You know what's odd? I have had less success in getting people to switch browsers than switching computer systems.
I have convinced a number of people to get a Mac as their next computer. In the summer of 2004 the McKay family was a PC - Linux family. Today we're a Mac family. My brother and sister each have a Mac laptop. I'm on my second Mac laptop. My dad just got a 24" iMac for Christmas.
When I arrived in Ottawa the McQueens were PC people too. Then my brother, Jack, and I convinced Jane to get a Mac laptop for when she went to university. She fell in love with it. As did her brother, Bruce, and the rest of the family. When it's time for their next family computer, or when Bruce goes off to school they'll be joining the Mac club.
One time I was in CompuSmart and started selling a Mac to a poor innocent customer that happened to walk in and look at the Mac display while I was standing there with too much time on my hands. I don't know if she ever did get a Mac.
A couple at work read some of the Vista license restrictions and have decided their next computer will be a Mac.
A previous co-op student at work said she'd like her next computer to be a Mac.
And, yes, I'm forever bringing my laptop to people and demonstrating the neat things it can do.
Granted, I haven't been the sole reason any of these people switched. But I have certainly been part.
But to my knowledge I have only gotten the McQueens, and one other person to switch browsers.
Something seems off-kilter about that. Switching browsers is really really really easy. And free. If you decide "Nah, I'd rather risk getting spyware that will download childporn to my computer, then distribute it without me knowing, having a lesser web experience with a zero percent chance of awesomeness and use Internet Explorer than use FireFox or Opera" then you can always switch back. And all it cost you was a few minutes of your time.
But when you switch systems, from PC to Mac, it's gonna cost you. Depending on the Mac you get, anywhere between $700 to $3000. And if you decide you'd prefer a PC you can switch back, but now you have an expensive paper-weight, and you're out a ton of money. Not to mention the learning curve to learn a new system. (Yes, Mac is infamously easier, but a change is a change, and there is a learning curve.)
Yet I've managed to be instrumental in having people take the bigger risk in switching systems than switching browsers.
And as for credentials? If I tell you "you should trade in your Ford for a Saturn" that's just my personal opinion. I'm not a car person. I just have my personal experience to draw on.
When I say "You should get a Mac instead of PC for your next computer." I have more credence. After all, I do have two Computer Engineering diplomas and a B.Sc. in Computer Science. So this is in my field. So I have the weight of lots of education, work experience, and my own personal experience.
When I say "You should use FireFox or Opera instead of Internet Explorer." I have everything I have for computer switching....to the power of ten. While I am a computer professional I am specifically a web programmer. I deal with browsers all the time at work, and at home. (I am a web programmer in my "spare time" too.) When someone in my position recommends you switch browsers that should carry lots of weight. It isn't just my personal opinion. It is my professional opinion and recommendation.
Yet, for the most part, it seems to fall on deaf ears.
Well, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to call Steve Jobs and see if he'll put me on payroll.
Showing posts with label Browser Wars. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Browser Wars. Show all posts
Monday, February 26, 2007
Monday, January 15, 2007
Need Another Reason to Switch?
Internet Explorer version 6 was open to vulnerabilities for 284 days in 2006. Firefox's longest vulnerability period was 9 days.
I'm sure if this woman gets out of prison alive she'll probably never use Internet Explorer. Just another example of American "justice."
UPDATE: Here's another story. This poor 16 year old was almost convicted of possession of child porn and labeled a sex-offender for the rest of his life. The culprit? Spyware, virii, and other malware. You know, that stuff that can make it onto your computer so easily through Internet Explorer without you even knowing anything at all went on your computer.
UPDATE: I just checked my viewer stats and am pleased to report that, while the majority are using non-IE browsers, IEv7 hits are greater than IEv6. While IEv7 is still less secure than any other popular browser it is much better than IEv6.
I'm sure if this woman gets out of prison alive she'll probably never use Internet Explorer. Just another example of American "justice."
