Ed Foster's Gripelog || No IE? No Can See

» All 33 InfoWorld Newsletters Technology & Business Daily

INFOWORLD GRIPE LINE BY ED FOSTER

Bookmark this page

No IE? No Can See

By Ed Foster, Section The Gripelog
Posted on Tue Aug 24, 2004 at 12:25:09 AM PDT

One thing that's always irritated those who don't choose to use Internet Explorer is finding a website that requires IE. Such complaints seem to have grown all the more passionate now security concerns are driving more users to consider IE alternatives.

When a reader made a passing remark in a recent story about not being able to register his product at 3Com's website because he was using a Macintosh, a number of readers chimed in. "I'll second this," wrote one reader. "The (3Com) product registration page doesn't work with Opera 7.5 or Firefox .8 on Windows 2000. As a longtime professional web developer, this is an utterly asinine and unnecessary design choice and just one more reason to avoid 3Com, which is too bad."

Readers noted some other pages where using browsers other than IE seemed to be a problem. "I was recently trying to buy air tickets with Cathay Pacific for my Mom," wrote one reader. "No, can't do, because I am not using IE. Anything else gets bumped out. I don't even get to see airline routes. I went to Singapore Airlines -- they did say (only) IE and Netscape, but they actually happily accepted Mozilla."

And, while it's perhaps not a big surprise, another reader recently wrote to say he was having trouble accessing some parts of Microsoft's site without IE. "Microsoft is trying to control what browsers people use access the Microsoft knowledge base," he wrote. "When using IE, clicking on 'Advanced Search' will bring you to the advanced search options page. When using Mozilla Firefox, clicking on this same link will bring you back to the basic knowledge base search page. So Microsoft is quietly hiding content and features from non-IE users of the knowledge base."

Since I use Firefox myself, I checked this reader's gripe when he first wrote me about it a few weeks ago. Sure enough, from Microsoft's "Search the Knowledge Base" page, I was unable to get to the advanced search page using Firefox. However, I checked again yesterday, and I can report this behavior has changed. Now with Firefox I can't even get to the basic knowledge base search page on Microsoft's site, much less the advanced one. Oh, well, maybe keeping its knowledge base safe from prying eyes is Microsoft's idea of heightened security.

What other websites have you seen that won't let you use your browser of choice? Write me at Foster@gripe2ed.com or post your comments below.

< Citibank Rejects Phishing Report As Spam | Fine Print Follies >

No IE? No Can See | 64 comments (64 topical) | Post A Comment

Try it with Opera[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#1)
by lokikatz on Tue Aug 24, 2004 at 09:56:31 AM PDT

The Microsoft Advanced Search works on Opera 7.54, but the text input boxes are about 1/8 the size of the ones in IE.

[ Reply to This ]

Tool for Firefox[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#2)
by Anonymous User on Tue Aug 24, 2004 at 10:38:57 AM PDT

With Firefox, there is a Tool (Useragent Switcher), which works when you set it as Internet Explorer.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Firefox Useragent Switcher actually works[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#45)
by chicks on Sun Sep 05, 2004 at 07:55:53 AM PDT

We use the Firefox Useragent Switcher in Fedora Core with Mozilla and under Windows with Firefox. In both cases we have been able to use historically IE-only sites such as Suntrust. The person that does my books is ecstatic at not needing to reboot into Windows just to check the bank balances anymore.

