Browser Information

[adriennek]

Ok, I've asked this question off boards before but I'm interested in some feedback. Please do not reply with snarky little comments about operating systems? Try? Please?

I'm sincerely curious. I was just reading a faq about a new online service that I can subscribe to. In the FAQ the only preferred browsers are IE or Netscape. No Safari, which is the browser I use.

I do know several Windows users who don't even use IE or Netscape but prefer such browsers as Firefox and Opera.

So, here's my question: How hard is it to program for such browsers as Safari, Firefox and Opera? I have the most recent version of Safari and I rarely have problems anymore. Are these programmers just being lazy in their programming or are they covering their tushies because the tech support system is going to be lazy about troubleshooting other browsers?

I know that at MousePlanet, there are a variety of browsers used by our own staff and I've watched our wonderful admins work to make sure that our site works on several browsers.

So why, when this particular unnamed company is preparing to charge clients to use their web-based services, are they so limiting on their browser options?

Adrienne
I even spelled Windoze properly and everything.

[Drince88]

.... or are they covering their tushies because the tech support system is going to be lazy about troubleshooting other browsers?

I'm guessing something along these lines - but not even necessarily lazy - I've been doing some software testing for an upgrade to a system a client currently uses, and it's amazing the things that can creep in on systems that are supposed to be supported, and the difficulties in even recreating the problems.

I think there are also published standards for IE/Netscape compatibility - I'm not sure if there are for the other systems, though there might be. That could be another reason. We're also working with multiple states those that 'publish' the format for electronic submittal we'll create reports in that format - those that don't but that we could figure out fairly easily, we won't because of the 'liability' in trying to match something that's not published.

[Mickeymac]

Adrienne,

In my former life before Sue rescued me, I was a web designer. Although I use Safari and Firefox, I worked to a Windows/IE standard as that is what the majority of browsers used. To me, it wasn't a matter of laziness, as I found that whatever would work on IE and Netscape would also hold up very well in Safari and Firefox. It's when you get into the deeper scripting that things start to conflict, and as keeping up a website is a labor of love, I would tend to program for the masses. When a mass is 95% of the market as IE was once (I don't know what it is now) you tend to focus on that instead of the 5% that might have issues.

[Stupid_American]

Most will assume that covering better than 85% of the market is good enough.
There is logic to that.

Even Disney doesn't support Mac.
If it works, it works.
If it doesn't, in so many words, they can't be bothered.

I know that whatever my wife develops, she tests in different browsers, on both Mac and Windows machines.
Some developers care about such things.

"Think Different"

[Andrew]

You know my views, but:

Are these programmers just being lazy in their programming

Yes. Coding to target IE is the quick-and-dirty way, because although its implementation is severely broken, it's also extremely permissive of bad code.

are they covering their tushies because the tech support system is going to be lazy about troubleshooting other browsers?

Yes. The easiest way to get a blow-off from any Web site's tech support is to mention Opera, Firefox, Safari, Konqueror, or anything that's not IE or (sometimes) Mozilla/Netscape.

So why, when this particular unnamed company is preparing to charge clients to use their web-based services, are they so limiting on their browser options?

Because they're either uninformed or just don't care. Unfortunately, since I know what company you're talking about and I know that you don't have any other options, you will have to continue fighting with the company to get them to widen their support. You can also look into making Safari appear to be Netscape; many non-IE browsers have this capability.

[Mickeymac]

I'm curious - how many of us are mac users? Or should I start another thread? I'm used to feeling in a minority, but not here.

[adriennek]

Mickeymac: There are many of us here and I'll be sure to post on another thread if you start one

Here's my main concern, and it's not even a Mac-based concern at this point:

If I have clients using even PCs with Firefox or Opera, I don't want them to encounter trouble with the service if I'm subscribed to it for them to use.

I'm going to be contacting the company to ask them specifics. I can predict what most of their answers are going to be. I suspect they have a pool in the office: How long until we get a load of questions from the Krock broad in California?

Adrienne

[Andrew]

Here's my main concern, and it's not even a Mac-based concern at this point:

If I have clients using even PCs with Firefox or Opera, I don't want them to encounter trouble with the service if I'm subscribed to it for them to use.

I'm going to be contacting the company to ask them specifics. I can predict what most of their answers are going to be. I suspect they have a pool in the office: How long until we get a load of questions from the Krock broad in California?

Microsoft has dropped support for IE on Mac OS entirely. No more Mac IE for you. So you can use Safari or Firefox--I couldn't find a Mac OS download for the current version of Netscape, even though it's now based on Firefox--or Konq or any of the Unix-based browsers in X. The un-named company is not going to support any of those.

