Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Microsoft Businesses

IE Standardization Fading Fast 176

alphadogg writes "Just as Internet users in general have defected in huge numbers from Microsoft Internet Explorer over the past several years, the business world, as well, is becoming less dependent on the venerable browser. Companies that used to mandate the use of IE for access to web resources are beginning to embrace a far more heterodox attitude toward web browsers. While it hasn't gone away, the experience of having to use IE 6 to access some legacy in-house web app is becoming less common. 'A lot of it has to do with the emergence of the modern web and the popularity of mobile. They have made it very different for companies to truly standardize on a browser,' says Gartner Research analyst David Mitchell Smith."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IE Standardization Fading Fast

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14, 2013 @09:29PM (#42904731)

    I've seen a lot of people start making this mistake again, but now it's the KHTML/Safari/Chrome/Opera engine, especially on mobile.

  • by Ichijo ( 607641 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @09:36PM (#42904805) Journal

    Let's hope companies also stop mandating the use of Shockwave and JavaScript, or at least let me use the web site without having to completely disable NoScript.

  • by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @09:40PM (#42904825)
    Yes but the important distinction is that WebKit is open source. While Apple has a lot of influence on it, if Google doesn't like Apple's changes, they can fork it as can anyone else.
  • by Urd.Yggdrasil ( 1127899 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @09:49PM (#42904903)
    Shockwave hasn't been used much for a quite a while, unless you are referring to flash (but hopefully html video will kill that eventuall). Javascript on the other hand is going to be around for quite a while, what we are more likely to see will be things like signed javascript or some other security mechanism like that added to it.
  • Not "venerable" (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DoofusOfDeath ( 636671 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @09:51PM (#42904927)

    I don't believe IE ever deserved to be called venerable [merriam-webster.com].

  • by steelfood ( 895457 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @10:13PM (#42905105)

    I rather they do use Flash and Shockwave than put everything in HTML5. Then I would have even more trouble disabling everything.

  • Re:Venerable? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14, 2013 @10:14PM (#42905109)

    It was a typo. They meant to write 'vulnerable'.

  • by guttentag ( 313541 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @10:19PM (#42905177) Journal
    For every business that Gartner "knows" is dropping IE standardization, there are 100 it doesn't know about who are continuing to mandate IE use because they bought some legacy Web-based app that is only used internally, and the people who wrote that app were too lazy or incompetent to write it in actual HTML (as opposed to "we played with it until it worked in this browser, so this is what your users must use").

    My favorite example of a web-app developer who knew virtually nothing about HTML but shipped what "worked" had every single element on the page absolute-positioned with CSS. What looked like a simple table of 30 rows of data on the screen was actually hundreds of DIVs that had been rendered on the fly by the server with absolute position coordinates for each one. Even INPUT elements that were invisible had absolute positions calculated for them. Every time someone loaded a page, the server would calculate the offset for each "cell" in the table so it would look like a table, and for dozens of invisible form elements so they wouldn't collide with the table. The billion-dollar non-tech company that bought this couldn't figure out why the server frequently became unresponsive... They actually bought a second server from the developer and a load balancer to get around the fact that the developer didn't understand basic HTML, and have been using the app for 7 years. When I explained the problem to them, they reasoned that it would cost them more to ask the developer to do it properly that to just add additional servers as needed. They will probably be using it for the next 20 years. And the login page states that it requires IE.

    Often this type of app lives on an internal server that will never be updated because the company doesn't want to pay for something that works well enough, but serves some essential purpose that hundreds or thousands of employees are required to use daily. IE standardization will die out in consumer applications long before it goes away in businesses. Microsoft knew this is how most businesses approach computers, and it's the reason the Windows/Office/IE monopoly was so successful. It's the reason Microsoft is still successful despite the Ballmer decade.
  • Re:Not "venerable" (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sdnoob ( 917382 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @10:22PM (#42905191)

    one of the definitions is.....

    impressive by reason of age

    how many other single versions of a web browser have had as long a supported lifespan as ie6?

