If you notice that your visitors are using browsers with default 10-year-old-standards-support, then let them know about it! “Hey, there’s a choice to be made, you’re not experiencing well-made web applications to their fullest potential, you might enjoy your experience more with (Firefox|Opera|Konqueror|Safari)”

There’s a right way and a wrong way to tell people that they’re using a lousy browser — - and that’s definitely the right way. Thanks!

All of which exist now and most of which do absolutely nothing for us. The most reliable one is javascript and even then it’s only useful client-side, and only useful if you REALLY know what you’re doing (most people still seem to think that the availability of document.all is THE requirement for sending certain code).

Better to just accept that your site has an expiry date. This page best viewed in browser x at resolution y.
Some of us are being paid to develop websites. For those people it is not possible to ignore this new lunacy, but for those of us who can ignore it (personal site? blog) it makes total sense to pretend we never heard of this new switch.

The browsers change and the standards don’t. Code for standards, not for individual browsers. It’s more cost effective in the long run I expect. If your user agent can’t display the page properly then you should upgrade to one that can. If this means erosion of some or other product’s market share then so be it.

If you notice that your visitors are using browsers with default 10-year-old-standards-support, then let them know about it! “Hey, there’s a choice to be made, you’re not experiencing well-made web applications to their fullest potential, you might enjoy your experience more with (Firefox|Opera|Konqueror|Safari)”

Don’t try to accommodate them if you’re not going to lose your job over it.
- it’s easier to not
- you can sleep easy at night knowing you’ve done what’s morally right

I think that nothing can stop people from “breaking the web.” No matter what tools are provided to try and slow it down, people will always do the unexpected.

This sort of thing, like the DOCTYPE switch in the first instance, is to minimise the possibility of that, rather than wipe it, which I think is reasonable to expect in the (relative) short term.

I only hope this does have the required effects. In the meantime I’ll be ignoring it and developing with the edge keyword or, even better, HTML 5 (or at least HTML 4 with an HTML 5 DOCTYPE).

I can’t guarantee, in fact I have no real experience of, whatever free WYSIWYG editors produce in the way of code for small sites these days.

It’s a very mixed bag; and regardless of the editor, it’s still ALWAYS possible to create bad code. I don’t think that’s an easy thing to measure. It would really require some extensive testing to see what the variety of editors and content management systems will produce when you sit a variety of different inexperienced users in front of them. Big question; hard to answer.

I also agree, it won’t work… eventually.

And that’s definitely a point. This may give Microsoft a little breathing room — - or it may not. Given that this won’t practically exist until the release of IE 8, and the rate of uptake on new Microsoft browsers…it’s hard to say.

I think that nothing can stop people from “breaking the web.” No matter what tools are provided to try and slow it down, people will always do the unexpected. Something like this may have a small impact, reducing the overall effect of change on the web.

[An interesting aside which I just thought of: one signal I’ll admit I use to judge whether a site is active is whether it works properly in the most modern browsers…that could change radically if sites trigger a particular mode in browsers even if the site has actually been abandoned for a decade!]

I think Microsoft probably already know that too, as no-one is foolish enough to believe that they can carry tens of rendering engines in a browser forever.

I wouldn’t be so sure…the cruft of standard Microsoft coding seems to suggest that they have no problem with that idea. But you could be right…

I can’t guarantee, in fact I have no real experience of, whatever free WYSIWYG editors produce in the way of code for small sites these days. That said, the fact that Microsoft have put the effort into this “fix” so that sites won’t break again assumes they have done some research into the potential issues that may arise with the new browser.

In closing, you are right, it will be implemented, in fact, chances are it is already in the codebase. I also agree, it won’t work… eventually. I think Microsoft probably already know that too, as no-one is foolish enough to believe that they can carry tens of rendering engines in a browser forever. I predict that it is set up to fail with enough time to allow Microsoft to better their standards support as well as allow WYSIWYGs to catch up and implement decent standards support themselves, so that no “breaking of the web” has to happen ever again, the position that other modern browsers already find themselves in.

What do you think?

…it’s about those who aren’t developers at all, who don’t read A List Apart, who didn’t even know that specs existed for HTML. These are the site owners who won’t have “done the job right” but also won’t have the technical knowledge to know where they went wrong when it breaks.

And, to be honest, I wonder how much this will truly effect that group of people.

Let’s think, for a minute, about how complete amateurs are likely to code: on the one hand, there’s the possibility that they’ll attempt CSS-based layouts which are difficult to make compatible with multiple browsers, and which are likely to be susceptible to browser differences.

On the other hand, it may be that they’ll construct their sites using “whatever works”: which is likely to be table based and fundamentally primitive. Most cheap or older tools work this way, and I doubt this will change any time soon.

What do you think is more probable? (And yes, I agree that playing the probability game is really not the point.)

However unfortunate that is, I have to say that one advantage primitive coding offers is that the interpretation has changed significantly for a long time, and probably won’t.

What about behaviors? OK, this could be a problem: amateur developers are likely to grab whatever they find online which claims to fulfill their need. This code is frequently problematic, and definitely falls into the category of things which could die at any moment.

I read your post on the subject, and I agree with you on the whole: it’s a difficult decision which has a lot of down sides. It does also have advantages (which I’ve also said above).

My single biggest issue with this idea, honestly, is that I simply don’t believe it will work — - I’m not even questioning, particularly, whether it “should” or “shouldn’t” be implemented. That decision is made: it will be implemented, whether we like it or not.

And by the way — - thanks for having this conversation! This is the kind of comment dialog I really appreciate.

I’ll grant you that many developers/site owners won’t notice browser-dependent problems until they themselves start using that browser, of course.

However, to me this argument is a lot more about the developers and the corporations funding those developers than it is about users: it’s about how much work the developers will have to do to accommodate for browser changes.

Under the existing scenario, if a developer has “done the job right,” they’ll have relatively minimal work following a browser change. If they haven’t, they may have substantial reworking to do. With the proposed situation, neither group of developers will necessarily have any need to do substantial revisions on their sites following in the path of destruction left by a new browser; but compliant developers will have one more facet to account for in their initial development.

I agree, absolutely, that the user needs to come first: and in this scenario, I think the user is impacted by developers choosing not to fix their websites to correctly support new browsers. This change may result in that not being necessary — - but it does it by allowing developers to keep developing in the same way they always have: never growing, never changing, never needing to learn anything new. I can’t really bring myself to support that idea.

What happened to ignorance not being an excuse?

It’s not, unless it’s not the ignorant one who is affected by said ignorance. In this case, ignorance causes broken websites, which in turn causes confusion for users.

It’s all very well to consider this issue from the point of view of the standards following developer, but Microsoft, due to their past mistakes but continuing reign at the top of the browser pile, have to deal with millions of users.