[Noisebridge-discuss] Google Chrome Frame for IE
Tom Longson (nym)
tomlong at gmail.com
Wed Sep 23 11:09:44 PDT 2009
The big problem as far as I can see it is the market that this really is
critical for, are the business folks who are unable to upgrade browsers due
to corporate policies, and the chrome frame, like any plugin, requires
administrator rights to install.
So, what does that mean? Someone from IT has to support it. Sure, this may
improve Chrome's numbers, but it doesn't quite address the reason why so
many of us web developers still need to support crapware like internet
explorer. Until IT around the world give up on Internet Explorer, it's still
going to be a PITA.
Tom Longson (nym)
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Brian Ferrell <endenizen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Bad things:
> Some companies cannot NOT use IE6 because they've been using the same
> internal web-based systems for years. And, for better or worse, they
> still work, so no money is put towards "fixing them" to work in newer
> browsers. Meanwhile, very few employees are willing to use multiple
> browsers because they spend so much time in IE already.
> Good things:
> With minimal effort, you can install Yet Another IE Plugin which makes
> the internet work, without breaking compatibility with these remnants
> from the dark ages.
> By installing chrome frame, you change nothing about IE except that
> when a website requests it, chrome will be used instead of IE.
> Websites that *need* a better browser finally have some leverage
> against users that won't (or can't) switch. "Just install this plugin,
> you don't even have to switch browsers".
> Big news, IMO. Excited for this to get a bit more stable so we can
> continue pushing users away from IE6.
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 04:29, Christie Dudley <longobord at gmail.com>
> > There are some sites that have so seriously bought into the microsoft
> > paradigm that they don't function properly on any other browser. A few
> > begun to support browsers like Firefox and Safari, and probably consider
> > themselves "progressive". Although to be fair, doing functionality
> > on every browser out there becomes a real challenge. (When I was at AGE,
> > did testing on like 25 different browsers. It can be done, but there's a
> > cost.) Unfortunately, the majority of browsers out there are still
> > microsoft. Definitely one of those "pathetic but true" situations.
> > Christie
> > ---
> > Pigs can fly given sufficient thrust.
> > - RFC 1925
> > On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 2:50 AM, Rubin Abdi <rubin at starset.net> wrote:
> >> Glen Jarvis wrote, On 2009/09/22 18:20:
> >> > For those of you who are web developers and realize that IE is
> >> > evil.... Google has a very slick answer :)
> >> >
> >> > http://blog.chromium.org/2009/09/introducing-google-chrome-frame.html
> >> I don't understand how this is useful? The user still has to install an
> >> IE plugin, why wouldn't they just start using a not broken browser? Is
> >> the argument that it's easier to get away with blocking the user from
> >> viewing a site until the install this plugin better then blocking the
> >> user and redirecting them to the download page for a newer browser?
> >> --
> >> Rubin Abdi
> >> rubin at starset.net
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> >> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> >> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> > _______________________________________________
> > Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> > Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> > https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss