Lack of Browser Compatibility

[SyrenSong]

Why are there so many sites where the designer never considers folks just might visit a website with something other than Internet Explorer for a browser?

I can't even begin to count the number of sites I've been to that lock up my non-ie browser or crash my computer or have functions that just don't work unless you visit the site using ie!

It's annoying. It's frustrating. And it just plain doesn't make any sense! Especially for e-commerce websites!!

Why annoy and alienate the very people you need to stay in business?

I can understand this sort of thing from amateur websites. That's something I can forgive easily. They're amateurs. They don't know what they're doing. No one expects them to.

But from so-called professionals, IMHO, it's simply unforgivable!

And the absolute worst part about it is that some poor unknowing schmuck paid good hard-earned cash for that site!

How can these people call themselves "professionals" anyway! It just gets my goat!!!

[Sualdam]

Take one large spoon... and stir... stir, stir, stir :)

This one has been covered recently, hasn't it, in several threads? You just fanned the flames again ;)

For shame.

[weegillis]

Thanks for at least going easy on us amateurs, SyrenSong. Some of us do have a conscience.

When I first discovered that not all browsers work the same I nearly fell off my chair. At first I thought it was the 'other' browsers that were at fault...

Then I found it was IE that is the culprit in many cases. Most of us (amateurs) are IE users, but most professionals are using Netscape, Opera, Mozilla, Safari (Mac) and so on--browsers we have never heard of (until recently).

I'm glad I came to this site, and grateful for the help I've received from its members. Your gentle touch where we (the hobby world) are concerned is appreciated.

[SyrenSong]

Originally Posted by Sualdam

This one has been covered recently, hasn't it, in several threads? You just fanned the flames again ;)

For shame.

Totally unintentional, Sualdam. The first thing I did before posting was to check thread titles to see if there was anything similar posted here recently. Must've missed something by using titles only.

My bad. :(

Guess I just really needed to vent, since I had been to 4 sites in a row where either my browser crashed or I was told I have the wrong browser to view their website.

Very frustrating!

**********

weegillis -

How could I possibly be other than kind to amateurs?

You folks aren't claiming to be professionals, so you can't possibly be judged by the same standards. ;)

You right, though. It's quite a shock to discover the wide variations in what works and doesn't work with different browsers. Not to mention the fact that things just look different because of the way the various browsers are programmed.

Gentility with the hobby world is pretty much a requirement for me. After all, we all started out not having a clue. We all had to learn somewhere, sometime. The least we can do is try ot help others benefit from what we've learned. ;)

[redcircle]

I liked it alot more when I first started on the web where there was only netscrap. sure I didn't mind that it crashed every 15 minutes.. much simpler to create webpages tho.

[weegillis]

Originally Posted by SyrenSong

Gentility with the hobby world is pretty much a requirement for me. After all, we all started out not having a clue. We all had to learn somewhere, sometime. The least we can do is try ot help others benefit from what we've learned. ;)

I take it you meant Gentleness?

With you there, though. Go ahead a bash away at the pro's though! (kidding;) If I ever decide to try making a living at this, I'll be sure to steer clear of you... (again, kidding;).

If life came in only one flavour, we would never need to learn. I think even the pro's need to keep this in mind. I've met too many people who are still stuck in the textbooks they learned from ten or twenty years ago (of course they're not very wealthy, mind you) and refuse to re-visit the subjects they were so avid about in the early days of their careers.

Cheers!

[SyrenSong]

Originally Posted by weegillis

I take it you meant Gentleness?

Picky, Picky, Picky! LOL! Uh, yeah. That's what I meant. Guess my fingers decided to get a little too cultured on me. Ooops! ;)

You're right about the different flavors, though.

I guess it'd be pretty near impossible to design a site for every single browser out there, without sacrificing some of the really neat stuff that can be done with html/xml/css/php/etc., but care should be taken with the major browsers at the very least.

Especially when there are places like WebProWorld where folks can go to ask others to test their sites and pages for them!

[carbonize]

At last a thread on my own personal gripe, yay.
I hate sites coded to look good on IE that look crap on other browsers, I hate javascript that only works on IE, I HATE IE grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

[SyrenSong]

You'll be happy to know, carbonize, that I just downloaded Firebird, so I'll be able to test in that one, too.

