We all heard that HTML5 is not ready yet, and will continue to be an evolving standard (which is good IMHO).
For a browser to support new standards it has to be constantly updated. Firefox and Chrome have dialog pop-ups informing the user of an available update (I don’t know how it works with Safari), but internet explorer is directly tied to the OS. This means it cannot be updated separately and all the updates are managed through Windows Update.
From my experience (and I had my share of being a PC technician and sys-admin) users are often unaware of, ignore or even completely disable Windows updates (especially the free-loaders). Unless a user has a pop-up jump on the screen saying “Hey, there’s an update!” they wont bother with it.
IE9, sticking with the tradition of being tied to the Windows OS, won’t notify users of an available update (and Microsoft won’t change that, they rather ‘educate’ users to use Windows Update).
So how can we rely on support for “an evolving standard”, in a non-evolving browser? Lets assume that in a couple of years the majority of IE users will adapt IE9 (just for the sake of argument) and we will be able to develop in HTML5 for the masses. How we’ll be choosing which HTML5 features to implement? Suppose we have 30% Firefox, 20% Chrome, 20% IE9, 10% Safari, that gives us 80% users we can deliver HTML5 to. But while you are almost sure Firefox and Chrome browsers are up-to-date, IE9 will have a variety of versions and HTML5 feature support.
Microsofts browser integration with its OS is a bad strategy, bad for the users, and for us as developers.
P.S: If IE could be updated separately, IE6, IE7, IE8 users could receive a notification of a newer version of IE available via the browser, think of the amount of users switching. This would also save Microsoft the money they spend on IE9 advertising campaign you see running everywhere… well done Steve.
The users don’t really care - those who know what a browser is, generally aren’t using IE (unless forced to, in say a work environment or equivalent).
If a website doesn’t work, the user will never blame the browser - they will always blame the website, ergo the developer. Yes it sucks for us, but unfortunately we don’t really have a choice.
In a world where most of us are still supporting IE6… to be honest I’d just like to be able to use CSS2 selectors fully, let alone all this newfangled technology. At least a lot of the little features we like in CSS3 (rounded corners, box shadows, etc.) degrade nicely on older browsers. Things like selectors, they generally can’t.
(Yes I know most of what I’ve written is almost off-topic, but I completely agree with everything you said. We’re screwed.)
I fail to see your point – there is a point in that rambling jumbled mess. What difference does it being tied to the OS make in whether or not they can add/remove functionality?
Though if it does slow adoption of 5, I’ll applaud it as there is NOTHING new in HTML 5 I have the slightest interest in given that it’s basically setting coding practices BACK a decade… It shares more in common with 3.2 than it does 4 Strict, and that’s just not a good thing!
EXACTLY, and that’s why it’s called “work” and not “happy happy fun time”
Though I’m constantly amazed how many people make more work for themselves vomiting up HTML 3.2, slapping a tranny or 5 doctype on it, and then dive into the “new toy” mentality with features that are NOT ready for prime-time and do NOTHING to actually improve building a website or the end user’s experience!
But as I’ve said repeatedly, that’s who HTML5 is for – anyone who actually grasped the point of STRICT and practices separation of presentation from content should be scratching their heads going “wait, WHAT?!?” — Maybe that’s why it’s called “whatWG”, though a more appropriate name might be “WTFWG”
We are done with IE6 in my company, there is what, 5% users left? If Google and Facebook decided they can let it go, so can we, you can’t let a small handful of “browser-ignorant” people cause you to spend additional hours debugging and raise the project cost. This is the “who does this guy think he is!!?” case. But you can be nice about this, detect if they have IE6 and present a JS dialog (doesn’t require much skill with JQuery) explaining to them that they are as ancient as the dinosaur fossils (nicely), links to downloads and www.whatbrowser.org/.
In fact I’ll start implementing it with IE7 too, it is “the next to be extinct”.
As for the IE problem, well yes we are screwed.
Maybe we can make a website with a petition asking MS to at least present that dialog with update notification in IE9… just a thought.
Using the statistics defence is letting your (bad) design and/or technology choices determine who your target audience is.
Think on it this way; the question I always ask:
5% of WHAT? Well… 2 BILLION Internet users (give or take)… that’s what, 100 million potential visitors you’re telling to get lost?