UPDATE: Here's another story. This poor 16 year old was almost convicted of possession of child porn and labeled a sex-offender for the rest of his life. The culprit? Spyware, virii, and other malware. You know, that stuff that can make it onto your computer so easily through Internet Explorer without you even knowing anything at all went on your computer.
UPDATE: I just checked my viewer stats and am pleased to report that, while the majority are using non-IE browsers, IEv7 hits are greater than IEv6. While IEv7 is still less secure than any other popular browser it is much better than IEv6.
Friday, January 05, 2007
Not Surprising
Apparently most websites on the internet suck. At least according to today's link.
How do you tell a good webpage from a bad one? Chances are if you're using IEv6 and suffer from no disabilities, you would probably judge it on aesthetics, how it looks, and how it's laid out. If you're using a different browser, or using a different operating system, or have a disability such as visual impairment, colour blindness, deafness, etc. then the question is moot to you. You just know.
You go to a site and find you can't even use it if you don't have Javascript enabled. The font is too small. The colour's don't contrast enough. You have to embiggen the font, and sections start overlaying each other.
Of course, web developpers can ensure they're writing good code if they adhere to the recommendations made by the W3C.
I am a professional web developer. I suffer from a disability. It's called "artistic cluelessness." What it means is that I put functionality way ahead of look'n'feel. For layouts I use simplistic, logical layouts. If I were building buildings I would be an engineer, not an architect.
The evidences of my artistic cluelnessness could be seen way back in my childhood. When brother Jack and I were teaching ourselves to program when we were 14 and 15 years old, Jack's programs would have nice colour schemes with nice layouts. His programs would be nice to look at. My programs just used the DOS default grey on black text, one line after another. White space was used as a divider, like I use here on this blog.
It can still be seen on this blog. Look at my blog. I used the default blogger layout. No imagination.
So, how do I have the gall to call myself a professional web programmer when I admit that I suffer from artistic cluelessness? Thankfully every web developer position I've ever held has had someone else hired as a graphic designer doing that work. I've been free to do the coding. And to compensate I stay very close to the W3C recommendations. As a result, my sites, as ugly as they may be, are as accessible as possible...or they will be, if I ever get the time to fix them up.
This blog post has no point, as few, if any, of my readers are web developers. I just saw this article and wanted to point it out.
How do you tell a good webpage from a bad one? Chances are if you're using IEv6 and suffer from no disabilities, you would probably judge it on aesthetics, how it looks, and how it's laid out. If you're using a different browser, or using a different operating system, or have a disability such as visual impairment, colour blindness, deafness, etc. then the question is moot to you. You just know.
You go to a site and find you can't even use it if you don't have Javascript enabled. The font is too small. The colour's don't contrast enough. You have to embiggen the font, and sections start overlaying each other.
Of course, web developpers can ensure they're writing good code if they adhere to the recommendations made by the W3C.
I am a professional web developer. I suffer from a disability. It's called "artistic cluelessness." What it means is that I put functionality way ahead of look'n'feel. For layouts I use simplistic, logical layouts. If I were building buildings I would be an engineer, not an architect.
The evidences of my artistic cluelnessness could be seen way back in my childhood. When brother Jack and I were teaching ourselves to program when we were 14 and 15 years old, Jack's programs would have nice colour schemes with nice layouts. His programs would be nice to look at. My programs just used the DOS default grey on black text, one line after another. White space was used as a divider, like I use here on this blog.
It can still be seen on this blog. Look at my blog. I used the default blogger layout. No imagination.
So, how do I have the gall to call myself a professional web programmer when I admit that I suffer from artistic cluelessness? Thankfully every web developer position I've ever held has had someone else hired as a graphic designer doing that work. I've been free to do the coding. And to compensate I stay very close to the W3C recommendations. As a result, my sites, as ugly as they may be, are as accessible as possible...or they will be, if I ever get the time to fix them up.
This blog post has no point, as few, if any, of my readers are web developers. I just saw this article and wanted to point it out.
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Firefox 2.0 Review
I just downloaded Firefox 2.0. It doesn't support display: inline-block yet. I'm disappointed. (However, it does have a built-in spell checker, which is the sole reason I spelled 'disappointed' properly.)