I know it's a personal favorite of yours, and I've become curious, since you "hawk" it so much. If it weren't a Mozilla program, I'd wonder if you owned stock in it. ;)

As for hating IE, you've gotta program for the masses, but that doesn't mean ignoring all the othre browsers out there!

[carbonize]

I use http://downloads.us-east3.mozdev.org...webinstall.exe to install it as it makes it easy.

[minstrel]

Originally Posted by carbonize

I hate sites coded to look good on IE that look crap on other browsers, I hate javascript that only works on IE, I HATE IE grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Okay... close your eyes, carbonize (hey! that rhymes)... slow breaths... breathe in 1-2-3... breathe out 1-2-3-4-5... repeat to yourself, "it's only a browser... it's only a browser..."

Your heart, liver, and hypothalamus will thank you...

[carbonize]

OK here's one for you lot. How many recent updates have said that the patch is to fix an exploit in Internet Explorer and that it doesn't matter if you use Internet Explorer as your browser or not? Three is my count.

I'd like a Opera/Firebird hybrid. Operas gui, preferences, mail client etc with Firebirds rendering engine, extensions etc. Now that would be cool.

[weegillis]

Amaya -- W3C's Editor/Browser

If I can get something to look right in this one, I feel as though it will probably display correctly in most CSS supported, xml parsing browsers.

[segue]Somewhere in Microsoft's download section is the ""xml parser"" if anyone ever needs it. Google the double-quoted phrase to find it.[/segue]

I can hardly make sense of it, but slowly I'm beginning to discover what methods render correctly.

It's not intended as a recreational browser, so I wouldn't recommend it for surfing; but if there is a problem in an XHTML or xml page, local or on the web, Amaya will find it, and report it.

The rest is up to the developer.

Would appreciate knowing if there is WebProWorld inner community already playing with this interesting tool? Translates as: Need Help...

[Narasinha]

I had an interesting experience last week. While testing some options for layout of a page using CSS, I found that IE (v6/Win98) would only load the page to a certain point, then freeze. I had a friend check it on his end to see if the same thing happened. It crashed his system. IE was choking on one of its CSS bugs it seems.

I always test with IE, though I use Opera for my primary browser. I also test with Mozilla's Firebird. I keep all three browsers updated with the most recent version. I haven't used Netscape since the last version I downloaded slowed my system to a crawl. I hope it's improved since then. Safari for the Macintosh (which I'm unable to use on my WIndows machine) seems to be very compliant with current standards.

Regarding standards:

Accessibility standards are dealt with by many of us, and will be by many more in the future. The new standards being researched by the W3C may end up being nearly impossible for web designers to implement if not defined properly. What can designers do about this? They can take part in the standards creation process. This can apply equally to all web standards defined by the W3C. There is a good article entitled How to Save Web Accessibility from Itself located at http://www.alistapart.com/articles/saveaccessibility/. A List Apart, the source of this article, is an excellent on-line magazine for web designers and developers.

[weegillis]

Originally Posted by narasinha

... IE was choking on one of its CSS bugs it seems.

-------
Ouch!

Originally Posted by narasinha

... I haven't used Netscape since the last version I downloaded slowed my system to a crawl. I hope it's improved since then. ...

-------
Netscape 7.1 is working fine as a call up app with no pre-loading at startup (I still run IE by default) on my XP-Pro PC and on the 98SE PC. There are some differences between it and Firebird, but I generally use it and IE 6 together. If the pages match, chances are Mozilla will have no problems (foreseeable, anyway). The list of things I don't do because of Mozilla is not at the tip of my tongue, right now, but I would digress if I went into it. Remember, I'm only a beginner.

Originally Posted by narasinha

... Regarding standards:
... There is a good article entitled How to Save Web Accessibility from Itself located at http://www.alistapart.com/articles/saveaccessibility/. A List Apart, the source of this article, is an excellent on-line magazine for web designers and developers.

-------
With this I heartily agree.

Excellent paper on the subject, with ideal organization from a learning perspective--it will be easier to understand the guidelines after having seen the deconstruction so completely performed.

Even if I speak only for myself, which I doubt, this reverse engineering can only help all of us to actively create, implement, adhere to, and promote usable and well formed guidelines for making the World Wide Web accessible to all interested users.

I saw a picture the other day that nearly knocked me off my seat:

Canada Post Office at Old Crow, YT, August 1994. This picture was discovered in the Index of Canada Post Office Photos found at The Post Mark Collectors Club (PMCC).

This is not to ridicule the PMCC's Photo Collection. I draw singular attention to the one diabolical crime being committed in the picture, analogous to our own efforts to be accessible.

[minstrel]

Actually, I keep Netscape 4.71 around because it does render pages in odd ways - as I've said before, I've given up trying to be all-browser compatible but I want to make sure it is at least visible and navigatable in Netugly format.

As for Firebird, methinks it mayhap be time for a look:

"That Firebird has a lean and hungry look. Let me have browsers around me that are fat." - I think Julius Caesar said that.

[SyrenSong]

It's really great to know that other designers & programmers are concerned with browser compatibility issues.

I only wish there were a way to make it clear to those who don't care how important it really is!

I don't mind the presentation of a page being messed up a little. I don't even mind if there are one or two functions that don't work quite as well, like css mouseovers that don't work in IE, or colored scrollbars not showing up in Mozilla.

It's mostly the programming glitches that freeze a browser or lock up my computer that get on my nerves! Sites that just won't go unless you happen to use the same browser that the designer took a fancy to - usually IE.

There are plenty of free browsers out there. Many of them are quite popular, too! Why is it so hard for some programmers and designers to take a few extra minutes to make sure your program doesn't crash the "big ones"!

*sigh* The world may never know!

[carbonize]

Even worse are sites that wont let you log in or download unless you are using Internet Explorer or Netscape. I think macromedia was one that would only let you download with IE or Netscape, www.argos.co.uk didn't used to let you access the site on anything but these two until i sent them an email explaining that the site worked fine on opera and Firebird.

My bank says "You are not using a recognised browser and so we cannot guarantee your security" but at least they have a link allowing you to continue with the login procedure.

[rocky1]

Originally Posted by SyrenSong

It's really great to know that other designers & programmers are concerned with browser compatibility issues.

I only wish there were a way to make it clear to those who don't care how important it really is!

I don't mind the presentation of a page being messed up a little. I don't even mind if there are one or two functions that don't work quite as well, like css mouseovers that don't work in IE, or colored scrollbars not showing up in Mozilla.

It's mostly the programming glitches that freeze a browser or lock up my computer that get on my nerves! Sites that just won't go unless you happen to use the same browser that the designer took a fancy to - usually IE.

There are plenty of free browsers out there. Many of them are quite popular, too! Why is it so hard for some programmers and designers to take a few extra minutes to make sure your program doesn't crash the "big ones"!

*sigh* The world may never know!

__________________________________________________ __
Hate to play the Devil's Advocate on this one, because I do faithfully design for cross browser compatibility, but... I'm going to anyhow given my experiences with Windows XP.

My website was initially constructed using Front Page 2000. The copy was purchased about the time 2001 hit the shelves and the site was built immediately thereafter. With the recent revisions that prompted my bringing that site and my aged overweight keester here to share time with others in this forum, I discovered a problem in my site with Microsoft XP. It seems the hover buttons installed in Front Page required download of a Java Virtual Machine, and upon downloading such it locked your computer up in XP. In fact after the virtual machine was installed, it would lock your computer up tight on any site running similar Java jar files!

Now one might suspect that I as an inexperienced webmaster might have acted without due care in this matter, that maybe I should have taken the time to verify this little glitch. Or, in gentility or gentleness, whichever you prefer, assert that I should maybe have exercised more caution, but I might be forgiven because I was a rookie. And, still am as far as I'm concerned!

But.... The webmaster with whom I discovered this problem, claims to run the oldest web design company in the state of ND, and in that I never saw the Internet before 1999, I'm in no position to argue this. Not only that, but he's an instructor at a local computer center, in fact he's the head of instruction at the center, and their head Front Page instructor. He not only teaches Front Page, but he uses it extensively in his design work because of it's simplicity and his familiarity with the program. He has computers all over the store to play with, and in fact has 3 at his desk with different operating systems so he can simply turn to which ever system someone has a problem with and try to talk them through things.

He too was unaware of the problem we encountered on my site, and upon recognizing the problem for what it was, decided there were several of his client's sites that likely had the problem also. In review we found 5 of his clients sites with the same problem. Had I the rookie not questioned how my site acted in XP for some off the wall reason, we'd have never discovered the issue, and there would be 6 sites out there still locking XP users up on entry.

