Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
The Internet Operating Systems Software Windows

Why are Websites Still Forcing People to Use IE? 899

DragonTHC asks: "I just visited Movielink's website for research. Their site has a nice message saying, 'Sorry, but in order to enjoy the Movielink service you must use Internet Explorer 5.0 (or higher) or Mozilla/Firefox with an IE Tab Extension (IE installation required).' While allowing the IETab Firefox extension is somewhat progressive, why do companies still force people to use Internet Explorer? Surely the site should work just fine in Firefox? With Firefox's steady gains in market share, you would think that webmasters would get the hint. If you are a webmaster, what are your reasons for forcing IE?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Why are Websites Still Forcing People to Use IE?

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @07:54PM (#18790305)
    I think you mean forcing people to use other sites.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by urlgrey ( 798089 ) *
      I wish this were always the case, but I recently ran into an issue when trying to request documents from the Nevada Secretary of State web site. In this case there's no alternative to the official site.

      As of mid-April 2007 the official SOS site only supports IE. As a Mac/Firefox user, I quite literally could not use the shopping cart to purchase certain documents as the site simply refused to work. Clicking certain links did nothing. It didn't complain. It didn't bail. It just didn't do anything.

      I tri
  • "Allowing" IETab? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kelson ( 129150 ) * on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @07:54PM (#18790313) Homepage Journal
    As I understand it, IETab simply embeds Internet Explorer inside the Firefox window and allows the chrome to control it. As far as the website can tell, IETab is IE.

    What's (somewhat) progressive about MovieLink isn't that they're allowing IETab... but that they're recommending it.
    • by LighterShadeOfBlack ( 1011407 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @08:06PM (#18790471) Homepage

      What's (somewhat) progressive about MovieLink isn't that they're allowing IETab... but that they're recommending it.
      It's not all that progressive though is it? That just means the website isn't from a time where for most people there really was no known alternative to IE. They're obviously well aware of Firefox and yet they have chosen to jam a proverbial fork in the user's eye by suggesting they change their software to fit the website. If anything that's regression in my book. They're aware of other browsers, they explicitly just don't care.
    • by vux984 ( 928602 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @08:18PM (#18790599)
      What's (somewhat) progressive about MovieLink isn't that they're allowing IETab... but that they're recommending it.

      That isn't progressive, its idiotic.
      They support non-IE/Windows platforms by telling you to install Windows and IE.

      I bet this bullshit was because someone said "Make sure it supports firefox too"!

      Then either the developer was colossally arrogant and BS'd his way through by showing that it worked with IE tab, or the developer was colossally stupid and actually thinks supporting IETab somehow constitutes support for firefox.

      Either way, the developer deserves to be beaten to pulp.

  • by Jupix ( 916634 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @07:54PM (#18790317)
    They have no power over you. Just go somewhere else for your research. That's what I do when I come across a stupid website like that.
    • by Zocalo ( 252965 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @08:31PM (#18790761) Homepage
      Exactly. This is the strongest message you can send and it's actually your easiest option thanks to Internet search engines. Any decent web logfile analysis package is capable of showing stats on the number of visitors that only visited the home page and didn't follow any links. If the site in question is using one and that figure gets high enough then they might just correlate it with browser usage and the clue train will pull into the station. If not, well, it's their lost sales, advertising revenue, warm-fuzzies though high pages hits or whatever other factor they judge the success of the site by.
  • Wild guess here... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Giolon ( 1006069 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @07:56PM (#18790347)
    but probably so that they only have to test for one browser's compatibility. Each browser has its own quirks (incorrectness?) in dealing with things like CSS transparency, and DIVs, etc. and the lowest common denominator for the vast majority of people browsing the web is, Internet Explorer. It's bundled into Windows. Knowledgeable people seek out others like Firefox or Opera, but your average person setting up their phat myspace profile.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by compm375 ( 847701 )
      but probably so that they only have to test for one browser's compatibility

      That would make sense if they were only supporting IE6, but they are supporting IE5.0+, which means IE5, IE5.5, IE6, and (presumably) IE7. That is already four browsers, and they are browsers that cannot easily be installed on the same computer at the same time, making them even more difficult to test.
  • features - (kinda) (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Gates82 ( 706573 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @07:57PM (#18790355)
    Many sites (especially employee websites) require IE because they are using some active-X or item that IE has integrated into it. People say, "cool I can use x,y,z instead of a stand alone app." Since IE is so much more then a browser it does all of this wonderful things. Annoying I know, but people want a one stop app for everything even if it means you use IE to imput your time or run some database app for work.

    People just need to realize that a web browser should be used for browsing the web and the websites should be HTML compliant.

    So who is hotter? Ali or Ali's sister?

  • Just use the User Agent Switcher extension ( ) and have Firefox pretend it is IE. Nine times out of 10 the site will work just fine.
  • Easy (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nighty5 ( 615965 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @07:59PM (#18790375)
    I work for a major company and externally they make a bit of effort to make the website run on Firefox and IE.

    However, internally they don't give a damn and most of the apps don't work - its very very frustrating. See below for reasons:

    Lack of training
    Lack of funding
    Lots of Apathy
    Business risk

  • by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @08:02PM (#18790405)
    Well, however it may be, browsers still display different content differently. There is still no full consensus over how certain things should be displayed.

    Now, of course, everyone has to use the latest technology in webpage design. In other words, the most incompatible technology. What looks lovely in IE looks aweful in Firefox and even worse in Opera. Ok, ok, maybe not aweful. But not JUST the same way. So you'd have to do the page two or three times to make it compatible with every browser. But that, in turn, would cost more money.

    And here's where corporate design comes into play. It HAS to look exactly the way intended. The colors have to be JUST right, the placement, the spacing, everything has to match so it is immediately identified as THAT page. Since this cannot be warranted, the powers that be usually decide it's the lesser evil to "force" people to use a certain browser. Since you can assume that everyone has IE (at least everyone who uses Windows), but the amount of people who'd have Firefox is way smaller, IE is usually the browser of choice.
    • by lhand ( 30548 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @08:39PM (#18790873)
      And I've had this discussion with people since the browser came out.

      A browser displays a mark-up language. It was never designed to be a page layout language.
      If you want that kind of control over presentation, use GIFs, PDF or Flash to do your presentations.
      Of course, if you're too lazy to do all that work go ahead and assume that all IE users have their system set up exactly like you do--same screen resolution, same color depth, same fonts, no changes to default browser settings--and, by all means, use IE.
      Every once in a while someone gets it but I think, as another poster mentioned, they're too lazy to bother.
  • by MBCook ( 132727 ) <> on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @08:02PM (#18790415) Homepage

    I would guess two reasons, which are related. IE was VERY popular a few years ago. It was a relativly good browser, up to date, and thanks to Windows coming with IE by default it held a massive market share. The biggest competitors were Opera (not free) and Netscape. Even Macs had IE. If you made a website, you had to make it work in IE, and making it work in something else was a luxury, it wasn't that necessary.

    I think what we are seeing is the result of that, at least in part. Web sites were designed for that and things have continued. You update your site, update your site, update your site. It's still setup for that browser. You may bother to fix it for FF and such.

    Don't get me wrong, I HATE this. I especially hate sites that tell me I must use IE then work fine when I tell Safari to fake being IE. And this is becoming less of an issue as the market share of Macs goes up, and FF reaches like 20% here in the US and up to 50% in some European countries (see story from the other day).

    Ignoring other browsers used to be safe. Now it can mean a big share of the market.

    Also, in the (smaller) shop where I work, things MUST work on IE simply because it is such a big part of the market. That said, we all use FireFox and design for it first then go fix stuff for IE. Safari tends to work with whatever FireFox does for the most part.

    PS: Installing IE tab is not a solution. Saying you are "FireFox compatible with IE tab" is like saying a paddle boat is gas compatible when you duct-tape an outboard motor on it.

  • by G4from128k ( 686170 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @08:05PM (#18790451)
    I'm sure this is a great way to propagate malware -- force the user to use an insecure browser so that the site can install malware on the person's PC.

    "This site works best (for us, not for you) with Internet Explorer"
  • Do what I do... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nschubach ( 922175 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @08:06PM (#18790461) Journal
    Find a service online that supports Firefox and give them your money instead of the other guy.

    There's no sense worrying about one site when there are usually at least 3 more to replace it.
  • by thegrassyknowl ( 762218 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @08:13PM (#18790547)
    The only people who require IE are the ones that purchassed some dumb HTML book by some other clueless n00b that uses IE, realised it was all too hard and went out and got frontpage to do the dirty work for them. There's a proliferation of them out there. They jumped in at the dot bomb boom thinking that calling themselves "web developers" would make them rich. It probably did, but it doesn't mean they're any good at it.

    I mean c'mon it's not hard to write a brilliant page that works everywhere. Look at how Gmail works. IE, FF and Opera all render it correctly. Even Konqueror does a good job but its javascript implementation is a bit lax.

    We have two "web applications" that we need to run at work. One is a time management package that used to be simply web-based using forms/java. There was nothing wrong with it except Java took a little time to start. They upgraded to the latest and greatest version that is now fantastic ActiveX. I pointed out that now us Linux users can't use it and will have to revert to the paper forms. Their first solution was "but everybody has 'The Internet'". It took over a week to demonstrate the Linux doesn't come with that (Internet Explorer) installed by default. They then reverted to "just borrow someone else's PC when you need to use it".

    The other is an employee workflow manager. It works in FF but only barely. The HTML is that crap that you can hardly figure out what it's doing. Funnily IE renders the poo just fine, and is the only browser that does.

    The people who recommend, install and run these services know nothing about Linux and wouldn't know what a web browser was if you showed them. They actually think "The Internet" is the Internet Explorer icon on their desktop.
  • by yotto ( 590067 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @08:15PM (#18790567) Homepage
    If you are a webmaster, what are your reasons for forcing IE?

    Do you honestly believe there exists a /. webmaster who would require IE?

    And if such a monster exists, do you honestly believe he'd admit it?
    • by julesh ( 229690 ) on Thursday April 19, 2007 @04:22AM (#18794897)
      Do you honestly believe there exists a /. webmaster who would require IE?

      And if such a monster exists, do you honestly believe he'd admit it?

      I'll nearly admit it. My company produces a web content management system whose admin interface was IE-only in the previous version. The current version adds support for FF, Opera and Safari, although we're considering officially recommending that our clients not use FF with it: FF's implementation of HTML design mode ("midas") is severely fucked. So far, we've spent hundreds of hours working around bugs in it, and they're not all finished with yet. Safari support isn't entirely there on the current official versions of Safari, because some of the features we need (specifically execCommand("inserthtml", ...)) aren't implemented in that version, although they do apparently work if you use a nightly build of AppleWebKit. So, essentially, yeah, we produce a web site that only works properly in IE and Opera.
  • by Robber Baron ( 112304 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @08:19PM (#18790619) Homepage
    Never mind IE, the idiots I'd like to kick the shit out of are the ones who do a website entirely in Flash!
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by robogun ( 466062 )
      Don't sweat it, Google kicks the shit out of them by not indexing Flash pages.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      I've seen webshytes that are even worse! Not are they entirely in Flash, they display a static image! No animation, no changes, just links to click on just like in real HTML.
  • by Nutsquasher ( 543657 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @08:19PM (#18790621)
    Semi off-topic, but I'm angry when sites don't work if you have scripting disabled on your browser. The vast majority of web-based attacks are vectored through scripting (javascript, activex). Until scripting is a secure thing, it should be done away with on all sites except for those that absolutely require it (like Google Maps - though it does work like a cheap version of Mapquest when you use it with scripting disabled).

    [/rant not over]

    My websites on my web-host were hacked today (not my fault, theirs), and the attackers placed exploit javascript code in all of my index.htm/html files (looked like buffer overflow code, but I didn't research it). Any browsers pointed to my sites with scripting enabled likely got hit.

    [/rant over]
  • by rueger ( 210566 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @08:21PM (#18790643) Homepage
    As a regular Slashdot reader you may find it hard to believe, but many in the computer industry - including even web design people - are incredibly arrogant and presume that they, and they alone, know exactly what you should use for hardware and software.

    Why just this week Yahoo sent me three e-mails in a row telling me how to make their mail service more compatible with the Internet Explorer that they were convinced I am using on my Mac.

    Followed by three requests that I tell them "How They Did" in solving my problem...
  • by chuckymonkey ( 1059244 ) <.charles.d.burton. .at.> on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @08:22PM (#18790651) Journal
    by a tech support person, "because Linux and free software are hacker tools".
  • by dook43 ( 660162 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @08:29PM (#18790753)
    Firefox does not allow you to clear the Authentication cache (Basic or NTLM) unless you create a signed component. This forces us to close the browser to clear authentication data (We have kiosks where more than one user is viewing private healthcare information and this behavior is VERY undesirable)
    • Not sure your exact meaning of authentication cache... however if you are talking http authentication (Popup login password window brought on by .htaccess or such) then I know that it can be done with the web developer plugin in Firefox.

      Miscellaneous -> Clear Private Data -> HTTP Authentication

      It should be a quick trip through their code to find out how they did it and make a little plugin of your own to do it for you.

      In fact... while you are in there grab the code that lets it clear session cookies and run that at the same time also. That will kill ANY authorization system they have been in for 99.999% of the web.
  • Laziness (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Quantam ( 870027 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @08:35PM (#18790813) Homepage
    There's no other reason. IE comes with Windows, which is a overwhelming majority of the market, and it's easier than learning something new.

    The answer is about the same as asking why most Windows programs require you to be admin: because they're too lazy to learn how to deal with not having access to every last corner of the computer (this is probably even easier than learning to write for multiple browsers).
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Quantam ( 870027 )
      I should add that Unix has a clear advantage with respect to user access rights, as it was always a fundamentally multi-user system. To be precise, NT has ALWAYS been a secure (in the sense of protecting one user's data from another) multi-user system, no matter what the clueless Linux zealots say. However, NT had a very low market share until XP came out. Before that, MS-DOS and Windows 9x, both fundamentally single-user systems (Windows 9x had some basic multi-user support, but zero security), had nearly
  • It's worse than that (Score:4, Informative)

    by AlHunt ( 982887 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @08:42PM (#18790929) Homepage Journal
    No 98, no ME, no MAC, no Linux

    Sorry, but as of May 2, 2005, Movielink no longer supports Windows 98 and ME operating systems.
    Movielink also does not support Mac or Linux.

    In order to enjoy the Movielink service, you must use Windows 2000 or XP,
    which support certain technologies we utilize for downloading movies.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Bogtha ( 906264 )

      Actually, it's even worse than that.

      Thanks for your interest in Movielink, the leading movie download service. Sorry, but Movielink is presently unavailable to users outside of the United States.

      So they've thrown out Mac users, thrown out Linux users, thrown out BSD users, thrown out 98 and ME users, and thrown out everybody outside the USA. The majority of web surfers aren't even allowed to see their homepage!

  • by Ant P. ( 974313 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @08:46PM (#18790987) Homepage
    ...I use an XHTML mime-type on all my pages.
  • by apathy maybe ( 922212 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @08:52PM (#18791081) Homepage Journal
    People. People who are lazy fuckers more particularly.

    What pisses me of is websites that use JavaScript and/or cookies and don't tell you that they are needed. I have both turned off my default (NoScript and CookieCuller), and I often come across sites that require one or the other to use basic functionality. And then don't tell me.

    There are very few sites that actually need these things. And if they do, they should tell me so that I can turn it on. Rather then fuck around wondering why it won't work.

    Personally I code my websites to be compliant XHTML and CSS (unless they are quick and dirty ones). I don't use JavaScript. I don't use Flash or similar.

    I also have a message that comes up when the browser doesn't support CSS (or at least the NOCSS part). And if I used JavaScript, would also have a message come up (hidden if JavaScript was used). The same with cookies, if they are needed, the person gets told (at the time). Unless cookies are essential (such as for login information) they shouldn't be used.

    Take a site that is for an airline. They have it available in heaps of languages. So I click English, and then click something else, and it takes me back to the front page. Why the fuck cant' it use server side sessions?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by poopdeville ( 841677 )
      Take a site that is for an airline. They have it available in heaps of languages. So I click English, and then click something else, and it takes me back to the front page. Why the fuck cant' it use server side sessions?

      Because HTTP is a stateless protocol. When implementing user sessions, you have to rely on extra-protocol information, either with cookies or by including a session id in the url. Cookies tend to be easier to work with.
  • One example: (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ruiner13 ( 527499 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @08:54PM (#18791113) Homepage
    My company is very near releasing an update to our web application that will provide 100% support of both IE and Firefox (our next major revision will be out next month). There are a number of reasons why we are only just now adding support for Firefox. Though my company is only 6 years old, as far as browser development goes, a lot has changed. When version 1.0 of our application was written, mozilla based browsers lacked a lot of the functionality they have now. For instance, a central part of our application is a rich text editor that creates text and html formatted email content. Up until Firefox 1.3 with the introduction of Midas, only IE supported editable regions in web pages. This was a major hurdle for us.