Saturday, October 21, 2006
A Brave New World Wide Web (Part II)
D'Oh!
Now that Internet Explorer 7 has been released I'm excited, right?
One thing I didn't count on was that it's not available for Windows 2000, which is what we use at work. We should be getting XP soon.
Anyway, you can download it here.
Now that Internet Explorer 7 has been released I'm excited, right?
One thing I didn't count on was that it's not available for Windows 2000, which is what we use at work. We should be getting XP soon.
Anyway, you can download it here.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
It Sure didn't Take Long, Did It?
Well, gang, it sure didn't take long. IE 7 has been out for less than 24 hours, and the first security hole has been found.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Firefox 2.0
Soon Firefox 2.0 will be released. Oddly enough, I'm not as excited about this as I am about IE 7. For such an anti-Microsoft guy, you'd think it would be the opposite, wouldn't you?
Well, the reason is this: I'm not excited as a user. I'm excited as a developer. IE 7 means I can stop using so many freaking hacks. Writing for IE 6 and for the standards is like writing for two separate standards.
Firefox already has good compliance. I would like to see greater compliance. There are a few things Firefox doesn't support. I'd like to see that more than new add-ons.
But that's just me.
Well, the reason is this: I'm not excited as a user. I'm excited as a developer. IE 7 means I can stop using so many freaking hacks. Writing for IE 6 and for the standards is like writing for two separate standards.
Firefox already has good compliance. I would like to see greater compliance. There are a few things Firefox doesn't support. I'd like to see that more than new add-ons.
But that's just me.
A Brave New World Wide Web
Apparently Internet Explorer 7.0 comes out today, October 18. (I'm writing this on the 17th.) And I, for one, can't wait.
With it's increased standards compliance I can start to forget about developing for v6. True, at work I'll have to still develop for v6 until we adopt v7, which at the government rate will be about 2008. (We'll be upgrading to XP soon.)
IE7 also has tabbed browsing. I've heard it isn't implemented as well as it is in Firefox or Opera. In Firefox I group related bookmarks into a bookmark folder, then "Open In Tabs." For example, I have a bookmark folder called "Blogs" where I have all my blogs bookmarked. Then everyday, instead of manually opening each blog, I open the Blog bookmark folder, and at the bottom is an option "Open In Tabs" which I click. Then All the blogs open in the same browser in a different tab. I then read through them all, pressing ctrl+w to close the tab when I'm done with it. It makes for much nicer browsing experience. You should try it if you haven't yet.
Apparently security has really been increased for this next release. This is great news. Let me explain why.
You know all that spam you get every day? I've got news for you: some of that spam is there because some of your friends use Internet Explorer. IE can download malicious code without you even knowing about it, scan your address book and/or hard drive for email addresses. It then sends spam to those address. But it alters the From field in the email so you have no way of knowing that it came from your friend. (This method uses something called Active-X, something IE uses, but not Firefox, Opera, Camino, Konquror, Safari, etc.)
So, this brings IE to the point where Firefox was a couple years ago. A point of usability. This is odd. Microsoft is usually the first to come out with new and innovative ideas. They are the bleeding edge of technology.
Now I have to wonder how I feel about this. See, when Microsoft releases a piece of junk, then that can sometimes serve to drive people to find a good alternative. That's partly why IE no longer has > 90% market share. People have simply found that other browsers are better.
When Microsoft comes out with something that's not bad then people have much less reason to look around. This helps to secure their monopoly. (Now, I don't call IE 7 "good" because, as I said, it will be usable, as opposed to "good." It's just not bad. IE 6 is just plain bad.)
Microsoft, over the past couple of years or so, has started to learn that they're not the only people around. Open Source software poses a threat. Google poses a threat. Apple poses a threat, whether they realize it or not. (Don't believe me? Get a time machine. Go back 3 years and walk through a university campus. How many Macs do you see? Very few. Then come back to the present and walk through the same campus. Now how many do you see? Many more.)