The “percent excuse” is a slippery slope – Oh Opera is only 3% who cares about them… IE6 is 5% so who cares, 800 wide users are less than 10% so let’s ignore them… until eventually you’ve alienated everyone except the handful of people using the same magic combination of settings and browsers you are – DEFEATING THE POINT OF HTML!!! (device neutrality).
Though it’s funny I keep hearing low numbers like that, when 15% of the traffic across my server is still IE6. I have more 6 users than I do 8… I have more 6 users than I do FF (once I stopped trusting files served and started dividing by forum pages served – guess superfetch DOES artificially inflate FF’s numbers 70-80%)
Of course since there is no IE7 for anything prior to XP, there will be no IE9 for anything prior to vista, many businesses are tied to in-house crapplets that only work in 6… Many LARGE corporations force their entire staff to be on IE6 at work (like say… AT&T’s call support centers!) and that until Windows mobile 7 takes off the ONLY browser for Windows mobile is IE6 (having only been NEW on mobile since 2008)… ditching even IE 5.5 is shortsighted, stupid and lazy. EMPHASIS on the lazy.
You do realize that until late 2008 the most up to date browser for windows CE/Mobile/Embedded (/whatever the hell they’re calling it this week) was IE 5.5, right? Miss the big Microsoft “6 on 6” party? That’s ok, so did everyone else.
It doesn’t even look like mobile 7 is going to have anything newer than IE 7 for it either.
Can’t speak for facebook, but when did Google let it go? Oh wait, they HAVEN’T – Lands sake they still design with Lynx users in mind. Sure you don’t get all the “Gee aint it neat” javascripted asshattery – but like that’s a bad thing given what total bandwidth wasting nonsense their latest version is. (there’s a reason I actually LIKE that their new preview nonsense isn’t supported in Opera)… Though with all the new scripted ******** it’s like Google is determined to flush everything that made them a success in the first place. Did NOBODY learn the lesson of what happened to “ask”?
If it’s taking “hours” just to support IE6 instead of minutes, then the sites in question fall into one of three categories:
Decade out of date half-assed coding techniques.
Decade before they’re ready gun-jumping on “gee ain’t it neat” nonsense like CSS3 or setting progress back a decade or more with nonsense like HTML 5.
You let some art *** who goes “WCAG? What’s that” draw their goofy pretty picture that has absolutely NOTHING to do with web design – kick them in the nerts and tell them to go back to print.
Well, there is a fourth category – loading up on “gee ain’t it neat” scripting for nothing with multi-megabyte train wrecks, which is pretty much all three of the above combined. (made oh so wonderfully possible by HTML 5 being looser than 4 tranny – again; way to go WhatWG setting development progress BACK a decade!)
Oh yes, let’s dictate to the user what to do… NOT. Lemme guess, still using the target attribute? Much less using some garbage javascript framework that does NOTHING but bloat out pages for garbage that in most cases either doesn’t work for the people who tell Javascript where to shove it (Opera users who know how to use per-site preferences, and the two or three million people who downloaded the FF noscript/stop script plugins), or just gets in the WAY of a pleasant user experience by making the page take 20 times longer to load with animated crap that is distracting, annoying, and flushes perfectly good websites down the toilet.
There’s a REASON Dan used to say “The only thing you can learn from jquery is how not to program Javascript” and why I say “jquery is to javascript as l33t is to English”… and no, neither of those are compliments.
Goes hand in hand with relying on technique crippling tools like “the artist formerly known as Frontpage”, Dreamweaver, Aptana, or any of the dozen other crutches for people who don’t want to learn how to do ANYTHING properly and in the end just make more work for themselves and hobble the companies they develop sites for with over the top bounce rates… at which point one might as well go full flashtard and say “who cares about the user, hosting costs or actual content”.
You can’t. In this single question you have encapsulated why the closed software approach of a massive multinational company cannot compete with a fluid, open approach to browser development as used by Mozilla and WebKit
It’s entirely up to the client - if they want IE6 support then they can get it, at a cost.
Most agencies now will quote X amount extra to support IE6 and while at the same time pointing out its small and rapidly dwindling user base. 9 out of 10 ten times the client will decline the extra cost for such little gain. It’s all a matter of hard economics.
I’ve been away, and there’s a party on the thread, where shall we begin…?
