all the other people I have recommended it to. As well, Firefox runs m
Re:well.. (Score:2)
Main thing keeping me from using Opera is that I can't (well, last I knew) sync my bookmarks quickly and efficiently. I have 3 OSes (1 on my laptop, 2 on my desktop) that I need to sync bookmarks between. The extension I have in FF automatically handles that for me, which is a real benefit. I guess I could write a script to sync bookmarks and then launch the browser, but I wouldn't know how to approach that in Windows (honestly, I'm so sick of Cygwin.. It just plain sucks IMHOH :)).
Re:well.. (Score:1)
Maybe I'm just lucky
Actually... (Score:1)
Re:well.. (Score:1)
We're a government agency and we should be accessible to everyone. If we require MSIE, that means we require that someone have Windows, which is expensive. Not only is it an "endorsement", but it sets an entry-level for a lot of users who may not have or want to spend the money on Windows/IE.
Not to mention that a significant percentage of people don't use IE these days.
Re:well.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:You have no clue. (Score:1)
Regardless, however, assuming that the application is developed for general-public use (which I doubt, since it was originally a Citrix application and as such is probably only used by people inside the organization), it's still preventing some people from b
Vendor lockin = Bad. (Score:1)
So, let them know that what they are doing is essentially the same and creating a solution based on standards would create less pain if a transition would occur.
Re:Vendor lockin = Bad. (Score:1)
Asker already said customer doesn't care about monopolies et al. They will understand that vendor lock-in is bad, but won't care. Look at all the Java and
Re:Vendor lockin = Bad. (Score:2)
Then, once they use it for themselves, they'll care about the fact that they need to go back to IE and throw their weight behind vendor-neutral apps.
Self-centered people need selfish motivations.
Re:Vendor lockin = Bad. (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyway, you st
Re:Vendor lockin = Bad. (Score:3, Informative)
But at least with the Air Force (my employer), that's the way it is, they have standardized on Microsoft, there is nothing anyone can do about it, so it doesn't make any sense to concern myself with browser nutral apps. We use IE. That's it. So, I develop apps based on using the non-standard MS technology, to do anything else would be silly.
I also get extremely annoyed at this. Especially since some sites are designed to be used from outside. There is not much you can say if an organization decides to
Re:Vendor lockin = Bad. (Score:2)
Hey Sanchez... (Score:1, Offtopic)
Only from powerful sources? (Score:1)
Re:Only from powerful sources? (Score:2)
The article says "state-level". The IRS is part of the federal government.
AJAX (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:AJAX (Score:2)
Just say "NO" to AJAX and scripting (Score:2)
Nine out of ten serious security advisories[1] are due to problems with scripting (and the temporary workaround until a fix is issued is frequently "disable JavaScript").
Any person who is serious about security will disable all browser scripting.
If a site insists that scripting be enabled in order to browse it, well then, I just won't browse it.
Instead, I'll go to some other site that doesn't demand that I compromise my system's security.
[
Re:Just say "NO" to AJAX and scripting (Score:2)
Also, I have no objection if a site wants to cater to those who are not as security-concious as I, as long as they include <noscript> sections that provide similar functionality to the <script> sections.
Re:Just say "NO" to AJAX and scripting (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Just say "NO" to AJAX and scripting (Score:2)
I'd second that. The worst pages I've seen have used javascript to poke values into form variables during the submit process. How stupid is it when the form has a field called txtUsernameView and a hidden field called txtUsername, and while submitting, it copies the visible field to the hidden field while left-padding with zeroes?? Like that couldn't possibly be handled on the server side... And other forms that have no actio
Re:AJAX (Score:5, Insightful)
They get discounts on MSFT products, therefor use IE specific development programs (IE: Word/Frontpage).
Now, on the other side of things, I have started seeing a move in GS postings towards Handwritting code and using non-Frontpage programs like Dreamweaver.
use written evidence (Score:5, Informative)
German Federal Office for Information Security (BSI), has told the Berliner Zeitung that internet users should switch from Internet Explorer to Mozilla or Opera. Dickopf says Internet Explorer is hazard-prone, attracting too many viruses and worms. [theregister.co.uk]
Finnish Gov't says "avoid use of Internet Explorer" [zdnet.co.uk]
MS's IE blog says "we do not plan on releasing IE7 for Windows 2000" means no more security fixes for people without Windows XP or greater [msdn.com]... which would lock out over 20% of the worlds population [thecounter.com]
man do i hate ie
Re:use written evidence (Score:2)
Finland they've probably not heard of.
Say something like "the terrorists use Windows--should you?" Be sure to pronounce it "terry-wrists".
Re:use written evidence (Score:3, Funny)
Americans with Disabilities Act (Score:5, Insightful)
I really like that Act, not because I'm disabled, but because it forces MORON web designers to actually write web pages to be media-neutral, which was the entire goddamned point of the web to begin with.
I use Firefox, IE, Opera on my 640x480 Zaurus, lynx when I'm ssh'ing, and on occasion I even google via my cellphone. Sites like BBC really shine there. Even slashdot works out as long as you use the "light" rendering option.
Re:Americans with Disabilities Act (Score:5, Informative)
Amen to that. The Canadian government has a set of web guidelines which, among other things, say:
I couldn't even begin to count the number of times I've been able to shoot something down because of CLF compliancy issues.
c.
Re:Americans with Disabilities Act (Score:3, Informative)
Constructing an accessible website is not the same as making sure the website works with Lynx. Two of the most popular browsers used by blind surfers are IBM Homepage Reader and JAWS. Both of these are built on top of Internet Explorer.
Re:Americans with Disabilities Act (Score:2)
But you have to ask, what non-standard features are giving the decision makers a hard-on for IE7? The bottom line is that to make anything really useable to disabled users, you need to do a good job separating content and presentation. Once you've done that, even if you've lost the browser fight, it's a lot easier to update the UI later for standards compliance.
Contemplating this should also dispel the illusion that you can just sketch the system in an IDE then push a button to magically depl
Why? (Score:2)
Any particular reason? Do they know that all their clients will be using IE? IE usage in the wild is only at about 85% these days and will probably decrease in the future.
Re:Why? (Score:1)
...and in nerdy websites IE comes second or very close to Firefox. That's what the statistics from my site [wikinerds.org] show.
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Any particular reason? Do they know that all their clients will be using IE? IE usage in the wild is only at about 85% these days and will probably decrease in the future.
Some organizations with the US Department of Defence are very unlikely to change, and have standardized on particular platforms whether they make technological sense or not. Very often going up against that kind of bureaucracy is a battle that few can win, including heavy hitters like SAIC.
In cases like this it is a known fact that a
simple... (Score:4, Informative)
Personally I think that the cases as I have outlined above are paramount for your situation. You need to point out the reasons why what they are doing is not the best idea. If you are working for a government organisation it is your duty to think about everyone no matter what operating system or browser thet are using.
If your application is rendered useless to anyone (within reason) then you are doing the wrong thing. Regardless of what technologies you are using it would be wrong for a governmental institution to do this.
Re:simple... (Score:1)
That's a lousy idea. Bobby is only a tool, not a specification. When you write your pages according to Bobby, all you end up with is a page that jumps through the hoops Bobby has laid out for it. It has a history of making recommendations that actually decrease the accessibility of the pages being tested, e.g. I think at one time it complained about empty alt attributes, thereby encouraging authors to put in
Re:simple... (Score:2)
Also if you make good use of CSS, use "div" tags instead of tables where possible you can largely eliminate the need for spurious alt and title parameters. Its always a good idea to populate "alt" and "title" parameters. anyway it saves going back later when doing your
Minimal gains (Score:2)
What State? (Score:2)
Re:What State? (Score:1)
Re:What State? (Score:2)
Re:What State? (Score:2)
And in fact, the market is changing up here to the point that LAMP developers are a commodity and in high demand; I usually only have to interview with one to two other people for positions.
The market IS changing even in the land of Microsoft.
How? (Score:2)
Re:How? (Score:2)
Once a slick salesman convinces the PHB of a particular solution, it gets difficult to change his mind.
Re:How? (Score:2)
Re:How? (Score:2)
Re:How? (Score:3, Informative)
Three words: XML Data Islands.
For those not in the know, they're an IE-only way of appending data to the end of the HTML doc and the using DOM and javascript to use that data to fill in form fields in the document. If you remember typing in BASIC programs from magazines in the 80's, it's a lot like the BASIC READ...DATA statement combo, or you can think of it like a really slick hack for doing an XML stylesheet transformation without using XSLT. (In both cases, XML data + Form layout produce HTML, but d
Re:How? (Score:2)
Re:How? (Score:2)
1. make a presentation in Powerpoint,
2. save as html,
3. post as a webpage,
4. browse with anything other than IE and see almost nothing!