Time to wipe that Windows partition for good. Bru-hahahahaha. Later Bill and thanks for all the fish.
--
</chris>

There are two ways of constructing a software design. One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies. A
[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Bad good idea[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#49)
by Anonymous User on Wed Sep 29, 2004 at 10:25:20 AM PDT

Yes, it works on some sites that just test the useragent, but not those which check using javascript (checking if IE-only objects or properties exist) and not, even worse, those which use ActiveX and/or VisualBasicScript to check.
All in all, surfing with a doomed useragent is a bad idea: it shows webmasters wrongs stats, hiding people with non-IE browsers.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Anony[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#126)
by Anonymous User on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 02:06:01 AM PDT

China Related_web_resources

China Restaurants

China Shopping

China Tips_and_Practical_Info

China Tourist

China Tourist_Attractions

pasing OICQ:80810487

Yale-Yale

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

yes[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#128)
by maderikapapa on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:42:03 PM PDT

出会い系出会い系サイト出会い喫茶出会い掲示板ナンパ出会いカフェ人妻出会い無 009;系サイト優良出会い系攻略完全無料。アダルトビデオアダルト動画アダルトアニメアダルト画像アダル 488;サイト無料DVDアダルト風俗サンプル無料風俗優良アダルトサイト比較海 806;。人妻画像人妻パラダイス知合い人妻援護会人妻コレクション風 439;告白。熟女画像東京熟女掲示板動画熟女ビデオおまんこオナニー。エロ画像エロフラッシュアニメ 456;ロ動画エロゲームエロ漫画無料エロサイト。エッチ画像エッチ動画エッチ小説写真エッチ 450;ニメエッチ0930。セックスアナルセックス画像セックス動画セックスフレンドスワッピング SEX写真セックスボランティセ 483;クス体位東京セックス仕方 SEX。おっぱい画像おっぱい村長おっぱい楽園掲示板お 387;ぱい命おっぱいゲーム。巨乳動画巨乳画像アイドル巨乳 522;示板風俗。セフレ募集セフレ掲示板セフレ画像掲示板セフレの作り方出会い無料素人セフレ。童貞狩りエロ漫画童貞狩り童貞喪失童貞オークション素人童貞逆援。不倫パートナー不倫出会い人妻不倫不倫を楽しみたい方にはお薦め 154;妻画像など満載出会いサイトを楽しむならココ無料出会いで一緒に遊ぼう出会いはLOVEｱｹﾞｲﾝで決まり

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

MS and old IE.[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#3)
by mbeymer on Tue Aug 24, 2004 at 10:39:51 AM PDT

When I was reinstalling my wife old 98 box the recovery disk installs an old version of IE, I think version 4 somthing. When I went to MS's web site I couldn't navigate to install a newer version of IE. I also couldn't get system updates. Funny thing was when I went to the web site using an old version netscape the web site complained and linked me directly to the IE download page allowing me to install IE. Looks to me like they were trying to force an upgrade to something newer than 98. Then when It was hit with an old navigator they just wanted it switched to IE.
-Mike

[ Reply to This ]

How NOT to do a survey, How to access M$KB[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#4)
by Reziac on Tue Aug 24, 2004 at 10:48:11 AM PDT

One day I took a survey (hosted by one of the major online commercial survey outfits) regarding browser preferences. At the end of this very long survey (which took about 15 minutes even for one very experienced with surveys), I discovered that the SUBMIT SURVEY button would only work in IE6. What's wrong with this picture??

As to the M$ knowledge base -- indeed, M$'s site in general -- the workaround is to start at http://search.microsoft.com, with javascript disabled. Then *any* browser works. (I use it regularly with my preferred ancient Netscape 3.04, js and images off.) I just checked, and it still works as of two minutes ago.

M$ has occasionally blocked access to ALL of their site for non-IE browsers, but this never lasts very long, probably due to the screams from corporate IT types.
~REZ~
[ Reply to This ]

Web Site Shenanigans[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#5)
by Anonymous User on Tue Aug 24, 2004 at 11:20:54 AM PDT

It's pretty ironic that you'd whine about this when the articles on the www.gripe2ed.com site use font sizes specified in pixels. That means that anyone, like me, using a high resolution video system needs the Hubble Space Telescope to read the text. Not that I approve of "IE only" web sites. Quite the opposite, in fact. But I don't approve the "we know what font size you should be using" idiocy, either. Face it, the web was never intended to give authors the level of control of a copy editor for a printed document. Get with it. Use relative sizes on your style sheets everyone can read your pages.

