The Customer Chooses The Web Browser, Stupid - InformationWeek

InformationWeek is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

IT Leadership // CIO Insights & Innovation
09:06 AM
Connect Directly

The Customer Chooses The Web Browser, Stupid

Requiring customers to use a specific kind of technology to access your website or web apps is 1990s thinking.

A colleague just told me about a site that claims to be "leading the transformation of payer-provider collaboration" in healthcare "by delivering an advanced SaaS-based enterprise-class software product line." That's heady stuff. Yet when my colleague tried to browse the site on his Mac and iPad, it said: "Warning: Internet Explorer is required." Holy 1990s, Batman.

Depending on which source you consult -- and estimates vary wildly -- Internet Explorer now accounts for as little as 12% or as much as 58% of the web browser market. Can you tell me why you would want to give at least half your customers a headache?

At first, I didn't believe that such sites still exist, but they do. A US State Department site requires IE, and an insurance company site requires a Windows operating system behind the user's browser. I couldn't find an up-to-date list of similar sites, but suffice it to say they're out there in both the public and private sectors, including the one my colleague pointed out.

In the same way that I understand why wolves eat lambs, I understand why Google doesn't accommodate IE users of Google Docs. Likewise, I understand why Microsoft's development tools make it super easy to build apps using methods that break browsers other than IE. They're in a battle for marketshare. But if you're any other kind of company or government entity trying to serve your customers, the only smart option is to be a browser Switzerland, even though it might take more app or site development effort.

Of course, clever IT support personnel can help their people bypass IE-only checkpoints, including using user agent switcher functionality for Chrome, Firefox, and Safari that makes your browser of choice identify itself as IE. But faking out the web app or site works only for sites that block non-IE browsers without having a good technical reason to do so. It won't work for sites that have coded specifically enough to IE that things break when you don't use the Microsoft browser.

[Quit complaining about how tough your job is. Read IT Leaders: Grow A Pair.]

But the problem isn't the battle among browser software providers. It's folks creating web apps that insist on IE or any other browser, dictating to a substantial number of customers which platform they should be using. This is madness. My colleague Kurt Marko said it well during an email conversation on this topic. "Those who try to dictate technology choices to customers will get eaten alive by those who figure out creative ways to make it all seem like one, unified experience."

The browser wars are long over. Heading into 2014, any self-respecting web designer understands that it's all about responsive design -- setting up pages to display clearly on whichever browser or device they're being rendered. Only hidebound technologists still insist on imposing technical standardization on a user population that no longer has the deer-in-the-headlights look it had back in 1998.

Is supporting multiple platforms difficult? It depends on what you call difficult. It does require going beyond the default targets of the least expensive Fisher-Price development tools. Spend some money if your developers need a cross-platform tool that's easy to use, such as Xamarin. If you're strapped for cash, learn Ruby and Rails, or Python and Django. But don't choose the easy and cheap road. It's easy for you but not the customer.

No matter who is developing the website for your organization, if you don't want it to look lazy, stupid, or oblivious, ensure that your technology is fitting your customers, not the other way around.

Consumerization 1.0 was "we don't need IT." Today we need IT to bridge the gap between consumer and business tech. Also in the Consumerization 2.0 issue of InformationWeek: Stop worrying about the role of the CIO (free registration required).

We welcome your comments on this topic on our social media channels, or [contact us directly] with questions about the site.
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
User Rank: Apprentice
4/9/2014 | 4:48:48 PM
Re: How about the browsers following the standards????
While it is easy to point backwards and say "That is so 90s" to have been so "lax" in standards or "think it is acceptable to code focused one browser".  But it is so ill-informed and "modern day" to think this situation is mostly due to bad developers or laziness.  The fact is many systems are very large and have been built over years spanning more than a decade ago.  Some of them were created in the time of ASP classic using Microsoft tools where the very popular Internet Explorer browser was the basis of construction.  What worked in IE passed coding and testing.  IE was more forgiving and some of the rules it operated under in prior versions preceded more restrictive html standards.  This is why there is Compatibility Mode.  It is painted as a negative on the site being accessed... but this is a situation created by those who developed the standards and the companies adhereing to standards that became more strict than prior ones.  Some newer browsers wre developed under more recent standards and could take advantage of only focusing on those rules... IE is stuck having to cater both to new standards and to being able to still run the code of the past when standards were more relaxed.  Microsoft looks really bad when a new version of its browser can't run a site that ran fine on prior versions.  The others can just blame Microsoft or the developers.  

