Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Extruded? Are you sure?

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                         

Expiring Web Browser

Let old browsers retire
  (+2, -10)(+2, -10)
(+2, -10)
  [vote for,
against]

Code browsers so that they can't be used in a few years, pushing people to upgade to modern versions.

Web developers would have less of a burden to code for old browsers, making their lives easier.

Snuffkin, Jul 27 2005

Cello http://www.law.cornell.edu/cello/
Long may it live. [waugsqueke, Jul 27 2005]

[link]






       damn right! and the same with windows. and houses! and old people!
jonplackett, Jul 27 2005
  

       That's effectively what's happening. Have you ever visited a site but been locked out saying you didn't have a "new" browser?   

       It's easy for the webmaster to implement this on his/her site using existing standards.
Acme, Jul 28 2005
  

       [Snuffkin], in my opinion that's a terrible idea. Not everyone can afford the latest technology required to run the latest browsers, nor has the bandwidth to continually download new versions. All this would do is increase the 'digital divide' between rich and poor.   

       It really doesn't take too much effort to produce nicely designed sites that work across all browsers (even text ones).   

       Furthermore, web designers producing code which only works on certain platforms may be leave themselves liable to prosecution under (e.g. Section 508) laws on information accessibility.
neilp, Jul 28 2005
  

       Well, probably only if it's a government site.
bristolz, Jul 28 2005
  

       well, there are laws in the UK and Australia (hugely untested, I admit) which mean your website needs to be accessible. The Sydney Olympic Games organising committee (and IBM) were taken through the courts.
neilp, Jul 28 2005
  

       But now that everybody writes fully standards-compliant html, and everyone uses standards-compliant browsers such as Safari, Camino and Firefox, this idea is somewhat redundant. If this were 1997, I'd agree with the sentiment though.
Ian Tindale, Jul 28 2005
  

       //there are laws in the UK and Australia (hugely untested, I admit) which mean your website needs to be accessible.// you're kidding? Whose website? I can't believe that I'm committing an offence by launching a website that's only accessible with certain browsers.
Basepair, Jul 28 2005
  

       I was under the impression that the accessibility laws said something more like your website can't be accessible for disabled people in -most- browsers. If a browser isn't standards compliant, you've got a ready made excuse.   

       Ian, whatever happened to the 80-90% using IE in commonly spouted statistics?
Snuffkin, Jul 29 2005
  

       bless 'em, [Snuffkin], they're still using IE.

the offence is in eriting code which isn't standards compliant (assistive technologies are a lot less forgiving, generally, than standard browsers. So.. [alt] your images, don't use fixed sized fonts, and CSS to the hilt and everyone will be happy.
neilp, Jul 29 2005
  

       Snuffkin, - those aren't statistics, they're lies. I don't know anyone who still has IE on their Macs, let alone actually uses it.
Ian Tindale, Jul 29 2005
  

       //I don't know anyone who still has IE on their Macs// Errr, I do, and I use it for pages that crash Safari. However, this is as far as I can get into a conversation on this topic.
Basepair, Jul 29 2005
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle