Many things live on past their use-by date, but few have shown the zombie-like tenacity of IE6. It has remained animated, chewing on our brains long after it should have stopped twitching.
We've all felt the pain of building for IE6 alongside modern browsers. So, it's glorious to be able to say this - 2009 is the year we get rid of IE6. Say it with me, people!
It's not every day a whole new browser comes out. It's even less common for that new browser to make lead story status in mainstream media outlets*. But today both happened as Google released their browser, Chrome.
It has been noted, over at the relaunched Webmonkey, that Microformat support seems to have dropped out of Firefox 3.
The longer I think about X-UA-Compatible, the more I think it's not really about "not breaking the web". I think it's about "not breaking big bad web apps".
While it's possible that Microsoft wants to be friends with standardistas, or at least make us shut up, they really don't want to be enemies with a much larger group - large web application vendors and administrators.
The way you configure your primary browser effects the way you see the web. Using a suite of browsers during your test rounds is one thing, but it's not the same as using a particular browser and configuration on a daily basis.
To see what I mean, spend a day with Javascript and plugins disabled: it's amazing how many sites fail completely without them. While browsing with Javascript disabled all the time is a bit impractical, there are some things I do recommend to catch basic errors:
These three tips will catch a huge number of sites which make assumptions about browsers. The errors you catch with these settings aren't necessarily the end of the world, but they are a sort of litmus test for site build quality. Plus, many sites do in fact fail completely under these simple-sounding conditions.
On a Windows PC (not sure about Macs), a web page with no explicitly stated background colour will be rendered with the Windows default background colour. Since the default Windows background is white, many developers forget to actually set the background when they want it to be white. However to reduce eye strain I set the Windows background to a light grey or off white, so I get to see which sites haven't set a background colour.
It really is quite astonishing how many sites don't actually set their white backgrounds! There are some very popular sites (by large companies) and even a couple of A list bloggers who have forgotten this one.
While it's not the worst error out there, it can certainly be a problem if a user has a black system background and you've got black text. I know someone who has grey on black as their system default; and they regularly have to highlight websites just to read them.
I think Firefox has started overriding the system background and inserting white as a default, but that's not really a solution.
To change your Windows background: click Start → Settings → Control Panel → Display → Appearance → Advanced. Click on the diagram or select Window from the Item dropdown. Change that item's colour and apply the change.
[If someone knows the MacOS equivalent to change the default background in web browsers, feel free to comment or let me know :)]
You should regularly browse with plugins disabled. It's interesting to see how many sites use flash for critical content yet have no fallback at all. Many all-Flash sites don't even have a warning message telling you to install Flash - they just load as a blank screen.
I use Opera and go a bit further, disabling animated graphics and Java. It's trivially simple to switch them back on a for a site, so why not. With Opera's site preferences I can enable plugins for those few sites where I do want the plugins to work (eg. YouTube). To toggle these settings, use the Quick Preferences menu to disable plugins then use Edit Site Preferences to enable them for chosen sites.
I'm not sure if Firefox can disable plugins once they are installed, however there are various extensions (eg. Flashblock) which can disable Flash. It's buried in IE as well but to be honest I don't recommend using IE as your daily browser anyway - it encourages complacency, since you don't notice all the sites out there that don't work in anything other than IE.
Meta refresh is particularly problematic for users with screen readers, since the uncontrolled refreshes create confusing and unpredictable experiences. For this and many other reasons, browsers are now making it a lot easier to block meta refreshes.
The thing is, many sites use these to forward the user from one page to another - but they don't include a manual, clickable link. Many people assumed that browsers would never be able to switch off refreshes I guess!
To disable meta refresh:
[Feel free to comment if you know instructions for other browsers.]
These tips should help remind you to provide fallback content if you're using plugins, scripts or modifying standard page load behaviour in any way. If nothing else, it should remind you that white backgrounds don't magically happen :)
It seems that Firefox 3 will include an option to treat meta refreshes much the same way as popups - blocking them and alerting the user what the page wants to do. It's another step forwards in letting the user take control.
Of course, Opera users already have this option; using opera:config#UserPrefs|ClientRefresh. Neat, although an alert would be good; as would site-specific settings. Hopefully the feature will be refined in future versions.
Really though, either way is good as it gives the user a little more control over their browser. Automatic refreshes and redirects break accessibility recommendations. They're one of those things which gets written up as "until browsers provide a way to control...".
