POLL: Would you stop developing for IE7 to 'force' others to use Firefox/Safari etc?

[wheezy]

I've been a website developer for about 18 months, 1 year of that spent at a sweatshop making 5-7 sites a week, mostly in html and tables. During that time, IE was only a bother sometimes to me, and most of the time the fixes weren't too hard to figure out.

A few months back I got a new job, and have been pretty succesful at moving over to 'Web 2.0' and using CSS to design my pages. I've now since learned that IE7 is still a bastard child of the webworld, and M$ seems to be refusing to render valid, simple CSS code to W3C standards. I built a site last week that looked perfect in Safari, Firefox, Camino, Opera... but when viewed in IE7... suddenly looked like I had no idea how to built a website.

POLL: Would you outright give up ANY IE7 code adjustments, and just let your sites look like garbage in IE to help more avg users convert to a standards browser?

I would maybe add a footer that briefly stated if it looks like garbage, to download Safari / Firefox / Opera.

[tutubibi]

Not sure that this poll makes much sense.

Web developer is in the business of pleasing its customers not the other way around. If your site does not work on IE7 its your problem, regardless of a root cause. So unfortunately you don't have much choice there ;)

[Grimace]

I find IE7 makes huge strides over IE6. It really depends on your target audience. For a personal site, you can even install things like "explorer destroyer" which opens up a "you're using a garbage browser -- here's how to get a better one" window when IE users view it. For a site you are being paid to make, the choice isn't really there.

[SilentPanda]

It wouldn't be worth it. If your web site wasn't popular nobody would probably care and if it was a popular site you'd just get a lot of e-mail stating that the web site was messed up. So why cause the hassle?

[miniConvert]

Didn't really feel there was a suitable poll option, but...

...no, I'd never alienate users. Whatever they use, I'll try and be considerate towards.

[atszyman]

Not sure that this poll makes much sense.

Web developer is in the business of pleasing its customers not the other way around. If your site does not work on IE7 its your problem, regardless of a root cause. So unfortunately you don't have much choice there ;)

There is always the other option for web developers.

It'll cost $x for something that will work in all the standards compliance browsers. However since Microsoft doesn't seem to like or adhere to standards it will cost an extra $y to ensure full IE compatibility.

This now puts the choice in the customer's hands and has the added benefit of some possible corporate pressure on MS to adhere to standards so companies can save some money.

[tomoisyourgod]

i'd love to tell the world to stop using IE, unfortunatley this will never happen... (hopefully one day, but not in the near future)

it's the biggest headache when Firefox, Opera and Safari all read CSS/HTML properly then IE doesn't.

If you put an option in that poll:-
"the world would be a better place for users and developers without IE" ...

...then i'd vote

[tutubibi]

There is always the other option for web developers.

It'll cost $x for something that will work in all the standards compliance browsers. However since Microsoft doesn't seem to like or adhere to standards it will cost an extra $y to ensure full IE compatibility.

This now puts the choice in the customer's hands and has the added benefit of some possible corporate pressure on MS to adhere to standards so companies can save some money.

I used word customer more in a sense of a visitor, thinking that you have to make visitors happy. And IE is still a gorilla of browser market share so there is really no other option. In fact, when faced with $ issue, many companies will (unfortunately) just make it work in IE without regard for standards, Firefox, Safari, Opera.

[hopejr]

I voted not really, but not because I don't run into problems too often. I will still develop for IE as long as it has a significant market share. It would be suicide for a site if it didn't have IE support.

[pengu]

you need an option that says:
"i'm a professional and take my job seriously, so i make SURE that sites are valid, accessible AND work in all major browsers".

[wheezy]

you need an option that says:
"i'm a professional and take my job seriously, so i make SURE that sites are valid, accessible AND work in all major browsers".

That's my main point, IF it's Valid (And CSSEdit makes it too easy to do that) THEN IE7 should have NO problem displaying it properly. But Microsoft blantantly does NOT adhere to W3C standards.

I know IE7 has gorilla market-share, and it is almost site-suicide to not adjust your code so IE7 can display it properly to some degree. But, by so doing, all you're doing is letting Microsoft know that no matter how crappy their browser is, we'll still bend over for them. The only way to get M$ to start making their browser standard is to take away marketshare dramatically, then they might wake up and realize that more and more people are realizing how crappy their products are.

And Pengu... why do we care about what car you drive? That makes sense on a car forum....

[dcv]

No. Stupid idea.

