« The more things change | Main | Who is this guy? »

May 20, 2004

Plus ca change

In a recent post I reminisced about the early days of CSS, and a few of the people I recall as influential and important in the development of a standards based web.

But usually I am the kind of person who looks to the future. In the last few months Microsoft made a couple of very significant announcements with possibly quite negative implications for the future of a standards based web. Which has me thinking about that future, and wondering whether there even is such future.

Since the release of Netscape and Internet Explorer 4, there has been a steady movement toward the idea of standards based web development. In some respects the innovation both in the underlying standards and their implementation has been quite extraordinary. But as the kids in the back seat are always asking "Are we there yet"?
In a sense, there is no "there". Perhaps plateaus or way stations along the way, but no final destination. Right now it may seem like we are at one of those way stations. A reasonably large subset of CSS2 (soon to become CSS2.1) is quite well supported by most browsers.
CSS and xhtml support are markedly improved since the early parts of this decade.

But is it a way station, or are we just stalled?

Microsoft has in the last few months both discontinued IE for the Macintosh altogether, and let it be known there will be no new IE for today's generation of Windows based computers. The next iteration of IE will be solely for "longhorn" based systems (longhorn being the code name for the successor to Windows XP). Any such systems are unlikely before 2006, leaving a several year hiatus between major upgrades for IE, the single most pervasive web platform by a long way. And at present the platform with the most web standards "issues".

Which makes wonder - will we see standards based innovation in future?

Who cares about standards?

When it comes to commercial competition, standards are the friend of those without market dominance. The dominant player sets the "industry standard", as companies who dominate their niche tend to describe their software.

I believe that during the second half of the 1990s, during the most innovative time of the development CSS, commercial considerations did not play a significant part either in the development of CSS or in its implementation in browsers. CSS flew below the radar at Microsoft and Netscape/AOL/Time Warner. That won't happen again.

So what might the future hold? Let's turn the browsers for a moment. What happens here will determine what happens with CSS and standards more generally.

Where are we now?

Internet Explorer 6

When Microsoft did not dominate the browser market, open standards leveled the paying field for them. But now with IE dominant, will Microsoft be so supportive of standards?

Internet Explorer 6 is for Windows only. It supports much of CSS 2.1 though support for attribute based selectors, and more sophisticated selectors in general, such as the child selector is limited. It has some serious issues with the box model and positioning which cause many developers considerable frustration.
As noted before, IE 6 is the last version of IE which will be available until probably mid 2006, perhaps later, and the next version will never work on today's computers, not even on XP.

It's the end of the road for IE as we know it.

So, if things stay as they are, with Internet Explorer the benchmark, then say goodbye to CSS innovation for a long long time.

There are number of things which may affect this. First, CSS's design to allow forward compatibility means the user experience for more advanced browsers can be enhanced without compromising the experience of IE users. And there is even a simple way of hiding things from IE, using the child selector, which no version of IE on windows supports.

If not IE, who will innovate?

Opera? Mozilla? Anyone?

The more important question is who will innovate on the web? Not Microsoft, not at least until 2006 or whenever "longhorn" is released, with its new browser, possibly no longer called Internet Explorer.
Maybe then we'll see renewed CSS innovation from Microsoft, as they will want a "driver" for people to upgrade to their new OS. Afterall, the web is a big reason why people buy and use computers, especially away from the office, so surely Microsoft will want to give users a compelling reason to upgrade their web experience. Whether web standards support is the way, we'll have to wait and see. I have my reservations about that.

Will Opera be the innovators then? While technically Opera are doubtlessly innovators, will users adopt Opera? Perhaps in the embedded market where Opera may well shine, but I doubt it on the desktop.

How about Mozilla/Firefox? It's open source, it has a relationship with AOL, meaning that should AOL/TW wish, it could be installed on every AOL user's desktop in a matter of months, though sadly that seems increasingly less likely. That would give it some clout. But will it, even with continual improvement, on top of what is already a fine platform, be sufficiently compelling to have Windows users replace IE 6 as their browser of choice? Some certainly, but enough to worry Microsoft?

People as shrewd as Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates at Microsoft don't think so. Otherwise they would not have said to the world, "if you want browser innovation on Windows don't look at us". These guys have given the rest of the world a 3-4 year window in which to have the playing field all to themselves. Sure they might have made a huge strategic mistake, but they clearly aren't too worried about it happening.

As a brief aside, if I were Google (which I am sadly not, because they are at least 11 orders of magnitude smarter than me), who are rumored to be working on client side technologies for managing information, I'd put a lot of energy into Mozilla, and release a Google branded browser, as suggested by Anil Dash among others.

A better mousetrap

Microsoft has also abandoned IE for the Mac. Stats are hard to come by, but in the year or so since this announcement, Safari appears to have come to dominate the Mac OS X browser market.
So it's not impossible to supplant an incumbent, but you need something more than simply "a better mousetrap".
Mac users look to Apple first. They upgrade more, there is still something of the enthusiast in them. And coupled with that, Safari is more than a little better. It is markedly better.
But being even a lot better alone did not drive people to Safari.

Is that all there is?

So that's that then? Nothing new except for non Microsoft users until 2006 or later? And then what? Total dominance by one browser, so maybe nothing new even then? Certainly nothing which they don't want you to have. Sure there will be innovation outside the framework provided by the W3C, but would you go to the trouble of implementing all the complex stuff like multi-column layout, text shadow (which Safari does by the way), and all the other CSS 3 goodies that it is far from trivial to do, when you have a near monopoly?

Or would you set your own agenda?

I thought so.

Oh well, that was nice while it lasted.