As these features become more widespread, the importance of fallback options will become even more critical. Just like scripts need a <noscript>, meta refreshes need a link in the document. Many pages don't have them, though; so no accessibility or SEO juice for them!
It serves as a good reminder that we should provide alternatives any time we modify the behaviour of a page. I have had people say in the past that meta refresh was so simple nothing could go wrong. Well, that assumption will bite them on the arse...! :)
We should always assume that somehow, somewhere such features will be disabled. It's not hard to provide an alternative, so it should remain our habit to do so.
Back in 2005 I compared the patch rates of IE, Firefox and Opera. In the past few days the subject of browser security has come up a few times, so I thought I'd revisit the topic to see what (if anything) has changed.
I'm using Secunia advisories again, to keep the data source consistent. The product pages are:
Note that Secunia's data starts from February 2003, regardless of each product's release date. You can investigate Secunia's methodologies if you will; there are some quirks. However I'm not after a perfect scientific investigation, so much as a broad strokes impression.
Since each browser has a different release date and lifespan, comparing raw numbers of problems isn't really useful. However we can compare the percentage of patches/fixes from the vendor - it's not how many security issues were identified, rather it's about how many were fixed.
I would have added in "time to patch" and "days vulnerable" and so on, but Secunia doesn't currently graph that information (as far as I know).
I thought about sorting out standardised timeframes and so on, but the bottom line here is how secure can a user's browser be today? I say "can" since we can't assume that all browsers are up to date with the latest patch (or even close), but we can at least evaluate the potential for a conscientious user to keep up. After all, we can only apply the patches that are available.
Having discussed the user acceptance issue in the previous article (to patch or not to patch?) I won't rehash it here. However I will mention that according to Secunia Opera users really need to update their browsers.
First, let's remind ourselves of the data from 2005:
| Browser | IE 6 | Firefox 1 | Opera 7/8** |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of advisories since Feb 2003* | 83 | 21 | 42 |
| Vendor patch | 55% | 81% | 100% |
| Vendor workaround | 1% | 0 | 0 |
| Partial fix | 13% | 5% | 0 |
| Unpatched | 30% | 14% | 0 |
* Firefox advisories start from August 2004.
** Opera 7 and 8 are combined to create a better comparison in terms of the number of advisories.
[Note - yes I know it didn't really make sense to combine Opera 7 and 8, but both had a 100% success rate so it didn't really change the outcome.]
First off, let's compare the patch rates of the same browsers (and we'll add Safari so people don't accuse me of forgetting Macs). Remember that these are all superceded versions now:
| Browser | IE6 | FF1 | Op8 | Saf1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of advisories since Feb 2003 | 110 | 39 | 15 | 15 |
| Vendor patch | 67% | 87% | 100% | 93% |
| Vendor workaround | 2% | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Partial fix | 11% | 3% | 0 | 0 |
| Unpatched | 20% | 10% | 0 | 7% |
So, no change for the three browsers compared last time. Safari slots in at second, after Opera and before Firefox.
Now let's have a look at the latest versions of the four browsers:
| Browser | IE7 | FF2 | Op9 | Saf2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of advisories since Feb 2003 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 6 |
| Vendor patch | 25% | 50% | 100% | 33% |
| Vendor workaround | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Partial fix | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Unpatched | 75% | 50% | 0 | 67% |
This produces very clear results, but the low number of advisories exaggerates the margins. The previous versions all have a higher number of advisories, but actually the only change in ranking is that Safari drops from second to third. The sharp drop in patch rate between Safari 1.x and 2.x makes it hard to get any useful conclusions - has Apple really dropped the ball?
For the other three browsers, the rankings remain:
It's worth noting that the patch rate for both Firefox 1.x and IE 6.x improved between 2005 and 2007. However both dropped noticeably between their previous and current versions (same as Safari). The proportion is exaggerated by the low number of advisories for the newest products.
Well, one clear thing is that Opera is the only vendor with a 100% patch record according to Secunia. Opera is also the only vendor that maintained its patch rate between versions - in fact you have to go back to Opera 6 to find an unpatched advisory (and there's only one).
It's also clear that IE has the worst patch rate of all the browsers compared. You could say that's a result of having a much bigger user base and a correspondingly higher incident rate. But then Microsoft has more resources than the other three vendors combined so it's a pretty weak excuse for leaving security issues unpatched.
Meanwhile Firefox does pretty well for an open-source product, consistently beating IE - even if not by much. Apple meanwhile needs to get Safari 2 sorted out; but we'll see what happens as more data becomes available (for all four browsers).