My point in this matter being, it is not always the designer at fault. There is no reason Microsoft couldn't have warned everyone that this problem existed in XP, with the Java Jar files created by Front Page. A guy might say, "well maybe they did and you missed it," but one would truly think that Bruce as a Microsoft Products instructor would have a pretty blatant notice thrown at him folks. He's a damned good instructor, and something of that nature wouldn't have slipped by him if they had.

Thus, I'm going to suggest that rather than sit here and complain about cross browser compatibility, we need to focus more on cross browser uniformity! Why should we as designers have to download 4 and 5 browsers and design around them all? Why can't we simply design for one set HTML code and that be it? Why must we now add designing around multiple Operating Systems, to the problems we already face in designing around multiple browsers?

Don't the indiviuals that design those browsers and those operating systems, know and understand what is out there being used? They created that too, I would think so! Why don't they all design a browser or a program that works with the technology that is already there and in place, as well as the new technology they are trying to implement with their specific browser or program? I don't think designers are at fault in this matter honestly, I think it's a matter of program engineers designing glitches into the programs to try and force us as designers, as well as the viewers, to choose sides and elect their software. And, that being the case, maybe the designers in question already have!

Rocky

[Narasinha]

Originally Posted by rocky1

Thus, I'm going to suggest that rather than sit here and complain about cross browser compatibility, we need to focus more on cross browser uniformity! Why should we as designers have to download 4 and 5 browsers and design around them all? Why can't we simpy design for one set HTML code and that be it? Why must we now add designing around multiple Operating Systems, to the problems we already face in designing around multiple browsers?

I heartily endorse a call for browser conformance to specifications. Unfortunately, I haven't found a browser yet that complies with all the current specs properly. As far as I know, there isn't one. Many browser developers "jump the gun", implementing proposed standards before they are final. I see their reasoning, as no one wants to be left behind in the race. Other developers are pressured by a release date and are unable to complete programming on issue x or y, so that part of the browser ends up not conforming to specs.

About a week ago I mentioned to someone my thoughts about browsers:

Originally Posted by I

All browsers suck, but some suck more or less than others, and in different ways.

Narasinha

[janeth]

I agree with rocky1 110%

[Rhys]

In my experience the amateur sites do better than the professional business sites at having their pages display correctly in different browsers. Most business sites seem to be IE dependent - for instance if I log onto my bank with anything but IE most of the buttons don't display so you can't do anything.


Good design requires you use text links as well as java buttons - not only in case your user can't utilize the java, but also to make it handicapped accessible. So it is a poorly designed site, though it was designed by pros for a major financial institution, probably at a high price.

Another site I visited had only VB buttons that wouldn't display even in my version of IE.

The reason amateur sites display better is probably because amateurs tend to stick to html while the pros want to use all the java and special effects they can, many of which will only work in IE.

[ranjan]

Facts

1. Amongst the modern browsers IE is the buggiest
2. IE still rules the market with competition not even near its astounding popularity. (MSN and AOL browsers, what most users actually use, use IE as their backbone)
3. IE will not have another major update untill Longhorn which is due only after 2006)
4. Neither Mozilla nor Opera have a visible marketing plan or the might (resource) to make the race tighter.

We can expect...

1. While IE continues to remain the most dominant browser for the next few years, there will not be any development on it to improve user experience. (read, forget CSS 3.0 let alone CSS 2.1 atleast till Longhorn is released)

2. Hope Gecko based browsers and Opera make enough dent in the market to force Microsoft to consider designing their next browser to support CSS 3

Hence the design plan till the next Microsoft browser is available shouldbe

1. Evaluate what CSS 2 features work in the current version of IE
2. Design to these CSS 2 features, Even if it means hybrid designs involving a few non data tables.
3. Keep CSS simple.

I am not what you will call a purist and purist will argue with this methodology. But the ground realities are you have to design sites that will work in a browser that has more than 90% market share.

Mozilla, Firebird, Opera ARE good browsers, no doubt, but I wouldn't base any commercial design on these browsers.