Now, this new idea of playing friendly may be their way of getting people to hate them less so they can hold their monopoly longer, and therefore more strongly, then they can go back to their old monopolistic tricks.
I would like to see a world where data storage is open, and perhaps some interfaces are proprietary. For example, HTML is an open standard, but IE, which interprets HTML, is proprietary. OpenDoc Format is open. Word, OpenOffice, KOffice, etc. may be proprietary.
With it's increased standards compliance I can start to forget about developing for v6. True, at work I'll have to still develop for v6 until we adopt v7, which at the government rate will be about 2008. (We'll be upgrading to XP soon.)
IE7 also has tabbed browsing. I've heard it isn't implemented as well as it is in Firefox or Opera. In Firefox I group related bookmarks into a bookmark folder, then "Open In Tabs." For example, I have a bookmark folder called "Blogs" where I have all my blogs bookmarked. Then everyday, instead of manually opening each blog, I open the Blog bookmark folder, and at the bottom is an option "Open In Tabs" which I click. Then All the blogs open in the same browser in a different tab. I then read through them all, pressing ctrl+w to close the tab when I'm done with it. It makes for much nicer browsing experience. You should try it if you haven't yet.
Apparently security has really been increased for this next release. This is great news. Let me explain why.
You know all that spam you get every day? I've got news for you: some of that spam is there because some of your friends use Internet Explorer. IE can download malicious code without you even knowing about it, scan your address book and/or hard drive for email addresses. It then sends spam to those address. But it alters the From field in the email so you have no way of knowing that it came from your friend. (This method uses something called Active-X, something IE uses, but not Firefox, Opera, Camino, Konquror, Safari, etc.)
So, this brings IE to the point where Firefox was a couple years ago. A point of usability. This is odd. Microsoft is usually the first to come out with new and innovative ideas. They are the bleeding edge of technology.
Now I have to wonder how I feel about this. See, when Microsoft releases a piece of junk, then that can sometimes serve to drive people to find a good alternative. That's partly why IE no longer has > 90% market share. People have simply found that other browsers are better.
When Microsoft comes out with something that's not bad then people have much less reason to look around. This helps to secure their monopoly. (Now, I don't call IE 7 "good" because, as I said, it will be usable, as opposed to "good." It's just not bad. IE 6 is just plain bad.)
Microsoft, over the past couple of years or so, has started to learn that they're not the only people around. Open Source software poses a threat. Google poses a threat. Apple poses a threat, whether they realize it or not. (Don't believe me? Get a time machine. Go back 3 years and walk through a university campus. How many Macs do you see? Very few. Then come back to the present and walk through the same campus. Now how many do you see? Many more.)
Now, this new idea of playing friendly may be their way of getting people to hate them less so they can hold their monopoly longer, and therefore more strongly, then they can go back to their old monopolistic tricks.
I would like to see a world where data storage is open, and perhaps some interfaces are proprietary. For example, HTML is an open standard, but IE, which interprets HTML, is proprietary. OpenDoc Format is open. Word, OpenOffice, KOffice, etc. may be proprietary.
Saturday, August 05, 2006
Ain't I A Louse?
If you move your mouse over the title of my blog posts then you'll see something funny. And, now that scientists have invented magic, even if you turn off Javascript, it still happens!
Wot's this, you say, "Nothing's happening! What are you talking about?"?
I'm going to use my mind-reading capabilities and guess you must be using Internet Explorer. tsk tsk, you didn't read Browser Wars, did you?
For the love of the internet, please, for heaven's sakes, please download Firefox or Opera.
Both are absouletly fantastic browsers. The other day at work, after working long and hard to get pages looking right in all three browsers, my boss printed off some of my pages, and they looked awful. So I started doing "Print Previews" of my pages, and saw yet another area where Internet Explorer falls short. Firefox and Opera do fine, but not IE.
Sorry folks, but IE is so bad it's not ready for the home-user's desktop, let-alone the corporate desktop.