Big difference, especially with Microsoft. By pushing updates through Windows Update they complicate the process for the unaware user, instead of presenting a simple “Updates for your browser are available”, if it wouldn’t be tied to the OS, that is exactly how it would be done.
I don’t want to bloat with quoting, so I’ll just reply to things as they’ve been said…
@deathshadow60: First of all 5 does bring a lot of new, beginning with the fact that it shows Flash the door out of the web. Even if you don’t agree and choose to stick with 4 strict, you may choose your dev style, that is your right, and browsers will support that. Legacy browsers like IE 6 slow the adoption of new standards, if there was no need for new features, they would not be introduced or adopted by the majority of browsers.
Yes is IS called work, and progress and innovation helps make it efficient, happy time is playing cards with your friends, has nothing to do with new web standards.
By diving into the “new toy” you test it, and see if it is any good. You won’t know that by simply labeling it “unnecessary”.
I grasped to point of STRICT very well but I also see it’s limitations. Sometimes you have to be jumping through loops, or writing lots of extra lines just to achieve something that is so damn obvious and simple, why not make it a web standard? Take the basic of basics for example - round corners. And browser vendors are right to push new features, someone has to innovate, otherwise we would still be doing tables (thank god that’s over).
Continuing to the next thread…
Well no, it’s not an excuse, it a simple evaluation of effort vs. effectiveness. You stitch together a full website including CMS in a day and a half, and have to spend half a day hunting for IE 6 bugs, and saying half a day is being very optimistic. IE 6 is a vanishing browser, and if some users are not aware of it, it is best to inform them. That’s for their own good, I never saw person who would use IE 6 and knew that other browsers even exist (That is by the way the problem with tying a browser to the OS).
Opera may be 3%, but it properly supports standards, and doesn’t come anywhere near to IE in terms of bugs. Also Opera is constantly updated on users machines, so it doesn’t cripple the usage of new features like IE. You don’t see Opera 7,8,9 on statistics, because Opera is regarded as a whole due to the majority being up to date. I am not talking about ignoring a minority of users here, I am talking about ignoring out-of-date, buggy browsers, that do not even support the well established standards and have no way to get updates because once again they are tied to Windows (MS doesn’t show much support for open standards). Now add the fact that these are less than 5% and shrinking.
Google stopping IE6 support does not mean you get a blank page in IE when you go to Google, it means that if they add new features, they will not care whether it works on IE6 or not, they’ve moved on.
It does not defeat the point of HTML, HTML is once again based on standards, and standards evolve. Having a browser that does not evolve, that defeats the point of HTML.
You let some art *** who goes "WCAG? What's that" draw their goofy pretty picture that has absolutely NOTHING to do with web design -- kick them in the nerts and tell them to go back to print.
That one is (pardon me) absolutely selfish and ignorant. Its the designers that make a web page appealing, interesting and distinct your web page from others in the eyes of the regular user. Try to co-operate with your designer instead of kicking him and sending him back to print.
JavaScript frameworks… well that is something individual, if you have your own stack of functions you use every time (and if you want to reach cross-browser you probably do), then you essentially have a framework that has less in it, and therefore loads faster. But that is something I don’t argue about because in my opinion approach differs per project.
As for Dreamweaver and Frontpage I couldn’t agree more, those simply try to lower the requirements for coding, and they do a terrible job at it. On Aptana I strongly disagree, I switched many IDE’s and IMHO Aptana is currently the best piece of soft for the task.
To conclude, I strongly support the idea of gracefully degrading a website to be viewed in older browsers, but there’s a limit to how far we should go. Not every company that comes up with a poor product, and keeps it’s users in the dark deserves you sweating to make it render right. If a non tech-savvy user sees websites poorly rendered he will ask his tech-savvy friend “Hey, what is wrong with my computer”, and his friend will reply “Are you STILL using IE6? Try Chrome FF or IE9”.
But again, if dear Microsoft would simply offer updates like all the modern browsers do, and untie IE from their OS we wouldn’t see IE6 around.
They are so proud of IE9 support for HTML 5, well guess who’s going to be behind again when new standards are introduced.