Yes, I agree having to use workarounds for non-standards-compliant IE is a pain in the arse but it's still the most common browser out there and many large organisations use IE as their 'standard' browser, also locking down workstations such that users are unable to download and install alternatives.

I haven't voted as there's no suitable option. Your site should work in all current popular browsers and as many older versions as possible.

[pengu]

its our job to make sites that work in as many browsers as possible. some people choose to use MSIE, you know. Firefox and Safari don't support some things that MS do. hell, the technology behind AJAX started in MSIE.

And Pengu... why do we care about what car you drive? That makes sense on a car forum....

why do i care about your Dell monitor? this is a Apple/Mac forum.

[wheezy]

why do i care about your Dell monitor? this is a Apple/Mac forum.

Hmmm, cause it's computer related? I love your attitute Pengu. It reflects the usual ... nevermind.

Your post is appreciated though. I do like the input. I do try to code to IE7, and I haven't adopted this not code to IE7 idea, I'm just curious to see what options are out there? I'd rather attempt to be pro-active at decreasing the IE marketshare/trying to get M$ to adopt standards than continually get irritated at them...

[atszyman]

I used word customer more in a sense of a visitor, thinking that you have to make visitors happy. And IE is still a gorilla of browser market share so there is really no other option. In fact, when faced with $ issue, many companies will (unfortunately) just make it work in IE without regard for standards, Firefox, Safari, Opera.

Ahh, I was thinking customer from the eyes of a web developer as the person/entity that commissioned the site. From that perspective it could either be quoted as "Standards compliant" + "IE" cost models or just break out the cost of ensuring IE compliance in the billing (maybe even itemize each browser tested). As companies or people who pay for these websites start to see the extra cost associated with ensuring compliance on IE versus the cost of ensuring compliance with browsers that follow the standards there might be more pressure on MS from this end.

If all browsers were standards compliant then theoretically the exact same code should render the same in all of the browsers (otherwise what good are standards?). When you have to cover non-compliant browsers it requires more work/time/code in order to make sure your work looks the same in as many browsers as possible and its possible that if those paying for the websites were shown a breakdown of these costs they might put pressure on the non-compliant browser manufacturers to fix their browsers rather than the browser forcing the web to conform to it.

It would be similar to Dell announcing that they are going to use a slightly modified PCI bus interface which would force PCI card makers to do extra design and verification to make sure that their standard PCI cards have the necessary fixes to function in one of the most popular computer brands.

[wheezy]

Ahh, I was thinking customer from the eyes of a web developer as the person/entity that commissioned the site. From that perspective it could either be quoted as "Standards compliant" + "IE" cost models or just break out the cost of ensuring IE compliance in the billing (maybe even itemize each browser tested). As companies or people who pay for these websites start to see the extra cost associated with ensuring compliance on IE versus the cost of ensuring compliance with browsers that follow the standards there might be more pressure on MS from this end.

If all browsers were standards compliant then theoretically the exact same code should render the same in all of the browsers (otherwise what good are standards?). When you have to cover non-compliant browsers it requires more work/time/code in order to make sure your work looks the same in as many browsers as possible and its possible that if those paying for the websites were shown a breakdown of these costs they might put pressure on the non-compliant browser manufacturers to fix their browsers rather than the browser forcing the web to conform to it.

It would be similar to Dell announcing that they are going to use a slightly modified PCI bus interface which would force PCI card makers to do extra design and verification to make sure that their standard PCI cards have the necessary fixes to function in one of the most popular computer brands.

Thank you. That's ... kind of what I'm trying to see. How can we make Microsoft 'learn' to play by the rules. My idea is just one odd way. This is a good way as well.

If we continue to just let IE do their own thing... then IE will never change. M$ has NO motivation.

[tutubibi]

Thank you. That's ... kind of what I'm trying to see. How can we make Microsoft 'learn' to play by the rules. My idea is just one odd way. This is a good way as well.

If we continue to just let IE do their own thing... then IE will never change. M$ has NO motivation.

I think we all agree that IE is a nightmare but unfortunately we have to make sites work properly in IE despite extra cost and effort. Opinions differ in how to send a message to MS.

This is typical chicken/egg question. People will support IE as long as it has significant market share and IE will have significant market share as long as a huge majority of sites render properly on IE. :(

At least IE7 is better that IE6. BTW, I didn't even bother supporting IE6 on my personal site so it looks like crap when viewed in IE6 (some people say it looks like crap anyways ;) ).
Finally, some standards are debatable in terms of proper implementation.

