How many browsers to support? - GoFuckYourself.com

hijaker · 06-22-2004, 05:10 AM

We all know the browser wars are over. Microsoft Corp.'s Internet Explorer is the dominant browser. Yet, for various reasons, scores of other browsers remain out there.
This means that front-end HTML programmers are still fighting the battle of cross-browser compatibility.

It's amazing to read corporate Web and application browser requirements. A properly drafted document for a public Web site can start to read like a mininovel, saying "must support Netscape 4.5, Netscape 4.7 (Windows and Mac), Internet Explorer 5.0, IE 5.5, IE 6 (Windows and Mac), IE 6.01, Safari, Opera." As developers or site managers, do we just take this as a given?

Personally, I believe that we need to not only address it, but attack it head-on. We need to find the person who came up with this list and start to educate him about the impact on the cost of cross-browser development and testing.

I'm not advocating dropping support for older browsers. But rarely have I seen support for Internet Explorer 4, Netscape 3, Netscape 2, Mosaic or other early browsers. Support for these was taken off specification requirements long ago, and long before people deciding on requirements ever heard of the Web.

While I've never advocated pushing the envelope on corporate Web sites (it's just not good business sense), it's time for companies to examine their access logs and find out just how many people are still accessing their site with the old browsers. Once this is determined, they must figure out if they represent their real customers -- are they the ones who actually purchase something from the site or complete Web-based forms? Only then can companies start making the right business decision.

Where you draw the line isn't so much a fixed percentage as it is gut feel. On the surface, saying 0.25% of visitors used Internet Explorer 5 last month says nothing. What does it represent? If it's $100,000 of sales a year, then you may want to support them to fullest possible level. However if it's a mere $1,000, then perhaps it's a signal to drop full support.

What is full support? It's ensuring that a Web site/application looks and works exactly the same across all browsers. And it's in dropping full support where savings can easily be achieved. It's a job made easier by coding pages to the W3's recommended XHTML. With XHTML you can create pages that degrade nicely to older browsers while minimizing the time spent on cross-browser programming and testing.

polish_aristocrat · 06-22-2004, 05:13 AM

If you wrote that by yourself, then you deserve

Living For Today · 06-22-2004, 05:14 AM

This is Go Fuck Yourself. Enough with the intelligent serious posts already

polish_aristocrat · 06-22-2004, 08:04 AM

Doc911 · 06-22-2004, 10:05 AM

fuck em. if they don't have ie 5.5 or better then they don't have the money to buy anything.

Tom_PMs · 06-22-2004, 10:12 AM

I say check for IE 5.5 or higher and if it's not there, kick em out or let em deal with it.
But your question seems pretty serious as a developer or whatever, so I would think that you'de want to take it to whatever company is requiring it at the time. It's going to always change a bit and upgrade a bit. Try showing them some stats from thecounter.com or some other source and explain in dollars the costs.. use money to persuade them. They'll understand those terms.

sweet7 · 06-22-2004, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doc911
fuck em. if they don't have ie 5.5 or better then they don't have the money to buy anything.

last time I checked upgrading ie was free

and nobody's gonna buy anything from you if your website looks like shit.

06-22-2004, 05:10 AM	#1
hijaker Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: PORTUGAL Posts: 238	How many browsers to support? We all know the browser wars are over. Microsoft Corp.'s Internet Explorer is the dominant browser. Yet, for various reasons, scores of other browsers remain out there. This means that front-end HTML programmers are still fighting the battle of cross-browser compatibility. It's amazing to read corporate Web and application browser requirements. A properly drafted document for a public Web site can start to read like a mininovel, saying "must support Netscape 4.5, Netscape 4.7 (Windows and Mac), Internet Explorer 5.0, IE 5.5, IE 6 (Windows and Mac), IE 6.01, Safari, Opera." As developers or site managers, do we just take this as a given? Personally, I believe that we need to not only address it, but attack it head-on. We need to find the person who came up with this list and start to educate him about the impact on the cost of cross-browser development and testing. I'm not advocating dropping support for older browsers. But rarely have I seen support for Internet Explorer 4, Netscape 3, Netscape 2, Mosaic or other early browsers. Support for these was taken off specification requirements long ago, and long before people deciding on requirements ever heard of the Web. While I've never advocated pushing the envelope on corporate Web sites (it's just not good business sense), it's time for companies to examine their access logs and find out just how many people are still accessing their site with the old browsers. Once this is determined, they must figure out if they represent their real customers -- are they the ones who actually purchase something from the site or complete Web-based forms? Only then can companies start making the right business decision. Where you draw the line isn't so much a fixed percentage as it is gut feel. On the surface, saying 0.25% of visitors used Internet Explorer 5 last month says nothing. What does it represent? If it's $100,000 of sales a year, then you may want to support them to fullest possible level. However if it's a mere $1,000, then perhaps it's a signal to drop full support. What is full support? It's ensuring that a Web site/application looks and works exactly the same across all browsers. And it's in dropping full support where savings can easily be achieved. It's a job made easier by coding pages to the W3's recommended XHTML. With XHTML you can create pages that degrade nicely to older browsers while minimizing the time spent on cross-browser programming and testing. __________________ PORNADiKTS.COM - udated every 5 minutes

06-22-2004, 05:13 AM	#2
polish_aristocrat Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 40,377	If you wrote that by yourself, then you deserve __________________ I don't use ICQ anymore.

06-22-2004, 08:04 AM	#4
polish_aristocrat Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 40,377	__________________ I don't use ICQ anymore.

06-22-2004, 10:05 AM	#5
Doc911 Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: If i was up your ass you'd know Posts: 3,695	fuck em. if they don't have ie 5.5 or better then they don't have the money to buy anything. __________________ For PHP/MySQL scripts ICQ 161480555 or email [email protected]

06-22-2004, 05:14 AM	#3
Living For Today Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 3,970	This is Go Fuck Yourself. Enough with the intelligent serious posts already

06-22-2004, 10:12 AM	#6
Tom_PMs Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 2,049	I say check for IE 5.5 or higher and if it's not there, kick em out or let em deal with it. But your question seems pretty serious as a developer or whatever, so I would think that you'de want to take it to whatever company is requiring it at the time. It's going to always change a bit and upgrade a bit. Try showing them some stats from thecounter.com or some other source and explain in dollars the costs.. use money to persuade them. They'll understand those terms.