RIP the Standards Based Web
born circa 1995
died circa 2005
She left us so young, with so much promise

The once and future king?

But I see some small hope. And it is 1984 all over again. Plus ça change.

What a browser would need to ignite the imagination, to get people downloading and upgrading is something new, something unique. Not just a tabbed interface, or faster rendering, or lots of CSS stuff that appeals to developers but users wouldn't care less about.

Have you used Safari for Windows?

Do you have iTunes on their Windows machine

Literally millions of people use a big chunk of Safari on Windows. It's the browser built into iTunes. It works today.
So arguably the quickest, most standards compliant browser around, which by the way is based on the open source KHTML rendering engine, is available right now on Windows. And to use iTunes, you need to use it.
Apple contributes to the KHTML project, so many of its innovations will find their way into that browser. On the Mac, Windows and UNIX variants.

Apple, along with KHTML, Opera and Mozilla, may have 2 or 3 years to innovate on the browser front, without any competition from Microsoft.
And Apple might just have found the killer app to drive people to adopt a new, lightweight, fast, open source based, standards compliant multi platform browser - mainstream commercial online music.

We can only hope to see Safari for Windows, and maybe other platforms. And with it thriving browser innovation based on the open standards of the World Wide Web.
And if that happened, you can be sure Microsoft would get in on th act as well, as they did when IE was not the colossus it has become.

plus ça reste la même chose

May 20, 2004 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/6131/755050

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Plus ca change:

» The Future of Browsersrsrsrs from Prelude To Innovations in Motion
So, the next version of Microsoft Windows is at least 2 years away (if not three) , and that means the next major version of Internet Explorer is equally as far off. Right now, IE is the most popular browser... [Read More]

Tracked on May 23, 2004 1:53:11 AM

» Web Apocalypse? from blog.dietsoda.net
I just read an interesting article on the new browser war which contains a chilling prediction: "Make no mistake: Microsoft really hates the web... One of the purposes of Longhorn is to destroy the web as we know it". [Read More]

Tracked on Jun 1, 2004 3:04:34 AM

» Web Apocalypse? from blog.dietsoda.net
I just read an interesting article on the new browser war which contains a chilling prediction: "Make no mistake: Microsoft really hates the web... One of the purposes of Longhorn is to destroy the web as we know it". [Read More]

Tracked on Jun 1, 2004 8:54:11 PM

» Web Apocalypse? from blog.dietsoda.net
I just read an interesting article on the new browser war which contains a chilling prediction: "Make no mistake: Microsoft really hates the web... One of the purposes of Longhorn is to destroy the web as we know it". [Read More]

Tracked on Jun 1, 2004 8:56:12 PM

» Dog or Higher from linklog
Do web standards have a future? Thoughtful writing.... [Read More]

Tracked on Jun 5, 2004 8:24:33 AM

» Dog or Higher from linklog
Do web standards have a future? Thoughtful writing. It has since been reprinted in the Sydney Morning Herald - can't find the link though!... [Read More]

Tracked on Jun 5, 2004 8:27:23 AM

» The real reason you should care about web standards from Design by Fire
IMPORTANT NOTE: The following article is my own personal opinion, and does not represent the position or opinion of my employer. I have no idea if this has been said before, but from my reading on the subject of web... [Read More]

Tracked on Jun 14, 2004 12:58:10 AM

Comments

Re: the Google-branded browser, see http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=226572 (particularly the last comment).

Posted by: Jeff Walden | May 20, 2004 11:59:18 AM

I remember back when Netscape 3 was the best browser, even ordinary people knew it was better for using the Internet. It was one of the first things people asked me to install on their new computers, even though IE was pre-installed.

I think most people, even regular folks, would use Firefox if they knew how much better it was. Boy are my parents happy not to look at three hijack-ware search bars, custom start pages, porn pop-ups, and all the other crap that comes along with IE!

The trick is getting the word out, and unless word-of-mouth reaches a tipping point, only a few companies have enough influence to change people's browsing habits. One, as you mentioned, is AOL. Another is Google. Google has a vested interest in keeping the Web accessible and easy to use, and that means promoting web standards.

I was curious, so I did a simple search for "web browser" at Google. The top 5 results, in order, were: Mozilla website, Firefox website, Opera website, Opera download page, Apple's Safari page. I wonder how much of that is Google's pagerank system, and how much is Google encouragement of standards-compliant browsers?

Paul

Posted by: Paul D | May 21, 2004 3:30:48 AM

Concidering that would be the most popular "other" browsers by order of use, hardly surprising.

Moz versions (inc Firefox) make up about 8% of traffic atm, Opera about 4% which is the same as the whole mac share of the net, reguardless of browser.

No-one needs to search for IE, its right there.

Also, if this were a few years ago, you could almost go back to the old "this site looks best in" buttons.. because well, if you are codingi nthe cool stuff, they may as well SEE it.

Posted by: darkcryst | May 22, 2004 10:29:12 AM

iTunes doesn't use the Safari/KHTML rendering engine. The store server spits out XML in a custom format (which bears little resemblance to XHTML), as described here:

http://www.tnl.net/blog/entry/Apple,_XML,_and_the_Music_Store

iTunes then renders this using its own display engine.

Posted by: Mihai Parparita | May 23, 2004 1:34:25 AM

You underestimate Microsoft's hold over the average user's concept of the OS/browser/internet continuum. Anti-trust settlements aside, the average Windows users thinks Internet Explorer IS the internet. The prospects of such a user voluntarily installing an alternate browser are pretty slim so it will have be required by some new service available via the internet.