[ Reply to This ]

Re:Web Site Shenanigans[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#10)
by Jeff Foster on Tue Aug 24, 2004 at 12:55:40 PM PDT

When I first designed this site, I used relative fonts, and I got a lot of complaints about the page layout from non "high resolution video system" users, complaining that the page layout was blown. The reason being that we have a lot of embedded tables, so when their 640x480 fonts came up, the tables got drawn in thin straight lines, yielding about 2 letters per line. I had to make a compromise, and setting the pixel size is the one I made. To my eyes, on a 19 inch monitor, it is quite readable between 640x480 and 1600x1200. There are couple ways around this which I would recommend, since we aren't the only ones that do this: you can use an alternative style sheet, you can set the minimum font size in your preferences, you could turn the resolution down a notch, or you could compliment your high resolution video system with a larger monitor.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Pixtel Setting[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#18)
by Anonymous User on Wed Aug 25, 2004 at 05:01:33 AM PDT

My browser is Netscape 7.1. When I access most sites, including this one with type that is too small, I press "CTL+" and the font enlarges, If I press "CTL-", the font decreases in size, It is very easy to manage. I can do this with IE also but it is much more inconvenient to do. Otherwise, I do not understand the issue as described by others.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

increasing font size[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#42)
by Anonymous User on Sat Aug 28, 2004 at 07:45:34 PM PDT

On Mozilla 1.7 (and probably on other browsers), you can increase the font size with CTRL-+ (CTRL-plus). My resolution is set to 1280x1024, on a 17" monitor, and enlarging the font size can be helpful. I only get annoyed by the websites where CTRL-+ doesn't work.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Easier font sizing[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#50)
by Anonymous User on Wed Sep 29, 2004 at 03:12:02 PM PDT

Rather than Ctrl+ or Ctrl- I usually just hold the Ctrl key while rolling the mouse wheel until I like what I see.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

FREEDOM OF CHOICE[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#6)
by Anonymous User on Tue Aug 24, 2004 at 12:02:49 PM PDT

I hit an IE-only site from time to time and it's rarely ever important that I go back but the MS Knowledge Base browser exclusion is the epitome of unfair trade practices, much like forcing IE down users' throats, and defending it by "tying" it to the OS by inventing, and replacing a perfectly good, Help system. I don't suppose the update system (which nags me to death because I don't want some of them) works with anything else either. I was pretty disappointed their hand wasn't slapped harder than it was. They're so transparent and low-brow in their approach.

[ Reply to This ]

FREEDOM OF CHOICE[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#7)
by Anonymous User on Tue Aug 24, 2004 at 12:16:23 PM PDT

>They're so transparent and low-brow in their approach. Yes! Shouldn't the work stand on its own in a supposedly "free" marketplace without all the cheesey, underhanded tactics? With all the viruses enabled by IE, it wouldn't stand a chance if we weren't forced to install it. Is IEradicator available for the newer OS's?

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

tying to the OS - very true[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#28)
by Anonymous User on Thu Aug 26, 2004 at 04:18:46 PM PDT

I know someone with a Mac and every time that computer comes to an IE only website, even if using IE, it has problems because Microsoft's newest IE for the Mac is 5.2, forget about 5.5 or 6, which they want you to use.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Freedom Of Choice[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#44)
by Anonymous User on Mon Aug 30, 2004 at 02:24:28 PM PDT

The plain and simple truth of the matter is that Microsoft is using its monopoly power now to push Windows sales, that is to say, if a web site you must use for your job *only* works with IE6, then you pretty much have to go buy a Windows computer to get IE6.

As I opined in an editorial I wrote in April 2004:

Windows was the monopoly operating system of the 90's

Internet Explorer is the monopoly operating system of this decade, and if we don't complain, we're toast.

