Maybe "technological discrimination" is a better term. Equating browsers with race may be pushing the analogy a bit too far, even if the point is a good one. I don't want to see the "Martin Luther King" or "Malcolm X" analogies coming out next.

Unless I'm mistaken, Microsoft is going to start pushing IE7 through Windows Update, which will automatically ask millions of people if they want to upgrade. Probably a lot more effective than this nonsense.

I have a dream... that someday, all browsers are created equal.

There's a website [deleted] that says "Please use firefox to view this page". "This website has been designed for use with the FireFox browser. Please use FireFox to view this page". No IE support. Nothing but that maddening message. Then, after the hassle of installing firefox (and dealing with a browser I've never used), the website still basically, well, sucks. I was looking for code to help with an issue in network programming. This site is examples from a book. Well, guess what? If you're stupid enough to let me not even view the website in IE, then you've just ensured that I'm never going to buy this book. Was it the book author's fault? I don't know, I don't know. I would send the site a message saying "enough with this silly firefox only", but of course, clicking the "Contact us" link gets only.... "Please use firefox to view this page".

Jeff,

You may want to be a little less sensitive about Andy Clark's use of colour. He is British and does not share 'our cultural history'. Nor do many of your non-american readers.

Your well made point about technology zealotry is made unnecessarily emotive by your use of 'jihad', 'racism' and 'segregation'. The difference between colour and B&W is not about race... or was the introduction of colour television misunderstood? :)

I believe all men are created equal, but to extend this tenet to browsers is a little far-fetched: particularly when there are published standards and all browsers are not created anywhere near equal.

BTW, I'm a long time lurker and really appreciate your blog.

Cheers,
J. Sheehy

When it comes to "stylin'" my website with CSS I follow my most favorite -ism: EGOISM. That is if it looks ok in my browser that it is ok. If it looks bad in someone else's browser than I do not care.

I do not use any browser detection, nor do I use any CSS-hacks (not knowingly at least; I am not sure what my menu script does).

It's my site.

Talking about [deleted URL], install firefox and then click on the Contact Us link. You stll get "Please use firefox to view this page". Really funny!

> Microsoft is going to start pushing IE7 through Windows Update

"Microsoft will distribute Internet Explorer 7 as a high-priority update via Automatic Updates and the Windows Update and Microsoft Update sites shortly after the final version of Internet Explorer 7 is released (planned for the 4th quarter of 2006)."

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/updatemanagement/windowsupdate/ie7announcement.mspx

Yep. Good call on Microsoft's part. We should see a pretty massive upswing in IE7 market share at the expense of IE6 market share. I don't think anyone will cry any alligator tears about that..

And it will happen much more rapidly than the "natural" upgrade cycles of IE5, IE5.5, and IE6.

I think your point is generally valid, but I believe Andy Clarke is a special case. He's a member of the Web Standards Project, and a lot of what he stands for is summed up by "get a better browser". What better way to target his message - if you're not using IE6 (I'll presume most of his readers aren't), you don't need to be told about upgrading your browser. IE6 users on Andy Clarke's site should expect to hear about upgrading their browser.

In general, zealotry is counter-productive, but campaigning and activism isn't necessarily bad. Who can say if IE7 for XP would have happened without the Web Standards Project and Firefox campaigners?

To frame the "racism" theme appropriately, you need to consider that IE is not the oppressed minority. Activism on the part of the minority isn't bad if it brings about positive change (c.f. Martin Luther King, etc.).

I think sites that say "Please use Firefox" are responding to all the poorly coded IE specific sites that detect Firefox as a "downlevel" browser and require IE. At least in Firefox, you can use the User Agent Switcher extension to bypass that silliness...

Wow. One more proof that this whole "Political correctness" is gone too far...
When the night comes, does it too evokes thoughts on racism and segregation?

> zealotry is counter-productive, but campaigning and activism isn't necessarily bad

And if only people realized when they were doing one instead of the other.

It helps to become more aware of your own technocentrism. Look at this one, for example:

http://37signals.com/svn/archives2/fly_on_the_wall_we_can_tune_afterward.php
--
Jason: “man working in windows is such a mess…the UI is just terrible…and all the apps UIs are terrible…the type is terrible…it’s amazing.”

Along similar lines, David pointed out this quote from Jaded Pixel: “Working with Windows makes me feel dead inside.”
--

Yes, working in Windows makes someone *feel dead inside*. There isn't a big enough rolly-eyed incredulous emoticon in the world for this one. Puh-leez.

Jeff, I'm not sure that the usage of Andy Clarke's website was a good one/good example:

* He's british, and therefore doesn't have of the american issues with colors. I've read Andy's blog for a very long time, I've seen his redesign and this is the first time I ever saw someone draw a parallel between his design and racism...
* It's more of a Black&White TV versus Color TV reference than anything else.
* His IE6 black&white layout is still wonderful, just black&white...