Google is the last chance for a standards-based internet. Mozilla has no strategy other than satisfying the Slashdot/developer crowd, ie. completely irrelevant.

Posted by: Garrry Heaton | May 23, 2004 1:38:59 AM

I actually didn't think that Apple used KHTML on windows for the iTMS. I thought that it was a proprietary XML parser. I could be wrong, but that's what I've heard from most Mac enthusiasts.

Posted by: Justin August | May 23, 2004 1:39:22 AM

you're on crack. people don't want to buy music online, and they don't want to install itunes just to have a browser.

Posted by: lysol | May 23, 2004 1:39:51 AM

Time for everyone to use Mozilla, then?

Posted by: EntirelyUnpredictable | May 23, 2004 1:49:17 AM

Whatever the technology and how makes it, the power lies into the framework. Who build the best framework will drain many developers.

What Mozilla as a platform is lacking is a professional IDE or RAD to build standalone apps or web clients. In a nutshell, Mozilla has to give today what will be available tomorrow in Windows (in 2006 or 2007).


Another thought. Mozilla is great for the user interface but I personally would like to use it while programming in the language that I know best: Java. What I love about Java is that there is tons of open source code everywhere for almost everything and that there are great IDE that assists you in writing good code (ie: Refactoring, code completion, introspection, javadoc right their where you type, error checking,...).

Miscrosoft makes reasonably great IDE and that's one important reasons of it success: they care about the developer to lock them in better ;-)

Posted by: urddd | May 23, 2004 1:58:45 AM

Hmm.. hate to be this guy.. but.. my mom and dad do not care if their browser is standards compliant.

Back in the day.. only smart people were online... college students and stuff.. but now.. my friend's little sister and brother have their own computer and they are online. I don't think they care if their browser is standards compliant either...

it's like "buy computer... get web and email, download music... maybe porn too" this is the mentality...

and they do not care how they get there... if it wasn't for cable modem and dsl.. most people would think "AOL = the Internet"

Posted by: Gelf The Elf | May 23, 2004 2:01:44 AM

Thats the best thing about standards, there are so many of them!

Browsers are dumb. Repeat it again!

Browsers are commodities like computers. they are plentiful and no one cares how their pages look. People only want pages that load fast.

You have idiots like Jakob Nielsen of useit.com that think the web is some perfect world. Quess again, its not. Get over it.

You can test web pages for every known browser in the world but there are too many monitor sizes, resolutions and different OSes. If it looks good in the AOL browser, it will look good anywhere.

Microsoft cares about Microsoft and no one else. thats why they have inferior products. If people start not using their products, then maybe things will be different.

Web standards are recommendations and not the law.

Its a melting pot out there and some has to stir it up!


-BaddSectorr

http://www.geocities.com/baddsectorr


Posted by: BaddSectorr | May 23, 2004 2:04:42 AM


Users do not care about standards directly, but they do indirectly by way of useability, compatibility, etc. The same applies to products in the rest of society, whether electronic or not. Users hardly know about what GSM means, but they care that handsets are compatible across networks, and that text and voice calls go through with acceptable levels of quality.

I don't see what the question being posed here is?

There's not much more browser innovation to do per se, the innovation is to come from the way content is organised and related on the web. It seems that the browsers and the applicable standards are there - the content model needs to develop further.

For example, the way weblogs and RSS and P2P are being used.

Posted by: m | May 23, 2004 2:15:25 AM

This is from left field, but what about innovation from software other than web browsers? Here's a proposal to promote XHTML & CSS as the standard format for word processing: http://muux.com/wp/

Posted by: Tom Riddins | May 23, 2004 2:22:55 AM

Gelf just mentioned that people don't care about standards - and i agree....that's the wrong sales pitch...

turn around and ask anyone who's been online for a few months or longer if they like pop-up window adds or spyware-based toolbars that install automatically and don't register a way to uninstall...they'll answer by the droves...pitching firefox/moz because it's standards-based is idiotic...pitching it as getting more work done, faster, with less interruption...that could work...every person that i've set up with firefox has loved it...b/c of it's standards - they get the best online experience...

and most intelligent people will respond to that...tell them that IE is keeping them from enjoying the internet to its fullest (which in essence it does - lack of transparent PNG comes to mind), and they will respond...

i also like the idea of fighting fire with fire...a lot of people still remember the "best viewed with..." disclaimers on sites and firefox now has an 88x31 pixel banner that looks sharp...i personally have text in my site footer stating that "This site looks best with any browser other than Internet Explorer"...regardless of whether people actually even know what a browser is, every new system that i build has firefox installed as the default browser...get system builders on board and the tide could turn...

had a friend (who's a big microsoftie), agree with me that IE stopped being an innovative product at version 5.x...he also mentioned that the best thing that could happen to the web would be if ffox/moz browser usage pushed up to 20%...ms would have to notice that...

frankyl - i couldn't agree more...

Posted by: bliSSter | May 23, 2004 2:27:34 AM

I don't know what all the hub-bub is all about chubs....I've gotta say for starters that there are other browsers out there besides, firefox/moz/opera....a little known browser, w/ lots of fun features is slimbrowser. Small, no spyware/ads/bs (like others of course), built in pop-up killer, built in filters for ads, etc, every system I build has Slimbrowser on it, and even my uncle (a set in his ways man of late 30's) switched from Internet Exploder to Slimbrowser. But that's beside the point, we are all getting off topic here, I agree, there is no such thing anymore as "wow-ing the people" the average computer user in just the past 5-6 years has gone from 17-25 to 55-85...Why? Because grandma and grandpa wanna see the grandbabies...They want nothing but to be able to get "onto my aol" or "download this cd into my computer to listen to it" or some other lame terminology that makes no sense to the average person because it's worded totally incorrectly. I have nothing against the older age people getting pc's and using them, but the point of the matter is they could careless WHO or HOW they get online, hell they could even careless about all the excess BS that's included with it. Why? Because all they want it for is the pictures or their "Pogo" games, or what-not. Point is, innovation is out, it's not the 80's anymore people.

Posted by: AuthorPa | May 23, 2004 2:48:47 AM

Hi I'm a 12 year old who landed here from the slashdot story. I think everybody should use whatever Microsoft tells them too because Microsoft invented the internet for windows 95. I think that we should let Microsoft patent the web and email because they invented email but called it hotmail. I think that patents are really good for innovation and this is where the future of web standards lies.

Posted by: BillJr | May 23, 2004 3:01:23 AM

Hi I'm a 12 year old who landed here from the slashdot story. I think everybody should use whatever Microsoft tells them too because Microsoft invented the internet for windows 95. I think that we should let Microsoft patent the web and email because they invented email but called it hotmail. I think that patents are really good for innovation and this is where the future of web standards lies.

Posted by: BillJr | May 23, 2004 3:02:23 AM

well according to the w3schools.com browser stats, Mozilla currently holds 10% of the webs users. With a large push for Linux on the desktop and with Microsoft failing to innovate in IE for the next three years, this could bring this stat up to 35-45% in the next three years.

Microsofts grasp is still tenuous.Why? Well I happen to work for a Microsoft partner and do their web development. And the first thing I started getting calls on is that the site was showing up funky in Mozilla. Normally I'm totally on top of this but the caught it fairly fast.

Later in the month, I checked the usage stats (about 95% of which is from Microsoft itself). Sure enough, I found that 5% of people surfing in from Microsoft were using Mozilla. Keep in mind this is only 1 in 20 people but it shows that it has permeated even the most rabid 'dog food eating' software development company in the world. Those stats are still pretty much the same to this day with slight increases.

Much like Linux, Mozilla's community needs to start rallying. We need Mozilla installation parties, we need to put Mozilla bars and banners on our blogs, we need to make a huge push to effect this change. That's what open source is all about. It's the community that supports and pushes the product.

If we want change, we must actively seek it.

Posted by: Xeno | May 23, 2004 3:11:35 AM

Mozilla and the other alternative browsers need to add an option in their installer to remove shortcuts from windows users desktops, so they will not use IE out of habit, I know I had that problem the first time i tried mozilla, and actually reverted back to IE for some time before trying Moz again.

Posted by: temm | May 23, 2004 3:56:29 AM

My personal take on all this is that the awareness issue is clearly key to many things. If we've got to have "Mozilla install parties" then it isn't going to work outside the US quite so well.

I also agree that standards compliance isn't really going to sell much. The systems I build have Netscape and IE installed - the techies use NS (or install something else) and the sales types use IE. Clearly, the non-techies of the world need to be convinced that tabbed browsing is good for them. It might take a bit more than that though ;-)

I suspect that Longhorn will not include IE per-se because it'll be very heavily integrated into the OS. I'm imagining an extension of 'active desktop' that means that web browsing, 'windows explorer' and your office suite are all intermingled. Hence, no need for any other browser (or OS for that matter). You can bet that other browsers won't even run on Longhorn until another round of daft law suits take place.

I like the idea of the Google Browser. Possibly a half-way house might be to produce the Google Tool Bar for NS/Mozilla et al (okay, they don't need the popup blocker ;-) After that, rebadging it as Google would be pretty simple. Sidebar search results (etc) make such a browser look really 'Google'. Hell, someone could start a browser distro themselves to do that, with or without Google's backing. Same story for AOL, if suitable politcial will could be established (but there you'd be fighting against loggying from MS).

I'd say more people need to use CSS et al. My site uses it, but I quickly realised I don't have enough life left in me to try and get it looking good in IE as well as all the others (so I have a "sorry, this doesn't look so good because you're using IE' sign). A few more sites like that, and more people will become aware of the alternatives. It's unlikely you'd convince too many commercial sites to do this though.

Mozilla - tell all your friends about it.

Posted by: Coofer Cat | May 23, 2004 4:02:28 AM

What I don't understand is why people at Mozilla and Opera aren't pushing the big PC companies to install Moz/Firefox and/or Opera, at least as an alternative to IE.

Posted by: Jim | May 23, 2004 4:49:17 AM

What I don't understand is why people at Mozilla and Opera aren't pushing the big PC companies to install Moz/Firefox and/or Opera, at least as an alternative to IE.

Posted by: Jim | May 23, 2004 4:50:30 AM

I think the bigger picture to consider here is that from the vast majority of users' perspectives, there is nothing wrong with thier current browser. Who then wants more CSS updates and upgrades and innovation? Web developers. All web developers? Nope, just a few! Allow me to elaborate.
As owner of a small web development firm, I was personally overjoyed when I heard that IE would not change at all for 2 or 3 years. I have been chasing down browser bugs and display weirdness for nearly a decade, and the fact that the landscape is actually going to be stable for a little while is possibly the best news I have heard since I got in to web development.
Also, page formatting using current browsers is good enough. Blasphemy you say? Not that cross browser issues still don't give us fits on a nearly daily basis, but that the people paying us money care a great deal more about the content than they do the presentation layer, at least in most cases. This is not to say that design is irrelevant, far from it. In fact, in my experience a sexy design wins the bid over high functionality almmost every time. Even so, I still have to say that the display capabilities of browsers, though far from ideal from a developers perspective, are good enough to do what needs to be done. It is for these reasons that I personally don't really *want* to see any new innovation in CSS. I have enough to deal with every day. Let me focus on content management systems, workflow and those kind of things more and be able to spend less time chasing after browser issues!