I don't want to sound a like a broken record, but when people can't do their paying job because they can no longer access web content they need in order to work from home, it's ridiculous, and some regulatory agency or entity ought to be taking some action.

Bill Davies

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

carnival cruise lines[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#8)
by don on Tue Aug 24, 2004 at 12:18:02 PM PDT

I needed to print out my pre-registration for a cruise I was lucky enough to go on. It had a print button that only worked in ie. Ironically, all it did was print the page you were viewing, so once I realized I just hit print in firefox. I seldom do business with a site that doesn't like my firefox. Over at http://htmlfixit.com we spend a lot of time helping people with cross browser compatability issues. Most often a page which is w3c compliant will work in all browsers, but sometimes when you add fancier features they don't work. Our site has an ever increasing number of firefox and netscape/mozilla visitors, so I think those in the know are making cross browser adaptations rapidly.

[ Reply to This ]

ironic?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#52)
by Anonymous User on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 05:49:01 AM PDT

Why is that ironic?

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

USPS goes postal over Opera versions[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#9)
by Anonymous User on Tue Aug 24, 2004 at 12:50:09 PM PDT

If you go to the USPS site (www.usps.com) using Opera versions 6 or 7, you will get the following message:

Warning, you are using Opera Version 7.54

Internet Explorer 4.0 or better
Netscape 4.0 or better
Mozilla 1.0.1 or better
Opera 5.0 or better

[ Reply to This ]

USPS Track & Confirm - buggy version detect[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#12)
by jeffq on Tue Aug 24, 2004 at 02:59:44 PM PDT

I've had a years-long and increasing acrimonious battle with USPS over this. They have never directly responded. Here is the last complaint I sent to them, back on 9/13/2003:

Your website continues to report browser errors that are themselves in error. You state that you support:

Internet Explorer 4.0 or better

Netscape 4.0 or better

Mozilla 1.0.1 or better

Opera 5.0 or better

I have been using this service successfully with Opera 6.0 and 7.11, which is within your stated requirements. Yet EVERY SINGLE PAGE I bring up erroneously complains that I am using an unsupported browser. The SAME ERROR MESSAGE acknowledges that I am using a valid version of Opera by correctly reporting its version.
As my family's resident computer teacher, I plan to show your error dialog to my nieces and nephews to demonstrate how important it is to think about what you program, in order to avoid looking stupid to the world Internet community. (Okay, kids, is 7.11 less than 5.0? That's right, it isn't! Now you know more than the US Postal Service!) I'm sorely tempted to write a script that would allow me to send you one complaint for every time I get this bone-headed error message. If I do, you can expect 9-120 new complaints EVERY SINGLE DAY from me, based on the fact that I get this error THREE TIMES for every package I track. Is this what I must do to get you to fix a lousy arithmetic error that affects every friggin' page on your site?

Their last response:

We are unable to process your request via the Internet. Please report complaints or problems with the web site by calling the toll-free Internet customer service line...

I thought this was quite appropriate, since clearly they have a webmaster who I wouldn't trust to make change at McDonald's. The last time I looked at their JavaScript for determining browser version, I found a bug that didn't parse the version number correctly, seemingly for any browser I'm familiar with. (I don't know if it works for any version of MSIE, but I recall thinking it probably wouldn't for at least some, making me wonder if anyone at USPS even *uses* their own website, let alone tests it.)

I basically gave up trying to talk to them.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Browsers & web sites[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#11)
by Anonymous User on Tue Aug 24, 2004 at 02:46:35 PM PDT

I've been responsible for a non-profit association web site since 1997 and have always tested my pages and any scripts in IE, Netscape, Opera, and now Foxfire. I almost started using a new navigation JavaScript a year ago until I noticed it only worked in IE, so I ditched it and started using text links instead.

[ Reply to This ]

Anti-trust[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#13)
by Anonymous User on Tue Aug 24, 2004 at 04:06:23 PM PDT

I guess the Governments Anti-Trust settlement solved this type of behavior by Microsoft. How much more protection can we afford for the government Anti-Trust Attorneys provide for us?