By introducing two new tags redundant to OBJECT, undoing ALL the progress and simplification of STRICT – and CANVAS which is just a container for javascript and is ENTIRELY javascript based, at which point what the devil does it need a new tag for in the first place?!? Be a lot more useful if it could be applied to ANY HTML element, not just CANVAS.
Which is the type of thing that fuels my distaste for 5. The ACTUAL HTML stuff introduces maybe two useful tags and a bunch of pointless bloat, redundancies and overcomplication… while a bunch of stuff that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH HTML is now being called “HTML 5”.
Your about to learn something about me – I don’t badmouth ANYTHING until I’ve tried to actually use it… might even surprise you to find out I’m actually fluent in using HTML5 elements… Canvas for example:
Was going to make that a game until I discovered javascripts input traps are useless garbage, and HTML 5 audio is nowhere NEAR ready for primetime unless you like 500ms latency and a timer accuracy too low to handle quarter notes much less sixteenths. (which is why every .js drum machine so far stumbles through it’s loops like a drunken sailor). 32ms minimum timer accuracy is NOT going to cut it for any serious game development, since most games will require at least 120 ticks a second, preferably 240 – something Flash can provide and javascript still falls on it’s face over.
Also note it’s valid XHTML 1.0 Strict, despite using canvas. Since Canvas is a Javascript only element, why should it even be in the markup in the first place? Attach it to the DOM since you’re in scripting anyways.
and that has what to do with STRICT? That’s appearance; appearance is CSS’ job, NOT HTML’s… Though yes, HTML 5 slaps EVERYTHING under it’s umbrella making it a giant confusing mess instead of a bunch of separate and clearly defined specifications. HTML4 did not and something like “rounded corners” has NOTHING to do with HTML 4 Strict…
Well then you’ve never dealt with a large office, business or government agency – all of which often have tons of users wanting to use something other than IE6 but the IT department and suits won’t let them as everything is locked down.
The concept is called a “technology lock” and is used in large acquisitions for consistency across the entire platform – Military acquisitions see this all the time where the Senate arms comittee will approve a piece of hardware, and until they approve a change ALL units have to be delivered exactly the same; with getting something passed through the comittee taking five to ten years, it’s no wonder our pilots are still stuck flying F-16C block 60’s and 62’s when the bloody United Arab Emirates have been taking shipments of F-16F’s for five years.
… or how someplace like AT&T has everyone in it’s call-in centers stuck using IE6 with ZERO plans to change that any time soon… or banks trapped on in-house crapplets that break if you upgrade to 7 and the software is locked down to prevent ANY user choice in the matter. Or my ladyfriend who at work is on a Win98 box where Firefox 1 is a buggy unstable train wreck, you have to go back to Opera 8.5 to get a opera version, and IE6 is the most recently available browser. To be fair it’s a non-profit where they’re client records are still on a ASA 400 and the office 40 miles east of us is still running a PDP-11… but it’s not like after just laying off four middle-managers they’re going to have the cash for new hardware any time soon.
Or that again, the most recent IE for Mobile is 6… being all of two going on three years old on that platform; prior to that IE 5.5 being the norm lagging a full DECADE behind the desktop. (since Windows CE is under the hood a retread/fork going back to Win95 – and there is no Win16s version of IE7)
Yeah, but it’s interesting that % of shrinkage doesn’t match the growth rate… meaning the number of people using it may not have even changed. AGain, the percentage and share lie and why ‘share’ cannot be trusted.
See how IE overall (all versions) has “lost” 43% of their share (dropping from a 95% peak to 52%), while gaining over 300 million new users. Share is meaningless when the pool size changes.
Which just means we have a different definition of “support”… I usually define it on whether the page works or not, not whether the “gee ain’t it neat” ******** extras nobody actually wants or uses work or not… Which is ALL their recent additions to the site amount to. (well, except for blacklisting pages from searches, I just wish it blacklisted SITES)
Then you failed to get the point of HTML – device neutrality and the user agent best determining how to present the CONTENT within the limitations of the target device. But of course, the browser makers back during the browser wars shoving HTML 3.2 down the W3C’s throat failed to grasp that concept too, and it took HTML 4 strict and the introduction of CSS to get things back on track… though by then presentational markup was the norm and we’re STILL fighting the good fight on that one – even if HTML5 looks to be the death knell for separation of presentation from content or enforcing better coding practices, given the entire thing is just a giant version of tranny with a shortened doctype slapped on it.