Posted by: Mark Gregory | May 23, 2004 5:03:52 AM

Being a student of the computer industry, especially after watching " Pirates of Silicon Valley", I would love to see Apple write a version of Safari to run on Windows. I own several PCs and Macs as I run my own service business and have to stay current on most everything out there. My main workhorse and system of choice is my G4 tower maxed out running OSX 10.3.3 and Safari. Every once in a while I'll fire up IE to render a stubborn Web page and I am amazed how far this superior browser has come. The window of opportunity is open. I wish Apple would take advantage of it. Too long Windows and the Internet have been considered one in the same.

Posted by: macaroo | May 23, 2004 5:05:07 AM

Mozilla is the most standards compatible web browser, not KHTML/Safari. Get your facts right.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 23, 2004 6:01:15 AM

No in fact, Safari (WebCore to speak of the engine) and Gecko are pretty close to one another. WebCore supports a few things Gecko doesn't, such as text shadowing, while Gecko supports a few other things that WebCore yet does not.

But regardless, both of these engines have excellent overall support for CSS 2.

Mark Gregory: I'm sure you in fact want CSS innovation. I sure as hell like being able to entire code the layout of my websites using CSS. It makes the code far more readable and maintainable. Tables be gone (except for actual data tables).

Posted by: Jean-Francois Roy | May 23, 2004 8:51:10 AM

IE is dominant now because it is what business uses on their networks. Custom apps are written for it and help tie it to an extent to their server technologies. Now that MS has the market there is no reason to innovate.

I'll put on my tin foil hat and say ther ewill be no browser in Longhorn, parsing the web will just be done via XAML transformations and Avalon. But I don't know.

The market will only move once business decides IE is not good enough. I don't see that happening until after Longhorn comes out. I suspect you'll see a lot of MS only web apps break, but business will need to decide at that point if they truly want to embrace standards and code their apps to them, or continue to use MS tools and go that way.

Don't forget people at home use what they use at work, often simply to avoid learning anything. Once they are exposed to a superior method for a length of time their home behavior will change. Until then though I don' t see it.

Posted by: another mouse | May 23, 2004 9:16:07 AM

I see all of this as a most amazing and unique window of opportunity to get the web fully open and commercially "un-owned" and "un-manipulated" while finally kickstarting some real browser innovation, as a catalyst for the creation of a broad range of opportunities for the creation of market share and revenue streams for current and new browser product vendors....

The standards value and sell factor lies with web site publishers. The Internet's appeal here is in being able to reach a huge audience cheaply. Cheaply. Its the publisher's goal to reach the largest possible audience at the lowest possible effort/cost - sell it to them that if you build a site that adheres to the appropriate standards then they reach their intended audience, regardless of the browser used by any particular member of that audience, without any need to double-code the site for different browsers. Such sites could possibly even feature some sort of "Best viewed with any standards-compliant browser", alerting their audience to the fact that they are free to choose whatever browser they prefer (and acknowledging the fact that the publisher respects their audience's individual right to freedom of choice).

The "Best viewed with any standards-compliant browser" concept could be built upon if the various non-IE browser vendors are willing to work together. Have such a button link to a common community site (driven by all the browser vendors) that both provides access to and information about the various browsers/vendors, and also informs and educates the public about the whole standards issue, Microsoft's approaches, reasons for other browsers, and various offshoot topics such as security, the Open Source community etc (theres probably a lot that these browser vendors could learn from the Open Source community and it's unique approaches to competing with Microsoft - at the business level rather than at the technology level - in this article alone its commented on how superior technology isnt enough, which is what the Open Source community has taken onboard in order to compete successfully with MS and wrestle back some of the control and ability to steer forward).

Microsoft have worked hard to control the Internet, but are probably beginning to see it cant truely be done. Perhaps one of the main reasons for the 'net's success is its non-discriminatory nature - any vendor, any industry, any browser, any os. Microsoft controlling the 'net goes against this basic founding principle (and currently-popular subjects like web services and interoperability), it removes a key benefit from the Internet. Thankfully enough people to date have at least subconsciously picked up on this to prevent a total MS dominance. Vendors should build on this knowledge - this is an indicator of an opportunity for competition, an archille's heel of sorts for Microsoft.

I think perhaps the biggest problem is that we have such a large number of exceptionally talented individuals producing outstanding products such as Opera and Mozilla and co, but with all such focussed individuals the bigger picture gets ignored. This article featured several comments alluding to the end user having no real need for further browser innovation, and to the support for new standards of CSS or new rendering engines being perhaps innovations that the end user does not consider overly important. I think both allusions are indicative of such a blindness to the bigger picture. As for standards support, this statement is true - the end user isnt the person to sell such features on, as I pointed out above. As for further browser innovation, I am continually amazed at what appears to be an unspoken agreement between vendors to collectively ignore the vast scope for browser innovation - or again simply an inability to see the bigger picture.

What is this bigger picture? Well, as an analogy, look at the auto industry. Theres a playing field of manufacturers all providing the same basic type of product that all adhere to the same set of standards. To grow sales volumes and build market share, auto industry leaders have become adept at seeing the bigger picture - they know their customers dont want the best possible pure automobile, but instead want the best possible overall driving experience. They want to listen to music on a good sound system while they drive. They want air conditioning. They might want a big cargo hold, or a tray back, or a high performance engine. And so auto manufacturers continually add more and better features that typically have nothing to do with the pure automobile concept, and provide different models tailored to different audience tastes and needs. Of course the car your looking at getting meets all the various standards etc. What makes you choose that particular vehicle is all about the extras, the ways it goes above and beyond the basic standards and expected functionality.