[minstrel]

I don't disagree with most of your comments, ranjan... However:

Originally Posted by ranjan

Amongst the modern browsers IE is the buggiest

What does "buggiest" mean here? That it locks up or crashes more frequently than the others? That hasn't been my experience (although I am only basing this on experience with IE vs Netscape). That it is less compliant with proposed standards? Again, I'm not sure that's true, although it seems to be more forgiving of html coding errors than some others, but I'm not sure from the point of view of the consumer that's a bad thing. That it is more prone to security holes? Debatable - for the same reason that the argument that Windows is more prone to security holes than other operating systems - in both cases, statistical vulnerability has as much to do with popularity or ubiquity leading to more frequent targetting than it has to do with the products themselves relative to their competitors.

[Sualdam]

Originally Posted by narasinha

Unfortunately, I haven't found a browser yet that complies with all the current specs properly. As far as I know, there isn't one.

It's funny: makes me visualise a tail wagging a dog.

You'd think that the languages used to display in browsers would evolve to fit the browser - not the other way around.

[ranjan]

What does "buggiest" mean here?

What I meant here was while other browsers support a lot more CSS 2 features, IE 6 lacks this support. A list of what CSS properties fail in recent browsers is :

http://www.designdetector.com/articles/results.html

As you will notice, IE is the buggiest

[minstrel]

Originally Posted by Sualdam

You'd think that the languages used to display in browsers would evolve to fit the browser - not the other way around.

Yes, you might - but which browser?

The species homo sapiens is the product of an evolutionary line that had more than one branch - it seems to me that we'll look back on the evolution of browsers and see a similar history...

[ranjan]

Originally Posted by Sualdam

You'd think that the languages used to display in browsers would evolve to fit the browser - not the other way around.

No. Just like a manufacturer of electrical plugs, lets say will not make plugs to fit your home. They would manufacture plugs to a standard. Its the job of the engineer/architect designing the home to select a standard plug to fit the home.

This is true of any standardized product and HTML is a standard language and thus its the job of the browser companies to make the browsers adapt to standard HTML. If it doesn't, its buggy.

[minstrel]

Originally Posted by ranjan

What I meant here was while other browsers support a lot more CSS 2 features, IE 6 lacks this support. A list of what CSS properties fail in recent browsers is:

http://www.designdetector.com/articles/results.html

As you will notice, IE is the buggiest

Interesting table in that link - although curiously Netscape isn't there...

But back to the question, it's the word "buggiest" that threw me off. Your table tells me that IE6 doesn't recognize or support several CSS2 features - the other two browsers also fail to support some but not as many. But a "bug" is an error in a program which results in that program producing erroneous results when it tries to perform a task it is designed to do - if IE6 doesn't implement certain CSS2 features, that makes it less CSS2-compliant than Opera or Mozilla but it doesn't make it more "buggy".

[ranjan]

Originally Posted by minstrel

Interesting table in that link - although curiously Netscape isn't there...

Its because Netscape is Gecko based, ie it has the same rendering engine as Mozilla. In any case Netscape is dead. AOL killed Netscape after their deal with IE.

Originally Posted by minstrel

if IE6 doesn't implement certain CSS2 features, that makes it less CSS2-compliant than Opera or Mozilla but it doesn't make it more "buggy".

Most of the features that are marked in red are rendered incorrectly by IE for eg. where it says "Fails on last line", its a bug. However where it says something like "Nothing happens" is where it doesnot support the feature at all.

In any case the essence of my arguement was that a major amount of CSS 2 isn't supported by the most popular browser in existence that is IE 6. Designers hence shouldn't get carried away by what can be done with CSS 2 and concentrate on keeping CSS simple enough to be understood by IE, if they plan of achieving cross browser compliance.

[Sualdam]

..

[Sualdam]

Originally Posted by ranjan

No. Just like a manufacturer of electrical plugs, lets say will not make plugs to fit your home.

Yes! If every home had a plug of the same specification it would be pretty annoying to find that electricity 'didn't fit' it :)

As it is, you have browsers trying to keep up with something (HTML, et al) that changes all the time and has no intention of trying to fit in with where the browsers have got to. or are likely to go.

Net result: the only perfect website is a text web site ;)

Something seriously wrong in there somewhere - just not sure where.

[Sualdam]

Originally Posted by minstrel

Yes, you might - but which browser?

Chicken and egg.

The fact remains, HTML (et al) development does its thing, browsers do theirs, and the only perfect website is a text website.