So at this time Opera wins the patch stakes. The argument can be made that Opera attracts fewer attacks due to small marketshare. That could be true - there's no way to truly know, since malicious hackers aren't polled - but when I'm doing my banking I don't care if it's true. I just care that my browser is secure; and Opera currently has the best record for fixing security issues.
Browser School Daze - Yahoo! News sums it up in an amusing way:
So, it's time for teacher to hand out the grades, and some final words.
Opera 9.0: You're doing fantastic work—it's good to see you back in form. Grade: A+.
Firefox 2.0 Beta 1: You're not working up to your usual level. You're still looking good, but I would like to see you try harder. Grade: B+.
IE 7 Beta 3: Great job. It's good to see you applying yourself, finally. I knew you had it in you. Grade: B.
Regular readers will know my feelings about the IE7 team's attitude, at least as published on their official blog. Generally I feel just a dash more sensitivity wouldn't have gone astray, given that Microsoft has come back to the browser game after a notable and extended absence.
So it's only fair for me to highlight this post: Albatross! : Microsoft, IE and the Web Standards Project. Now it's a personal blog and not an official line, but all the same it's an acknowledgement that they did disappear for a while there: I’m sorry Microsoft took an apparent vacation for a few years. Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa. Go watch Bill Gates’ and Dean Hachamovitch’s keynote addresses from the MIX06 conference, maybe their apologies will mean more.
The post also shows the frustration from the IE side of the fence: I’m not asking that people forget that vacation – I don’t expect them to. I’ve moved on, and I’m trying to do the right thing now. There's a difference between stewing in the past, and figuring out where to go from here.
It's a fair call that we have to move on, although there's a difference between stewing and venting. After all IE7 still isn't actually released and we have years of screaming at IE6 to get out of our systems ;) But it's true that it takes leaders like Molly Holzschlag to cross the line between bitching and helping. The rest of us should probably be getting a handle on the idea that IE7 might be a good browser.
Meanwhile, Eric Meyer reminds us (and apparently the IE team) that neither side is an amorphous mass. Eric's Archived Thoughts: Praise IE, Go to Jail : While at Mix 06, I was talking with one of the senior IE team folks about improving standards and the browser market. He said to me, "So what is it the Web design community wants?"—as if there is a single such community, and it always speaks with a unified voice on all matters. Does that sound like the Web design community you know? ... So why do we assume that Microsoft, a company with tens of thousands of employees working in hundreds of teams and units, would be any more unified?
Occasionally we all have to have a reality check. There are humans on all sides here. All the usual issues of building trust and relationships still stand; and everyone needs to cut the other side a break once in a while.
I've been completely unimpressed by all the buzz about IE7, with its promises, dictates and preview-preview-alpha-betas. But when both Molly and Malarky get excited enough to post big things about the next beta*, maybe it's time for some cautious hope :)
I wouldn't say I'm excited, but this would have to be the first time I've not felt a sense of dread about IE7.
* See: Microsoft IE7 Progress: Sneak Preview of MIX06 Release and The IE7 MIX 06 release | And all that Malarkey.
So, right now browser preview/beta releases are the new black. IE7b2 is doing the rounds, so I won't bother getting back into that circus. Let's have a look at Opera 9 Technology Preview 2 (on PC, since that's what I use).
There's a lot of polish going into this version, but I won't bore you with every single little detail which I like. The bigger points:
opera:config ... the ability to deep link a preference setting is going to make life a lot easier when directing users to a particular setting. Actually not a huge amount to complain about.
I'm looking forward to the final release. Although, actually the beta has been rock solid on my machine so far anyway.
This feeling has been brewing for a while: Firefox is turning into Internet Explorer. The attitudes surrounding Firefox draw ever closer to those attitudes it was supposed to destroy. Things people hate about IE and Microsoft are appearing in Firefox and the Mozilla Project.
What am I talking about? It mostly boils down to these points:
People weren't happy to let IE get away with that crap, so why are they taking it from Firefox?
I thought we were supposed to be getting away from the days where users with a small marketshare were told "too bad". Sadly an increasing number of sites are appearing which work in IE and Firefox, but not Opera or Safari. Users of these browsers can rant and rave but they are inreasingly being met with blank stares - why won't you just use Firefox and shut up?
Major players lament having to support "niche browsers" and even people who should know better are starting to go live with sites that only work in IE and Firefox:
AOL users, as well as those unaccounted for here (Netscape, Opera, etc.), would be wise to use Mozilla Firefox in order to have the best possible experience using Blogger.
