"Compatible" web browsers

Hawk

Hawk

I just got off a rant, and need to vent. Since the guys on here make the US Government's IT team look like a group of monkeys, I thought I'd leave this here just to see where it goes. If it goes nowhere, that's fine. Like I said, I just need to vent.

<rant>
Excerpt of a rant to the Army Training Help Desk regarding the ALMS system:

Once again, to my limited programming knowledge, Javascript is portable code that may span various browsers and operating systems. Given that "... you are using Internet Explorer 8 or 9 when accessing ALMS. Any other browser is not compatible with the website..." is the official stance of ALMS doesn't explain how I completed other classes in ALMS using a browser other than IE.
Content should be made available to sufficiently authenticated via CAC login. Military CAC<http://militarycac.com/>;, provides steps for users of other than IE users. The only <u>browser</u> that supports PKCS #11 is Firefox. Why is it that non-web standards compliant browser such as IE is given top "compatibility" given IE's buggy track record? Does this also mean that the military endorses Windows only systems, and those using Mac OSX, Linux, (Free, Net, Open)BSD, InfernoOS, Android, Chromium, FirefoxOS, et. al. are S.O.L.?
</rant>

Hell, they used Solaris systems until they went defunct. I wish some FreeBSD guys could smack some sense to these clowns.
 
HTML is completely defective so frankly the only choice is to choose one browser and completely disregard all the others. It is getting slightly better nowadays but the overuse of JavaScript is bringing back some same old issues.

For example, if you ran an old version of Mozilla Firefox (version 1 or 2) and went to Gmail today, the browser would likely display a white page or even crash. Given that HTML and JavaScripts are meant to be a standard, this is a pretty good example of existing web technology's failure.

They just happened to choose IE due to its popularity and abundance on Microsoft's operating system. The only solution to this is to write a portable C/C++ desktop application and distribute that on an FTP site ;)
 
kpedersen said:
HTML is completely defective
Click to expand...
HTML isn't the problem. Browser implementation is the problem. And IE is the worst implementer of them all.
For example, if you ran an old version of Mozilla Firefox (version 1 or 2) and went to gmail today... The browser would likely display a white page or even crash. Given that HTML and Javascripts are meant to be a standard... this is a pretty good example of existing web technology's failure.
Click to expand...
No. That would be a web site's implementation failure but I would almost bet Google makes that page work anyway because, if you switch off JavaScript and CSS, you get a static version that works just fine.

You are correct that they targeted IE because it's used the most but IE is only half the browser market share so they're ignoring the other half. It's interesting, though, how often I come into a consumer setting where people are asked which browser they want to use, or are using, and the consumer says, "Who uses that IE #$!% nowadays?"

We had a provider problem at my home office recently and the technician, who came out, used my wife's Windows computer to test things. I have multiple browsers installed there for my sake and found it interesting to see him select Chrome when IE was sitting there available to him.

Two years ago, visits to my client's sites had almost no visitors using mobile devices. Today, they all have about 25 to 30% mobile visitors. Windows mobile is almost non-existent which means mobile visitors are not using IE. The theatre companies I handle are almost exclusively Chrome, Firefox and Safari.

As always, at least 20% of my development time is "adjusting" markup and code to work in IE. Some pages have taken up 50% of my time, such as getting audio and video to work with code that worked in every desktop and mobile browser EXCEPT IE.

The real pain for the OP's web site is when they finally get smart and want to make their pages work in the better browsers and find they have to rewrite or kludge huge swaths of non-standard code.
 
Until it asks for ActiveX controls, you can use the useragent switcher on Firefox and then import the certificates to Mozilla's folder. Me? I'm just the average bum.
 
drhowarddrfine said:
kpedersen said:
HTML is completely defective
Click to expand...
HTML isn't the problem. Browser implementation is the problem. And IE is the worst implementer of them all.
For example, if you ran an old version of Mozilla Firefox (version 1 or 2) and went to gmail today... The browser would likely display a white page or even crash. Given that HTML and Javascripts are meant to be a standard... this is a pretty good example of existing web technology's failure.
Click to expand...
No. That would be a web site's implementation failure but I would almost bet Google makes that page work anyway cause, if you switch off javascript and CSS, you get a static version that works just fine.
Click to expand...
You are correct about this, GMail (and many other mail services) still offer Basic HTML. I recently installed FreeBSD on an old Intel BX mobo motherboard with a P3 Tualatin and was surprised at how usable it could be with x11-wm/fluxbox and www/dillo2. You can use Dillo for basic web browsing (email, Craigslist, reading most newspapers online, posting on many bulletin boards), without the use of JavaScript. You can also use www/netsurf to get JavaScript support (so that you can use eBay, Amazon, etc.), although it isn't as lightweight as Dillo of course.
 
drhowarddrfine said:
You are correct that they targeted IE because it's used the most but IE is only half the browser market share so they're ignoring the other half.
Click to expand...
It's less than a third these days. IE's share has been dropping steadily the past few years.
 
When I got into the web development business in 2004, IE had 95% market share so it's been dropping for more than a few years :)

I haven't looked at statistics lately but @SirDice is probably right about the one-third measurement worldwide. Unfortunately, in the USA, it's about 55% last I checked, mostly due to Fortune 500 companies who created their large software systems that only work in a Microsoft environment and are paying the price for that egregious error now.

It's interesting to compile the server logs of my clients. I have two restaurants next to one of the world's largest financial institutions and they get about 70% IE visitors. No one else gets that many from IE. The theatre companies, however, get about 10% visitors using IE.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top