 MrMasterjetsetterPremium
join:2000-12-16
St Thomas, VI
 ·Sprint Mobile Br..
·Virgin Mobile Br..
| reply to nasadude
Re: almost ready to remove IE Does anyone take into account that a lot of websites don't work very well with other browsers outside of IE?
This includes my bank's website. Also, out of 5 million hits a month, we are at 98% IE users.
Now why should I give a shit about other browsers? We really don't have a choice do we? You use or IE or don't use anything. While I keep a current copy of Mozilla on my test computer, I haven't used in for 6 months or more. I don't even know if it still works on our site or not!
--
Packers rule. Bears suck. 'Nuff said. |
|
|
|
| And whose fault is that? Microsoft's hijacking/twisting of code language to create the proprietary incompatibilities you speak of, and the dumbass coders who continue to ignore that a good website must be accessible to, and compatible with, all major browsers. Particularly, when the browser they so slavishly support is so full of SECURITY flaws. It seems unthinkable that financial institutions would continue to utilize such demonstrably flawed software for access to their depositors accounts. |
|
 ArchAngel21xWaiting For iPhone 5Premium
join:2001-10-28
Lincoln, NE
 ·Internet Nebraska
| reply to MrMaster
said by MrMaster:
Does anyone take into account that a lot of websites don't work very well with other browsers outside of IE?
Sure. They don't care because Windows comes with IE, and they justify their decision by saying most people use Windows and can therefore use IE to access our site. Granted that is what I call piss poor customer service, but that is how it is.
--
I am the beginning. I am the end. I am forever, and I will continue to exist long after everything, even hope itself, has been destroyed. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| reply to ross
said by ross:
... It seems unthinkable that financial institutions would continue to utilize such demonstrably flawed software for access to their depositors accounts.
this is slightly off topic, but a comment on banks and computers:
I found out the hard way that my bank uses pop-up windows to display some information - after I started using firebird, I could suddenly no longer access my credit card info. I thought it was a temporary glitch, but after a few weeks I called the bank; they serve the information in a pop-up window, which was being blocked by firebird. Easy enough to fix if you know about it, but how many customers are going to wonder what happened when the next update of IE starts blocking pop-ups? |
|
ArchAngel21xWaiting For iPhone 5Premium
join:2001-10-28
Lincoln, NE Reviews:
·Internet Nebraska
| That is why built in pop up blockers should be made like Google. You can allow pop ups for certain sites. It is not an all or nothing thing.
--
I am the beginning. I am the end. I am forever, and I will continue to exist long after everything, even hope itself, has been destroyed. |
|
| You do know the latest build of Mozilla (1.6) and as far back as 1.2 allowed for you to manage pop-ups, permitting them for websites you deem worthy of pop-up-ness? So it is not all or nothing, and Mozilla also will display (optional) a colored exclamation point when a pop-up has been detected and blocked. |
|
vfpguyAlias Dotnetguy
join:2001-07-21
Wayne, NJ | reply to ross
said by ross:
... a good website must be accessible to, and compatible with, all major browsers...
If you think about, they are. On a percentage basis IE is the major browser. It takes time and money for a company to ensure their site is compatible with all the minor browsers (and like it or not, anything other than IE is a minor browser.) Why spend that when 98% of your users will be using IE?
We're in the minority because we are informed enthusists who understand the security ramifications of the problems in IE (and Outlook.)
--
"...a great, serene and peaceful future can slip from us quite as irrevocably by neglect, division and inaction, as by spectacular disaster." -- H. Truman, 6/21/56 |
|
systems2000What? You Say It's Fixed. Hah
join:2001-11-29
Cyberspace | reply to MrMaster
Have you never heard of W3C.org? Anyone who has been building web sites in the last Year or two and don't meet their standards is asking for trouble.
