E-mail List Archives
Thread: IE only .gov site
Number of posts in this thread: 6 (In chronological order)
From: Austin, Darrel
Date: Fri, Aug 12 2005 11:11AM
Subject: IE only .gov site
No previous message | Next message →
Came across this in another newsgroup:
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-5827627.html
The USPTO is soliciting feedback on the idea of rolling out a new site
that will only support IE initially.
*sigh*
-Darrel
From: Austin, Darrel
Date: Fri, Aug 12 2005 11:12AM
Subject: RE: IE only .gov site
← Previous message | Next message →
> Many moons ago, I was part of a team that built an intraweb
> for the VA.
> This was IE specific with a Microsoft SQL backend and had
> heavy use of ActiveX (including Microsoft Agent technology)
> and other IE-only code that would never fly on a public web.
The problem is that IE policy is just that...policy, and not always
policeable.
Two examples:
1) I once worked on an intranet for 3M. I was assured that their IT
policy was 800 pixel minimum resolution, so our intranet should fully
use 800 pixels of screen real estate. I normally don't do that, but
since this was a mandate, and assured policy, we went with it.
The day came to present it to their department head. Oops. They were
using a 640 screen.
2) Our own org had an IE-only policy. Yet, one of our superiors insisted
on NN4. We still have an IE-only policy but we've slowly been
infiltrating that with a bunch of Firefox users. ;o)
-Darrel
From: Conyers, Dwayne
Date: Fri, Aug 12 2005 11:12AM
Subject: RE: IE only .gov site
← Previous message | Next message →
Darrel Austin wrote:
> The USPTO is soliciting feedback on the idea
> of rolling out a new site that will only
> support IE initially.
Many moons ago, I was part of a team that built an intraweb for the VA.
This was IE specific with a Microsoft SQL backend and had heavy use of
ActiveX (including Microsoft Agent technology) and other IE-only code
that would never fly on a public web.
Given the closed and secure nature of the environment, we were able to
do some pretty amazing thin-client applications that were very user
friendly and secure. The fact that it was a closed network was
reassuring, and we had fun writing applications that would be too
dangerous in the wide open spaces.
Reading the USPTO announcement, it seems that there is little reasonable
value in what they are proposing, but that is only my opinion... I could
be wrong.
---
Dwacon
www.dwacon.com
From: Conyers, Dwayne
Date: Fri, Aug 12 2005 12:00PM
Subject: RE: IE only .gov site
← Previous message | Next message →
Darrel Austin wrote:
> I once worked on an intranet for 3M. I was assured
> that their IT policy was 800 pixel minimum
> resolution, so our intranet should fully use 800
> pixels of screen real estate. I normally don't do
> that, but since this was a mandate, and assured
> policy, we went with it.
>
> The day came to present it to their department
> head. Oops. They were using a 640 screen.
LOL -- been there as well. Fortunately, we had the foresight to link to
a screen resolution script in the header of each page and it did a META
redirect to a page custom-crafted for smaller resolution. It saved our
bacon... UNTIL someone running two machines with monitors at differing
resolutions (who would have guessed) noticed that the pages were built
differently on different resolutions and lodged a complaint!
Who runs two machines simultaneously at differing resolutions?
Incidentally, we noticed a similar situation when someone noted that the
page looked different on Netscape than it looked on IE. Our focus in
developing that web application was that it *FUNCTIONED* on both browser
platforms -- but didn't realize the customer wanted them to look
identical.
We just chanted our mantra, "The customer is always right" and counted
down towards happy hour.
---
Dwacon
www.dwacon.com
From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Mon, Aug 15 2005 7:40AM
Subject: RE: IE only .gov site
← Previous message | Next message →
I think an IE-only public facing site might fly on grounds that other
alternatives may not fit into current available deployment strategies
and resources. For example, if a more open site to accomplish the same
tasks were to be cost prohibitive within the available resources of the
USPTO, then maybe this is reasonable. I am skeptical that multi-browser
apps can't be produced however. It doesn't logically flow for me on
technical merit that piloting a single browser system is a good strategy
for piloting--as the "fixing" of the pilot may be prohibitive due to
constraints placed by excluding the multi-browser aspects in the
beginning. If a technical framework is established that only requires
minor add-ons to address other browsers later in the pilot, maybe, but
this would need to be clearly established as the development
methodology. Don't lock in, or lock-out would be my approach to such an
effort. Understanding what portion of the audience might be excluded
from this portion of a pilot would also be important to document, as
that portion might just have the key input needed for success.
-----Original Message-----
From: Conyers, Dwayne [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 11:29 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: RE: [WebAIM] IE only .gov site
Darrel Austin wrote:
> The USPTO is soliciting feedback on the idea of rolling out a new site
> that will only support IE initially.
Many moons ago, I was part of a team that built an intraweb for the VA.
This was IE specific with a Microsoft SQL backend and had heavy use of
ActiveX (including Microsoft Agent technology) and other IE-only code
that would never fly on a public web.
Given the closed and secure nature of the environment, we were able to
do some pretty amazing thin-client applications that were very user
friendly and secure. The fact that it was a closed network was
reassuring, and we had fun writing applications that would be too
dangerous in the wide open spaces.
Reading the USPTO announcement, it seems that there is little reasonable
value in what they are proposing, but that is only my opinion... I could
be wrong.
---
Dwacon
www.dwacon.com
From: Conyers, Dwayne
Date: Mon, Aug 15 2005 8:00AM
Subject: RE: IE only .gov site
← Previous message | No next message
Allen Hoffman posted:
> Don't lock in, or lock-out would be my approach
> to such an effort.
That brought back memories of my early experiences on the web where many
sites were configured to prevent users of browsers other than Netscape
from viewing their pages. I think it was some sort of protest against
IE... but I wonder if that is still in practice? Hmm...
--
Dwacon
www.dwacon.com