E-mail List Archives
Thread: RE: "somebody needs to blink first"
Number of posts in this thread: 5 (In chronological order)
From: John Foliot - bytown internet
Date: Fri, Feb 21 2003 11:25AM
Subject: RE: "somebody needs to blink first"
No previous message | Next message →
> I so wish I could agree with that (since I agree with most of the
> rest of your commentary during this thread)... but consider the
> educational institutions, non-profits, and sheer numbers of
> economically disadvantaged who may not have the option of
> switching to a newer browser?
Which begs the question - why? How is it acceptable that educational
institutions (in particular) would continue to use flawed software,
especially since a free replacement is a download away? (I do not accept the
argument of long download times over dial up connections either - Netscape
7.02 is available as a free CD with a minimal shipping charge of $3.00 USD
in the States, International orders are $11.00 or $12.00 USD [*1]) If a
high-school discovered that a basketball standard was fundamentally flawed,
they would replace it in a heart-beat; why should it not be the same for
software? Ditto for just about any institution; I personally find it
unacceptable that large institutions (governmental or not) cannot upgrade
browsers in a timely fashion - they don't seem to have a problem upgrading
and applying patches to other basic tools like email clients every time the
next "I Love You" virus hit's the web....
Netscape 4.7 is over 3 years old now (Sept. 1999 [*2]), the W3C standard of
HTML 4.01 was release on Dec. 24, 1999 [*3], making the browser
non-compliant to even a 3 year old standard (which I might also add is
*almost* 2 versions behind current standards, as XHTML v2.0 is in draft form
now) . No, frankly there is no excuse save one - developers continue to
coddle the beast and so there is no reason to change - "if it ain't broke
don't fix it". Well it is "broke", so let's do something about it!
> I often find myself in the ironic
> position of saying that we can't just forsake users of NS4x when
> scoping requirements for a lot of our govt. projects for those
> reasons... as much as I'd like to not have to deal with the
> vagaries of legacy browsers or older AT agents... it would be a
> massive disservice to the public to arbitrarily shut them out.
>
...but the thing is, by coding to the STANDARD and not fudging to NN4, my
final content is actually *more* accessible because it degrades properly
over older browsers (it's real "sweet" in Lynx for example, which means most
screen reading technologies love it too). May not "look" as pretty, but
it's structurally and semantically correct - which provides *WAY* more
accessibility than laying something out in nested tables 5 levels deep.
> Of course, in private practice/business I'm more flexible - but
> even then, it's a matter of graceful degradation, versus conscious
> disregard...
Oh, I don't consciously seek to shut them out, but if given enough reason to
do so, users of this antiquated and flawed technology will seek to do
something about it. It's a chicken and egg scenario, but the cycle needs to
be broken by somebody and I'm usually in a pissy enough mood to take it on
<grin>. In one particular instance I've even stuck my neck **way** out by
offering to personally assist seniors or the disabled with the upgrade [*4]
(in a given geographic area - and I freely conceed that this is not in
general a practical solution)
I sympathize with users who for whatever reason are still "obligated" to use
NN4.x, but if all of a sudden 40% or 50% of the websites they needed to
access for work were "broken" because of the browser their lazy (or
overworked/underfunded) IT department is unwilling to replace, you'd see
action mighty quickly don't you think? It's not the home users, it's the
big lumbersome institutions which have not kept up with the times, so I say
let's give them an incentive.
JF
[*1] http://channels.netscape.com/ns/browsers/download.jsp
[*2] http://www.blooberry.com/indexdot/history/browsers6.htm
[*3] http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
[*4] http://www.dougthompson.ca/accessibility.html#note
----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
From: Kynn Bartlett
Date: Fri, Feb 21 2003 12:06PM
Subject: Re: "somebody needs to blink first"
← Previous message | Next message →
On Friday, February 21, 2003, at 10:17 AM, John Foliot - bytown
internet wrote:
>> I so wish I could agree with that (since I agree with most of the
>> rest of your commentary during this thread)... but consider the
>> educational institutions, non-profits, and sheer numbers of
>> economically disadvantaged who may not have the option of
>> switching to a newer browser?
> Which begs the question - why? How is it acceptable that educational
> institutions (in particular) would continue to use flawed software,
> especially since a free replacement is a download away?
If you ask on this list, you're not likely to get a real answer,
because most
of us have likely upgraded to the latest and greatest. To some degree
there
is the argument "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Another reasoning
is that
newer browsers tend to have any number of security problems or
performance problems that may not exist on older versions. Many
places such as libraries and the like may have non-technical folks
"in charge" and they don't know what it will take to upgrade a browser
version. Or maybe they don't feel like disrupting the usage patterns of
their patrons; they may need to generate completely new tutorials or
guides if a browser's user interface has changed.
Why not provide free consulting to any "big lumbersome institution which
has not kept up"? If you say that's the problem.
See, the main problem I have with all of this is that people who are
getting
all up in arms and indignant are basically doing it because It Makes My
Life Easier -- a very designer-focused approach. Yes, you may throw
out the old justification that "but it's BETTER for them because
they'll have
better software!" but the truth is that most designers are irrationally
annoyed
at the fact that someone is using "old software" because it means we
still
have to deal with it. The benefit to the user is not REALLY why we're
concerned as much as our own comfort.
Whenever designers start putting their own comfort and ease of
development
before that of the user, you see problems resulting. It's the same
slippery
slope that eventually leads back to developers saying "screw the blind,
it's too much work" and other non-accessibility concerns. It places the
needs of the developer above that of the user.
Don't try to tell me that someone who has been using Netscape 4.7 for
4 years and is completely happy with it is going to be better served, no
matter WHAT she might think, by upgrading to the latest version of
Mozilla
or Opera or whatever -- she'll have to relearn, her IT department will
need
to take on a greater support burden, and the benefits will be quite
small
to the point of being unnoticeable.
Artificially creating a problem by "suddenly making 40% or 50% of the
web sites fail" is developer dishonesty, akin to Microsoft's nonsense of
breaking their site in Opera on purpose.
--Kynn
----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
From: John Foliot - bytown internet
Date: Fri, Feb 21 2003 12:50PM
Subject: RE: "somebody needs to blink first"
← Previous message | Next message →
... as Kynn drives off in his Edsel...
Kynn, I don't buy it. Making "nice looking" sites using current
technology/standards is just as difficult (or easy depending on your point
of view) as making it work in NN4, but coddling NN4 has the down side that
it perpetuates flawed software. I believe that "designers" who bang out
their websites using WYSIWYG software with triple, quadruple or more nested
tables are the real lazy ones... they can't be bothered to get it right the
first time. And it is those same "designers" who invariably create more
accessibility problems than they know. (And Kynn, I call myself a developer,
because I develop sites, not just design them...)
I also don't accept "re-learning user patterns" - that one is very weak;
life is change (once upon a time those librarians did not have *any* web
browsers...) Netscape 7 generally looks and works just like Netscape 4.x,
with the exception that the newer version is Standards compliant. So where
exactly is the problem?
Security or performance problems? Like what exactly? While I won't
disagree that Microsoft has had a few issues with IE6, (and Mozilla too has
had an issue or two), so too has Windows and many other software
applications. How many software company sites have upgraded drivers, flash
firmware patches, and what have you. Ignorance and fear are lousy reasons
to not keep up IMHO. And at the Institutional level, there are *usually*
people hired to look after those types of things - further weakening your
argument.
User interface... gimme a break .. Netscape 7 has both the "new" and
"Classic" interface... what's changed? And with Netscape 4.x crashing on a
regular basis anyway, the support department will be no less served by
upgrading to new, better, more stable software. Nope, holes as big as buses
in your argument.
Bottom line: Netscape lost the browser wars years ago - most users are
surfing with a version of IE anyway, and as XP is now really the only OS
version Microsoft is supporting, and IE 6 is the default install, most home
users are gradually switching to a compliant browser as I write this. My
server logs show NN4 at less than 2% across many, many sites. So the
average home user has already made the switch, probably happened at least 12
to 18 months ago. So what we really are left with is those lumbering
institutions who have not felt any pressure to upgrade because there has
been little to no complaints (I can personally think of at least a few
Canadian Federal Departments guilty of this). The moment that changes,
action will happen.
You want to keep propping up flawed software - go for it. I would rather
encourage and entice users to keep up, yes, for their own good, but also for
others. If we can start to develop to standards and still maintain
reasonable "display parity" then compliant code semantically and
structurally organized, is by it's very nature, more accessible, at least in
my experience. And since this list is about accessibility, isn't that the
goal?
JF
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kynn Bartlett [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 2:03 PM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Cc: Kevin Spruill
> Subject: Re: "somebody needs to blink first"
>
>
> On Friday, February 21, 2003, at 10:17 AM, John Foliot - bytown
> internet wrote:
> >> I so wish I could agree with that (since I agree with most of the
> >> rest of your commentary during this thread)... but consider the
> >> educational institutions, non-profits, and sheer numbers of
> >> economically disadvantaged who may not have the option of
> >> switching to a newer browser?
> > Which begs the question - why? How is it acceptable that educational
> > institutions (in particular) would continue to use flawed software,
> > especially since a free replacement is a download away?