Taking the attitude that, "if your not using IE then we don't care", is a horrible attitude. What about ADA requirements (WCAG or section 508), WebTV users, or the coming revolution of handheld devices, let alone 3rd party browser compatability. |
|
| reply to vfpguy
At one time Netscape's Navigator was the major browser. It was Microsoft's hijacking of HTML and JAVA that made it incompatible, and their marketing of I.E. as a free and inseparable part of the Windows operating system that allowed Microsoft to drive users to adopt it. Web site creators/designers do not need to exclude other browsers, they're just to lazy to remove the I.E.-only incompatible code from their sites. JMHO... |
|
| reply to systems2000
said by systems2000:
Have you never heard of W3C.org? Anyone who has been building web sites in the last Year or two and don't meet their standards is asking for trouble.
Taking the attitude that, "if your not using IE then we don't care", is a horrible attitude. What about ADA requirements (WCAG or section 508), WebTV users, or the coming revolution of handheld devices, let alone 3rd party browser compatability.
When I build my web sites, I make sure they look good in IE (of course) and Mozilla/NS 6.x+. I used to check with NS 4.x but that's so horribly outdated, that I'd rip too much hair out trying to get pages with valid CSS working properly under NS 4.x. Luckily, few people are using it any more.
WebTV users and handheld users make up a fraction of a percent of my visitors (if any at all), so why should I spend precious time recoding the site over and over to make it look good for them? (Besides which, I don't have a WebTV box or Internet-enabled handheld to test against.)
As far as the ADA requirements go, I've been trying to use the ALT tag more and rely on CSS-enhanced text menus rather than images of text. Besides that, though, I really don't make an effort to be compliant. (I don't fall under section 508, so it's really not a "requirement" for me.)
--
-Jason Levine
http://www.jasons-toolbox.com/
http://www.PCQandA.com/
http://www.urateit.com/ |
|
ArchAngel21xWaiting For iPhone 5Premium
join:2001-10-28
Lincoln, NE Reviews:
·Internet Nebraska
| reply to vfpguy
said by vfpguy:
Why spend that when 98% of your users will be using IE?
1) It would be good customer service to acknowledge that not all people use IE, and to make a way for Mozilla, Opera, Netscape, and Safari users to view their site.
2) The security problems that keep coming up with IE.
3) It would be great for PR image, which these days is worth its weight in gold.
--
I am the beginning. I am the end. I am forever, and I will continue to exist long after everything, even hope itself, has been destroyed. |
|
 Combat ChuckToo Many CannibalsPremium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA | reply to systems2000
said by systems2000:
Have you never heard of W3C.org? Anyone who has been building web sites in the last Year or two and don't meet their standards is asking for trouble.
I would like to point out that many of the incompatibilities in browsers today are a result of the W3C. They waited too long to react to both Netscape and IE's proprietary tags (that have valid uses that the W3C chose not to address); and now we have an HTML standard that only sort of works on newer browsers.
So the reality of the situation is that you have to code your pages with a mishmash of nonstandard and standard HTML or you cut off potential customers.
As for this exploit:
The first thing I was ever told when I started to use the web was; never ever open a file from your browser, save it to disk first. So my question is, where has everyone else been all these years?
--
Japan-- Now with 30% more climbable telephone poles!! |
|
 brandonSome truth included in this post.Premium
join:2003-03-31
Hurley, MS | reply to ross
It wasn't a hijacking of HTML and JAVA by microsoft--both netscape and microsoft created proprietary code for HTML in hopes of making their browser THE browser. Microsoft just ended up winning the battle because of the OS integration. There are still plenty of proprietary Netscape codes that will not work on IE--the blink tag, for one. |
|
vfpguyAlias Dotnetguy
join:2001-07-21
Wayne, NJ | reply to ArchAngel21x
said by ArchAngel21x:
1) It would be good customer service to acknowledge that not all people use IE, and to make a way for Mozilla, Opera, Netscape, and Safari users to view their site.
