How far back? Browser Compatibility

[simonchristieis]

This conversation comes up time and time again.

On the one hand you want as many clients to browse your sites as possible,

On the other, what's the point of learning javascript / css / xml / xsl ...etc, if their use is restricted.

I don't have the answers, just my 2 cents, for what they are worth. You can make your own mind up.

My personal perspective on this is that I code and design for browsers that support the w3.org recommendations, including CSS and Xhtml 1.0. The browsers that will support this include:

Opera 5,6
MSIE5,5.5,6
Netscape 6,
and Mozilla

however, the text will still be available to all browsers and hand held devices.

Hang on - I hear you cry, what about nn4.X, ie4??!

CSS was made a w3.org recommendation in 1997! the idea behind separating design from content was that websites could be developed in days not months, we've given our clients long enough to get to grips with this, now it's our turn to wear the trousers!

Now we get to the crux of the thread, how do we get this across to our customers?

Javascript?
I've browsed to sites in ie6 and been informed that I need to upgrade my browser, so thats not the answer, anyway who wants to change their script everytime a new browser is launched.

Server Side Code?
I'm not even going to try and write a coverall for all serverside code!

CSS?
As CSS caused all the trouble, lets use CSS to solve it too.

I place this in the head of my pages:

<style type=&quot;text/css&quot; media=&quot;all&quot;>
@import &quot;/css/ahem.css&quot;;
</style>

The external style sheet looks like this:

.ahem {display:none;}

And the I place this 'alert' at the top of the page:

<p class=&quot;ahem&quot;>
<big>
This site is build to conform to <a href=&quot;

http://www.w3.org&quot;

alt=&quot;Visit the w3.org site&quot;>

http://www.w3.org</a>

web standard specifications.<br>
It will work and look better in a browser that supports <a href=&quot;

http://www.webstandards.org/upgrade/&quot;

alt=&quot;The Web Standards Project’s BROWSER UPGRADE initiative.&quot;>web standards</a>,<br>
but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.
</big>
</p>


This will display an explanation at the top of the page, for those clients who have pre-war browsers, that this site will not display wonderfully on their machine because of their browser.

Of course, this will not stop you getting complaints from people, but at least you wont go blind writing 7 versions of each and every page.

Over to you then - you decide.

 

[stormbind]

Konqueror(KDE)/Safari(MacOS) is looking viable. It only supports the basic ECMAScript when Opera/Mozilla/IE have all added extensions to their support.

When I make a serious site, I aim for compatibility with NS4. In doing that I often find it easy to make the site suitable for NS2+

Having said that: I know xml,xhtml,css,dhtml,jscript and I use those technologies aswell.

The good thing about new technologies is that they include if() solutions.

if (document.getElementById){
document.getElementById('cooleffect').innerHTML='';
}

Old browsers see the original page. Browsers with JS disabled see the original page. But the majority of visitors see the enhanced version.

Same goes for Navigator3/4 Javabeans. I'm just starting to learn these and there's no real call for technology, but because the browser includes full support and it's &quot;enhanced content&quot;, why have it go to waste?

As it happens, my last project ended up being more enhanced in NS4 than IE6. I stretched both to the limit of their capabilities (without plugins) but javabeans won out over mshtml

----------
I'm willing to trade custom scripts for... [see profile]

 

[stormbind]

Further and despite the heavy use of scripting, dhtml, css, etc. the site should in theory (I didn't test) still look fine and operate as expected in NS2/IE3.

I never saw NS1/IE2 so cannot say if it works in them, lol

----------
I'm willing to trade custom scripts for... [see profile]

 

[dbMark]

Since Microsoft is not testing for or fixing bugs and security vulnerabilities in pre-IE5 versions, then those who use unsupported browsers really ought to update or upgrade.

Fact of life: Orphaned and dumped versions are a lost cause, especially if the upgrade is free or very inexpensive. Just as few still use Windows 3.1, IE4 is quite archaic as well.

I myself am glad that support for Windows 98se and Windows Millennium was extended since these programs, though &quot;old&quot;, are quite good enough for simple tasks. The fact that M$ updated IE for free has actually extended their life span.

dbMark

 

[stormbind]

It's not just old browsers.

Konqueror only supports ECMAScript. Opera has a stange mix of JavaScript/JScript extensions with few benefits over ECMAScript.

Users give thanks for new features, but they complain when features disapear - making it more appealing to avoid inconsistencies across platforms

When you start off at the basics and only add features that all version4+ browsers can handle you actually find that age isn't the problem. I my experience it's Konqueror, Mozilla and Opera which are the first to prevent you adding new features - not NN4.