Not only is it feature-poor, it's bad at what it's supposed to do. (Case in point, you can't see the trick I'm playing on you.) And it has a really bad security track record. As of this post, there are 21 unpatched security vulnerabilities with Internet Explorer 6, only 3 with Firefox, and 0 with Opera. With Internet Explorer the highest criticality of the vulnerabilities is "high criticality". With Firefox it's "less critical".
Trust me. Try the other browsers for a bit and see what it's like. Get used to them. Then ask yourself how you lived with IE for so long.
If someone can give me a good reason to use IE, please comment. Lets hear the reasons. I've given you plenty to not use it (security, extensibility, advanced features, proper HTML/CSS rendering, etc.). Let's get a dialogue going.
Here's yet another reason to make the switch: The internet will improve. Right now web developers such as myself have to hold back on what we can do because 85% of the viewing public can't handle what we're doing. But if IE usage goes down, then web authors will start to branch out and do things they couldn't do before. They can start to do their jobs properly; they can stop spending so much time on throwing hacks together to make pages work in Internet Explorer. Then they can spend more time on making pages look good, and work better, etc.
Then Microsoft will realize that people have stopped using their browser, and they might actually make it with quality in mind. The downside then is that I'll have one less thing to complain about.
Wot's this, you say, "Nothing's happening! What are you talking about?"?
I'm going to use my mind-reading capabilities and guess you must be using Internet Explorer. tsk tsk, you didn't read Browser Wars, did you?
For the love of the internet, please, for heaven's sakes, please download Firefox or Opera.
Both are absouletly fantastic browsers. The other day at work, after working long and hard to get pages looking right in all three browsers, my boss printed off some of my pages, and they looked awful. So I started doing "Print Previews" of my pages, and saw yet another area where Internet Explorer falls short. Firefox and Opera do fine, but not IE.
Sorry folks, but IE is so bad it's not ready for the home-user's desktop, let-alone the corporate desktop.
Not only is it feature-poor, it's bad at what it's supposed to do. (Case in point, you can't see the trick I'm playing on you.) And it has a really bad security track record. As of this post, there are 21 unpatched security vulnerabilities with Internet Explorer 6, only 3 with Firefox, and 0 with Opera. With Internet Explorer the highest criticality of the vulnerabilities is "high criticality". With Firefox it's "less critical".
Trust me. Try the other browsers for a bit and see what it's like. Get used to them. Then ask yourself how you lived with IE for so long.
If someone can give me a good reason to use IE, please comment. Lets hear the reasons. I've given you plenty to not use it (security, extensibility, advanced features, proper HTML/CSS rendering, etc.). Let's get a dialogue going.
Here's yet another reason to make the switch: The internet will improve. Right now web developers such as myself have to hold back on what we can do because 85% of the viewing public can't handle what we're doing. But if IE usage goes down, then web authors will start to branch out and do things they couldn't do before. They can start to do their jobs properly; they can stop spending so much time on throwing hacks together to make pages work in Internet Explorer. Then they can spend more time on making pages look good, and work better, etc.
Then Microsoft will realize that people have stopped using their browser, and they might actually make it with quality in mind. The downside then is that I'll have one less thing to complain about.
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
I Got A Virus!
I received a virus the other day via email. Now, many of you know I don't run Windows. I have a Linux desktop, and a Mac laptop. Those systems are generally free of viruses. (People say when Mac becomes more popular there will be more virii. This may be so, but Mac OS X is much more popular than Mac OS 9, and lower, but they had virii, and OS X doesn't...until now.)
This is a pretty nasty bug, so everyone be on the lookout. This is the email message I received in my inbox:
I know I don't have to delete everything, but when the Amish tell you to do something, and reinforce it by telling you that you're on the honour system, an honourable person, such as myself, has no choice but to follow through.
I happen to have admin privs on both my computers, so I figured I'd go the extra mile and delete everything, not just what I had in the account of the user who received the virus. I write this from work, where I don't have write privs to many directories so I shouldn't loose too much here.
But this really sucks because I don't have any backups! When will I learn to backup?!?!