What ever happened to what I and most people learned when we first begin webdev: test on all browsers for max compatability! In other words: it's about *user* choice. Even then we chose our personal favorite browser based on which we liked, but making the page work correctly for all was more important than worrying about, or dictating, which browser the viewer used.

I spend (far too much) time browsing del.icio.us and visiting popular sites. I also use IE. Every so often I come across one of these flash in the pan popular sites that will display nothing but this garbage for IE or even says their site won't work for IE. If you can't make your site work for IE, I wouldn't be advertising that. You failed. The rendering capabilities are not so different that you shouldn't easily be able to tweak your site to compansate. Especially with the plethora of sites out there (most by firefox advocates) which document how to make said adjustments.

Showing a certain page to firefox vs ie just doesn't seem like a good idea, especially since at last count firefox has the same market share of browsers as macs do of desktops: only ~10%. Let's assume I'm really out of the loop and that's DOUBLED, you're still intentionally insulting 4/5ths of your potential audiance. To those doing such things: cut the elitism, your site probably isn't that great anyway.

---"Talking about [deleted URL], install firefox and then click on the Contact Us link. You stll get "Please use firefox to view this page". Really funny!"----

And of course that means you can't contact them to tell them it's broken!

Chiding sites (and authors) for browser discrimination should go both directions. Zealots who "force" users to use firefox by actively breaking the site in IE6 are no worse than all those sites which "force" users to use IE6 by actively using IE-only proprietary hacks.

How many bank websites *still* tell us the site is "optimized for Internet Explorer". Or "we're so sorry, if you don't use the Microsoft browser, we can't take your money." Fine. Bye.

PS. +1 to dinah

I think we forget sometimes that this is one of the casualties of the "browser wars." Back in the pre IE 5 days, lots of sites were "best viewed with IE" or "best viewed with Netscape," with uses admonished to "get a real browser." Often the functionality wouldn't work quite right -- and often it would work fine but be blocked in some way.

Then Microsoft sort of took over, and everything was just IE. Mozilla was written in such a way that it worked with all those IE sites (and won me back because it was better), but there were still sites (like my bank) that wouldn't support anything but IE.

Now we're starting to see real competition again, and the loyalists (or the *lazy*) are back doing it again. I'm not particularly surprised, even though it just isn't that hard to write cross-platform multi-browser html.

This is offtopic, but I would suggest that you change all links in your comments to be NOFOLLOW.
I saw someone posted a spammy comment with a link to [deleted URL] - it looks like the person is putting down this website, but I bet if you look at your logs, the IP of the person that posted it is the same that owns the website.

It's worthy of note that Andy Clarke isn't using any kind of browser detection (such as User Agnt sniffing) to send a different (but still good-looking) presentation to IE 6 users. Instead, he defines the CSS in such a way that IE 6 follows the rules it can understand, and more capable browsers, which understand more complex selectors, are able to parse the rules that override those default settings. The result is that IE 7, with its improved support for CSS 2.1 selectors, displays the site in the same way as Safari, Firefox, Opera, et al.

His site is really an excellent demonstration of how to use progressive enhancement to offer a better experience to more capable browsers, without discriminating against IE 6 users.

I don't agree with the example in the article, because the black-and-white design looked still cool.

But here is a real coding horror! BAD BROWSER DETECTION.

What infuriated me a few weeks ago was a commercial site that I visit does not work on my Intel iMac. It's browser detection sends you to a page that says you should run Safari or FireFox, and gives a link to both (huh, you can't "download safari" for OSX).

You have NO WAY to enter site, no way to get out of that redirection page.

It works on my iBook. it probably fails somewhere in the CPU detection, probably assuming a Mac is a PowerPC or something.

I've contacted the company by email but they ignore the problem. I guess we'll have to wait until a manager at the store chain buys an intel mac.

You can reproduce this bug on Windows by using Opera and setting it to "Identify as Operar". You'll get to the page
http://www.archambault.ca/store/browser.asp

As with racism, you also get to the point where you can't address valid criticisms anymore because you're instantly categorized as a zealot or a "fanboy". Many attempts to evoke a comparison between one technology and another by saying that one does it better than another seem to flag you as a troublemaker, troll, etc...

And these are often the same people who have problems with statements like "you're with us or you're against us".

Ric is wrong, I was merely trying to emphasize that "The zealotry and vitriol of technological racism is not a particularly effective way to realize change", and giving an example of a site that does not even work under IE.

If you won't let me on to website X because it requires firefox, if anything, you are giving me the impression that you are a technological zealot (or lazy), and possibly even creating a negative view of firefox in my mind, thus being counter-productive (if you are a zealot).

I work professionally building webapps. We have to suck it up and support IE. No bother, because it's all added in the cost.

Personally? F**K NO! If you choose to use a has-been piece of software then that's your choice. I choose to write css/html/script once for modern, non-buggy software thanks.

However, I also would not bother to go out of my way to make it "bad" for IE, it does that just fine on its own.

You get errors and render issues because IE doesn't support addEventListener, etc.? Too bad.

My killer layout is a mess because IE doesn't fully support the 10+ year old CSS1 spec? Piss off.

It'd be like someone complaining my app won't run on their DOS 6.22 install. Get bent.

You shouldn't be in this business with that attitude, Firefox does not have the majority of users and it's just a ridicolous unproductive view.

And it's not THAT bad, and YES, Firefox have had some pretty serious bugs as well but they seem to just pass without any huge articles being written like when something is discovered in IE.

This reminded me of a dev's perspective from another battlefield: MS Office vs OO.o. This dev(s) is caught in the middle -- the ODF converter project.

http://odf-converter.sourceforge.net/blog/index.php?2006/09/07/5-are-we-traitors-or-mercenaries

I disagree with the following passage you quoted:

"Usually browser detection is used to ensure that a web site renders properly for a variety of platforms"

In my experience, browser detection is most often used to exclude non-IE browsers from websites that would almost certainly render fine, usually with an obnoxious message about the assumed inferiority of your chosen browser. I have often come across these messages, and used user agent hacks in Firefox to get around it, only to find that the website works perfectly.

In a nutshell, I think its about time that IE users got a taste of this madness! ;-)

Regards,
Karsten

What a fragile bubble you must live in, where merely seeing something rendered in black and white evokes thoughts of segregation and racism.

Yeah, serving malformed pages to IE and taunting the user isn't exactly the best way to get your point across, but this is just about the worst use of the race card I've ever seen.

Isn't calling black people colored such an obvious oxymoron it could only be stated by real morons?

(HINT: "our" culture is european. Our history was not to discriminate, rather in the middle ages we burned anybody on the stakes.)

It's well known - or should be - that in the computing industry, if you're in last place, the best way to pick up market share is to be compatible with the market leader. Bug compatible, if necessary. Microsoft used this strategy successfully in Excel (1-2-3 keystrokes, macros), Word (still has WordPerfect-compatible keystrokes) and Internet Explorer itself (numerous Netscape bugs were replicated). Heck, that's why IE's User-Agent string still starts with 'Mozilla', even in version 7.0.

Firefox is not bug-compatible with IE, and as such, numerous websites still don't work. The 'more-standard-than-thou' attitude doesn't cut it. In practice, I suspect that the number of sites coded, accidentally or deliberately, to work best with IE - whether in quirks mode or not - massively outnumbers the truly standards-compliant sites.

IE 7.0 isn't quite bug-compatible with IE 6.0 - I've noticed a number of rendering issues on sites.

We'll see how quickly IE 7.0 does take usage share from IE 6.0.

Firefox is, however, a massive success compared to that other Open Source poster child, Linux...

Hi KL

Not sure if you were responding to me. I may not have been clear in my frothy post :-)

For my job, where I am paid to do whatever is required, we support IE, because it's sadly so prevalent.

But for my personal site, I code for FF, Opera, Safari, Konq, etc. Or I should say, I code for modern browsers, as I don't need to worry with special hacks and tricks. I just code it and that's it.

The bottom line is that as long as you write your web pages in a standards compliant way, using the XHTML transitional DTD, you can make your sites look pretty much the same in all browsers.

There are many times I get frustrated and think it's impossible, but I haven't written a site using 2 different CSS sheets in years and all the sites look the same across the different browsers with very minor differences.

Gotta love the IE tab extension for Firefox.

Thanks for the kind comments guys, I'm glad my site still gets tongues wagging :)

I'm more pissed off by extreme alternative-browser-evangelists.

There are sites that tout Firefox and discriminate Opera and Safari.

There are sites that tout Opera and discriminate Firefox.

Now, even though I'm an Opera zealot and personally *despise* the horror that I consider Firefox/Gecko to be (regarding standards compliance, security issues, general standard of coding, resource requirements, memory leaks, and the general lack of Fx usability until you install a zillion extensions), I would *NEVER* think about discriminating Gecko or KHTML browsers. I do discriminate against IE 5.x, though, but I consider that reasonable.

Even if you think a browser is inferior, suck it up. Laugh inside at those who use it, ridicule them in silence, but keep it for yourself.

I've found it funny ;-)

I think you miss the point.