Something wrong somewhere. :)

[SyrenSong]

I suspect that eventually browsers will become more compliant with specifications, but it's going to take time. And it would happen sooner if the specifications weren't constantly changing.

However, change and evolution are inevitable and necessary. Particularly on the internet. Designers pretty much demand it in browsers and their capabilities.

In the long run, the browser will likely begin to appear more and more alike in terms of their support for the less current versions of html and css.

The problems are primarily in terms of support for the "latest and greatest" versions. Everyone's in such a hurry to get their browser compliant with specs, they don't bother waiting to find out exactly what the specs will be.

Result? Lots of problems with implementation of the various languages.

As for IE being the most popular and therefore we should program all sites to their standards - I've got to differ with that opinion.

Just because it appear to be the most popular in some site stats, doesn't mean it's always going to be the most popular. It also doesn't account for browsers that emulate/masquerade as IE.

Websites really need to be validated and checked in several browsers before being released to the general public for viewing.

And while it's nice to discuss html and css problems, let's not forget that many problems that crash browsers and systems are caused by java, javascript, asp, jsp, etc. problems that haven't been tested in non-ie browsers.

If something doesn't appear quite right, I can live with that. I may not be happy about it, but I can keep working on whatever I'm doing.

If a program that hasn't been fully or properly tested crashes my brower, it's going to keep me from working, and that makes me annoyed, frustrated and sometimes angry!

[netman4ttm]

The W3C has a browser that is supposedly 100% standards compliant.

Actually, its a developemnet tool/browser but I figure if the page displays correctly with Amaya it should work with everything else.

Now, if I could only get into the world's computer displays and make them display colors correctly.

[somethingelse]

so if we all got on board with the webstandardsproject - is it remotely possible that somewhere down the line, the browser developers will start to take notice?

http://www.webstandards.org/

personally... i venture into calling myself a professional but i know my clients stats, and across the board not one of them has less than 96% viewership with IE... of varying versions...

i admit it may seem discriminatory to say "so what?" about the +/- 4% who view their sites (i'm talkin' JUST my clients here) with other browsers, but with the amount of constant updating that i'm doing for these people, and the fact that none of them are independently wealthy - they choose not to pay me to spend the extra time dealing with browser compatibility.

When i started this job in 1997 i was meticulous about checking on ie & netscape... then for a while when Opera came into my world, i checked there too... but with the advent of layers, css, xml, etc etc... and the continued disparate efforts of the browser folks to get on the same page... just HOW MUCH time can one spend making sure it's all good in every version of every browser?? I mean, come on... let's get realistic here.

i vote we get more vocal about standards. it worked for the trades, and in many ways, aren't we, as designers/developers, internet tradespeople?

my 2 cents, canadian...

[gworld]

The question is not about which browser is better and the usual arguments since each person has a favorite but to see if it is worth the time and energy to adjust the design of a site for different browsers.
My statistic program shows that 98.7% of my users use IE, so the question is should I put my time, energy and money to take care of some of this 1.3% that can have problem?
I don't think so, I have a better use of my time.

[vilesilencer]

Originally Posted by minstrel

Actually, I keep Netscape 4.71 around because it does render pages in odd ways - as I've said before, I've given up trying to be all-browser compatible but I want to make sure it is at least visible and navigatable in Netugly format.

As for Firebird, methinks it mayhap be time for a look:

"That Firebird has a lean and hungry look. Let me have browsers around me that are fat." - I think Julius Caesar said that.

Yup Netscape 4.7 is a great leveller for any designer. Get your page to work in that and you've accomplished something akin to climbing Mt Everest.

I used to design with that browser as the default then check it in the others afterwards and fix any small gripes. The problem with that version of Nutscrape nowadays is that many designers are incorporating CSS heavily in their pages/sites and NS 4.7 don't support CSS. Having said that, a company I left recently which was 600-strong, had NS 4.6 as their installed browser on many machines. So people still use it.

Looking at the browsers that most people are checking with, I think there's one a few people are overlooking, and that's Camino. I had my site working in all the windows browsers, but a mate checked on his Mac and the text hadn't rendered properly. It was a CSS design fault, I missed a }, It went through the w3c validator fine too. But in Camino, the screenshot he sent me made me cringe. It looked awful. If you don't already, I would recommend making this another check when designing. It might save some grief.

gworld what are you going to do when that % figure changes? While all the other designers will be streets ahead of you, you will be forced to waste time learning something you should already know.