This is a pretty nasty bug, so everyone be on the lookout. This is the email message I received in my inbox:
Thou hast just received the Amish Virus.
As we haveth no technology nor programming experience, this virus worketh on the honour system. Please delete all the files from thy hard drive and manually forward this virus to all on thy mailing list.
We thank thee for thy cooperation.— The Amish Computer Engineering Dept.
I know I don't have to delete everything, but when the Amish tell you to do something, and reinforce it by telling you that you're on the honour system, an honourable person, such as myself, has no choice but to follow through.
I happen to have admin privs on both my computers, so I figured I'd go the extra mile and delete everything, not just what I had in the account of the user who received the virus. I write this from work, where I don't have write privs to many directories so I shouldn't loose too much here.
But this really sucks because I don't have any backups! When will I learn to backup?!?!
Sunday, July 02, 2006
Browser Wars
Every now and again I'd like to take some time to talk about something else, other than my life with the McQueens. This is one of those times.
I am a professional web developer. I spend my day at work developing web pages. And I have come to a conclusion. MicroSoft's Internet Exlorer costs technology divisions, probably in the end, millions of dollars a year.
How can this be?
Well, let me explain how it works. Ever wonder how web pages are made?
Web technology is like most other technolgies. There are two distinct components: the nuts'n'bolts and the interface. The nuts'n'bolts is the part you don't see. It's the part you don't need to know about to use the technology. It's the engine inside a car; CPU + mobo + memory + storage in a computer. The interface is the part you do see. It's the part you interact with. It's the steering wheel+the instrument panel + the gas pedal+the brake pedal + etc. in a car; the monitor + the keyboard + the mouse + the printer + the speakers + etc. on the computer.
It's also pretty clear that the quality of the nuts'n'bolts and the quality of the interface are largely independant of one another. Just because you have a great working car doesn't mean it's going to be nice to look at. And just because it's nice to look at doesn't mean its going to make it past 150 000 km.
Web pages are a number of technologies working together to make the coolest thing since sliced bread. You've probably heard of HTML. That's the basic "language" web pages are written in. Another "language" is called CSS, or Cascading Style Sheets.
The HTML part is the data that makes up the page; the text, the links, the pictures, etc. The CSS part defines how that data looks; what colours are used, the layout, etc.
Web browsers (like Internet Explorer, Firefox, Opera, Safari, etc.) download these files (HTML and CSS files), read them, try to figure out how to display them, then show them to you, the user.
What's this, you say? "What do you mean 'try to figure out how to display them'? Aren't these languages well defined? 'Trying' implies that it might not know how to do it. It might fail."
You're question of the languages being well defined is a good one. In fact, the languages are mostly well defined. A group called the World Wide Consortium (W3C) defines those, and other web technologies. They say "this tag means that, and this style should be rendered that way."
In theory, people who program web browsers should take those definitions (aka: recommendations (like standards, but technically not standards)) and write their browsers to those definitions. That way, if a web page is written to those specifications, then any compliant browser should render the page in much the same way.
This is very important because not everybody is viewing the internet on a high speed connection with IEv6, with high resolution. Some people are browsing with graphics turned off. Some are viewing with cell phones, and BlackBerrys. Some are using FireFox. Some are using Safari or Camino on Macs. Some are using Linux.
What's this, you say? "Those people are a very small minority aren't they?"
Not as small as you may think. It's estimated that 20% of people have special viewing requirements, such as large fonts, large resolution, screen readers, etc. In fact, on this Blog, IE users are in the minority! The vast minority! There are more Mac users, and more Linux users than Windows 2000 users viewing this blog.
One of the ideals of the internet and the world wide web is complete open standards. Anyone can write a web page, and anyone can view it. If a page is written to the "standards" then even a blind person can view the webpage without issue. If it's not written to standards, it might give that blind person an awful hard time. If it's not written to the "standards" then a Mac or Linux user might not be able to read that page.
What's this, you say? "So, what's this have to do with costing technology divisions lots of money?"
