Last night I spent an hour or two visiting unfamiliar websites while researching a topic for an upcoming column. In the process, I discovered a new and exceedingly obnoxious trend: Some members of the Firefox community have decided that you shouldn’t be allowed to view their sites correctly – or, in some cases, at all – unless you’re using the One True Browser.
On at least three sites I visited last night, the home page has been coded so that it looks different if you visit using Internet Explorer. Specifically, the top of the page – a region approximately 180 pixels deep, occupying the full width of the page – is taken over by a large banner that reads: “We see you’re using Internet Explorer. Try Firefox, you’ll like it better.” That’s followed by a bulleted list of the advantages of Firefox, and a big bold arrow pointing to a button where the hapless visitor can download Firefox with the Google toolbar.
This is bullshit.
I’ve already got Firefox installed on this computer, and I use it more than half the time. But for this project I’m using Internet Explorer. In this case, the web designer says he wants me to have a better browsing experience, so he has deliberately created a degraded and obnoxious browsing experience for me. What’s wrong with that picture?
And despite the altruistic language, let’s be clear – this is about money. If I click that button and download the software, the website owner gets paid by Google. In fact, this is worse than a pop-up ad, because I can’t get rid of it. Every time I visit that site, the obnoxious oversize banner appears, telling me how stupid I am and how smart the website designer is.
This campaign is being run by a site called Explorer Destroyer, which offers three versions of its punish-IE-users code. The one I ran into is the Gentle Encouragement version. There’s also a Semi-serious version, which forces the user to view a splash page before seeing the site, and a Dead Serious version, which completely blocks the site from viewing by any browser that uses the IE user agent. (You can see a demo here.)
I thought the open source movement was about giving people options and about adhering to standards. Hey, Asa, here’s a question for you: Does the Firefox community really advocate designing websites so that they’re deliberately broken if you view them in any browser other than Firefox? What would the community say if Microsoft did the same?
Uh, Ed. There are already sites like that, built with Frontpage running on IIS. They work with IE but don’t work with other browsers. (Broken menus and the like)
I don’t have any specific examples, but I have installed the “View this page in IE” extension in Firefox because some pages have been coded “Microsoft proprietary” and that’s the only way I can view them. I just wish that browser writers and website creators would stick to the standards so we could end this problem once and for all.
FWG,
You’re describing a bug in a design tool, not a corporate/community policy to degrade the user’s browsing experience by “sniffing” for the user agent and then, for marketing rather than technical reasons, displaying the page incorrectly.
I understand that some sites rely on browser-specific code. That’s why AjaxWrite doesn’t work on IE and why sites that rely on ActiveX give an error when visited in FF. But this is completely different.
Haven’t you ever run into those “You need Internet Explorer 5 or above” errors on pages before? How come nobody threw up a fuss then? I’m not saying these site authors weren’t just trying to make money, but I could see someone saying they don’t have time to fix a page to work in IE. I don’t know why they wouldn’t be kind enough to just show you the mangled page then though.
Fanatics…Once again soiling something because their own beliefs are more important than others.
I don’t understand why Asa continues to bash Opera, when really the two should band together for a more open web.
Caulfield,
Not the same thing. Those pages are either badly designed or use browser-specific components. Again, in these examples there is no technical reason for the page to display differently. It is a deliberate choice to punish IE users and make some money.
“I thought the open source movement was about giving people options and about adhering to standards.”
The open source movement is about giving people access to source code and to all the benefits that derive from that access. If these people are trying just to make a quick buck, then they’re merely opportunists and deserve no more of your scorn than the spammers, phishers, and their ilk. Even if they are serious about their “advocacy”, it is grossly shortsighted of YOU to slander an entire group of people just because of a few sleazebags.
These guys are not just sleazebags, but they’re poor coders. I just visit the site with Mozilla, the open source browser that precede Firefox and is based on the same Gecko rendering engine, and I got the following message:
“We see you’re using Internet Explorer, which is not compatible with this site.”