And then there is another major key to this issue.  From an enterprise point of view, coding for and testing on all major browsers is FAR more expensive than coding for one.  And despite what an IT development department may or may not prefer, someone has to pay for the time to not only ensure new functionality works across all the main browsers, but go back and tweak existing working code to ensure it works on all the other browsers.  Very often this is not an expense that the business wants to accept, especially if they are not in the business of serving the full general public and essentially have a closed-network website. 

What people lose sight of (or never learn) is the fact that browsers like Chrome were able to skip a lot of functionality and logic by adhereing to strict standards and then point at a website as faulting and also toute the speed of their browser relative to IE (which remained coded for more scenarios and more forgiving)... Well, yeah, a browser that covers less options and makes less assumptions will be faster... but that doesn't really make it BETTER.  The standards are what they became... but, some of them are arguably kinda dumb restrictions.  For example... controls on a page are given names and ids.  In IE, if you gave a control a name but no id, and then referenced the control in javascript using the getElementById() function, IE says, "I know you did not put an I attribute on your control, but you did give it a name, I will use the name as the ID" and the code runs.  Chrome says "I have no idea what control you mean" and the code breaks.  IE is more forgiving about bad syntax and will let the screen run as much as it can.  Chrome pukes.  As users, we just want the websites we are trying to use to work, in the end, I will take the browser that works over the browser that adheres to deeper standards and then smugly simply doesn't work on the "non-standard" html as if that is something to be proud of.

For every site that I find that struggles with IE, I find one that struggles with Chrome (or any other browser).  Generally, it comes down to the same thing... which browser was the developer working and testing with most... because generally, that is the browser that site is going to perform best on where the others might have issues with the same code.  It is a shame, I honestly think the standards committees and browser companies dropped the ball on this issue.  Their choices to not address things better from their end leaves millions of websites and webpages affected.  At a minimum some forgiving standards rules and allowance of common previous syntaxes could have been maintained to avoid so many headaches going forward.   
User Rank: Apprentice
12/13/2013 | 5:35:19 PM
Re: How about the browsers following the standards????
...and when you throw Adobe Acrobat (especially LiveCycle forms) into the mix, things get REALLY messed up because not every company seems to be able to come to an agreement with Adobe on licensing and fees.
User Rank: Ninja
12/13/2013 | 7:45:53 AM
Re: How about the browsers following the standards????
I fully agree! Nobody gets bent out of shape when an application is only available on Windows. Where is the demand that all applications ever published have to run on OS X and Linux as well? And where is the complaint that not everything in the Google app store also works on iOS, Windows Phone, Symbian, WebOS? One can call such a demand unreasonable without much debate.

Browsers are designed so drastically different that the same perfectly valid markup and script gets executed and interpreted differently in each browser. IE is and always was the worst offender, but I also come across cases where everything works fine in IE and Firefox, but fails in Chrome. And one would think that Firefox on Windows behaves the same as Firefox on OS X or Firefox on Linux. True, for the most part that is the case, but not always.

Not only developers need to adjust to that, QA has to test on all these platforms and combinations. Let's start counting:

- Firefox on Windows, OS X, Linux - 3

- Chrome on Windows, Linux - 2

- IE - 1

- Safari - 1

- Opera on Windows, Linux - 2

- KDE - 1

This is already a count of 10. Add to that the different Windows versions and IE versions (at least 9, 10, 11) plus the common agreement to support current version and current version minus 1. And I am not sure if Opera is available for OS X and if KDE runs on other OS than Linux. And Linux itself comes in various distributions that potentially introduce differences. Add to that hardware differences based on processor and graphics platforms. One would think that any x86_64 platform is the same, but some applications or systems are picky, try to install OS X on an x86_64 system based on an AMD chance. And now add the insane variety of browsers on the numerous mobile platforms!

So we are looking at at least 40 to 60 different combinations for which a web app needs to be potentially optimized, but in any case fully tested to meet the demand put forward in this article. Sure, we in QA could automate things if we just had a tool that could run automated scripts on any platform. Yes, there are excellent cloud services out there that have even the most exotic browser and OS combo available, but hooking up 3rd party systems into our R&D network does not really jive well with securing IP.

Now add to that the expectation that in an agile world a feature request can be made on Monday and by Friday we have product to ship. Really? Design takes a day or two, coding a day or two, and testing it on every stinkin' browser out there for any combination of new and existing functionality is supposed to happen when? And next week we rip everything out because users do not like it or the entire app gets thrown own in favor of the next best thing.

Demanding that every web app runs on every browser without any problems is unreasonable and attempting to make this happen is unsustainable. Sorry to say, but anyone asking for this is just clueless! Yes, the IE only approach is so 90s, but we can thank Microsoft and its IE6 for that plus ASP and whatever else Microsoft cooked up to build a proprietary stack on a standards based platform!
Gov 3.0
Gov 3.0,
User Rank: Apprentice
12/12/2013 | 2:34:56 PM
Internal policy and lack of testing equipment gets in the way
Since I've been working with web interfaces, I've seen a number of problems:

1. Junior developers and testers that have no concept that browser have differences.

2. Managers that won't pay for proper test equipment or won't pay for time to test on multiple systems.

3. Managers that think 50-70% = 100% of users.

4. Managers that think all users are like them.

4. Organization security policy that all development must be done on the organization's approved workstations with the allowed software. I'm in this situation now. Our development is done on a custom (hacked) version of windows 7 and a custom version IE8. We now have an approved custom version of Chrome. This is great for internal web applications. The internal users all have the same setup. It does very little to support development of web applications for external users.
User Rank: Ninja
12/12/2013 | 6:44:41 AM
Re: How about the browsers following the standards????
Oh, I'm not blaming the web developers.  I'm blaming their maangers.  Although, now that you point it out, the web developers probably should be a little clued in as well that we don't live in the world of WINSOCK.DLL and Trumpet TCP anymore.
User Rank: Apprentice
12/11/2013 | 10:58:12 PM
Cover Oregon - an overall embarrassment
Cover Oregon (the Oregon Obamacare Exchange) has done just this - requiring everyone to use MS Internet Explorer.  Other than a completely incompetent rollout of the site (still not done) they add insult to injury by proving to everyone they are also woefully behind the times and technically stupid. 
User Rank: Author
12/11/2013 | 3:28:55 PM
Customers Vote
And make it work on tablets, too. App quirks that force me to put down the tablet and move over to the laptop are getting old quickly.
User Rank: Apprentice
12/11/2013 | 3:17:49 PM
IE doesn't follow standards
Over the years, IE is the culprit that doesn't follow standards or tries to create its own.  IE 7 is still out there in use and is very difficult to accomodate.  Spend money!  Do you think startups want to spend money supporting older browsers that should never have been released.  We developed our cloud-based application on Windows Azure using the most up-to-date HTML 5 standards and are developing in Microsoft's Visual Studio 2013 (and prevously 2012) and we still have the most problems supporting IE, especially IE 8 which is in wide use in companies and the operating system they use does matter and many are still on Windows XP.

On the other hand, Firefox seems to be out of favor with some large companies like Amex which don't support it - although they don't advertise that. 

User Rank: Apprentice
12/11/2013 | 2:34:09 PM
How about the browsers following the standards????
This artile actually made me see red.  As a developer, I should not have to write differnt code for every browsser, nor should I be requried to purchase additional tools to support it.  Though they are getting closer, the three major browser competitors are STILL not following HTML5 standards equally, and making a page work for all broswers is not usually a one-line fix.

QUIT BLAMING THE WEB DEVELOPERS!! We need an industry that will quit crashing my pages with every new release!!!!
User Rank: Ninja
12/11/2013 | 1:37:48 PM
Balanced (somewhat)
 I was glad to see you finally pointed out there are also people/sites that unnecessarily require other browsers beside IE.  Some in fact specifically exclude IE, besides just Google.  But that is one of the reasons I don't use Google apps. 

I don't love IE but I don't hate it either.  I also have Firefox at work because our current allowed version of IE is 8 and some sites just do not render correctly, or work at all.  If I really want to get to the site I try Firefox.  At home I have IE 10 and 11 if a site doesn't work with whichever one of them is on the computer I am using I just don't go to the site. 
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
2021 Outlook: Tackling Cloud Transformation Choices
Joao-Pierre S. Ruth, Senior Writer,  1/4/2021
Enterprise IT Leaders Face Two Paths to AI
Jessica Davis, Senior Editor, Enterprise Apps,  12/23/2020
10 IT Trends to Watch for in 2021
Cynthia Harvey, Freelance Journalist, InformationWeek,  12/22/2020
White Papers
Register for InformationWeek Newsletters
Current Issue
2021 Top Enterprise IT Trends
We've identified the key trends that are poised to impact the IT landscape in 2021. Find out why they're important and how they will affect you.
Flash Poll