The reason is this. Sadly, IE has such a huge market share that it cannot be ignored. Where I work (where there are thousands of users) it's the only browser we're supposed to use. (Alright! I confess! I've downloaded, and use FireFox!) In fact, a lot of web programmers seem to think it's the only browser, so that's what they write for.
The process goes something like this:
But there's a huge problem with this:
IEv6 is far off the mark when it comes to the W3C "standards".
There are a lot of parts of CSS and HTML (and others) that IEv6 does not support. Instead, it introduces its own code, unique to IE browsers. This is "bad news bears." This violates one of the founding principals on which the WWW was founded, and what makes the internet, as we know it today, so great. One could argue that adding proprietary extensions isn't a bad thing. But I'm not talking about proprietary extensions. I'm talking about replacing an open standard with a proprietary one.
The problem with being pretty far off the mark is that if there's no standard as to what's right and wrong, they can change at will, and mess everything up. So a page that works perfectly in IEv6 may break when IEv7 comes out, and may be back to pefect for IEv8. It's completely unpredictable!
What is a web developer to do?
What a professional web developer does (as opposed to a script kiddie) is he develops to the "standards" and tests pages in mutliple browsers (with IEv6 being last, or not at all), and validates his code with the W3C. Then, he works on IEv6. Here's how the process might work:
Writing to standard code, once you know how, can be pretty fast. But throwing together hacks to make it work in IEv6, and still keep compliant is a right royal pain in the neck and can take ten times longer than writing the compliant code in the first place. And time is money, and that extra time/money is what's costing the industry lots of money.
It may seem I'm being hard on IEv6, and maybe I am. But it seems to me that it's such a bad browser (technically speaking) that it shouldn't even be seriously considered to be a usable product, especially in a professional setting.
If you doubt me, if you think your IE is good enough, check out the ACID2 test. Unfortunately, FireFox doesn't even pass that test. :( Opera, and Safari 2 do.
What's this, you say? "I'm not a web programmer, so what does this have to do with me?"
Well, probably not much. The reasons you should switch from IE have more to do with security, viruses, spyware, etc. plus the added features like tabbed browsing, extensibility, etc. that come with browsers like FireFox, and Opera.
Plus, if you switch from IE you will get the added satisfaction of "sticking it to the man". (I'd say, that, alone, would be worth the switch.)
I am a professional web developer. I spend my day at work developing web pages. And I have come to a conclusion. MicroSoft's Internet Exlorer costs technology divisions, probably in the end, millions of dollars a year.
How can this be?
Well, let me explain how it works. Ever wonder how web pages are made?
Web technology is like most other technolgies. There are two distinct components: the nuts'n'bolts and the interface. The nuts'n'bolts is the part you don't see. It's the part you don't need to know about to use the technology. It's the engine inside a car; CPU + mobo + memory + storage in a computer. The interface is the part you do see. It's the part you interact with. It's the steering wheel+the instrument panel + the gas pedal+the brake pedal + etc. in a car; the monitor + the keyboard + the mouse + the printer + the speakers + etc. on the computer.
It's also pretty clear that the quality of the nuts'n'bolts and the quality of the interface are largely independant of one another. Just because you have a great working car doesn't mean it's going to be nice to look at. And just because it's nice to look at doesn't mean its going to make it past 150 000 km.
Web pages are a number of technologies working together to make the coolest thing since sliced bread. You've probably heard of HTML. That's the basic "language" web pages are written in. Another "language" is called CSS, or Cascading Style Sheets.
The HTML part is the data that makes up the page; the text, the links, the pictures, etc. The CSS part defines how that data looks; what colours are used, the layout, etc.
Web browsers (like Internet Explorer, Firefox, Opera, Safari, etc.) download these files (HTML and CSS files), read them, try to figure out how to display them, then show them to you, the user.
What's this, you say? "What do you mean 'try to figure out how to display them'? Aren't these languages well defined? 'Trying' implies that it might not know how to do it. It might fail."
You're question of the languages being well defined is a good one. In fact, the languages are mostly well defined. A group called the World Wide Consortium (W3C) defines those, and other web technologies. They say "this tag means that, and this style should be rendered that way."
