begin oe_protect.scr
Oliver Wong <owong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>
> "Mark Kent" <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:6u18p3-rjf.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> begin oe_protect.scr
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>> __/ [ Oliver Wong ] on Wednesday 19 July 2006 21:06 \__
>>>
>>>> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>> news:2215135.K4TFUFR02H@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>>> | This one actually wasn't that bad. This time it was a technical
>>>>> problem
>>>>> | with the webcast. Once again, companies just don't get it, they won't
>>>>> | allow you to watch the webcast with anything other than the
>>>>> | unacceptable security risk known as Internet Explorer.
>>>>> `----
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33114
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand what "damage" was done. From my understanding,
>>>> the
>>>> author tried to view a webcast via FireFox, could not, and gave up. Is
>>>> there more to it than that in this story?
>>>
>>> It's one of these Inquirer articles that probably skip their
>>> way past the editor's approval. The Register has some
>>> similar articles where the title is probably carefully
>>> chosen by the Editor-in-chief. Personally, I am not too fond
>>> of such write-ups that resemble blogs, content-wise (also
>>> narration).
>>
>> Opinion pieces have been a mainstay of journalism for decades, it's the
>> blog which has risen up to copy the opinion piece, not the other way
>> around...
>>
>> Anyway, to help Mr Wong, the damage done is that the use of IE is a
>> risky thing at best, and /requiring/ it is not just stupid (a lot of
>> systems don't have IE at all), but it's downright irresponsible in the
>> cases where people do (security hazard), and foolish where they don't
>> (lost customer).
>>
>> In fact, there's no reasonable reason for using IE at all, as far as I
>> can see. Cross-platform standards-based browsers should be the
>> requirement - anything else is foolish, bad engineering, and shows a
>> deep disregard for customers.
>
> To me, IE is a "target platform" like any others. I've seen some really
> impressive IE-only sites that don't work in Firefox (I believe it's due to
> some special scripting, rather than ActiveX or anything like that). If you
> target IE specifically, instead of webbrowsers in general, then you're
> limiting your audience, sure. But sometimes that's a tradeoff the software
> engineers is willing to make giving the application being developed.
Incompetent engineers should be shown the door, before your customers
find it themselves. I believe that in some European countries, Firefox
use is nearly 40% - that's a very very large customer base for an
incompetent engineer to lose for you. Engineering (rather than science)
is about understanding the technology /and the economics/. Sadly, all
too many people call themselves engineers, but they're not; perhaps
they're technicians, or programmers, or scientists, but no competent
engineer would turn away 40% of a marketplace by deliberately coding
them out.
>
> Also before anyone gets the wrong idea, I use FireFox as my primary
> browser, and strive to make my websites XHTML1.1 compliant, validated
> against W3C's tool.
>
Which is a good example to all.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Q: What's yellow, and equivalent to the Axiom of Choice?
A: Zorn's Lemon.
|
|
