[CLUE-Tech] Re: Browser Protest Day

[jbrockmeier at earthlink.net]

On Sun, 28 Apr 2002, David Snyder wrote:

> Back when it was conceived NS was really the only browser worth worrying 
> about.  MS was the first one who decided to compete on this one with 
> JScript.  Still, yes, it started out proprietary but doesn't a lot of 
> things start that way?  It wasn't until IE 3 that NS had any kind of a 
> serious challenge but that still dates back before dynamic sites were 
> common.  

Well, a lot of people now believe that IE is "the only browser worth
worrying about." Remember, back when Netscape was the big boy on the
block a lot of people were using AOL's interface and a lot of people
using AOL couldn't browse sites designed for Netscape.    
 
> The web is a medium for data and content delivery that is still evolving 
> faster than any other in the industry.  Unfortunately this means that 
> technology is released before there are standards, other times standards 
> are released before the technology can truly embrace them (SVG).

The thing that I don't understand is why companies think that the 
bulk of their customers *enjoy* being on the bleeding edge. Mostly
what I hear from non-geeks is frustration at the constant upgrade
cycle and problems with incompatible sites and so forth. I like putting
new versions of Konq and Mozilla through their paces - but I also like
running the latest (stable) versions of Apache, the kernel and so 
forth. Most people just want to install something and leave it.  
 
> Agreed, but JavaScript can be very useful do some things on the client 
> such as showing/hiding data, sorting, et al - stuff the server was only 
> capable of doing.  This saves server load, bandwidth, and time.  This is 
> why DOM compliance is so important!  I don't blame JavaScript, I blame 
> the browser companies for improper implementation.

That's why an Open Source browser like Mozilla makes sense - if
everyone just based their implementation on one code base and
then added other features/interfaces on top of that we wouldn't
be in this mess... but getting MS to adopt Moz is probably not
going to happen. :) And MS isn't about to give their code out
for everyone else to adopt... 
 
> That's like blaming CD-R drives for software piracy...  yes, with power 
> comes the dark sides, bad uses of it.  Even BugZilla, a great 
> open-source tool, uses popups, even though it doesn't abuse it like 
> advertizers do.  I for one hate it when a technology like JavaScript is 
> abused, but that doesn't make the technology itself bad.  It just means 
> I'll never go back to their website or add the offending advertizer to 
> my magic hosts file.

The reality is that a lot of sites do abuse it, though - so I'd
like to be able to browse with it turned off. That's why it's annoying
that Yahoo! and other sites require it. I'd never turn it on otherwise.
Also, if we must have it, I wish there were more fine-grained controls
over its functionality - for example, being able to disable pop-unders,
and losing control of the resize or back button, but leaving other
functionality enabled. I know some browsers allow you to disable some
stuff, but not really enough.  
 
> Consider this, browsers are starting to have popup killing functionality 
> built in... how long before you think the obnoxious advertizers start 
> abandoning that tactic?  It will happen.  They'll have to come up with 
> some other idea that hopefully doesn't annoy people too much.  I expect 
> interstitial ads to be the next big thing - click a story, see 
> commercial, then get story.  Business drives the Internet and short of 
> paying for all your content, ads will be always part of the web.

Not soon enough. I'd say we're stuck with pop-up/unders for a year
or two more at least.  

I think kuro5hin and LWN have the right idea with text ads.
Cheap, but effective. I'm more likely to read, and click on, the text
ads on kuro5hin than I am a banner ad. I don't know that I'm in the
majority on that - but I'd trained my eye to ignore graphic ads long
ago - like back when I was 12 and reading comic books (way before
the Web...) whereas I've already read and absorbed a text ad before I've
thought about it. Plus, I consciously appreciate that the advertiser
isn't assaulting my senses with a pop-up or huge ad or whatever.   
 
> On this I agree.  For a business site, advanced JavaScript and Flash are 
> best reserved for ENHANCING, not core functionality.  And I get (very) 
> annoyed when some companies, Verizon for example, doesn't code their 
> site in such a way that I can use my Mozilla to pay my bill, I have to 
> use BillyBrowser (IE)...  

Oh - I have no problem with sites that have a "pick your poison"
entry page. People who use IE and like all the glitz and animation
and so forth can romp through a Flash site all they want and I can
take the simple and uncluttered road.  
 
> Admittedly my own site uses advanced DOM Scripting very heavy - but I've 
> also created an alternate version for JavaScript/DOM impaired browsers 
> because I don't wish to exclude people.  But as a web developer I love 
> having a JavaScript DOM compliant browser because it lets me do that 
> much more on the front end to enhance the efficiency and useability of 
> the website.  Modern browsers are easier to code for.  The biggest 
> problem is that the earlier browers had it so wrong in terms of handling 
> even simple HTML - if I had it in my power I would make all non W3C 
> compliant browsers vanish from this earth because cost time and money to 
> placate all their bugs.

Well, that'd be a really nifty power to have... could you make 
Windows disappear while you're at it? :) 
 
> How much effort are you willing to invest to get around a quirky driver 
> that is obsolete?  At what point do you say "I'm sorry, but you need to 
> use X driver because it contains several bug fixes".  Browsers are much 
> the same to a web developer as a bad driver.  

Errrr. Not exactly - If a video card has a buggy driver and someone 
writes a fix, it will usually run on the same OS/hardware. A lot
of people are using obsolete browsers and OSes because that's all
their hardware can handle.  
 
> I can't really comment on doing a web application UI for someone 
> visually impaired - I've personally never had to do that.  Have you?

Specifically for the visually impaired? No. But I worked for a college
for nearly a year and did quite a bit of Web development for them - 
and all the pages had to be viewable in a text-mode browser to comply
with the ADA. When I worked at Linux Mall I made damn sure that our
site worked in Lynx or similar so that people could buy stuff or
browse the news using a text-mode browser. We got, maybe, four or
five emails from visually-impaired/blind users who thanked us for
having a site they could navigate. (Several right after we ran a 
story on LinuxNews about BLinux...) It's not a huge percentage, but
as far as I'm concerned, it was worth it.

Take care,

Zonker  
-- 
Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier -=- jbrockmeier at earthlink.net
http://www.DissociatedPress.net/
ymessenger: jbrockmeier / AIM: ZonkerJoe
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Organ transplants are best left to the professionals.