Morons!
I’m not slandering anyone, Jim. I am interested in knowing what the Firefox community thinks about this campaign. As you say, and I agree, they appear to be leeches. And yet they are piggybacking on the Firefox/Google affiliate program and using the Firefox logo; in other words, they are making money with the tacit approval of the Mozilla Foundation.
I think you’re taking a far more nefarious purpose from this than was intended, Ed. As Caulfield said, there are many pages out there that tell you they require IE5 or IE6 to be viewed correctly. This is the same thing, just the opposite side of the coin. The web designer isn’t going out of their way to make their website Firefox-only, they’re just choosing not to go out of their way to make their website work with the non-standards-compliant Internet Explorer.
It’s a flashy marketing advertisement version of the “This page requires Internet Explorer 5 or greater. Go download it over at Microsoft.com” informing users that in order to view the website as intended by the developer, they must be using Firefox.
Granted I still think it’s obnoxious (even though I’m a loyal Firefox user) and absolutely would never force Firefox on my users by refusing them access through IE. If the users are comfortable viewing my pages half broken, that’s fine by me – the more the merrier. This is just a good way of letting them know it may be broken and trying to spread the word about a better alternative.
Oh, and making money is just a side benefit… Who doesn’t want more money, particularly if you’re advertising something you believe in (and therefore a double-win)?
So a couple of website designers decide to try and make money by forcing people to use Firefox, and they are somehow speaking for the “Firefox community” or the “open source movement”? This has nothing to do with Firefox or open source and everything to do with these individual webmasters. Is it the reponsibility of the Mozilla foundation to prevent people from using this (admittedly obnoxious) technique to earn a few dollars? And would you suggest that there are not people using Microsoft technology in an obnoxious way to earn a few bucks? Is Microsoft responsible for that?
Also, are those websites broken if you use Opera, Netscape, or a different browser, or just IE? If they work with other browsers then you should retract this statement:
“Does the Firefox community really advocate designing websites so that they’re deliberately broken if you view them in any browser other than Firefox?”
And I think it’s more than a little inaccurate to say this is completely different than IE-specific websites. Why would MS design a technology that only works with their own browser other than to lock people into using their browser and (gasp!) make money? The only difference is that in this case it is one individual web designer making that decision instead of the company who owns the browser.
And let’s not forget about the headaches that IE causes for web developers due to it’s lack of standards compliance. It is in most designers interest to encourage people to use an alternative browser, for the simple fact that it makes their job easier.
To me this whole thing is a non-issue. Anyone in the world can create a website, and they are free to restrict anyone visiting it to any browser they want. If a site wants me to use Safari, I can use Safari or I can just not visit the website, it’s that simple. Is it annoying and obnoxious? Of course it is, but suggesting that this is even remotely related to the “Firefox community” or the “open-source movement” is ridiculous.
Two wrongs make a right? In the examples you give, Chris, both designers are wrong. I’ll repeat myself, again:
If a site designer uses browser-specific code (as AjaxWrite does with Firefox and as many IE sites do with ActiveX controls), then yes, they need to alert the user that the designer made a technical decision to support a single browser platform. You can criticize their decision, but ultimately that’s their decision.
But if someone says, for no technical reason, “Sorry, you can’t view this site because you’re using the wrong web browser,” that’s bullshit. It’s bullshit whether it’s done with IE or FF.
It’s especially wrong when the stated goal of the FF community, which I agree with, is to support the use of open standards that can be used by anyone regardless of the browser they choose to use.
Aaron, read the full comments, and you’ll see that the error message appears if you visit using the Mozilla browser. And if these people are going to use the Firefox logo and be paid as part of a business deal between Firefox and Google, then yes, they are officially connected to the community.
Ed wrote:
“It’s especially wrong when the stated goal of the FF community, which I agree with, is to support the use of open standards that can be used by anyone regardless of the browser they choose to use.”