I do, but I put them at the END of the process, not the start. Content so you know what’s going to be on the page, semantic markup to say WHAT’s on the page, CSS to bend that markup into a useful layout using progressive enhancement and meeting usability norms with graceful degradation, THEN you bring in the artsy type to draw his pretty pictures to hang on the layout… reminding them that fixed height images behind content, non-expandable gradients and fixed width backgrounds are a miserable /FAIL/ at web design… which is the short list of things that usually make their pretty pictures and the sites based on them complete trash.
… and why you don’t see that trash on the big successes like google, amazon, e-bay, slashdot, etc…
For me the limiting factor on scripting is size, but then I track my code to content ratio and as a rule of thumb don’t like pages (HTML+CSS+IMAGES+SCRIPTS) to break 70k, and consider 140k my upper limit – just as the number of separate files I have an ideal target of 15 and a max of 30.
Much like Dreamweaver you end up having to spend too much time undoing the garbage it tries to force you to do – if you disable most of it’s automatic annoyances, disable all the extra ‘panes’, and can live with it shoehorning everything into one window (making it useless for multiple-display users) and ignore EVERY SINGLE piece of coding advice it gives you through “samples” and pretend the buggy/useless ‘live preview’ thing doesn’t exist, it’s ALMOST a useful editor… once you get over the stupid “project management” waste of time and that it takes forever to actually load and start.
Though at that point you might as well just use Crimson or Notepad++ – or if a Quack user there’s text wrangler.
Me, I’d take Crimson, Filezilla, logical directory structure with a TREE based filesystem display and the actual browsers over that any day. Especially since I can run them in SEPARATE windows from each-other letting me use them on separate displays… NOT to just throw more hardware at the problem (that’s something I usually rag on people for – when I guess I do it myself with the four screens)
Properly written semantic markup should give you as low as you need to go – but then the number of developers who even THINK about what their pages look like table stripped and without CSS can be counted on one hand (thanks Microsoft and Netscape!)… When that’s the first thing I build a page as.
Progressive enhancement… Semantic HTML > CSS media type layouts > images on the layout > scripts enhancing the user experience should inherently give you gracefull degradation when Javascript is disabled, images are turned off, CSS is disabled or not available, the device is not SCREEN, or any combination of the above.
Which is going back to the original point of HTML… device neutral content allowing the user agent to best determine how to present the data.
Really, I think that’s where I have the disconnect on your conclusion. IE was AHEAD and in front on standards and innovation from IE 4 onward… 4, 5.0, 5.01, 5.2 mac, 5.5, and 6; many of the things from IE 5.0 and 5.5 are only JUST starting to show up in other browsers since their adoption into CSS3. Compared to the competition which basically looked like it was standing still (netscape 4), going backwards (Opera 3.6) or stillborn (netscape 5)
the ONLY reason IE lagged behind the past few years is that when 6 dropped a decade ago, they stopped having ANY reason to innovate and dissolved the development team. “It’s done!” and walked away. If they do the smart thing after IE9 drops and keep the team together, we won’t have a repeat of the ‘decade of status quo’ with nobody working on it. They got to the top, shoved their thumb up their backside and said “good enough”.
It’s why I like to compare IE7 and 8 to IE 2 and 3 – you’ve got a new team of guys working on something starting out with code that the original maintaners aren’t even around to consult on – so the first two outings of doing something more than just rebranding Mosaic are a little shaky. IE9 looks to be more like IE5 – everything hammered in with them starting to introduce useful extra functionality.
Especially since by all reports it’s a clean code break from 6/7/8.
Though I think it’s funny to badmouth Win for being tied to the browser for it’s UI, given the number of linux distro’s cropping up doing that with webkit… even if some vendors have the brains to not call it linux (Hello Google!)
Children, children, calm down!
This is meant to be a forum where if someone asks for help, we help them. Not a political platform for people to rant and rave about their views.
If you guys put just half the time and effort into solving people’s problems or building web sites that you do into telling the world how much you personally dislike some technology and how we should believe you are the only one in the world who knows the right way to do things, there’d be a lot fewer unsolved problems and a lot more perfect web sites around.
Computer software is NOT the most important thing in the world, and not something to get so emotional about.
