bad web sites

[cellio]

Dear Company That Wants to Make Money Through a Web Site,

It's 2007. Not only have enough people to matter abandoned IE, but Firefox has been significant for years. Why is Firefox special? Because its extensions allow people to customize their browsing experience to their hearts' content. That, and tabs.

What does this mean for you? Simply that you cannot make assumptions about the browser any more. We've been blocking pop-ups for close to a decade and selectively blocking Javascript (via NoScript) for at least a couple years. We use GreaseMonkey scripts to add content to your pages (we don't care if you like it), AdBlock to remove some of the annoyances, and Stylish to rewrite your CSS. Get used to it.

If you want to win, then -- short of being a monopoly, and good luck with that on the web -- you'll have to learn to cope with this. The users -- your potential customers -- are not going to switch browsers, disable security settings, or even just turn off things we like, just to use your site, unless you're really, really important to us. Do you really want to place that bet?

No, it's not fair; my problem in using your site could well be in one of my extensions. But you know what? That doesn't matter; if it only affects your site, to me that will not seem to be my problem. If I like you a lot I'll try to debug it; if I don't I'll move on. Your only recourse is to bullet-proof your web site. Use fewer bells and whistles, and make them optional. Stop with the gratuitious Javascript (and Flash, for good measure). Do at least some testing of your site with the common Firefox extensions. Heck, write your own monitoring extension (that tracks and reports problems with your site) and offer it to your customers; we might help you out.

You do not need to use every new-fangled browser-thwarting doodad that comes along. Every time you do, your site breaks for a few more users. Designing resilient sites is not rocket science.

Comments

[cellio]

Well, I suppose it depends on why the person wants Flash. If you're, say, in the business of animation, that's different from if you're selling books. But as with all "gadget" technologies, the key is appropriate use. It's one thing to use the technology to showcase what you do; it's another to require it for basic access. I've seen sites that rely on Flash for site navigation; that screws people without Flash, people using screen readers, people using PDAs and optimizing for text... Even if you're going to use Flash for the product-demo video, do you need it to get in the front door?

It's a good idea to always provide plain old text links on the page for everything that doesn't fundamentally require graphics or video. If you also want to do button graphics (for which you should use ALT tags) or something, go for it -- but the key is to consider the lower end, because there are all sorts of reasons that people you don't necessarily want to blow off might be at that low end. With Flash in particular, a trick used by some sites is to detect Flash, use it if you've got it turned on, and drop into a more basic scheme if you don't.

Some types of site just don't do text well. Flickr would be pretty useless in a text-only mode, for instance. :-) But to the extent possible, I think it's a good idea to provide some basic access to everyone, rather than greeting all visitors with "your version of Flash is too old" when maybe all they were looking for was an email address so they could ask you if you do freelance work. (Or whatever.)

[dr-zrfq.livejournal.com]

Amen!!!