Coding Your Site - Firefox or IE?

1. LGR August 3, 2007

   While I understand your reasons for starting with coding for IE first, I disagree. I code sites with as much standards compliant code as possible and since Firefox is better at understanding compliant code it is better to start with Firefox and the then move to IE to apply whatever hacks you need to use to make it work. This way you know your code is mostly standards compliant except for the IE hacks. IMHO
2. Scott Allen August 3, 2007

   Hey Lee,

   I appreciate your insight, and your points are valid. In a perfect world I would agree, but you’re thinking like a programmer, not like a marketer. We need to ask ourselves, “What’s best for consumers, the visitors of this site?” Sometimes it’s a hard transition, but I have to take my programmer hat off and put on my marketer hat to see what’s best for users. Most users don’t really care about what browser they have…they go with what’s installed on their machines. That’s why most people use IE…it’s the default. Programmers and developers know that Firefox is a far superior browser. But we must remember that we are not creating web sites simply for the sake of creating web sites… The whole point of web design is user-friendliness and to help the client (the site owner) communicate their message, sell their product or service, and/or connect with their customers. Every site has a purpose. Web development is a tool to achieve that purpose.

   I see things from both the programming and marketing points of view (I’m some strange hybrid, believe me it’s weird…) and although, I would, as much as you, love to ignore IE and code for it last, we can’t. Standards and compliance are meant to be a tool to help us, but not the end goal. If we have to tweak here and there, or break a few rules, we do it. I always keep compliance in mind, and strive for excellent code structure, but I don’t get hung up on it. Right now, in 2007, practically speaking, “compliance” is a bit of a myth, because the minority of internet users (20%-40%) actually has a “standards compliant” browser. Web developers who design sites day in and day out know that sometimes even the “standards” are flawed and the bottom line is that the site has to work, in all browsers.

   We need to remember that whatever browser most people are using, even if not the most technologically advanced, is the standard browser. Right now IE is the standard browser. That will change in time, but for now we can’t design for IE last, we need to design for it first.

   The main reason I suggest we should start with IE, is that the medium you design for first will get the most attention, and look and function the best. If we’re designing for IE last and the IE version of the site is getting the hacks, then the version of the site most viewers are seeing is the one with the least attention given to it, and probably has the most flaws. We put just as much attention into every version, but not every programmer does, even though they should. Does it really show how excellent our development ability is when only 15-30% of viewers see the “perfect” version of a site we’ve created? As developers, our clients won’t pay us if the site looks and works perfectly for only the minority of viewers who have Firefox. Also, we would be wasting the clients’ time and money if we didn’t design first for the browser most people have. Take a design or JavaScript that is created for IE first — getting it to work in Firefox takes a takes a lot less time than it does for the reverse —to get a design or JavaScript that is created for Firefox, to work in IE.

   Does that mean we dumb-down our programming and leave out the great features that browsers like Firefox add? Heck no. We just use dynamic server-side language or conditional statements to detect the browser and modify the code for that browser. I still believe in making sites pixel-accurate across all browsers and platforms, but when most internet users are browsing with IE, it makes sense to design for IE first.
3. LGR August 4, 2007

   Looking at Internet Explorer second does not mean that you spend less time on a design for it. It means that Internet Explorer often gets more attention becuase it is not standards compliant. Creating a website that does not follow web standards is doing a disservice to the business or client that has hired you to create a website for them. They might not have any clue about other web browsers but if the code is specific to Internet Explorer then it has a higher chance of not working when a new browser comes out. Look at how many sites had to redo code for Internet Explorer 7 when it came out. That was coding and work that may not have been needed if sites were coded to web standards. Think like a business owner for a second. I pay to have a site created for me and then I find out that six months after it went live it looks like crap in the next version of Internet Explorer after I upgrade my computer.

   All I am really saying is people need to code to web standards and then deal with the anomalies afterward, and the reality is the anomalies usually are in Internet Explorer. I also spend a great deal of time checking my sites using BrowserCam to make sure sites work on Macs, Linux, and all flavours of Windows.
4. Scott Allen August 4, 2007

   If you’re spending a fair amount of time making it work in IE, then that’s not a problem. My point was for programmers who design in Firefox, and then just complain that it doesn’t work in IE. I never suggested that we design sites that don’t follow standards. Even when I’m saying that we code for IE first, we still keep standards in mind. It doesn’t break every piece of compliant code. :) Notice I suggest in my previous comment that we use server-side languages such as PHP to detect the browser and serve the code variations dynamically. Each browser gets the perfect version. Your default can be standards-compliant code, and then when it detects IE, or a specific version of IE, then you can serve the modified code to make it look right in IE. This works wonderfully. Don’t neglect the power of server-side languages.

   I always think like a business owner. :) We would never create a site that breaks after six months when a new browser comes out. Keep in mind that with the exception of IE, when a new browser comes out, very few people are using it, as it takes a while for it to gain market share. I agree that those sites that broke in IE 7 should have been coded to web standards, but IE 7 has plenty of it’s own new flaws.

   I think you may have misunderstood some of what I meant, and that may be my fault so I will update the post to clarify. I agree about coding to web standards and then dealing with anomalies afterward. When I say to code your site for IE first, what I mean is to create a version of your site, and test it in IE first (while keeping standards in mind). Sometimes screenshots don’t reveal functionality issues, so when we launch a new site we physically test it out and make it work on Mac, PC and Linux platforms, at all major resolutions, every browser, and several versions of each browser.
5. LGR August 6, 2007

   Scott,
   I am not trying to be difficult with my comments, just like to have a lively discussion. In my work I never design strictly for Firefox, but I also use Linux, and I don’t sit and work fulltime in Windows, until I am testing. I have found that the best way to create a site is to not rely on Internet Explorer and how it renders otherwise you have the same problem but in reverse. It will work in Internet Explorer but not Firefox, and you can’t ignore 15% of the market share. It simply saves me time by going from Firefox to Internet Explorer, because the exceptions to the standards are 99% of the time found in the code need to Internet Explorer (usually IE 6) to make a site work properly.
6. Scott Allen August 7, 2007

   Hey Lee,
   I enjoy a lively discussion too, and I never thought you were being difficult. :) Sounds like you have a good work flow, and as long as that works for you, no worries. I was referring more to the testing process. Again, my comments are mainly to developers who design and test for Firefox, and then just complain that it doesn’t work in IE. I would agree with you about relying on how IE renders. Most of the time the differences are minimal because of how we code, but we’ve found that testing in IE first tends to clear up the bugs more quickly. We definitely don’t ignore Firefox, in fact we put a lot of time into making sure that the site looks right in Firefox (we all use Firefox here), and we use dynamic code (usually PHP) to include features that non-IE browsers have such as alpha transparency PNG’s instead of GIF’s (which are served to IE). We do a lot of browser detection and spend a lot of time on making sure everything is cross-platform and cross-browser compatible. I have to say, I can’t wait for the day when Firefox takes the lead in market share. :)
7. Rick Earley August 8, 2007

   I think I fall into the category where I USE to program for IE and never gave Firefox a look. This was in the old days and before I had a ton of friends/clients that did use Firefox. I would design my site in IE and then later find out from the Firefox clan that the site looks odd and nothing works like it should. I think I have tried both approaches above when it comes to designing a site these days. I have tried the approach of just using Firefox during the initial design and then going back later and making sure it all works in IE. I have found that there are times I then fix the IE problem and somehow it breaks it for Firefox. This may be the smaller experience in dealing with Firefox and the true compliant browsers.

   I have also gone the other way and worked on the site in IE until I was ready and then flipped to Firefox to fix the issues if any, and this has worked out a little better. I guess the fight is just making sure, no matter how much of the world uses either browser, that they all look good. Though it can be a nice little challenge at 2am when trying to finish it up :)
8. Colin August 29, 2007

   I don’t find that IE requires endless debugging. I write standards-compliant code off the bat. If IE needs a tweak because it fails to meet standards, I add it. Complaining about IE won’t get you anywhere, but if you have a strong understanding of the right way to do things, and where you have to cater to IE, you’ll design better sites.

   I don’t design FOR any browser. I design using standards-compliant XHTML and CSS. Then, I open it up in both browsers. Firefox usually shows me where I have made errors in my code. IE shows me where IE is broken. I accommodate both (and Opera, and Safari, and others if need be.)

Post a Comment »