[ Reply to This ]

Economics[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#14)
by Anonymous User on Tue Aug 24, 2004 at 04:24:08 PM PDT

I avoid doing business with web sites that go out of their way to help keep the Microsoft monopoly. In this day and age, it is not that difficult to produce a content rich and satisfying web experience while maintaining a high level of compatibility with many web browsers out there. Relying on IE specific behavior may seem cost effective in the short term, but in the long term, adherence to standards for something intended for broad audiences is going to be the winning approach. I, among others, make purchasing decisions based on this, so companies better start paying attention. One of Google's success points is their minimal approach. If the web designers are having a hard time getting a KHTML (Safari/OmniWeb/Konqueror) or Gecko (Camino/Firefox/Mozilla) web engine to work with their site, how will they extend their customer base to cell phones and other small, embedded devices? The answer? Lots and lots of additional effort and resources - or they don't. It would have made sense to do it "right" in the first place. I don't mind dropping Netscape 4.x support (which lots of sites still seem to support) since that old browser has too many deficiencies for 2004 and the # of users is quite low now.

[ Reply to This ]

Hey, I use it![ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#30)
by Anonymous User on Thu Aug 26, 2004 at 07:38:58 PM PDT

And have to fire up the old leftover @home IE to use Monster, and now Dice, etc. PAIN IN THE ASS!

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Firefox WFM at these sites[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#34)
by Rocktman2 on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 06:03:23 AM PDT

I use Firefox on Monster & Dice everyday w/o any problems. Current version I use is 0.9.3, but had no problems w/ these sites when using the earlier Firebird & Phoenix versions either. Now Flipdog is another story. It likes IE and old Netscape, but useragent switcher takes care of that.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

yes[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#129)
by maderikapapa on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:42:07 PM PDT

Program for Whatever you want[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#15)
by Anonymous User on Tue Aug 24, 2004 at 05:37:24 PM PDT

I think any website should program for what ever browser they feel like. I personally program for IE..

[ Reply to This ]

ahh...to be ignorant again...[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#17)
by Anonymous User on Wed Aug 25, 2004 at 03:16:29 AM PDT

"I think any website should program for what ever browser they feel like. I personally program for IE." if your goal is to have as many visitors as possible, you might want to think about programming for other browsers also as I for one wouldn't visit your site if it looked like garbage on firefox... also, I was submitting an order for a preview disk of acrobat from adobe.com, the submit button would give me the actual cgi code in firefox just displaying on the page, but the order worked just fine when I switched to IE...

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

ahh...to be ignorant again...[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#35)
by Anonymous User on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 09:35:20 AM PDT

If it looks like garbage in firefox then USE IE!!!

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Ignorance...[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#43)
by sconeu on Mon Aug 30, 2004 at 08:33:33 AM PDT

And if I don't use Windows, thereby not having IE, you obviously don't want me as a customer?

--
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the United States of America.
[ Parent | Reply to This ]

People don't understan the entire picture[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#19)
by Anonymous User on Wed Aug 25, 2004 at 05:23:21 AM PDT

I maintain our company's website. I'm one guy not an entire group with many developers. I get 3 days to do 6 weeks worth of work and somehow I'm supposed to make our site work with 6 different browsers some that generate almost no hits. The browser was supposed to make it easier for everyone to get connected but that's not true. I guess people think you just flip a switch and all your code is compatable across the board. Testing your changes on all these browsers requires an entire staff of testors. How many non-web developers/programmers need to make their code work across 6 different platforms? If they did, you'd hear screaming from them as well. Maybe instead of griping at the people that create the websites, you should be griping at the browser companies and get them to have the same functionality. IE has alot of functionality that everyone wants so I guess we are supposed to dumb down our sites so they can work with everything else.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Write Standards Compliant Code[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#20)
by sconeu on Wed Aug 25, 2004 at 08:19:12 AM PDT

Don't bother with fancy pulldowns, etc...