    In the mean time, we continued to add features and pages to the application which was only targeting IE, so most of the application was not 100% standards compliant. We've wanted to do Firefox support for a long time, but sometimes the need to add new features for existing customers outweighs the need to provide support for a very small number of people who complained. Additionally, web developers who are trained in cross-browser coding are a rare commodity (much rarer than the number of people who complain about the lack of firefox support).

    Also, adding firefox/mozilla support isn't just code and forget it. Even though the code for firefox on PC and firefox for mac may be similar (I haven't looked, sorry), they still have slightly different rendering practices. Just to name one, a file upload input box with a size attribute set to 50 will be much longer and take up more screen than on a PC. So you have to do a platform check in javascript to set the size differently on a mac or a PC so the screen looks the same. Nope, the CSS width attribute is completely ignored in both platforms.

    These are just a few reasons, and your mileage may vary. We have a very complex application with a lot of complex scripting, so our effort is likely more than most would have to do. A firefox user simply impersonating an IE user agent would not have had any luck in making our app work.
  • Lack of IT expertise (Score:5, Interesting)

    by lancejjj ( 924211 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @09:43PM (#18791703) Homepage
    The primary reason why a company can only support IE is a lack of IT expertise.

    With my employer, they hired contract staff to do a lot of web programming for internal use. And IE was our corporate standard. After a while, both the internal staff and the contract staff only knew about IE - my local management and the contract staff wasn't too on top of the reasons why you wouldn't want to build IE-only software.

    Then my company was doing more on-line retailing, so they used the same flawed principles to build the retail site. It was basically broken on anything other than our "internal standard" browser. Corporate management was kept in the dark regarding compatability issues - sales are sales, and there was no loss of customers - we simply ignored a subset of the population.

    Finally, last fall, a new IT chief was hired (the former one left on his on accord), and the new IT guy was interested in the numbers. And within about 30 seconds he saw that 0% of sales were to Safari and Mozilla users.

    The 2nd in command (within IT) claimed that nothing but IE was a popular browser. He was fired in, quite literally, five minutes. Three developers (including me) were then tasked to fix the issue with the site, and within a couple days we had a well-tested site that worked with any modern standards based browser. And it was accessable too (unlike the old site). Happily, we did all this just in time for IE7.

    Now, non-IE browsers account for about 15% of our on-line sales, and the new IT guy is considered by all (remaining) to be a hero.

    PS - you've heard of my employer.

  • Incompetence (Score:4, Informative)

    by beadfulthings ( 975812 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @09:50PM (#18791789) Journal
    A wise person told me years ago that anything that said, "Best when viewed in [insert browser here] at [insert screen resolution here] was a very visible sign of laziness, incompetence, arrogance, and lack of interest in the ultimate "customer," the end-user. That advice was given when the browsers of the moment were IE and Netscape. It was good advice then, and with a modification or two, it's good advice now. So I'd have to say they are some combination of (a) lazy; (b) incompetent; (c) arrogant; and (d) not interested in their visitors. I always view such shenanigans as a sort of badge of shame, and it occasionally causes me to mistrust the content of such sites.
  • by writermike ( 57327 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @09:56PM (#18791863)
    Wow. So many of the comments here just assume the worst about people. The users are lazy or stupid, the developers are "n00bs" or the people that run the websites are arrogant. And, yeah, I'm sure that's the case for some.

    I propose a much simpler answer: Return-on-investment.

    Here's an example: When the site was created, it was around the time that building for IE was considered a must-have and getting a presence on the Internet meant untold riches coming your way. Companies hired designers based on those premises. The designers delivered. The companies sunk a chunk of money into it.

    A few years later, designing for _ALL_ browsers is a must-have, but... The company didn't make the untold riches they were promised (turns out people would rather buy tube bending by phone and email). They don't see the point in sinking money into a redesign for a website that doesn't amount to much in the company's overall income.

    Yeah, it annoys me when Firefox doesn't work on a site, but I have alternatives and, for the most part, some of those sites are indeed being retooled little by little. All of my bank sites support Firefox without question. Something not true a couple of years ago.


    • by sunderland56 ( 621843 ) on Thursday April 19, 2007 @12:10AM (#18793295)
      Sure, brick-and-mortar pipebending stores that can do business by fax & phone don't need to accomodate all web browsers.

      But: this is Movielink, a service that is renting and selling movies over the internet. In other words, they are selling something that you cannot get by fax or phone - you need an internet connection, a computer, and a reasonable amount of knowledge to be their customer in the first place.

      So: by restricting their customer base to IE only, they are artificially limiting their customer base. They could target 100% of people on the Internet, but they choose voluntarily to limit themselves to only selling to people who are able to (and want to) run a recent copy of IE.

      In short: they are artificially limiting themselves to maybe 50% (and falling) of their potential customer base. What a grand business model that is.

  • by naph ( 590672 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @10:55PM (#18792543) Homepage Journal
    I'm living in South Korea at the moment, and Windows/IE is pretty much 100% here because a certain ActiveX control is used by most sites for encryption (they use their own SEED encryption or something, here are some links...

    "The key reason ActiveX is mandated by financial institutions is that Korea has its own national encryption scheme called SEED that is used in place of SSL. The reason this came to be stemmed from the fact that US export law in the late 1990s didn't permit the export of web browsers with more than 40 bit encryption. This meant that an ActiveX SEED plug-in was used in place of browser SSL. While there are Java and Netscape implementations of SEED, it was almost never implemented. ActiveX is so dominant that KFTC (Korea Financial Telecommunications and Clearings Institute) won't even assign users security certificates unless they're using Internet Explorer with ActiveX." [],390369 62,39154849,00.htm [] ...)
  • by bedouin ( 248624 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2007 @11:25PM (#18792897)
    Since OS X was released everyone has known the /. community embraced Macs more so than in years past, but this poll tells us that at least 20% have. Knowing that technically savvy Mac folks tend to be split down the middle when it comes to Firefox / Safari usage, you might be able to add another 10-20% to that number. Very interesting to see what an effect OS X has had on the average geek's perception of Apple.
  • Testing time (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Maxo-Texas ( 864189 ) on Thursday April 19, 2007 @12:52AM (#18793637)
    As it is, running full regression tests for one browser takes days.
    There is no ROI for supporting firefox yet.

    I use it personally.
    I'm using it now.
    I do personal testing of the site with firefox to make sure we are a little compatible but I'm not going to run 4,000 tests for each browser.

    It's bad enough as it is now with Sarbanes Oxley.
  • by linebackn ( 131821 ) on Thursday April 19, 2007 @06:19AM (#18795425)
    Obviously the typical answer to why some sites still only work in IE is "stupidity" and "laziness" but it boggles my mind that there are still sites out there like this. It is 2007 for crying out loud!

    Just a few weeks ago I went through and updated my "Sites that Make Firefox sad" page: [] I was able to remove a large number of sites from this list as they appeared to be working in Firefox now, but I wound up ADDING almost just as many new sites to my list.

    And my list still focuses mainly on sites that completely forbid Firefox, there are incredibly many sites that have various small glitches (like menus or spacing) in Firefox and no fix in site. And the WORST offenders are corporate Intranet applications. Companies are still "sold" on Microsoft. Heck, brand new "web" apps from Microsoft such as Exchange Web Access, Sharepoint, Project Server Web Access still either require IE or give other browsers a "downlevel" experience.

    And the thing that really gets me is that Firefox can be a very good thing for companies - it is available for so incredibly many different platforms and works mostly the same on each - Firefox can help turn operating systems in to a true commodity! Each app that only works in IE (and arguably if it is IE only it really can't be called a true web application) just ties you down to Microsoft just that much more.
  • by Zeek40 ( 1017978 ) on Thursday April 19, 2007 @08:50AM (#18796313)
    I work for a 45,000 employee defense contractor/technology company. At my site we are forbidden from using IE because of security issues and must use firefox or some other browser. Our corporate HR website, which we must use to do our performance evaluations, benefits changes, and other administrivia doesn't work (actually rejects, won't even try to work) with anything other than IE. WTF?

Competence, like truth, beauty, and contact lenses, is in the eye of the beholder. -- Dr. Laurence J. Peter