Apply this line of thinking to the web browser. What is it that the end user really wants? A standards complient html rendering engine with inbuilt link management? No! They want to browse the web! To a typical end user that might mean web sites or email or banking or trading music or building up an archive of specialist information. They dont care or want to know which of these tasks is done with a web browser and which with some other tool, they just want to do all this. So listen to the customer! A Bose hifi might not have anything to do with automobiles, but its what a customer wants in their automobile, so the manufacturer provides it, and gains the sale. Why dont the browser vendors consider actually acknowledging each other, accepting that they are part of an overall industry, and work towards growing that industry while differentiating themselves through enhancements and customisations, thereby leading to recognition as "the best" for a particular industry or usage scenario (eg as a developer Id love the ability to store and cross-reference the different technical articles, products, code samples etc I come across, thereby making them accessable on my local machine regardless of whether I am online or whether the source net site is still operating).

So what does the customer want for their overall browsing experience? I sat back and had a think about it for about 20 minutes and came up with the following as an initial short-list:

Signup Forms and Site Registrations: Signing up as a registered user of just about any web site involves the same ol process of entering the same ol information into web forms, coupled with the same ol security and privacy concerns. Standardise this and move it to the browser itself (the browser manages your personal info - allowing you to alias as different identities if so desired - prompting you to allow various info be sent to various sites as required, and maybe even to automatically update all your sites when eg your email changes). Supporting the standard is sellable to site publishers - they no longer need to worry about big parts of the signup process and assocated legal obligations etc (and curing "I cant be bothered filling out this form, Ill go somewhere else" syndrome will stop costing those publishers valuable customers). And its sellable to the end user - they get better and more automated manageability of their information coupled with peace of mind in knowing their information is appropriately secured and managed. Extend it a bit to include management of site passwords etc and the user experience is further simplified while being further secured (and if I dont trust the vendor of my single browser-specific personal information management systems I can switch to someone else, and as their offering is open source I know the OSS community would have already identified any security holes in the product). Take it further again and make the browser itself take care of online payments on web sites etc, again giving me greater consistency, security and peace of mind while again reducing the workload on the site publisher.

While we're on the subject of security, why not have the browser regularly retrieve known "bad sites" and similar, in the same way my antivirus program automatically updates itself to protect against the latest viruses. Such a feature then, if say I ended up at a cyber-criminal's forgery of my bank's online banking signing form, would prominantly alert me up front not to procede unless I was sure I wanted to be ripped off :) I would imagine banks and similar might have interest in funding such an idea, as it would probably save them millions. While we're at it, allow me to optionally get further custom notifications sent to the browser - eg when a new security flaw in Windows is identified and a patch released, the browser title bar makes it clear that my sistem is vulnerable, and also takes care of obtaining and installing the appropraite fix.

Decent Bookmark/Favorites Management: I use multiple net-connected computers, and would prefer it if all my favorites etc followed me from computer to computer (rather than having to manually maintain them multiple times). Why not do the same with my contact list while we're at it. A notebook of some sort to create and store both generic and site-specific notes would be very helpful. And let me categorise and view my hundreds of links in multiple ways - If Im currently doing some coding, give me a Bookmark display that by default only displays my IT-specific bookmarks, but shows me a much broader view of this subset. If I like a particular web page, maybe let me click a "thumbs up" button, so that with no further effort on my part the page is saved locally, added to bookmarks etc. Maybe even let me search other people's bookmarks P2P-style while Im at it - this might make a most unusual and powerful search engine - all the categorisation and filtering out of crap sites is done for free by real people through the act of identifying a particular site as being worthy of saving as a bookmark, then through putting that bookmark in the appropraite folder (category). P2P provides a mechanism to tap into this collective dataset and turn it into actual useable knowledge. [if you're interested in this concept then feel free to drop me an email, Ive got a working prototype close to release, and would be grateful for comments, criticism, feedback, assistance etc]

Overall Browser UI: If I ran all the various browser addons Id like to Id probably have a toolbar 7 or 8 bars high, together with two or three "explorer-style" sidebars, and be left with maybe 50% of my screen for actual browsing. Why not allow some of these things to fade or slide out when Im not actually using them so I can actually see the web page. Take this idea further - perhaps customise the different toolbars, buttons, sidebars etc around whatever Im using the browser for at the time (possibly in conjunction with some sort of basic meta data included within web pages I browse to). If Im reading an online document or help file then have the browser present an appropraite interface, and maybe save the information locally in my overall "Help and Tech Support Library" browser extension. If Im using a web-based application such as Hotmail or online banking then have the browser present a suitable interface - let me see what I need to know that my session is secure, perhaps add application-specific menu's and toolbars into the browser UI itself through standard (XUL-like?) extensions so that my web apps all work a bit more consistantly and without so many server postbacks (while also freeing the site publisher from having to come up with proprietary HTML buttons, trees, toolbars etc). This approach is why Windows took off after all - it freed DOS developers of each needing to create their own buttons, menus etc an allowed them to focus more on their specific domain.

Banner Advertising: Allow me to set some sort of preference for certain types of ads, products etc, that is specific to me. Different sites I visit can query my browser for the best ads to show me. This way, if I have to put up with ads, at least I get to see ones I might be interested in, and the site publisher has a greater chance of success from the advertisement as its for something Im more likely to take interest in.