If you write W3C compliant HTML4.01 code, it won't matter what browser the user has, it will display and function properly.

--
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the United States of America.
[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Validate the code?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#51)
by Anonymous User on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 09:27:59 AM PDT

I use the developer toolbar plugin for FireFox which allows me to (among other things) instantly run html validation on any page I am viewing. This page fails badly...

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

code to the standards[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#26)
by Anonymous User on Thu Aug 26, 2004 at 12:46:54 PM PDT

I'm one guy not an entire group with many developers.
Many others, even those with very large companies, are in the same boat.

somehow I'm supposed to make our site work with 6 different browsers
That's the beauty of real standards, not supposed de facto standards. Code to the real standards (as sconeu advises), and even if you're not able to verify the code will work (due to time, resources, etc.), at least you can have some real confidence that it will.

IE has alot of functionality that everyone wants
Everyone who? Developers or users? The browser is a tool for the user to find the content they want. That is, it's the user's tool, not the developer's. To require the user to use a tool of the developer's choosing rather than the user's is misguided at best, and arrogant at worst.

If the purpose of the web site is to generate revenue, there's likely a shareholder or two who would ask why their investment income is being limited.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

It's not as hard as you make it out to be[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#29)
by Anonymous User on Thu Aug 26, 2004 at 07:14:15 PM PDT

The browser was supposed to make it easier for everyone to get connected but that's not true

That's because the browser companies all added their own proprietary extensions and the web community happily started using the proprietary extensions. If the web community coded to the existing standards, this would not be such a problem.

How many non-web developers/programmers need to make their code work across 6 different platforms?

How about programs that support multiple versions of Windows? Given the amount of software that breaks with each new Windows version and needs an update, it's not as magically easy as you suggest. Forward, backward, and cross compatiblity have always been a difficulty of programming, no matter what programming age you talk about. Some areas are better than others, and at least there are widely ratified standards in existence for the web.

However, as long as people program to the IE proprietary extensions, IE will continue to support the existing standards poorly.

IE has alot of functionality that everyone wants so I guess we are supposed to dumb down our sites so they can work with everything else.

The IE proprietary tags do add features that can be nice. However, if you start out intending to support standard-following browsers, you don't lose out on much, and the effort required is not that much higher unless you are using WYSIWYG tools to make your web pages. Few (if any) WYSIWYG tools for HTML generate good or standard compliant HTML.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

It's not as hard as you make it out to be[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#36)
by JimB on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 10:45:29 AM PDT

This parent post should be read three times by all the "It's wrong to make it IE only" types. The one coment I would make is under the heading "The browser was supposed to make it easier for everyone to get connected but that's not true" The web community used the IE extensions and now the users expect (and sometimes demand) them. Instead of adopting a similar standard or adopting the IE extensions as standard, the community just whines they they aren't in their standard. IE may not fully implement the standard, and in that case you have a legitimate gripe. You can't gripe when the standard doesn't implement something IE does and gets used because it's useful.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Another perspective[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#37)
by Howling on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 04:14:46 PM PDT

When you are building an IE specific site does your management /sales care that you are turning away potential customers?

How about analogy in to the real world (slight stretch).

Imagine if Walmart started turning away import cars attempting to enter the parking lot. Stating they designed the lot to the standards for American made cars. Because the US car standards includes some features that allow for a realy cool parking lot that customers like.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

okay[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#38)
by Jeff Foster on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 07:27:44 PM PDT

What feature is it in IE that customers really like? I'm wracking my brain, and I can't come up with one. IE is a terrible, outdated browser that doesn't have a single advantage to its use other then the fact that everyone else uses it.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Nonsense![ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#39)
by Reziac on Fri Aug 27, 2004 at 09:17:46 PM PDT

As everyone knows, IE does one thing really well: given a brand new naked Windows installation, IE lets you download a better browser. ;)
~REZ~
[ Parent | Reply to This ]