[/b]

[djb1166]

Originally Posted by gworld

The question is not about which browser is better and the usual arguments since each person has a favorite but to see if it is worth the time and energy to adjust the design of a site for different browsers.
My statistic program shows that 98.7% of my users use IE, so the question is should I put my time, energy and money to take care of some of this 1.3% that can have problem?
I don't think so, I have a better use of my time.

I agree, with 98%+ using IE my primary aim is for my sites to look good in IE. I then check that Netscape is OK too. It's just not worth the time and effort to cover all the bases.

You have to remember that most of our customers are people who use the computer as a tool. They just get on, browse with whatever is loaded when they purchased the machine, and then they get on with something else. Unlike us they are not computer techies and do not load up other browsers and software unless they really have to. They don't even know that IE is full of bugs so if your site doesn't work well in IE they just think your site is rubbish and move on to the next.

Of course this does not apply if your customer base is the computer community :-) !!

[sultan]

Originally Posted by weegillis

Amaya -- W3C's Editor/Browser

If I can get something to look right in this one, I feel as though it will probably display correctly in most CSS supported, xml parsing browsers.

Holy browsers, Batman! I hadn't used this application before, but when I downloaded it & looked at some of our sites, I was scared.

Then I checked some other sites just for fun ... espn.com, msn.com, microsoft.com, nytimes.com, yahoo.com ... even webproworld.com looked different in Amaya.

[apisdesign]

Spending hours discussing which browser is the best out there is, at best, an academic discussion.

Preferred browser is as subjective, opinionated and moot a topic as preferred letter of the alphabet.

The real question here is standards. Manufacturers of browsers are constantly fighting each other for supremacy and reinventing the wheel at every turn. Much like search engine optimization games, this is a battle with only losers.

Internet Explorer has between 85% and 95% of the market (depending on whether you get your stats from microsoft.com or netscape.com). With a share this high, it is no wonder that most people design for it as the default.

I'm a firm believer in keeping things simple and easy. If one browser has a dramatic majority of market share, then design for that browser and then, if the cost-benefit ratio warrants, program in the requisite 'tricks and hacks' to make your website play perfectly with the other browsers.

Oh, and I remember reading in this thread someone stating that "the only perfect site was a pure text-based site". Wrong-o. Browsers wars are so rampant that even a purely text-based site can look dramatically different on different browsers: font styles, font sizes, margins, line spacing, character spacing, etc.

I wish the industry would just declare Microsoft the winner and then issue a display standard for web pages based on how IE current displays them. That way, the true differentiator for the different browsers would be features and performance - like it should be. This would actually allow the smaller players to gain steam in my opinion.

Anyway, that's my $0.02.

[DrTandem1]

Yes, this subject rears it's head, again. I think most recently regarding a designer mentioning CSS.

Maybe this will set things into perspective. If we were still using the cutting-edge standards of a few years ago, we would all have since depricated. Interestingly, the older the code you use, the more compatible it is, depricated or not. Obviously, this is because the newer "standards" have not been accepted by all browsers whereas the older standards are just that, standards.

IE is "buggy" because Microsoft is attempting to follow their own path. They want you to design with their software and read it with their browsers.

The old Netscape 4.7x was actually a better browser and is still better for some things. It was much easier to look at the properties of files. It read the code much more strictly than IE. For instance, try leaving a closing table tag off the page in Netscape. You could control the browser features much more easily. It was also better at composing pages. Alas, AOL bought it and it never was able to continue maturing.

Are there better browsers now? You bet. Does anybody use them? Statisically, no. Are the current standards going to depricate? Yes. There is a fine line between being on the cutting-edge and impracticality. It's better to step up into the lifeboat than jump ship to soon. Many a battered ship has been found still afloat deserted of its lifeboats and crew who will never be seen again.

[johreiki]

Originally Posted by SyrenSong

I guess it'd be pretty near impossible to design a site for every single browser out there, without sacrificing some of the really neat stuff that can be done with html/xml/css/php/etc., but care should be taken with the major browsers at the very least.

Especially when there are places like WebProWorld where folks can go to ask others to test their sites and pages for them!