[Sdashiki]

I love how the word standard can mean totally different things to different companies.

Every browser goes to the same internets.

WHY is it so much to ask that ALL browsers render the same? I know you cant just steal source code and make all browsers exact copies of one another...

But really, STANDARDS used to mean something, but in this case it means nothing and I can understand anyone's frustration with this BS.

No browser renders the same stuff the same way, and I can see no reason why they shouldnt.

[operator]

Not coding for IE7 (or IE6) is not an option. You will be penalizing your visitors for Microsoft's mistake. Most internet users have no idea about standards, or whether IE is rendering sites properly, and they never will. Trust me, I want internet users to drop IE as much as you do (if not more), but ignoring the MS browsers during development is not a solution to this problem.

[atszyman]

Not coding for IE7 (or IE6) is not an option. You will be penalizing your visitors for Microsoft's mistake. Most internet users have no idea about standards, or whether IE is rendering sites properly, and they never will. Trust me, I want internet users to drop IE as much as you do (if not more), but ignoring the MS browsers during development is not a solution to this problem.

No you cannot ignore the dominant browser but if people hiring out their web development, or those doing web development for their companies take the time and effort to put an actual time/monetary cost on making things IE compliant there will be a harder push on MS to follow some of the rules.

Independent developers can just itemize it in their bill, those in a corporate environment can take the time during reviews or when grievances are aired to the boss point out that IE testing takes X times longer than testing for any other browser out there since MS seems to like to do things their own way.

Of course I'm just making stuff up as I go along, it's been at least 10 years since I had any sort of website worth maintaining and at the time I did most of my stuff in straight HTML via a text editor.

[Bern]

Of course you have to ensure your sites render in IE :rolleyes:

Take a look at these stats published by W3C. You cannot alienate a large percentage of the world just because you don't like to (or don't know how to) write semantically correct code.

[wheezy]

I don't think the internet should render exactly the same in all browsers, there are differences between Safari, Firefox, and Opera, but at least the differences are all acceptable. I'd say a lot of the time IE matches up pretty well too... but sometimes IE is just so horribly different it's beyond annoying to have to figure out what part of your CSS IE is ignoring.

And yes, IE has the biggest marketshare... I'm just trying to figure out ways to further the cause of bringing down that dominating number.

[Bern]

... And yes, IE has the biggest marketshare... I'm just trying to figure out ways to further the cause of bringing down that dominating number.

Do as I do, on your website insert a paragraph about Safari being the best browser to use for "your internet experience" and include a link to the download page. Don't forget to mention "Free Download" people like to see the word free :D

[radiantm3]

IE7 does fine rendering CSS 98% of the time. If sites are looking really messed up, you may want to practice your css a bit more. The only big issues I have with IE7 is the fact that they don't support the :before and :after pseudo class.

[Nermal]

No. I develop against IE in the first place, using valid code wherever possible, then fix it to work in Safari (easy) followed by Firefox (ugh).

[tomoisyourgod]

I think we must all agree that as web designers/developers we must always cater for all browsers.

At least then it seperates us from the ignorant designers/developers who cater only for one browser...

[janey]

got no choice.

*&#$ing hate testing in all the browsers I can get my hands on, but that's what Parallels and Boot Camp and my PC are for.

[jng]

A few months back I got a new job, and have been pretty succesful at moving over to 'Web 2.0' and using CSS to design my pages.

IE7 does fine rendering CSS 98% of the time. If sites are looking really messed up, you may want to practice your css a bit more. The only big issues I have with IE7 is the fact that they don't support the :before and :after pseudo class.

The key phrase in the OP is "pretty succesful [sic]."

I've been making websites for nearly 10 years now and when I first started designing in standards compliant XHTML and CSS, I also cursed out Microsoft (albeit mostly in private). The problem is that most designs don't fully understand CSS and its finer intricacies. I have to agree with Radiantm. Most of the time, IE7 works fine as long as you code properly. And I don't just mean validating.

And there are different ways of approaching CSS designs. I remember posting in a forum once, complaining about why IE6/7 didn't render my site properly. Somebody helped me out but in the process, restructured my CSS and XHTML entirely. And I learned from that that I was approaching it wrong.

For the most part, I don't have any major issues with IE7, indeed a vast improvement over IE6. And IE6 is a pain but not impossible. I just wish it supported PNGs better, esp. transparent PNGs.

Protesting by not having it work in IE? Agreed suicide. You're also then punishing your customers/visitors for your own inabilities (not just Microsoft's).