IE has alot of functionality that everyone wants[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#33)
by Anonymous User on Thu Aug 26, 2004 at 08:57:53 PM PDT

Ooooh! Shiny!!! No, you're not supposed to dumb down your site; you're supposed to smarten it up.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

As you like ...[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#32)
by wmbennett on Thu Aug 26, 2004 at 08:51:29 PM PDT

You are certainly free to program for IE only; the rest of us are free to ignore you and your site.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

I agree completely[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#47)
by trashpicker on Tue Sep 28, 2004 at 07:55:18 AM PDT

I think that all web developers for all sites should develop only to IE specification because their sites should be snazzy MS-driven showcases for non-dumbed-down-ness.

Meanwhile, poor ole' me and my team at our $3MM/day ecommerce site will still be developing for all browsers, resolutions and platforms to make sure that the customers using those "dumb" browsers come our way. Thanks a lot for your help! We appreciate it!

Oh, and just ignore the fact that that that IE is in decline. It won't matter if you develop for IE. It's a great idea to develop only for IE. Really, it is!

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

M$ speaks w/ forked tongue?[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#16)
by Anonymous User on Tue Aug 24, 2004 at 07:02:07 PM PDT

Even more asinine due to the fact that I'm sure I just read a news note that said the dufus crew at M$ had posted a note on their website recommending that users at least temporarily not use IE but opt for an alternate browser. That's what I read. Now I didn't check this when I read it as I just don't go to msn dot anything. They have become, how shall I say it, ... irrelevant ... at least for our household. 3 kids, 5 PC's networked and only one old sad Win98 box for old times sake. Honestly, that PC is rarely used. Do yourselves a favor, wean from the teat and pickup a Linux distro. If more people would disregard their sites and products, you might see an improvement in their attitude but if you sheep are gonna keep feeding the wolf, then oh well...be chewed.

[ Reply to This ]

yes[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#131)
by maderikapapa on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:42:49 PM PDT

DOJ Agreement[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#21)
by Anonymous User on Wed Aug 25, 2004 at 08:54:36 AM PDT

Would all of this not be in violation of the Deparmtne Of Justice Agreement they are a party to? I also have problems with some of the stuff on MSNBC.com when I access it with NetScape.

[ Reply to This ]

More browser ignorance[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#22)
by Anonymous User on Wed Aug 25, 2004 at 09:36:25 AM PDT

My company recently changed our timecard system to ADP's ezLaborManager web-based system, and their software is browser-biased by corporate decree. It checks your browser's user agent (ID string) and refuses to accept anything but Internet Explorer or Netscape. If you try to use an unsanctioned browser, this dialog box is displayed:

[JavaScript Application]
One of the following browsers is required to view this application:
- Internet Explorer 5 thru 6
- Netscape Navigator 6.2 thru 7.1.
Please return when you are running one of these browsers.
[ OK ]

It doesn't matter that Mozilla, Firefox, Camino, and Safari work with their application; they haven't been "blessed" by ADP. This situation is highly annoying to my company's Macintosh users and to the Windows users who avoid IE due to its security shortcomings. To add insult to injury, the warning notice is displayed over and over again if you click on "OK"; you have to close the browser window to get out.

After a little searching, I found a way to bypass ADP's corporate ignorance. The User Agent Switcher extension for Mozilla Firefox lets the browser masquerading as Internet Explorer, Netscape, or Opera. ADP ezLaborManager works just fine with Firefox pretending to be Netscape. :)

[ Reply to This ]

user agent switcher for Safari[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#27)
by Anonymous User on Thu Aug 26, 2004 at 01:02:01 PM PDT

The same can be done for Safari via the Debug menu. This menu can be enabled via the command line, or via Safari Enhancer.

I've not tried to do this; I just move on to another site.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]

yes[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#130)
by maderikapapa on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:42:41 PM PDT