On Windows, IE's market share is now below 90%. Much of the difference is in Firefox, with Opera and some other players getting a bit here and there. Now "almost 90%" is a big number, but if you turn it around that's more than ten percent of potential customers who are not going to be able to access the site. I suspect it will not support screen-reading browsers used by sight-impaired people, either.

Bottom line, the un-named company (along with a couple of others, including Disney) needs to get with the program. Don't write browser-specific sites; don't assume you know how I'm going to use your site; just write simple standards-compliant code and you'll keep me as a customer.

[Lani]

Most will assume that covering better than 85% of the market is good enough.

From a business resource perspective, this makes sense. It's not very good for the remaining 15%, but unless the company decides to support it, it's very difficult to allocate say 30% of your budget to just 15% of your users. And technically, because it's more like 85% Windows, and 15% for everything else (including Unix, Mac, and Linux), providing support for the 15% could take up more than 30% of the budget.

[Mickeymac]

I suspect they have a pool in the office: How long until we get a load of questions from the Krock broad in California?

LOLOL Adrienne, if they could just look at it as giving them something to grow on.

[adriennek]

LOLOL Adrienne, if they could just look at it as giving them something to grow on.

The last time they released something that did not support my OS, I was very polite. I told them that I would beta test it for free once they compiled a version I could use.

I try to be accommodating

Adrienne

[JeffG]

I think a lot of companies still focus on Netscape as their second supported browser out of habit. They also probably aren't doing the research to determine where they really should be focusing their attention.

I work for a web content company and we have recently taken a good look at what our customers are actually using and adjusted our choices accordingly. IE 6.x under Windows certainly still constitutes the vast majority of the customers. As Andrew noted, it is generally around 90% or so. Obviously, it remains our top priority. At the same time, if you stop looking at percentages and instead look at numbers of actual users, it quickly becomes evident that other browsers are worth looking at.

The most recent information we have seen is that Firefox remains at #2. We have also been pretty surprised to discover that Opera is now #3 and gaining. It definitely is getting more attention now that they no longer charge for the ad-free version. While we haven't yet moved to adding it to our "officially supported" list (essentially which browsers we test everything on), it is pretty likely to make the list soon. We do still test with Netscape 7 and up, but it has been losing market share (we were surprised that it is now behind Opera) and could drop off our list.

On the Mac side, we focus almost entirely on Firefox and Safari. The Mac version of IE was on our supported list until very recently, but Microsoft has now discontinued support for the product and its usage continues to drop dramatically. Mac IE is actually very difficult to code to as it is one of the least standards-compliant browsers out there (much worse than IE Windows).

One thing to note is that the latest versions of Firefox, Netscape, and Safari all pretty much use the same underlying rendering engine (known as the "Gecko" engine), which means that if a site works ok on one of them it is almost certain to work ok on all of them. Opera has gotten better, but it still is a bit tricky at times getting pages to work well on it.

IE Windows is not as compliant to the "official" web standards as established by the w3 organization as some of the other browsers, but it so completely dominates the market that it really is the actual standard. If it ever comes down to a decision where we have to make a choice between getting something working on IE Windows and getting it to work on any or all of the other browsers, IE Windows wins out every time. I think part of where Opera tends to get into trouble is that its developers have tended to adhere exclusively to the w3 standards and not tried to match up with some of the quirks of IE. Firefox and the other Gecko browsers have been better about matching some of IE's non-standard features.

-Jeff

[adriennek]

Jeff,

THANK YOU. This information is very helpful!

At the same time, if you stop looking at percentages and instead look at numbers of actual users, it quickly becomes evident that other browsers are worth looking at.

[AOL]Uh-huh[/AOL]

The most recent information we have seen is that Firefox remains at #2. We have also been pretty surprised to discover that Opera is now #3 and gaining. It definitely is getting more attention now that they no longer charge for the ad-free version. While we haven't yet moved to adding it to our "officially supported" list (essentially which browsers we test everything on), it is pretty likely to make the list soon. We do still test with Netscape 7 and up, but it has been losing market share (we were surprised that it is now behind Opera) and could drop off our list.

Very interesting.

One thing to note is that the latest versions of Firefox, Netscape, and Safari all pretty much use the same underlying rendering engine (known as the "Gecko" engine), which means that if a site works ok on one of them it is almost certain to work ok on all of them. Opera has gotten better, but it still is a bit tricky at times getting pages to work well on it.

This was something I was wondering about. Thank you for addressing this point. Excellent.

Adrienne