You might want to consider accessibility. (Score:5, Informative)
w3.org has the list at:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/Policy/ [w3.org]
Don't try to appear to be on a moral crusade against MS and IE. But hopefully once the lawyers sniff out that there could be potential hassles from building a website in a non-accessible/standards based manner the development process will be forced to change fairly quickly.
What are the requirements? (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it simply a means to control costs? the testing and bug fixing time would be much greater if multiple platforms are supported, and for an internal application, where the client is under their control, I can't think of a good business reason not to use the browser that comes with the PC's. Do the PC's even have access to the internet to be vulnerable to attacks?
Firefox is not bug free, for example, if I mouse over to the scrollbar in the text edit box, the left edge of the thumb gets filled with random pixels, this happens on both Windows 98, XP and Linux/KDE for me. Randomly scrambled pixels is not a good sign. Also the more amusing case of the installer saying something like "click 'Next' to continue", when the button was labeled 'Proceed', I forget the exact words, but if the software isn't consistant in a single window, it dosn't install a sense of confidance.
Some applications just don't work within the standards; as far as I can tell, there is no mechanism in HTML, CSS or SVG to rotate characters in a font. Which is something I needed to do in a web application recently. (I ended up sending
I was asked the other day how computers store numbers, and ended up describing fixed vs. floating point, decimal, binary, hexidecimal, COBOL, bc, little endian, big endian, how to do basic math in binary, char/int, signed vs unsigned, wraparound, fibonucci...
Different solutions for different applications.
as the saying goes, "The nice thing about Standards is that there are so many to choose from."
Re:What are the requirements? (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually depends. My experience shows that when you use IE as development browser (and are clueless about standards) it takes later significantly more time to get this working in Firefox.
But using Firefox (forces standards on you) as dev browser means you probably get it working in IE later with almost no additional time.
And since Firefox javascript debugging capabilities and
Re:What are the requirements? (Score:2)
for a public website, not testing multiple platforms would be just stupid. but that dosn't sound like what is being developed here.
MSIE-only US Copyright Office? Say No! (Score:4, Insightful)
What's the Point? (Score:4, Insightful)
Write a fat-client app. The Web plays weak second fiddle to a Rich Client UI, even on Windows.
The point of web apps are portability, so if you're doing to dash portability, don't write a web app.
I know, somebody will say, "so you don't have to install any software". Yeah, right, this is being deployed on an Active Directory network with client management and login scripts and full control over the clients.
No, it's installability and maintenance. (Score:2)
No. THey're currently using Citrix, and for a reason (most organizations who use citrix use it because of this reason): your fat client app works on any system where citrix runs on. No client-side crap, conflicts with dll's etc.
A webapp simplifies this: no more citrix installations, the browser is already there. This means even less maintenance for sysadmins as no installation crap on the client has to take
Re:No, it's installability and maintenance. (Score:2)
Theres all kinds of reasons why "web apps" are stupid. They're highly suited for some specific areas (reporting is an obvious one), and t
Expenses (Score:4, Insightful)
The departments in question do not care about monopolies, non-Windows users, closed source expenses, etc.
Perhaps they should start caring about the expenses. It's our damn tax dollars they're blowing.
Tell them about future maintenance costs (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Tell them about future maintenance costs (Score:2)
"Is there a partnership between the US government and M$? Are US citizens required to also be M$ customers? "
Well, who really knows? [pcworld.com]
Look at existing logs (Score:4, Insightful)
However, if the logs show access from non-IE browsers, then they have to justify why they are refusing to serve those people.
Good luck.
Use the "free" argument (Score:2)
Simple solution: Don't tell them. (Score:3, Interesting)
If your development team wants it to be cross-browser compatible, then just make it so. If your development team doesn't know about standards or doesn't care, then I might start looking for another job because the product is doomed anyway.
My experience is that development teams tend to use a mix of browsers, so unless they are total newbs they make it work with what they've got, in addition to what management wants. There's nothing insubordinate about that. It's good design and it is planning ahead. So don't fret, just make it work.
Just do it! (Score:2)
There's a world of difference between "Must work with IE" and "must work only with IE." Yes, I know that sounds blasphemous to most web developers, but it's true.
p.s. If, however, they are deliberately specifying that it must not
Um - no, not if he *is* a contractor... (Score:2)
Don't, under any circumstance, deviate from what your contract states - if it states IE-only, make it IE-only. Do an insanely supurb job on making it IE-only. Make them remember you for it, but provide commentary in the code where IE-only stuff is
Re:Um - no, not if he *is* a contractor... (Score:1)
My point is that the contract in all probability does NOT state that. Rather, it probably says "IE support only," which is a much different thing.