What makes it even more interesting is the way many applications add support for other browsers later on. This indicates that it was entirely possible to support all browsers at go-live, but instead they ran early without bothering to finalise the product. Who cares about a few idiots who don't use IE or Firefox?
Most of this is based on the flawed assumption that browser stats are gospel. For all anybody really knows, Firefox's real marketshare could be a third of that reported in most log files (what with all the pre-fetching).
People ranted at length about being told to "go use IE", yet don't seem to blink when directed to Firefox. Just because Firefox has some open source cool points doesn't mean people should be forced to use it.
What happened to letting the user choose? Did we decide that Microsoft was right after all - everyone should use the exact same software?
Worse still, many people seem to think Firefox is the only alternative browser. Firefox has been pushed so hard, people are treating it like "the other browser" instead of "another browser". Gratingly, articles are appearing with titles like Why You Should Consider Budgeting a Site Redesign for Firefox 1.5 Now (Yes Firefox). Argh! No! Redesign with standards, not "for Firefox"!
There's been quite a bit of noise surrounding the <a ping> feature being proposed for Firefox. Actually, it's not a feature for Firefox so much as a bit of proprietary code for developers to add to their pages. Wow, there's a thought - let's code our pages for just one browser. Let's stick "Best viewed in Firefox!" buttons on our sites and get in the popcorn to watch Browser Wars 2.0 unfold.
Does one feature really mark an entire project? Not really, but have you ever had the feeling you've just seen the thin end of the wedge? The ping attribute isn't even being proposed for a good reason - the justification is that some sites do stupid redirection monkey business in order to track hits. Why a browser maker should get involved is beyond me. Let those sites break if their redirections fail, for all I care. Don't make up new code!
No matter what people say, Firefox is not perfect. It has bugs (table padding problems, anyone?), it has security flaws, it has a memory problem. It may have a larger marketshare than a few other browsers, but it's still a minnow compared with IE.
People should stop acting like it's perfect. Firefox is just another choice. Its marketshare could slip tomorrow - IE7 could take back everything Firefox gained; taking the "it's popular" argument back off Firefox. I'm sure Firefox users would still like to be supported even if that happened.
Unless we want to replace IE with Firefox, the industry needs to remember the original point of web standards: support standards, not browsers. Build once, publish anywhere, let the users choose the UA that's right for them.
We knew it was coming, now the time has officially arrived. IE5 for the Mac is no more. Internet Explorer 5 for Mac: Microsoft will end support for Internet Explorer for Mac on December 31st, 2005, and will provide no further security or performance updates. ... It is recommended that Macintosh users migrate to more recent web browsing technologies such as Apple's Safari.
Please listen, IE/Mac users: even Microsoft is recommending Safari. Please, stop using IE. It may have been a leader once, but those days are long gone. It's old and very, very busted. Let it rest now. OK?
WSJ.com - The Men Who Came To Dinner, and What They Said About Email.
The email (ie. webmail) project leaders for Google, Microsoft and Yahoo got together for a friendly dinner. What did they agree on? Well, Gmail is the clear leader of the beta-version pack; but also they just wish that everyone would use IE and stop hassling them: The men reported similar pressures: cranky users of Web browsers with tiny market shares demanding that their browsers be supported, while not appreciating how much work is involved.
Here's the thing - some of us do understand how much work is involved... and we still think they should get it right. Remember that we're talking about products and companies with massive budgets and massive userbases. All three companies consider email to be a key factor in obtaining and retaining customers - yet they're unwilling to let those users make a simple choice like which browser to use.
It's an odd aspect to the IT industry... major companies willing to cut out whole segments of their market, just because it's "Too Hard" to cater to them. Applied to another industry it'd look ridiculous - imagine a petrol station turning away anyone who isn't driving a Toyota Camry!
So anyway, it's clear even from a brief paraphrase that these three companies (or at least their email teams) are not keen on standards and resent expectations of cross-browser support. In fact, they look like classic Angry, Acceptance-Averse Application Administrators to me. Old school "it works in my browser so what's the problem" guys. No surprise, of course.
I think it's also about time we started calling companies about this "permanent beta" thing. It's too convenient an excuse - "hey, it's just a beta product, what do you expect?". Sure, but beta for years?
But hey, maybe I'm being too harsh and the final release of Gmail will actually work properly across the board. After all, it's just beta...