Even if the PCs are quite the same, the all have a monitor, a mouse, CPU, etc.... :)
the people that use it are quite different, they can be 10 years old to 90, can be experts or not.

I am a programmer, and I like firefox, but I don't feel the need to ridicule anyone.

I am not expert in cars and engines, should I hear people laughing while I am driving my car?

Use whatever browser you like, and let people live.

How did you pull racism and segregation out of that? When I see the black and white use I see the comparison of black and white TV to color. So the reference to history is there, yes. But the only place I see racism and segregation implied is out of your own ass.

What a f*cking moron you are! How dare you compare you're f*cking "Whitey" racism which resulted in MASS MURDER!! to a f*cking trivial browser war! YOU ARE OUT OF YOUR F*CKING STUPID A$$ MIND. I would tell you to rot in hell, but apparrently your mind already has! Dipshit! Get a f*cking life!

People that keep saying f*cking should start doing it ... :)

I think is obvious that this matter doesn't have the same consequences of racism, but the spirit is the same: people devided into classes, and obviously thinking their class is better.....

Oh, how cute. Trivializing the civil rights movement to make a point about internet browsers. White privilege - it's not just for the rich anymore.

Please...

Jeff tried to make a point, and there really is no need to take what's written literary.

it's an analogy.

This post brought to you in Lynx :P

I wouldn't go far into the technicalities of browser comparisons in such a case. It's enough for me to see that some jerks are making decisions for me.
It is so frustrating to find out that the non-Microsoft side is full of idiots of the same kind as those in Microsoft. It's even worse, as Microsoft at least has customer-satisfaction departments with some reasonable people on board, while Firefox Nazi crowd is lead mindlessly extrimists... I am getting disappointed in open source...

Microsoft as racist for deploying European language editions months before the Japanese version.

The long lag between the Japanese version's release and the time when Microsoft will begin pushing it via Windows' Automatic Updates sent some conspiracy theorists to their keyboards.

"I am just left to conclude that Microsoft is colluding in some CIA orchestrated plot to maintain America online economic advantage, whatever it takes," wrote a reader of the IE blog identified as David Wrixon. A few others went farther, even pegging Microsoft as racist for deploying European language editions months before the Japanese version.

Quite clearly, Microsoft is racist.

If Microsoft was going by market-economy-priority then Japan would be the #2 if not #1 to be released, since it is in position to be the best economy in the world.

Unfortunately, Microsoft would rather have them wait, and release autoupdates for small European languages first.

By what criteria? Surely not by size of economic importance. One word: Racism.

ow s***!!What The F***!!!

Microsoft Eschews Auto Push For Japanese IE7
By Gregg Keizer , TechWeb Technology News

Microsoft launched the Japanese edition of Internet Explorer 7 on Thursday, but said it will delay pushing the new browser to users via Automatic Updates until next year because businesses have asked for more time to configure their Web sites and applications. However, the Japanese IE 7 will be available via manual download.

Along with the Japanese edition, Microsoft rolled out local-language IE7 editions in Finnish, French, German, Japanese, and Spanish, an IE manager said Thursday. A total of 24 editions of IE 7 will be eventually released, said Tony Chor, the team's group program manager, in an entry on the group's blog. Internet Explorer 7 debuted last month in English.

"As with the English version, we're making the localized downloads available a few weeks ahead of distribution via Automatic Updates," wrote Chor. "German, French, Spanish and Finnish users should be prepared for AU distribution by mid-November. Japanese AU distribution will begin this spring."

Microsoft began feeding the English-language edition of IE 7 through Automatic Updates earlier this week.

The long lag between the Japanese version's release and the time when Microsoft will begin pushing it via Windows' Automatic Updates sent some conspiracy theorists to their keyboards.

"I am just left to conclude that Microsoft is colluding in some CIA orchestrated plot to maintain America online economic advantage, whatever it takes," wrote a reader of the IE blog identified as David Wrixon. A few others went farther, even pegging Microsoft as racist for deploying European language editions months before the Japanese version.

Microsoft employees dismissed the charges. "The delay of Auto Updates for Japanese IE 7 has nothing to do with economic development or technical difficulties," wrote an IE team member identified as "TS." "The real reason is that, according to surveys by Microsoft, a lot of Japanese business users wanted to wait for IE 7 for six months to be distributed via Auto Updates so that they could avoid possible technical conflicts between their existing systems and IE 7 despite Blocker Toolkit. "This does not mean that Japanese [users] have to wait to download and install Japanese IE 7 until April or May, 2007. Those who want to use it can manually download its final version already."

The Japanese edition of IE 7 -- and those for Finnish, French, German, and Spanish users -- can be downloaded from the Microsoft Web site.