Again, why should the “FF community” be dragged into this, when it is the decision of these individuals to use these techniques? I don’t like what they did either, so gripe all you want about it, but you should make sure your ire is directed towards the right target.
Aaron, you seem to be missing the point: The Firefox logo. The money paid as a result of a business agreement between Firefox and Google.
A couple of things:
1) What about Opera? I’d still like to know if this site will work exclusively with Firefox.
2) Ed wrote: “if these people are going to use the Firefox logo and be paid as part of a business deal between Firefox and Google, then yes, they are officially connected to the community.”
Well, anyone can go to the Mozilla website and get the Firefox logo, and it is Google is paying for the referrals. This might be against the Adsense terms of service, but that would be an issue for Google to look into, not Firefox. If you’re suggesting that the Mozilla Foundation should actively seek out people doing this and try to prevent it than I would suggest that Microsoft should actively seek out people writing malicious ActiveX code to infect people’s machines with spyware.
There’s nothing to stop anyone from doing this type of thing (except maybe Google denying any Adsense revenue to people who do it) so it’s a little disingenuous to suggest they have some sort of “official” connection to the FF community.
I’m not missing the point. I can go to mozilla.com right now, right-click on the firefox logo and save it to my machine, and then upload it to my website where I block users from using IE and force them to get firefox. If I have an Adsense account I’ll get paid for it. Are you suggesting that it is the reponsibility of the Mozilla Foundation to visit any website that gets referral payments from Google and make sure they are not blocking IE users? Why are they responsible for this?
Aaron, Mozilla Foundation makes tens of millions of dollars a year off its referrals from Google. So yes, I do consider them responsible for the activities of people who distribute software under this referral program.
As for the logo, you might want to look at the Mozilla trademark guidelines:
Underlying Mozilla’s trademark policy is the general law of trademarks. Trademarks exist to help consumers identify, and organizations publicize, the source of products. Some organizations make better products than others; over time, consumers begin to associate those organizations (and their trademarks) with quality. When such organizations permit others to place their trademarks on goods of lesser quality, they find that consumer trust evaporates quickly. That’s the precise situation that Mozilla seeks to avoid — especially since, when it comes to intangible products like software, trust is all consumers have to decide on.
I know absolutely no one at Mozilla or Google and have no standing to speak for the “Firefox community”. Using my complete lack of authority, I’ll go on record for the entire Firefox community to say that we strongly disapprove of doing this.
It makes no sense to hold an entire community/race/religion, etc. responsible for the actions of a few people.
Well Ed, do you think it is their responsibility to actively monitor any website that uses the referral program to make sure they are not using these tactics? You seem to have the very same attitude towards the Mozilla Foundation/”Firefox community” that you discourage people to have towards Microsoft, holding them responsible for the actions of a few individuals. I’m sure that they do not approve of this, but how exactly would you propose they prevent a thing like this from happening? Did you consider that maybe they didn’t even know it was happening?
People are always going to find questionable ways to make a buck, and the fact that you decided to bring the Mozilla Foundation, the Firefox community, and the open source community into this is very telling. Since it is clear from the trademark policy that they wouldn’t want their name associated with such a thing, why not send them an email and let them know it’s happening instead of suggesting they are complicit in the whole thing?
Already did, Aaron. As did Harry McCracken of PC World.
Any company that makes tens of millions of dollars from a business relationship has an affirmative responsibility to monitor that relationship. Show me where Microsoft is paying a bounty to people who deliberately make their sites unviewable in Firefox for no reason, and I’ll jump on them, too.
That’s great, but it doesn’t change the fact that you all but accused them of supporting it, the type of attitude you so frequently criticize people for having towards Microsoft.
I don’t think you want to start a pissing contest about which company has undertaken the most unethical and questionable tactics to harm a competitors product, Mozilla or Microsoft. Show me where Mozilla has been sued multiple times for anti-competitive practices. They weren’t even directly involved in this, and probably didn’t even know about it, so I don’t think you want to make that comparison.