There is a mindset that believes that building support for the Firefox browser in company Web sites means extra development work, and running several versions of the Web site.
In fact organisations, such as the Department of Work and Pensions, that want to make their sites compatible with as many browsers as possible need do only one thing: build them according to formal Web standards. That support for Firefox or Opera — or any other minority browser — should mean extra work is flawed thinking. In the long term, writing to the standards will save work, as those who build to what they see as the de facto 'standards' of Internet Explorer will find that they end up having to support different versions of IE in very different ways. Given Microsoft's stated intentions about IE, this remains a very real possibility.
Too many people have become too conditioned to the notion that IE sets the standards. In fact, there is no need for de facto Web standards as everything we need — including accessibility and cross-browser compatibility — is provided by the W3C . And the terms of the argument should not be about which browser organisations support, but whether they will build their sites according to Web standards or not.
There is a particularly unpleasant irony in the case of the DWP's Web site, as pointed out in one Talkback to our story, in which a systems administrator noted: "Personally I just vote with my feet, and go elsewhere. But then I don't need those sites. There are those that do. Like my son who cannot buy a Windows licence because he doesn't have a job, and he can't access the Job Centre Web site from his Linux/Firefox box... of course he can get round it by using some other computer, but why should he?"
Why indeed?
The bigger issue is that a site that does not work with minority browsers is a site that is almost certainly not written to standards, and a site not written to standards is not only likely to have accessibility issues, but is also likely to fall foul of the Disability Discrimination Act (1995), which does impose obligations for organisations who sell products and services online.
Stinging criticism was directed at Odeon Cinemas last year for closing an accessible version of its particularly inaccessible site. While the company laudably claims to provide access "whatever the nature of disability" to all its premises where possible, it clearly still does not count its Web site in that. The text version, to which it directs Firefox users along with disabled users, is a dingy basement compared to the experience afforded able-bodied IE users. It simply doesn't make sense to continue to exhibit such an outmoded mindset any more.
Talkback
This completely makes sence, yet I do believe in the real world users and creators would not be having this problem if it was as simple as supporting standards.
Take for example custom Javascript apps, thats what breaks the continuity or Microsoft's closed nature, its not just a question of creating a site to standards, these days companies have to make the front end look good and for that they have to make a choice.
Excellent article. But the problem now becomes what to do about Internet Explorer. IE has, by far, the worst support of web standards of all major web browsers. And I don't just mean that they don't support everything everyone else supports, but that they also support some of the basic stuff incorrectly.
Even so, it is certainly easiest to design first according to standards and then make tweaks to make sure all of the major browsers are doing what you want. Web designers who do it this way unanimously develop a resentment toward Internet Explorer, to some degree. Typically, when you design a website according to standards, it works first go in Firefox, Opera, and usually Safari and Konqueror, and when using proper separation of content and presentation, it also works great in text browsers like lynx and ELinks, screen readers, and search engines. Typically, Internet Explorer is the only browser that has problems, and the problems are often serious. In order to work around them, designers are often forced to either use hacks (which are generally bad practice and can cause further incompatibility in the future) or eliminate some of the fancy styles and scripting that Internet Explorer doesn't support.
In most areas, the standards are easier to code to than Internet Explorer's methods, accessibility comes more naturally, and more can be done. The one major exception, in terms of power, is Internet Explorer's ActiveX, which no security-conscious user should have enabled anyway.
So there are still barriers when attempting to code to standards, and most of them come from the browser that is usually the most essential to support. If any other major browser was in IE's place, there would really be nothing to discuss, and Internet Explorer would simply be left in the dust.
Hear hear.
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb...
I've seen greater intelligence in rotted out tree-stumps.
This proves all the more that the US gov't is in
cahoots with Microsoft.
So what the US government is saying is that unless you are a Microsoft Windows XP user, and are willing to risk your computer to viruses by surfing the net with Internet Explorer, then you do not deserve to protect your creative work.
No doubt they need the ActiveX component of IE to surreptitiously install software in your computer and perhaps snoop around your computer.
Never ever ever ever trust governments. ESPECIALLY THE US GOVERNMENT!
Excellent article ... although I have been saying exactly this to people for ages.
Another interesting thought: IE is not a web browser!
A web browser is a piece of software that renders standardised html code in a mandated way. Any piece of software that does not follow the standards is, by definition, not a web browser.
Maybe W3C should come up with a logo mark that any browser can display if it passes the compliance test and as they are the standard, they can say that any piece of software without the logo mark is not a web browser.