>
> If you ask on this list, you're not likely to get a real answer,
> because most
> of us have likely upgraded to the latest and greatest. To some degree
> there
> is the argument "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Another reasoning
> is that
> newer browsers tend to have any number of security problems or
> performance problems that may not exist on older versions. Many
> places such as libraries and the like may have non-technical folks
> "in charge" and they don't know what it will take to upgrade a browser
> version. Or maybe they don't feel like disrupting the usage patterns of
> their patrons; they may need to generate completely new tutorials or
> guides if a browser's user interface has changed.
>
> Why not provide free consulting to any "big lumbersome institution which
> has not kept up"? If you say that's the problem.
>
> See, the main problem I have with all of this is that people who are
> getting
> all up in arms and indignant are basically doing it because It Makes My
> Life Easier -- a very designer-focused approach. Yes, you may throw
> out the old justification that "but it's BETTER for them because
> they'll have
> better software!" but the truth is that most designers are irrationally
> annoyed
> at the fact that someone is using "old software" because it means we
> still
> have to deal with it. The benefit to the user is not REALLY why we're
> concerned as much as our own comfort.
>
> Whenever designers start putting their own comfort and ease of
> development
> before that of the user, you see problems resulting. It's the same
> slippery
> slope that eventually leads back to developers saying "screw the blind,
> it's too much work" and other non-accessibility concerns. It places the
> needs of the developer above that of the user.
>
> Don't try to tell me that someone who has been using Netscape 4.7 for
> 4 years and is completely happy with it is going to be better served, no
> matter WHAT she might think, by upgrading to the latest version of
> Mozilla
> or Opera or whatever -- she'll have to relearn, her IT department will
> need
> to take on a greater support burden, and the benefits will be quite
> small
> to the point of being unnoticeable.
>
> Artificially creating a problem by "suddenly making 40% or 50% of the
> web sites fail" is developer dishonesty, akin to Microsoft's nonsense of
> breaking their site in Opera on purpose.
>
> --Kynn
>
>
> ----
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
> visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
>
>
>
>
----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
From: chris
Date: Fri, Feb 21 2003 1:01PM
Subject: RE: "somebody needs to blink first"
← Previous message | Next message →
Ummm well, as much as I hate old browsers, and unless I must, I refuse to
coddle them, the one valid reason for not upgrading to new browsers is when
an institution or organization is committed to some proprietary software
that requires the old browser. It isn't just a browser problem. It's a
proprietary technology problem.
chris
----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/
From: Derek Featherstone
Date: Fri, Feb 21 2003 1:24PM
Subject: RE: "somebody needs to blink first"
← Previous message | No next message
Many people wrote about NN 4.x support and lack of upgrading and then
John Foliot wrote:
> Which begs the question - why? How is it acceptable that
> educational institutions (in particular) would continue to
> use flawed software, especially since a free replacement is a
> download away?
<snip type="various other comments" />
I'm all for the elimination of horribly implemented browsers -- especially
as you say, when a free download is available, or by CD. However, it is not
always that simple...
Two years ago I started consulting for one of these educational institutions
that is standardized on NN 4.x. They are currently running 4.79 as their
standard, and I've been trying to convince them to move things along since
I've been there. First I tried to get them to move to 6.1. Now to 7.0. They
are not in a position to budge at this point, regardless of all the well
thought out arguments I've made.
Why you may ask? Two items, which lead to a third.
1. Roaming profiles. This allows the students to login at any computer and
their profile follows them around. Apparently (so I've been told) this is
not possible in more recent versions.
2. Netscape Calendar. Functionality built into the Netscape 4.x suite of
tools that has excellent group management funcationality as well as group
scheduling of meeting etc. It is already web enabled and allows you to see
anyone else's schedule (not students but faculty, staff etc...)
Both of these lead to the third item:
3. Resources. There are other products out there that would be able to
provide this functionality, however, there are limited resources in any
fiscal year, and an upgrade of this nature would be huge in terms of IT
support/time and it would have a major impact on the entire institution and
the way they do business.
I'm not saying I support their viewpoint. I am saying that they have some
real concerns and something that they have to work through before they can
practically get rid of Netscape 4.x off of their desktops.
Having said this -- some users have upgraded on their own, however they
still rely on Calendar for scheduling for staff. Student don't have
calendar, but they do rely on Roaming Profiles for their email etc...
Best regards,
Derek.
--
Derek Featherstone = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Further Ahead Inc.
phone: 613.599.9784;
toll-free: 1.866.932.4878 (North America)
Web Development: http://www.furtherahead.com
Training and Learning: http://www.completelearning.com
----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/