----------
I'm willing to trade custom scripts for... [see profile]

 

[BillyRayPreachersSon]

Personally, I wouldn't even test in NN4 or IE4, unless a client had specifically asked for compatibility in those browsers.

While people who still use older browsers are perfectly entitled to do so, I personally would always advise IE5.5 or NN6 as a minimum (and I'd always recommend NN7 over NN6).

Dan

 

[stormbind]

What about MacOS users who are limited to Mozilla/Safari/IE4(?)

----------
I'm willing to trade custom scripts for... [see profile]

 

[BillyRayPreachersSon]

MacOS users aren't limited to those. They have IE 5.17 (which works very well, and in fact has far superior PNG support to most PC browsers), they have NN7, and I believe also Mozilla 1.5.

Dan

 

[BabyJeffy]

We're not limited at all! IE 5.17 was the last release of IE for MacOS (for MacOS 9 at least)... version 5.X has been out for *years* on the Mac. Even Netscape 7 has a (slow) release for MacOS 9.

Once you hit MacOSX (BSD based un*x implementation) you get access to Safari as well as all the GCC stuff and modern releases of Mozilla etc.

On my home Mac development machine I run MacOS9 and think I'm really spoilt for choice (I have multiple versions of IE and NN installed and working effortlessly -- unlike the difficulties experienced trying to have multiple versions on Windows).

To stay with the thread... I always clear it with the client in advance what browser support they want. If they want me to support IE 4 thru 6, then they will get a different quote than if they wanted just IE 6 (for instance). I try to make it easy for them to say &quot;just develop for the new browser versions&quot;. They normally manage it themseves - it's the intranets that are often hard to pin down (which seems contrary to popular belief).

Jeff

 

[stormbind]

Well fair enough, I wouldn't know, but from recent experience they do seem to like their Safari (Konqueror) and my solutions had to work with that browser!

1. ECMAScript 262 only
2. DOM Level 2 (I think)
3. Konqueror Components*

* Don't even know what they are! They might be like HTC(IE) or Javabeans(NS). And I'm not going to learn a great deal until someone donates a modern mac to me

----------
I'm willing to trade custom scripts for... [see profile]

 

[BabyJeffy]

I'm expecting to install MacOS X (Panther) on my development machine this weekend... and if that goes well, I'll be doing more Safari development (if only just to explore it some more).

If I come across a decent list showing what it does and doesn't support, I'll be sure to feed that back to the forums.

Jeff

 

[stormbind]

http://www.konqueror.org

is the only source I found

I emailed the developers asking for more data but they didn't reply

----------
I'm willing to trade custom scripts for... [see profile]

 

[BillyRayPreachersSon]

I think someone posted this a few weeks back, but here it is again, anyway...

A link to a page that lets you see how Safari renders your page. Granted, it doesn't show you what capabilities it has, but it's a really cool page all the same, IMHO...

http://www.danvine.com/icapture/

Enjoy!

Dan

 

[Faded]

Here's a great article on (not) writing code for obsolete browsers

http://www.pirated-sites.com/essays/browser-specs.html

Cheers

 

[jstreich]

Aside from standards, your missing a big point. The war isn't over. There are new versions of everything still comming out. There isn't a single right way to do anything, even when a standard is present. The part about this that everyone is missing is the real question about javascript and Java.

Javascript or a &quot;plugin&quot; technology in navigation is bad... unless you know your intended audenice well. There are lots of reasons to turn off any executable code. First is that it is executable, and the sand-boxs that contain remote code (keep it from formatting your hard drive) aren't bullet proof. Java has the best &quot;sand-box&quot; we've seen yet, but even it has been craked. If you don't open e-mail attachments with *.exe extentions, then why do you want me to trust your code?

Moreover, why should I burn my valuable clock cycles if I'm visiting your site you put up to get me to my money. If a page takes to long to load, I leave. Flash is a cool toy, but it should be used sparingly. If you are linking to a page that has a Flash artifact on it then tell the user in the link or next to it in plain old text. Same for pop-up windows (or other windows that open in other windows), Java applets and large images.