All good points. For people like us, that care about other browsers (which is why I use Firebird almost exclusively and am starting to use Thunderbird for email).
said by ArchAngel21x:
2) The security problems that keep coming up with IE.
Most of the security problems are never reported to the public at large because the reporters and reporterettes don't understand and think their viewers won't understand either.
said by ArchAngel21x:
3) It would be great for PR image, which these days is worth its weight in gold.
Again, great PR image from people like us.
Most decisions in business boil down to dollars and sense. And to most businesses it doesn't make sense to spend extra money to ensure compatibility with 2% of the market.
--
"...a great, serene and peaceful future can slip from us quite as irrevocably by neglect, division and inaction, as by spectacular disaster." -- H. Truman, 6/21/56 |
|
| reply to ArchAngel21x
said by ArchAngel21x:
1) It would be good customer service to acknowledge that not all people use IE, and to make a way for Mozilla, Opera, Netscape, and Safari users to view their site.
The problem is that web developers must weigh the added viewers you get when you make your site compatible with a browser versus the extra work it would take. Suppose you have a site that is compatible with IE and Mozilla (which includes NS 6.x+). That makes it viewable for about 95% of web users. If you want to add Opera support, you'll add another 1-2% of web users, but might have extra work to iron out any quirks with the way Opera handles certain things. (Not to say that any such quirks exist. I'm only using it as an example.) If the work involved doesn't make the added 1-2% of viewers worthwhile, Opera support won't be added.
said by ArchAngel21x:
2) The security problems that keep coming up with IE.
The security problems of IE aren't an issue for a web developer. They're an issue for the client. The fact of the matter is that 90%+ of web users use IE and so that's the #1 browser to make your site compatible with.
said by ArchAngel21x:
3) It would be great for PR image, which these days is worth its weight in gold.
Not exactly. As I said before, it's all in the market share of the browsers. IE by far has the largest market share. (General population, that is. Certain sites, like pro-Linux sites, would have a different makeup of course.) Therefore, any web developer would be crazy to not test in IE. Mozilla/NS 6.x+ is the next biggest browser. If your site is properly coded, you shouldn't have many issues to make it look nice in Mozilla.
Beyond that, most other browsers have sub-2% market shares. I wouldn't call spending an afternoon making sure a page is compatible with "Browser X" worth it's weight in gold if "Browser X" is only used by 1% of users.
--
-Jason Levine
http://www.jasons-toolbox.com/
http://www.PCQandA.com/
http://www.urateit.com/ |
|
| "The problem is that web developers must weigh the added viewers you get when you make your site compatible with a browser versus the extra work it would take. Suppose you have a site that is compatible with IE and Mozilla (which includes NS 6.x+). That makes it viewable for about 95% of web users. If you want to add Opera support, you'll add another 1-2% of web users, but might have extra work to iron out any quirks with the way Opera handles certain things. (Not to say that any such quirks exist. I'm only using it as an example.) If the work involved doesn't make the added 1-2% of viewers worthwhile, Opera support won't be added."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- ------------------------
Exactly the point ArchAngel21x made! There is no way any other browser will approach the market share of I.E. as long as Microsoft is allowed to continue to bundle I.E. inseparably with Windows and web coders continue to ignore compatibility issues inherent in I.E. only websites. Web designers ought to be more responsible and self-interested than to allow Microsoft to dictate what they, you, or I will able to use to access content on the Internet. Expand support for other browsers and they will be adopted by a larger number of users than present, and perhaps make us all more diminutive targets for pop-ups, hijackers, phishers and spammers. There may even be a payoff in innovation or features if there is a supportive environment available for browser developers who don't tow the Microsoft line.
It would most certainly motivate Microsoft to FIX their security flawed software promptly, if there was a bit more competition in the marketplace, and users weren't so exclusively dependent on them. I know I will not be using on-line banking or financial services provided exclusively through I.E.! |
|
