Internet Explorer 7.0 adoption prospects

Anybody started testing their Web sites against MSIE7? According to this
<http://arstechnica.com/journals/microsoft.ars/2006/8/22/5078>, there are
some backward-incompatible CSS changes which were necessary to fix bugs.

Myself, just a few weeks ago I did my most major bit of JavaScript/DHTML
programming, involving adding a photo-cropping function to a client's Web
site. Took a few days to put together a mockup that worked OK in Firefox.
Then a few more days to munge it in various ugly ways, introducing
deliberately wrong numbers to work around bugs in IE6. I'm not really
looking forward to seeing how it'll render in IE7...

 

Why are you writing pages to suit broken browsers?

You should be developing sites that conform to published standards - not
developing sites that conform to broken browsers.


Ma Hogany

 

I understand that IE7 wil also have at lest *some* CSS3 stuff.

Konquerer is already 100% CSS3 compliant, and Firefox & Opera have most of
CSS3 already implemented.

It's really only M$IE that is lagging behind in supporting the published
standards.


Ma Hogany

 

I just checked with Konqueror 3.5.4, and it doesn't seem to pay any
attention to the CSS3 opacity attribute.

 

That would be nice in a perfect world, but unfortuantely most of the planet
uses the 'broken browser' therefore you have to write a broken version of
the site so most of the planet can see it.

 

You'd be in trouble then. Every browser is "broken" in the sense that
none is ever 100% compatible with an an evolving set of "standards".
And how couild it be otherwise? Standards evolve so as to catch up
with innovation, not the other way around, and so it's up to both web
developers to continually push the design boundaries. Standards are a
convenience for web developers, because they simplify coding, but the
good ones learn to live with inconvenience because their customers
couldn't care less. In competitive markets, no one wants to be stuck
on "standard", waiting for the approval of some global committee. And
unless they're catering to a niche audience of self-styled technical
purists, having an "approved" browser is not likely to be a condition
of access they'd want to impose on anyone. Given that 85% of users are
rendering web pages in some version of IE, developers darn well better
learn how to cope with its idiosyncracies, whether they like them or
not.

 

Hasn't 3.5.5 recently been released?

Maybe what I read yesterday wasn't accurate.


Ma Hogany

 

Latest report says IE is now down to 82% - and falling.


Ma Hogany

 

But if most developers didn't accept what the broken browser did - if most
developers coded their sites to conform to the published standards, then
the creators of the broken browsers would be embarrased by their defective
products, and the public would be more encouraged to seek out browsers
that worked properly.


Ma Hogany

 

Good reason for developers to ignore it, is that what you're saying?

 

Calling something "broken" because it doesn't work exactly the way
you'd like is pretty childish. If a developer can't manage the minor
coding adjustments needed to have their pages rendered on IE, Firefox,
and, Opera, they should find another way to earn a living.

 

It's certainly getting to the point where, when users complain about
problems, it's easier to say "use Firefox".

 

Calling something "broken" because it doesn't work the way it's _supposed_
to is not childish. It's just calling a spade a spade.

Some of those adjustments are hardly "minor".

 

But if most developers didn't accept what the broken browser did - if most

Web developers are the only people who *give a shit* about these standards,
and most web developers are not the decision makers in what it is they are
developing.

I am not saying that is a good thing, but it is a *relevant* thing.

 

Given that 85% of users are

I dunno why IE naesayers tout these percentages around like it's some sort
of victory.

IE could lose a third of its current market and STILL have more bums on
seats than *all the rest of the other browsers combined*.

I dislike IE as a browser, only use it in emergencies (dunno what would be
"an emergency", but you know what I mean), and will be unlikely to upgrade
to IE7 unless for some reason I aam forced to. But it's just a bit silly
to cite IE's popularity dropping to a measly 82% as some sort of
achievement by the competitors. Basically what it says is that despite
everything, IE simply doesn't actually *have* any serious competitor.

 

I agree, its exactly the same with webserver software, a change of +/- 2
percentage points gets people worked up

 

What problems? Or is this just one of those throw-away lines you use
when you can't be bothered investigating the real source of the
trouble someone might be having?

 

It is even more ridiculous in the context of IE originally going from
<20% to 40% in something less than a year (1997), eventually getting
almost 100% of the market.

 

Haha, microsoft embarrased! haha, since when did microsoft listen to its
users?
I think you've forgotten that they like to dictate what is right and wrong
and I find it hard to recall many instances when they conform to 'standards'
without modification.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you 100%, but unfortuately I and other
designers would like our sites usable now on all browsers including the most
popular (broken or not) not sometime in the future when some boycott might
happen when all developers will join together to fight this cause! We have
functions that need to work and deadlines to meet and the big guy making out
our paycheques dosnt care how it works as long as it works. I would like to
see you explain to him why most can't see his new site because of your
broken browser cause.

 

Then leave it to the professionals. There are hundreds of millions of
web pages out there that render perfectly well in any browser -- it's
clearly not that big a deal.