Moreover, the article linked above has some very intresting numbers on it:
1. Internet Explorer 6 (54%)
2. Internet Explorer 5 (34%)
3. Netscape 4 (4%)
4. Internet Explorer 4 (3%)
5. Netscape 6 (1%)

When, I first saw it I was astonished and was almost lured into thinking that not making things back-ward compatible was a good idea.... but then I realized... that is nearly 10% of the internet population. The equivalent of making a store with a ceiling so low that 10% of the people can't stand up properly. Will they shop there again? probably not... I mean sure they can get arround but it's not comfy or even tolerable.

So, we've lost 10% off the top. Now, what are the percentages of people who serf with js turned off? What is the percent that don't browse full screen and have 1024x780 screen res or proper plugins?

The standards are a step in the right direction, but we have to address legecy code. The problem will only get better as old browsers go out of style, but for now, I don't have much traffic as it is, and I'm going to lose 10% of what I have just because I have more code to write... &quot;Poor me, feel sorry for me because I care about the people viewing my site... And have to write more lines of code.&quot;

As for server side code, the risk and the thinking are our end... As long as we are able to serve the pages fast enough I have no beef with them... if they make me lose visitors, then I will go to writing cgi scripts (&quot;What are those... you mean that old Perl stuff no one knows anymore? What??? Lisp?&quot. I hope it doesn't come to hat, but I haven't had a problem with server side stuff yet.

 

[simonchristieis]

jstreich,

I think maybe, you missed the point of my first post - I allow access to all people on my site, there are no restrictions, all of the text in my sites can be read using any browser, hand held device etc.

My point is that I am continuing to add more functionality to my sites, but adding a polite(?) warning to clients with obsolete browsers that if they want to see the full extent of my coding ability on my site, then they could benefit by taking some time out to update their browser.

I agree with you about flash, and most of my pages are created using xml and asp, sending plain(ish) html.

So where do you draw the line?

If you want to be backwardly compatible then you will need to continue to use a font tag, now deprecated (html 4.01), and as we can never be sure how browsers will support this tag in the future then we are going to have start creating each site twice !?

 

[ChrisHunt]

It really depends what you mean by &quot;compatible&quot;. If you mean &quot;I want my site to look and behave the same way on every possible browser&quot;, then you are looking at a seriously low common denominator. No CSS. Little or no Javascript (hooray!). <font> tags galore.

I view &quot;compatible&quot; as meaning &quot;able to display the information that I send&quot;. An old browser might not pick the fonts I've chosen, nor show my background images or colour scheme. If I ever make the leap to CSS layout, some old browsers might start displaying my navigation links at the bottom of the page instead of down the side. Big deal. Content is king, remember, and that'll be present on all browsers.

You won't lock anybody out by following web standards, and validating your pages is a useful tool in avoiding silly mistakes. Back in the tag soup days, I went for months displaying a completely blank page to NN4 visitors because I'd missed a single </td> somewhere (boy was it fussy about those). I find those errors automatically now by validating.

-- Chris Hunt

http://www.mcgonagall-online.org.uk

http://www.napitalia.org.uk

http://www.leicesteryha.org.uk

 

[BabyJeffy]

I liked the initial post to the thread... and whilst I didn't necessarily agree with all that was posted, the concepts are sound and create a good basis for development practice.

The use of a hidden CSS block explaining why things &quot;don't look quite perfect&quot; on older browsers is a good one. Kind of like using the old no frames tag to give information to frames-impaired browsers and text-based users.

jstreich ...

I think you are being incredibly short sighted in your interpretations of Javascript and HTML/CSS etc with respect to their use in modern web development. So much so that I am writing this long-winded reply to address some of what you have written.

The war isn't over. There are new versions of everything still comming out - there are no versions of IE for the Mac being developed or produced. Microsoft ceased development last year. The &quot;war&quot; is over. The winner was the W3C and the publicity surrounding standards as a &quot;better&quot; direction for development.

Moreover, why should I burn my valuable clock cycles if I'm visiting your site you put up to get me to my money - it's your choice. Nobody is forcing you to visit the site. If the content is compelling, it has been shown time and time again that visitors will return.


You attempt to draw a parallel with a &quot;low ceiling&quot; store to explain the potential loss of 10% of customers. Let me take a moment to reply to that analogy:

If I was responsible for founding a new store, and I had the choice of building it with a ceiling such that 10% of my (potential) customers found it cumbersome (or just too low)... but that 90% of my customers had no problem with at all... and there were significant cost savings (to me, the supplier)... I would not hesitate in &quot;losing&quot; 10%. I might investigate a long term solution to address some of this 10%... or I might not.

Put in context: If I am developing a web site that will take me 1 month to develop and deploy for IE 5+ (Mac and Windows), and Mozilla... but to add support for older browser versions would take another 2 - 3 weeks of user testing and development resource... I would opt for the former of the two options without hesitation.