Lastly, what about XAML vs XUL? To me this seems like an immense opportunity for XUL. Microsofts decision to head down the XAML path both provides great publicity for XUL (all those "XAML vs XUL" and "Did MS Rip Off XUL?" articles for starters), but more importantly provides unparalleled recognition and credability. "XUL is such a great idea that MS is building their entire next generation of Windows around the concept." XUL has got many years head-start on Microsoft and XAML - leverage this opportunity, beat MS at their own game. The next 2 years are an amazing window of opportunity for XUL. Team up with Eclipse or something. Think big, leverage the opportunity, take back what you lost with Netscape to Microsoft! This is a big one - Windows itself, the big one, is all about user interfaces - any chance to win some market share in this field is tapping into a hugely valuable market sector, and inflicting damage on the very foundation of the Microsoft empire in the process...

These are just a few of the ideas I came up with (let me know if any of this interests you, Im playing around with a few ideas and prototypes around some of these ideas, and always welcome input, discussion and critique). Some of these ideas may be feasable, some might take a bit of time and/or work. Regardless though, it seems to me that right now there is tremendous scope for browser innovation coupled with a unique window of opportunity to implement sellable innovations thereby securing market share and associated revinue streams, all while significantly enhancing and broadening the end-user browser experience. And lets not forget implementing of standards so that the future of the browser industry is kept open for positive innovation and evolution.

Hope this makes some sense, Ive been working all night and my mind is kinda numbed from coding too much. Im off to bed!.

Posted by: lockie | May 23, 2004 9:54:13 AM

ps as for getting such products into the hands of actual users, get the vendors to pool their resources on that community I spoke of, get sponsorship, send out a million cd's aol-style or get pc vendors to bundle a cd... (as for sponsorship, the IBM's of the world seem to be recognising and willing to throw significant $$ at such approaches as mechanisms for cracking a dominant player's stranglehold on an particular market)

Posted by: lockie | May 23, 2004 9:58:21 AM

In reqards the post about SlimBrowser, does anyone else realize that it requires IE4+ is installed? Why? Because its using IEs rendering engine. Using COM or MFC, a developer can easily add a web browser to any program. Visual Basic even has an easier control to use. This helps push IEs dominance even further. Mozilla is gracious enough to allow other programs to use its rendering engine, and great browsers have come from that, but doing so requires alot of work. Why not provide an easier interface? Provide a simple library to include in programs for both windows and other operating systems, and help push developers to use it. I have a (now dead) project called libw11 (http://libw11.sf.net) to help port linux programs to windows. The whole motivation for me to start the project was to get KHtml (Konqueror) to run on windows. My time and motivation are now less available as I move myself to linux systems, and do more web work, then application developemnt.

A KHhtml or Gecko library for windows could help push the market away from IE. It could help spawn more generic browsers using those engines. This would allow more people to help discover more innovative ways to display web content.

Then again, the other option is to write a worm that infects all windows PCs, downloads firefox, and installs it as the default browser. Maybe add an IE theme for some affect. :)

Posted by: psyon | May 23, 2004 1:23:08 PM

A comment above cited Slimbrowser. I personally use Slimbrowser while in Windows and push it to families and friends. I haven't tried Firefox since the name change. I wanted to point out that Slimbrowser is Mozilla. The creators market it as IE with tabbed browsing, pop-up blocker, all the modern brower goodies, but I had the impression that it was just a specialized mozilla build. Is this incorrect? I'd rather support Mozilla, so I'll take another look at Firefox.

Posted by: Isaac Vetter | May 23, 2004 3:21:25 PM

A comment above cited Slimbrowser. I personally use Slimbrowser while in Windows and push it to families and friends. I haven't tried Firefox since the name change. I though that Slimbrowser is Mozilla. The creators market it as IE with tabbed browsing, pop-up blocker, all the modern brower goodies, but I had the impression that it was just a specialized mozilla build. Is this incorrect? I'd rather support Mozilla, so I'll take another look at Firefox.

Posted by: Isaac Vetter | May 23, 2004 3:21:49 PM

If it is just mozilla, why does it require IE4+ to be installed?

Posted by: psyon | May 24, 2004 1:52:49 AM

Sorry meant to get this in the last post.
Here is the user agent string sent by Slim Browser
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows NT 5.0; SlimBrowser [flashpeak.com])

That is the common signiture of IE. I saw a few others that said MSIE 6.0 also

Posted by: psyon | May 24, 2004 1:57:15 AM

Plain old HTML is OK. XHTML + CSS is better. But the real future of the web is XML.

Unlike HTML and XHTML, which are essentially document presentation languages, XML (used semantically) gives you complete separation of content from layout, style, and formatting. This gives the browser more freedom to render a given chunk of content in different ways -- radically different visual layout, braille, speech synthesis, etc. This also gives you the ability to write client-server applications using XML over HTTP as the communications protocol.

This is, almost certainly, where Microsoft is heading. .Net relies heavily on XML and is strongly oriented towards web services. EI was very early in supporting XML + XSLT (but, of course, not-quite-standard, the pricks!). Microsoft, through VB, has historically been successful in selling tools for client-server style development, and that model is strongly intrenched in the community of corporate developers on the MS platform, (and older platforms like CICS).

This kind of web app has real technical advantages over an html based web app. More work is done on the client. A richer GUI can be used. Smaller downloads per page-hit. There's greater decoupling between the server and the client platform. An XML based web service could support browser based and non-browser based clients. Easier to automate (screen scraping made easy!).

As to rendering XML content on the browser, my feeling so far is that neither CSS (in its current form) or XSLT is an optimal solution. CSS is limiting, and tricky to get basic things to work. (vertical centering, anyone?) More importantly, CSS is tied to the assumption that the thing you're formatting is a document. What if it's not? Think arbitrary XML here -- database records, spreadsheet cells, a stock ticker, a graph of a mathematical formula, whatever. XSLT is more general, but just plain quirky and weird. Functional programming is foreign to most of us who cut our teeth on curly braces.

It's strange to me that few people seem to recognize this. This isn't that far outside the box folks! It's not all div tags vs. table tags. Zoom out to the big picture. Think a little.

Posted by: Christopher Bare | May 24, 2004 4:05:03 AM

I own a small consultancy that is an avid advocate of open source software. I also used to work at Microsoft. Here is my perspective.

The fact of the matter is--- open source is a killer application by itself. It fundamentally changes the way a company can use its software resources. Open source browsers will continue to innovate until they become so compelling that they will challenge Microsoft on other fronts besides the browser. Mozilla can be a compelling rapid application development framework using XUL, for example.

Microsoft, on the other hand, is dealing with market saturation in the US, and an inability to crack down effectively on piracy (organized trafficking of counterfit software) in the third world. Therefore their cost per line of code will likely go up, but raising prices and/or reducing pace of development will help drive people to Linux. We already saw their attemps using their Licensing 6.0/Software assurance. In essence, Microsoft is the victim partly of their own success and partly of a changing economic equasion. As long as open source is viable, Microsoft simply cannot fully leverage its monopoly position.

I recently returned from Indonesia, and many many businesses were switching from Windows/IE/MS OFfice (all pirated copies) to Linux/Mozilla/OpenOffice due to the government's relatively effective crackdown on piracy.

The tide will turn because of this equation-- an equation which has the effect of depriving Microsoft of the economy of scale which has lead to their success. The threshold for viability of an open source software project, is however much lower due to the larger user involvement in testing and development. Therefore, by the time Mozilla attains 10% of the browser market, it will likely be too late for Microsoft.

Posters here seem to assume that Microsoft will spend money to avoid being out-competed in this market. But they may not be able to and still offer a competitive product and profitability for their shareholders. Their cash flow is not infinite. More likely, I could see them using LGPL'd engines to cut their own costs so that they could move a larger chunk of their R&D costs into profit centers. They won't admit to this possibility yet, but wait another couple years (and it represents, I think, the only way for them to stay competitive).

Posted by: Chris Travers | May 24, 2004 8:03:56 AM

Time for everyone to use Mozilla, then?

No. The Web is supposed to be a medium where the browser does not matter. Nobody should have to use browser X instead of browser Y for any values of X and Y where X is not equal to Y. So long as the user agent correctly understands the web standards it utilizes them deliver the content, all should be right with the world. Sadly, Im a bit too drunk right now to go into a tirade explaining how developers on both the content and the software sides can make this possible but I will blame web developers for most of the problem. If all of us stuck to web standards, anyone coding a browser would have to cater to us. Sadly, too many newbies are out there making web sites, using presentational mark up without the slightest shred of understanding. Instead of rambling on here, I suggest everyone who doesnt understand what Ive written go read Designing With Web Standards by Jeffrey Zeldman. (And thanks to the stupid parser which strips out valid mark up, heres where you can go read about it: http://www.zeldman.com/dwws/ .)

Posted by: [Si]dragon | May 24, 2004 4:21:04 PM

I'm probably going to be flamed to death for this post but please concider what I say; something needs to be done!
http://silent-sky.com/log/

Posted by: Tomaj | May 24, 2004 6:20:47 PM

Baddsecctor wrote: "You have idiots like Jakob Nielsen of useit.com that think the web is some perfect world. Quess again, its not. Get over it."

Um... have you actually ever READ useit.com? I'm not going to debate whether Jakob's an idiot or not, but I think it's pretty obvious that the only reason useit.com exists at all is that he DOESN'T think it's a perfect world. In fact, there are few people online who are so dissatisfied with the web as Jakob is.

Posted by: Swane | Jun 4, 2004 6:05:04 AM

use Safari once .... and you will forget Mozilla .... and all the others...

the future is now .....

God bless Apple....

Posted by: Bandar Raffa | Jun 10, 2004 4:07:21 AM

what is it with safari fanbois - more bugs than a sack of roaches...

http://diveintomark.org/safari/

Posted by: dan | Jun 10, 2004 10:48:14 AM

Dan,

note the date of that story and release

"released 23 June 2003"

Note also Apple's list of support and problems for CSS

http://developer.apple.com/internet/safari/safari_css.html

Note release date of IE 6 for Windows 2001

Note Micrrosoft's in depth list of supported and not supported CSS features

???

and such and such

john

Posted by: John Allsopp | Jun 10, 2004 10:57:20 AM

I think all of of designers and technuts need to see things straight. Mom and Pop and Grandpa and Grandma and much more importantly, business people, don't care about standards or the browser. They don't know anything about them. The internet experience is breakfast and the browser is a toaster. Does it work? Is the toast golden brown? That is all that matters. Microsoft knows this. That's why there will be no formal browser in Longhorn. Users will pass seamlessly through Microsoft's portal, MSN, or whatever it is named. He who controls the access point, controls everything.

Posted by: augustus | Jun 28, 2004 3:14:58 PM

Great a dual platform dev tool, Keep up the good work John. Watch out for the spam ^ tho.

Posted by: Dafin Aziz | May 11, 2006 9:49:11 AM

Firefox is the future!!!!

Posted by: interize | May 17, 2006 6:53:57 PM

good point, fire fox is already here and i love it.

Posted by: mal | Oct 6, 2007 9:29:16 AM

Post a comment