We clearly went off topic here (and you went personal and rude - that’s inappropriate if you consider yourself professional). You, I and anyone else may have their opinion about HTML5, you are welcome to do so, and please do - it is good for the standards and further development. However that is not the topic of the discussion, and clearly not what I wanted to discuss here and surely not to learn anything new about you (or anyone else that is). You tried or didn’t try, liked it or not, use it or don’t, choose your work style and if your comfortable with it so much the better.
I did made a mistake with the round-corners, my bad, it’s late here.
Big office? I began my career as a sys-admin in a very large place. The computers there are rarely to surf the web, mostly for intranets and web-based apps. If surfing is a goal, the IT should be aware of that and upgrade, that’s what they are getting payed for. With today’s technologies a good IT team can upgrade the company over the weekend, being present in the office only to oversee that it goes well.
device neutrality and the user agent best determining how to present the CONTENT within the limitations of the target device
Truth, but that does not confront supporting new standards. Simply have a user agent that is capable to read content form HTML5 and present it as your device allows you. Not having support for it, is actually hurting device neutrality principle.
and why you don’t see that trash on the big successes like google, amazon, e-bay, slashdot, etc…
You do, in small amounts. All the sites you’ve mentioned are content centered, they require little “pretty pictures” as you call them. Other sites are more branding centered, or simply meant to impress. Again, this is your company business how your process goes, we usually work together to determine what is best, and whether the project requires “pretty pictures”. There are some designers who are very proficient with HTML and CSS (I take my hat off to them), and know how to design and implement. If you think of well designed websites as “trash”, I have no business convincing you to think different.
Much like Dreamweaver you end up having to spend too much time undoing the garbage it tries to force you to do…
Which IDE are you talking about? If it is Aptana then you should get updated on the latest versions. I have been using it since Aptana Studio 2 and what you described does not exist in Aptana, besides it is Eclipse based, and it is highly configurable.
Properly written semantic markup should give you as low as you need to go
I couldn’t agree more, but that does not justify lack of support for newer features.
Really, I think that’s where I have the disconnect on your conclusion. IE was AHEAD and in front on standards
Yes I see that IEs history is very connected to my conclusion and the topic in general… IE was, but standards have evolved and continue evolving. And IE has no way of catching up with the new standards because it does not get updated like a modern browser (read the first post). Because of that not only IE can’t bring new features to the user, it also slows the introduction of new features in the web. Now its the IE6 minority, in 10 years it will be the IE9 minority who large websites and many developers stop supporting. And IMO for good reason.
“You have an old browser, please get upgraded. Here are the links and an explanation”. IE6 debugging is time consuming, cost-inflating, feature-crippling, and a headache. This is simply not worth it, these people should move on. And the company responsible for this should prevent the same situation happening in the future with their newer browser, it’s about time they do. Although with the shrinking in IE usage share, this may be a small nuisance in the future, let’s hope so.
Automatic updates – you can’t blame the user if they shoot themselves in the foot and turn them off because they’re annoying – and how are windows automatic updates ANY different from FF, Webkit, Safari and Opera updates – how are they any different from updates on Linux or OSX? (looks over at roommate who’s still running 10.5 something on her MBP)
The average IE user is your typical Joe Sixpack and Suzy Sunshine who could give a flying fig about standards, updates or any of the other stuff discussed in this thread, and will turn those off – regardless of platform. Is it windows fault for being the number one choice of #DDD average users? See how UAC which is nearly identical in annoyance to sudo-style logins on Ubuntu gets turned off at every opportunity…
NOT that updates are even always possible – I’m so sure the guy 40 miles north of me in Coos county NH where 33.6 dialup is a good day is so interested in downloading a 10 megabyte browser update… or the guy in North Dakota where the choices are METERED Hughsnet garbage or 19200 baud… or the person with the Win Mobile 6 where he can’t figure out how to run Opera Mini on it and is using 6 – and is happy with six… or all the people that bought android 2.1 devices and now are stuck with that version of chrome since the manufacturers have left them high and dry with no upgrade path to 2.2 or newer.
That’s the general public, and they could give a flying fig for any of the stuff we might ‘want’ them to do as site developers… and in my experience can get quite hostile when you try to tell them; it’s like telling smokers to quit or people in liver failure to stop drinking. Most of the time you’re lucky if you don’t end up with a black eye. (admittedly I’m in New England, in NH. Live free or DIE!!! – seems a little extreme to outsiders)
… and it’s certainly NOT a windows/IE specific issue; even if the majority of people SMART ENOUGH to use something other than IE are also SMART ENOUGH to keep up to date… the general public just isn’t that smart. I know people who no matter how many times you tell them that using IE is basically like “walking into a bar in Northeast New Bedford in stiletto heel thigh-high boots, latex mini-skirt, pushup corset, opera length gloves and a tramp stamp that reads “Rape me” and wondering why you wake up with a hangover naked on a pool table covered in…” they’re going to keep using it until their machine gets pwned, and even after you fix it, install another browser and explain it’s use – and tell them not to do that again, like the typical drunk tramp are right back out there at the bar the next night. (Roommate over shoulder just commented “you paint pretty pictures with words” )
<Goebbels>Never underestimate the stupidity of the masses</Goebbels>
NOT that as a jew I like quoting Joey… but he was the king of propaganda
I still mostly agree with what deathshadow is saying, and I just had to pull out this lovely gem:
Big office? I began my career as a sys-admin in a very large place. The computers there are rarely to surf the web, mostly for intranets and web-based apps. If surfing is a goal, the IT should be aware of that and upgrade, that’s what they are getting payed for. With today’s technologies a good IT team can upgrade the company over the weekend, being present in the office only to oversee that it goes well.
Really? Your IT team can go to a board meeting that might possibly be in a different state, put a pitch to the board about why a whole weekend of sysadmin time needs to be devoted to upgrading already-functional browsers (good luck with that one), rewrite possibly dozens of legacy intranet apps that rely on functionality in antiquidated browsers, upgrade every computer, retrain hundreds if not thousands of staff in how to use their new browser (yes this needs to be done)… and all in the space of a weekend?
Upgrade most of the workstations - yes. There are really incredible tools for that from MS, only case yo actually need to look at a specific workstation is when something fails on it. We once upgraded about 500 workstations to XP, and that took a couple of month without adding to the workload and disrupting the routine, and without nights and weekends. We delivered the upgrade automaticly during the night, one department at a time, with an average 2-3 workstations that failed. If you can do it that easily with an OS, browser is piece of cake.
Retraining staff to use their new browser… you are right about that. You can do that in matter of 30 minutes inside every department, by a member of the department - if you have a modern user base. If your users are from the stone age, that’s a real problem, I agree.
Whole weekend of sys-admin time is not new, you get that quite often in IT. Something crashed, servers need to be upgraded, extensive maintenance or infrastructure changes… you can cancel your plans for that weekend, and they don’t bother calling you to the board meeting to authorize that.
But this whole mess can be easily avoided, If you want to be practical just install another browser remotely for workstations that need internet surfing.
Sometimes IT staff doesn’t want to bother with something they consider unnecessary. But hey, how many workstations you actually need to be capable of surfing the web? And if you do, IE is the last browser to surf with in offices, with all its security issues.
EDIT: You don’t have to remove the old browser right away either, leave it for several month just if you want to properly test compatibility.
Then you worked for an organization that allowed you to do that - I worked (as a contractor) for one agency where it took almost a year to upgrade to a service pack because their policy required everyone to be on the same service pack. The hold up there was having a test machine in each business area that could get the service pack installed to, and the time spent by users in the business area to ensure that each and every piece of software/website they used on a daily basis wasn’t affected. It took forever…
If an upgrade to a new browser required major changes to the websites used by those users, a 1/2 hour turns into several days of training.
If your organization allows that - some only want to support one browser and one browser only.
We didn’t do it because we were bored ;), the decision came from above. And the users had no internet access, only intranet, so we didn’t care much for the browser.
What kind of support you need for a browser that’s used exclusively for the internet?
BTW: I know that many organization intentionally use a browser that isn’t supported by Facebook and other sites employees like to visit during work hours.
True that – which is why I’ve more than once heard the question posed … and I quote: “what the ____ do my employees need the _______ Internet at their desk for? They’re a bunch of lazy _____ to begin with I don’t need another ________ way for them to slack off.”
(that’s something I usually rag on people for – when I guess I do it myself with the four screens)