In theory, people who program web browsers should take those definitions (aka: recommendations (like standards, but technically not standards)) and write their browsers to those definitions. That way, if a web page is written to those specifications, then any compliant browser should render the page in much the same way.
This is very important because not everybody is viewing the internet on a high speed connection with IEv6, with high resolution. Some people are browsing with graphics turned off. Some are viewing with cell phones, and BlackBerrys. Some are using FireFox. Some are using Safari or Camino on Macs. Some are using Linux.
What's this, you say? "Those people are a very small minority aren't they?"
Not as small as you may think. It's estimated that 20% of people have special viewing requirements, such as large fonts, large resolution, screen readers, etc. In fact, on this Blog, IE users are in the minority! The vast minority! There are more Mac users, and more Linux users than Windows 2000 users viewing this blog.
One of the ideals of the internet and the world wide web is complete open standards. Anyone can write a web page, and anyone can view it. If a page is written to the "standards" then even a blind person can view the webpage without issue. If it's not written to standards, it might give that blind person an awful hard time. If it's not written to the "standards" then a Mac or Linux user might not be able to read that page.
What's this, you say? "So, what's this have to do with costing technology divisions lots of money?"
The reason is this. Sadly, IE has such a huge market share that it cannot be ignored. Where I work (where there are thousands of users) it's the only browser we're supposed to use. (Alright! I confess! I've downloaded, and use FireFox!) In fact, a lot of web programmers seem to think it's the only browser, so that's what they write for.
The process goes something like this:
- Write some code.
- Load it in IEv6 to see if it looks right. If not, go to step 1 until it looks right.
- Repeat until page or site is finished.
But there's a huge problem with this:
IEv6 is far off the mark when it comes to the W3C "standards".
There are a lot of parts of CSS and HTML (and others) that IEv6 does not support. Instead, it introduces its own code, unique to IE browsers. This is "bad news bears." This violates one of the founding principals on which the WWW was founded, and what makes the internet, as we know it today, so great. One could argue that adding proprietary extensions isn't a bad thing. But I'm not talking about proprietary extensions. I'm talking about replacing an open standard with a proprietary one.
The problem with being pretty far off the mark is that if there's no standard as to what's right and wrong, they can change at will, and mess everything up. So a page that works perfectly in IEv6 may break when IEv7 comes out, and may be back to pefect for IEv8. It's completely unpredictable!
What is a web developer to do?
What a professional web developer does (as opposed to a script kiddie) is he develops to the "standards" and tests pages in mutliple browsers (with IEv6 being last, or not at all), and validates his code with the W3C. Then, he works on IEv6. Here's how the process might work:
- Write code
- Test in FireFox, and/or Opera. If it doesn't work, repeat steps 1 and 2 until it does.
- Test in IEv6. It won't work. Search the internet to find hacks to make it look right. Continue going through steps 1 and 2. Don't proceed to step 3 until step 2 passes.
Writing to standard code, once you know how, can be pretty fast. But throwing together hacks to make it work in IEv6, and still keep compliant is a right royal pain in the neck and can take ten times longer than writing the compliant code in the first place. And time is money, and that extra time/money is what's costing the industry lots of money.
It may seem I'm being hard on IEv6, and maybe I am. But it seems to me that it's such a bad browser (technically speaking) that it shouldn't even be seriously considered to be a usable product, especially in a professional setting.
If you doubt me, if you think your IE is good enough, check out the ACID2 test. Unfortunately, FireFox doesn't even pass that test. :( Opera, and Safari 2 do.
What's this, you say? "I'm not a web programmer, so what does this have to do with me?"
Well, probably not much. The reasons you should switch from IE have more to do with security, viruses, spyware, etc. plus the added features like tabbed browsing, extensibility, etc. that come with browsers like FireFox, and Opera.
Plus, if you switch from IE you will get the added satisfaction of "sticking it to the man". (I'd say, that, alone, would be worth the switch.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)