    12 years 7 months and 15 days between rtm (24 aug 2001) and xp eol (8 apr 2014).

    as much as you and i, and pretty much everybody else, may dislike ie6, that IS impressive.

  • by Alex Vulpes ( 2836855 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @10:45PM (#42905413)
    Mass Defections from IE? Steam for Linux? This will be the year of... no wait someone says that every year.

    So instead: this is hopefully a sign that, in the world of computing, monopolistic practices will give way to healthy competition.

    There we are, tentative but hopeful!

  • Gratifying (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DNS-and-BIND ( 461968 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @10:53PM (#42905461) Homepage
    Nice to see that typical snide attitude of "but our site is certified for IE 6, so use it" that was so common among web developers getting its comeuppance by the CEO's latest smartphone. I would have given a dollar to be there every time one of them was told to his face that his site needed to become cross-platform, and pronto. I can only imagine the weeping and gnashing of teeth as the web developer fearfully installed Firefox and Opera and began to learn that awful vocabulary "cross-platform".
  • Sad, isn't it? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by inode_buddha ( 576844 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @11:15PM (#42905589) Journal

    Sad, isn't it? People are *still* talking about standardizing on browsers instead of enforcing adherence to standardized markup languages.

  • Re:shit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hairyfish ( 1653411 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @11:39PM (#42905807)
    Isn't it funny how all the hate and anger and lawsuits thrown at MS had pretty much zero affect on their market position, and what really made the most impact was innovation (ie the Mobile (r)evolution).
  • by kcmastrpc ( 2818817 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @11:44PM (#42905849)
    no thanks. as a professional web developer I often have to let my clients know that to "do that fancy ajax stuff" I need to use JavaScript, and if they want to retain compatibility with non-JavaScript browsers then it will cost them significantly more for their project. i then show them how their favorite sites like amazon, ebay, etc. will simply refuse to work without JavaScript enabled and they opt to still use JavaScript but refuse to support non-JS browsers.

    If you did any sort of serious web development you'd also know how time consuming it is to include support for no-script crap.
  • by casab1anca ( 1304953 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @11:46PM (#42905857) Homepage

    Web forms ultimately need to be validated on the server side, so client-side validation isn't 100% necessary.

    Server-side and client-side validation serve different purposes. Server-side validation is important for security reasons, but client-side validation provides for a better user experience by identifying errors right away instead of waiting to submit and refresh the page.

  • by kcmastrpc ( 2818817 ) on Thursday February 14, 2013 @11:50PM (#42905901)
    The majority of developers have moved to CSS3 for eye candy - but you can't shuffle jquery, ajax, etc. to CSS - it's not going anywhere.

    Also, why shouldn't we do validation in JavaScript? You know those nifty info boxes that slide open while you're filling in a form? That happened because JavaScript did validation on it, and it probably did it before firing off an AJAX request to see if that user name was actually taken (you know, instead of sending every single character you typed to the server). Ultimately all data should be validated by the server, because that's the sane thing to do - but there is no reason give that task to the server when JavaScript (your browser) can determine if it's valid or not.
  • by HaZardman27 ( 1521119 ) on Friday February 15, 2013 @01:08AM (#42906423)

    Developers have become way too fucking dependant on JS and frameworks like jQuery, Mootools and YUI

    There is no better way for making interactive web applications than using Javascript. The only real alternatives are using proprietary platforms like Flash or Silverlight. The level of interactivity on the web that people demand these days has gone past the level you can get from reloading an HTML document every time the user clicks something or enters some text. Add in the development of WebGL for hardware accelerated 3D graphics in web browsers and some of the other fancy features of HTML5 and it's easy to see that Javascript isn't going anywhere for a while. jQuery, on the other hand, is pretty slow and should be used sparingly.