Well....that's an idea that had not occurred to me (asking others to test my pages in various browsers)! It seems like kind of an imposition, and also rather difficult to communicate in writing the precise look of a webpage....

Myself, I'm in the transition zone between amateur (millions of hours of working on my own site) and pro (just beginning to do work for other people). The statistics I've seen for the past couple years have consistently shown that over 95% of internet users are using IE browsers, about 4% using Netscape, and the remaining fraction of 1% using anything else. I test my pages in IE and Netscape, but it's simply not worth the time to test them in the others.

In this respect, it does seem we're all held captive by the MS Monopoly -- and obviously (as many people have said already, I'm sure), the sensible approach would be to have a set of standards for all browsers, so they would all display pages the same! Maybe intelligence will prevail eventually, and that will happen....


_||_
db

[whitelightning7]

johreiki brings up an interesting issue. If the statistics he gives are true, then there is little reason in ripping out your hair trying to get a site to run in five different browsers? johreiki, can you tell me where you got those numbers? From my own experience, I know that if I mentioned Opera or Mozilla to anyone I know, there would be a huge majority of them that would look at me with a blank expression on their face. The others would say that they've heard of them, but don't see any point in using them. Fact is, humans are creatures of habit and comfort, and if you turn on your PC and IE is there, you use it. With the numbers of people that are getting onto the internet these days for the first time, they are probably using the OS that came on it when they picked it up from the electronics store, which was probably a windows system, and they use the browser that was already installed. So I would assume that johreiki's numbers are probably pretty close to being right on.

~dave~

[DrTandem1]

Dave-

I do believe those statistics are true. You have also figured out the practicality of the situation. However, don't forget, there are several different versions of IE spread across the users.

[computerguy]

I may have missed this, but are there any tools out there that will run tests on a website and look for possible compatibility issues between browsers? I use opera and IE. On several occations I have not been able to view sites correctly or download with opera and I have to switch to IE.

[DrTandem1]

I know of anybrowser.com.

[johreiki]

Originally Posted by whitelightning7

johreiki brings up an interesting issue. If the statistics he gives are true, then there is little reason in ripping out your hair trying to get a site to run in five different browsers? johreiki, can you tell me where you got those numbers?
~dave~

I hadn't looked in a few months, so I just now did a search for "browser statistics" and found the following:

From http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
-- as of July 2003: IE6 = 59%, IE5 = 34%, IE4 = 1%, Netscape4 = 1%, "other Netscape compatible" = 1%, Opera = 1%, Browsers that count for less than 0.5% are not listed. So IE and Netscape (+ Netscape compatibles) account for 96% of browser use, according to this.

From http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat.htm
-- stats from 3 different sources show IE with a total of 85+%, 86+%, and 87+%....Netscape with 2% or less....Gecko-based browsers from 2.5% to 7.6%....and "unidentified" from 4.2% to 9%. I don't see a date for these, but get the feeling that they are more recent than the w3 (July 2003) ones....

_||_
db

[DrTandem1]

Here's another site:
http://www.browsercam.com

They give you an 8 hour trial, then you need to purchase the service for more. It is better than the other one I first gave. This one let's you pick specific browsers, some with Mac computers and creates a JPEG snapshot. I'm sure there are others.

However, with the stats just supplied, you can see what the average user has and it isn't any of the hi-tech versions that are favored by designers. IE has virtually cornered the browser market. I guess we know which software maker the "validators" should pressure. Unfortunately, the Microsoft giant is probably the one with the leverage here.

[minstrel]

Those stats are comparable to those of most major sites over the past couple of years - 95% for Internet Explorer may, if anything, be a little low for some sites. Netscape seems to still get about 3-5% but many of those are newer versions.

Latest data from Google source:


By the way, those same stats indicate that 92% of visitors to Google are using some version of Microsoft Windows, with MAC at 3% and Linux at 1%.

Some people have suggested that certain of the less popular/newer browsers may report themselves to be Internet Explorer and therefore the implication is that the IE numbers may be inflated, but I don't think the error would be great enough to change the overall picture. Even a conservative estimate would indicate that over 90% of people are using some version of Internet Explorer and some version of Microsoft Windows.

Thus, all personal preferences, biases, and rants aside, it is difficult to reject the conclusion that the world out there is Microsoft dominated...