And since adding support for Industry Standards(tm) (HTML/CSS) ought to be your *starting* point, getting the site to work with all standards conforming browsers (Firefox, Konqueror, Opera, Safari, etc) should be a no-brainer.
If you are a cont
Re:Um - no, not if he *is* a contractor... (Score:2)
I agree with you there, it likely doesn't state "IE-only" - but if it did, and after I (if I was a contractor) told them why it was a bad idea, they still insisted on IE-only - then they will get what they want. That is their spec, and I could be fired (at best) or sued (at worst) for not designing and coding to the spec (they could claim that I was doing extra w
Re:Um - no, not if he *is* a contractor... (Score:2)
Then later when they pull their heads out of their asses under court order; you can charge them a thousand bucks to upgrade the site for non-IE browsers by yanking 4 lines of code out of a php or asp file and spending a month testing what you all ready know
Appeal to their sense of self-preservation... (Score:3, Insightful)
And throw in some references to companies or organization's that have successfully abandoned IE.
It would be nice to see if IBM or your favorite local contractor will give you a quote for software support of Firefox/Mozilla/Opera/etc (I'm sure they will), just so you can prove that support IS available. The cost doesn't matter, just the proof that support exists.
But be sure to wrap it all in an obsequious concern for the reader's well-being...
"Sir, there's some rumors of a nasty goomba-virus out there, and what with all these references about how bad IE is, well, I'm just concerned that the senior management might take it poorly if they found out that we had committed to use IE in the face of all this, if we should spend a lot of money recovering from it, like we did for that Code Red thing, or the XYZ worm, that is. I just wanted to make sure you had all the information so you could support your decision should any questions be raised down the road, sir..."
Self-preservation is the only currency one has with pointy-headed management...
The reason I use is... (Score:1)
do they care about security? (Score:2)
Assuming that it is the use of Active X that will make the planned approach IE-only (and there isn't much else it could be), I would point out that Active X is an enormous security problem. State agencies that don't care about standards, lock-in, and non MS Windows users may well care about security.
IE Only == ActiveX (Score:2, Insightful)
Public Site? (Score:2)
Rehabilitation Act (Score:4, Insightful)
http://www.access-board.gov/508.htm [access-board.gov]
Any mention of breaking the law and violating the rights of those with disabilities will get the attention of any decision maker. (Think lawsuits!!!)
Accessbility is your friend (Score:3, Interesting)
All federal, state, and local government websites are required to comply with section 508 of the Americans With Disabilities Act.
Developing an IE-only web application makes this compliance impossible.
Lawsuits, Lawsuits, and more lawsuits (Score:2)
Re:Lawsuits, Lawsuits, and more lawsuits (Score:2)
That's just like saying that most private companies that release a Macintosh software product (e.g. MacFixer, a computer diagnostic program for the Macintosh) would be discriminating against other users that use things like an Amiga. It's just as absurd.
The trick is to minimize browser-specific development by working for the standards first. When problems ar
National Security Risk? (Score:2)
I know what app, agency, and state you're with. (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's my advice:
1. If it works in Firefox, it'll work fine in I.E... BUT NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. So as you build your web pages, test in Firefox, THEN in I.E. for good measure. Pay special attention to tables and stylesheets. If you stick to plain-vanilla JavaScript you should be mostly ok, but if you're going to do something fancy, get the O'Reilly pocket guide. It arranges features by browser so you can see what is supported where.
2. When the agency management tells you they want you to only support I.E. say very carefully "yes, yes, don't worry, I'll support I.E. fully". Don't elaborate! Let them think that Firefox interoperability is a happy accident. Play dumb. Trust me on this, I've had the "IE sucks" argument with them over and over, they will NEVER get it. They're in love with Microsoft products; they're practically addicted to them. At a time when many other agencies in this state are going with Java on Linux, they're going
3. Although you shouldn't discuss this with the agency management (it'll just spook them),
Good luck!
What about disabled users? (Score:2)
From the Original Poster (Score:1)
It has been interesting to note the assumptions made by other /.ers about the circumstances related to this request. Some are right on...others are just
funny. I wish I could respond to them all to clarify things, but doing so is likely to identify me. Which would be No Good.
Finally, I am responding to seek clarification on