Now, what are the percentages of people who serf with js turned off? - currently approximately 5% surf with Javascript specifically disabled (

http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2004/February/browser.php)

The standards are a step in the right direction, but we have to address legecy code. - why? You do not make any attempt to justify this statement. Backward compatibility reduces the pace of advancement - and I'm not criticising those of us that do support older browsers... but I do not see any overwhelming evidence to make me think that I should be actively working to address legacy code.

There is a point at which support ends and upgrading begins... Microsoft has been retiring products regularly for quite some time - should they stifle new development just to support some Windows 1.0 users? No. And nor should we stifle development (or bear the physical cost of that support) for users that do not upgrade (a free bit of) software.

The problem will only get better as old browsers go out of style - what problem is this? You say that we need to support legacy code, but now imply that this will get better (easier?) as more legacy code is around to support? I was under the impression that IE 4, NN4, even IE 5 (win) was &quot;out of style&quot;.

Javascript is an integral part of the user experience. Not for all sites. Not for all users. Javascript (like all technologies including Flash) has a place in the implementation of a web site. I think we all know the pitfalls of developing a solution where Javascript is a required element (versus using it for visual or non-essential functionality). The choice of whether to use these technologies is with the client, the business analyst, the sponsor... it is up to the developer to make responsible use of them.

Congratulations to those of you keen enough to have made it this far into the post. I've exposed my opinions and tried to back them up as much as possible. Please take the time to respond if you, too, have a strong opinion on this topic.

Jeff

 

[stormbind]

Wow! I actually read that despite first turning away from the task

W3C (and associated pressure) was largely responsible for the demise of Netscape Navigator and that is a shame because they had some really good ideas.

I still think the ilayer is superior to the iframe. It doesn't have the same hardcoded features, but those same features are also restictions. Add javascript to clipping and the ilayer aquires those features anyway, which simply makes them optional - not inherently missing.

flash, shockwave, java or anything dependent on 3rd party plugins is shunned. DHTML is built in and can do all the same tasks - that's what I like

VML is also nice but, afaik, not covered by W3C.

In conclusion I don't like any browser. Being restricted to the deployed technologies just sucks. In an ideal world, the entire website would be javascript-generated and consist of custom elements.

However, W3C has one virtue in that it's founder* aims to prevent client softwares becoming dependent on server softwares and that is something I can drink to!

* Actual influence in the current W3C? :/

----------
I'm willing to trade custom scripts for... [see profile]

 

[jstreich]

I am not against the standard, as it is about time browsers started to follow them (even though none do yet)... But, they don't yet (except Opera, but it's too strict). 10% of the potential client base doesn't seem like much, but if your selling products -- that 10% over the life of the store could be millions of dollars. Yes, you saved a little building the store, but you are losing money every year of operation. I'm not saying that we should support all the older browsers, but untill that number of non-standard surfers dropes at least 5% -- even that might be too high -- I don't want to limit the poteintial number of people veiwing the site.

Also note that I'm not saying that you shouldn't use the stadards and that you shouldn't write complex things... Just make sure that the content and navagation work. If you can't get in the door, you can't buy the product.

flash, shockwave, java or anything dependent on 3rd party plugins is shunned. DHTML is built in and can do all the same tasks - that's what I like. But don't make it impossible for older browsers to navigate or see the content.

What I am suggesting isn't throw out the standard, I'm saying support as much as you have the resources to support. As for this &quot;hold back progress&quot; I say no, it doesn't. We're talking a file format, not a library of executable code. I don't have a problem with sites that have Flash content, but I have a problem with a site I can't access without flash -- same thing with Java -- same thing with any technology. Unless the Flash is the content because of the audieance (a flash-art site can have as much flash as it wants -- but if I need [flash/js/newest browser that will be out of date tommarrow/etc.] to buy your [book/computer/car/etc.] online. There was a wonderful movement in the 4.0 days -- &quot;This site is best veiwed with XYZ&quot; was all over the place, and there was a movment with a silly graphic and the catch phrase: &quot;This site is best veiwed with a computer.&quot;

There will be new technologies and developments, but unless good, universal standards are present from the start -- the war will continue. I know that MS lost and is out of the game (for a while), but there will be a new guy in the race sooner or later... If standards don't adapt fast enough we'll be back in the good ole days. Don't lose your running shoes, and don't become lazy because it's a little more work and little more money.