  • by HaZardman27 ( 1521119 ) on Friday February 15, 2013 @01:15AM (#42906469)
    This. The percentage of web users who are running non-JS browsers or have JS disabled is small enough not to matter for the people funding web development. As a developer, the best you can do, particularly in a project involving AJAX, is to have RESTful web services that allow a clever enough user to get the information they need without Javascript running, even if the site is as ugly as hell. They may have to parse some JSON or XML on their own, but that's their problem if they don't feel comfortable with their browsing executing JS.
  • Re:shit (Score:4, Insightful)

    by hairyfeet ( 841228 ) <bassbeast1968 AT gmail DOT com> on Friday February 15, 2013 @01:49AM (#42906737) Journal

    Isn't it funny how we are replacing one asshole company with one that is an even bigger asshole? I hates the way MSFT pushed IE onto everybody and frankly what we are seeing now is even worse, as at least before you could just lie with the UserAgent and get around a bunch of the bullshit, but now instead of Redmond dictating we got Cupertino and Apple makes MSFT look like big sweaty care bears by comparison.

    I mean we went from having an open format be the baseline in HTML V5 to patent troll MPEG-LA getting to stick a tollbooth with H.264, thanks to Apple making it clear "We don't give a fuck what YOU choose, its not running on iPhone/iPad PERIOD" and then to add insult to injury they also pretty much single handedly killed mobile flash where Adobe was at least nice enough to pay the license fees and let any browser or distro run H.264. Now try to bundle H.264 in a free product and see how quick you get a cease and desist, just ask Mozilla.

    So if you wanna cheer MSFT losing power? Right there with ya, in fact I championed breaking up the company when they lost the antitrust. But what we are seeing is we are kicking the old lame dog while ignoring the two fucking lions that are saying "kick the dog" while they get ready to take a bite out of our collective asses. say what you want about MSFT but I could take any laptop or desktop and have their shit gone and well on my way to installing any damned thing I wanted in minutes, try that with a Chromebook and see how far you get. The web won't fare any better thanks to Cupertino dictating everything, If Apple has their way the only browser will be Webkit and only Apple approved formats will be on the web and sadly? Its seriously looking like they are gonna get their wish, Flash gone, Opera dropping their engine so they can get on iToys (and I wouldn't be surprised if moz goes to as they won't get on the iPhone/iPad if they don't bow to Cupertino's wishes) and video controlled by a patent troll...where is things getting better again? This is like saying "Instead of the guy on the corner kicking us in the face the guy across the street just hits us with a brick!"...uhhh, how about neither guy hitting us at all? How about being able to choose none of the above? wouldn't that be better?

    If there is one thing we need to protect its an open web but all we are doing is replacing one master for another and that's just not the way we should be going, we should be trying for no masters at all.

  • the big one (Score:5, Insightful)

    by smash ( 1351 ) on Friday February 15, 2013 @02:41AM (#42907071) Homepage Journal

    .... is safari. the corp types are wanting to use apps on their i-devices, and IE doesn't run on them. iPad and other mobile device compatibility is essential.

    "We need to spend money to get rid of IE" doesn't fly with management.

    "You can't run that on your iPad because it needs IE" however, does.

  • Re:shit (Score:4, Insightful)

    by drcagn ( 715012 ) on Friday February 15, 2013 @04:00AM (#42907461) Homepage

    Microsoft: Develops proprietary non-standard browser set to default on their dominating operating system, takes over the web
    Apple: forks an open source browser project, develops Webkit out of it, gives it back to the community and works with the community, refuses to support proprietary buggy exploit-ridden browser plug-ins and helps kill it off from the web

    i'm not happy about the whole h.264 thing either, but at least we know they have a reason--their idevices are only capable of decoding h.264 in hardware. it doesn't really make it any better but what they have done isn't anything near what MSFT did 10+ years ago.

  • Re:shit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Daniel Dvorkin ( 106857 ) on Friday February 15, 2013 @04:51AM (#42907671) Homepage Journal

    When Apple gets a 90% share of the browser market, and you routinely see sites telling users "You must be running Safari to access this site," let us know.

Never tell people how to do things. Tell them WHAT to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity. -- Gen. George S. Patton, Jr.