browser wars

[calimac]

"I asked Levine how you get people to upgrade their browser. His response: 'If I knew the answer to that, I'd be a billionaire.'"

I can tell them a few ways to get people not to upgrade their browser, and some of them are right in the article, quotes from it in italics.

1. Entice users with crap they don't want. "Those browsers supported next-generation coding tools like HTML5 that allowed for dazzling graphics, elegant games, and interactive tools." I know what that means. That means that there will be even more web sites whose home page navigation is interfered with by annoying video introductions, slow-loading graphics, and cryptic picture layouts with the basic links hidden, hard to find in the background, like a Where's Waldo game. "When one-quarter of your users are running a browser made in 2006 or earlier, you can't use all the gee-whiz tricks that are now at your disposal. To reach everyone, you've got to keep things simple." Yes! That's exactly right, except that it's good, not bad.

2. Lie and pretend that updating is easy. "Suddenly that five-minute installation is worth it." On your planet, maybe, but just try installing anything complex in five minutes, without restarts, mysterious freezes, and cryptic error messages, on a computer here on Earth.

3. Force them to shell out $$ for new hardware and firmware. "Older machines won't have the juice to display tricked-out Web sites in all their glory. ... You can download a beta copy and try it out, but check out the requirements first -- sorry, XP users." Software pushers like to disclaim responsibility for the system upgrades they impel users to undergo, but it's their doing. And it's deliberate. I've seen an interview with Bill Gates in which he explains that software bloat is a deliberate business strategy to keep users buying new product; because if everyone's satisfied with their computer system, what will Microsoft sell?

4. Threaten them. "Maybe the solution is just to bribe people -- or punish them. I'm guessing that Facebook could help kill off IE6 in a single day by cutting off support of old, rickety browsers. Sure, he'd lose a lot of traffic for a few days, but what's a bigger hassle for Web users: installing a new browser or bidding farewell to their online selves?" We already know that Facebook is the most antagonistic company to its customers' interests on the Internet; why prove it further?

5. Insult them. Every time I go to YouTube with my two-year-old version of Firefox 2, I get a message reading, "Your browser is no longer supported. Please upgrade to a modern browser." You know, if it said "to a current browser" or even "to a newer browser," I might consider it. But "a modern browser"? As if one that's two years old is some medieval manuscript version, hand-calligraphed on vellum by monks? Way to get your users' backs up, guys.

Comments

[sandramcdonald.livejournal.com]

I was just reading that article a moment ago.

My seventy four year old dad isn't going to upgrade because he doesn't know what it is, or why he should, and he doesn't care.

I'm not going to upgrade (when I have a choice - damn Firefox's automatic updates) because each new browser will inevitably cause a mismatch with one of the school platforms where I teach.

We don't need no new browsers!

[scribblerworks.livejournal.com]

I HATE the implied need to upgrade by browser, especially if it has been doing the work fine.

I hated when I had to shift from Netscape to IE.

I hated when I had to upgrade to IE8 simply because Facebook refused to cooperate with IE7 any more. Double bleh.

I hate it when the front pages of websites have bloated animated greetings that take too long to load and then have absolutely no useful information in them -- where's the "Skip This" button, please? I don't care about your clever animation skills, I'm looking for information.

All these things are why I have labored to keep my own website very bare bones, with precious few bells and whistles (otherwise known as "garbage") on the front page. I'm about to do a major revision on the site, to convert my "news" blog into the front page, for a more dynamic (ie, I'll update the blog more often) front page. But I'm going to try and stay away from animations and flash-crap.

Seriously.... if the "older" version works fine, WHY do I need the "newer/modern" one?

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

You've seen my personal website? I created the home page in 1999, and except for an early change of the color scheme, and regular additions to the content links, I haven't touched it since.

At the same time, I took over my department's web page at work (which is why they paid me to take the HTML class at which we created personal home pages as an exercise), and the first thing I did was get rid of the flashing checkmarks on a to-do list, over my boss's protests. Except for actual embedded videos, nothing is going to move on any web page I have control over.

[whswhs.livejournal.com]

My browser gets upgraded when Apple sends me a new version. If they can't be bothered to make their site accessible to Safari users they don't need my business.

You're right on the money

[visualweasel.livejournal.com]

Great post, Calimac!

I would add to your #3 above: *anytime* you get new hardware -- even when you aren't being *forced* to by software bloat -- you get a new version of the browser whether you like it or not. We just bought my wife a new laptop, and now she has Windows 7 and IE 8. I program computers for a living, and even I have no experience yet with this software. So now we're *both* having to learn where the heck they moved everything to! (Yes, I *could* wipe the hard drive and install XP and IE 7, but I have better things to do than fight with Sony about which drivers I need for a new model laptop.)

And can I just add that I am sick unto death of practically every new piece of software I install trying to push a new browser *toolbar* on me! I don't want Yahoo's toolbar, thank you very much, or Google, or AVG's, or Norton's, or some internet radio station's. Nor do I want to change my default search engine to Bing or Yahoo. Gah, leave me alone!

We have long since passed the point where software upgrades added very many *useful* features!

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

Since you're buying the new hardware of your own volition, not because software updates are forcing you to, this isn't really an addition to my #3. The relevant point is a new #6: Move everything around in the updated version, forcing the users to learn to drive all over again from scratch.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

Anyway, thanks for bringing that up. It is another good point.

And toolbars? I haven't had much experience with software pushing those, largely because I haven't gotten much new software recently. I have all the programs I need; I had them five or ten years ago, and the only thing I've needed to update is web browsers, because Web content keeps forcing me to.

[irontongue.livejournal.com]

The one solid reason to upgrade a browser is that newer browsers do offer better security than older. IE6 is a sieve of known security holes; if I had to use IE at all, I would be using IE8.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

IE8 may have fewer holes than IE6, but has there been a steady progression of security improvement from IE1 to IE9? I think not. What actually happens is that a steady addition of new bells and whistles with new security holes in them goes along simultaneously with the plugging of the holes created by the previous collection of bells and whistles. At any given time, the latest version could be worse, not better (though you're not likely to know it yet until it's been around for a bit and the holes are discovered). The best security is likely to be found, not in the newest version, but in the latest updates of some previous version.

[irontongue.livejournal.com]

Well, yes, actually, I think browsers have incorporated a bunch of different security features over the time: use of https rather than http, for example. Do I think it is a straight-line progression? I don't know.

I believe your conjecture about where the best security is might be mistaken. I will check with some security experts at work and see what they think.

Actually.....

[irontongue.livejournal.com]

A little web searching on the term "browser security" will pull up tons of information.

Here's an article on security features in Chrome (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9143518/Chrome_sets_browser_security_standard_says_expert), written by someone who doesn't work for Google:

Here's a site that rounds up browser news, much of it security-related (http://techie-buzz.com/browsers/security-account-manager-android-browser-saturday.html).

Might ask around at work too.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

Add:

6. Throw more information at users than they can possibly need or absorb. Weekly browser security news updates? Christ on a flaming cream pie! Among other things, one can't possibly draw any generalizations from such needle-to-the-eye perspectives. Nor could one evaluate such mountains of information. I drew my generalizations from such longer-perspective material as I've read on the very same Web that you're directing me to.

[irontongue.livejournal.com]

Do you have pointers? I'd be interested in reading those articles.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

Nothing specific. This is just an accumulated impression I've gotten from years of reading repeated accounts of security holes found in the latest and greatest browsers, holes which were there in the first place because they related to new features of those versions which hadn't already been thoroughly road-tested in previous versions, and then new updates to those versions are issued, which have no new features but which plug those holes.

[irontongue.livejournal.com]

Okay - so it's a general impression rather than a position you can find security experts supporting in particular articles.

What information would you find useful in further evaluating issues around browser security? I'm reasonably certain I can find specific information about problems in IE, particularly IE6. Not sure if you're interested in going any further in looking at these issues, though.