7 ms·

> I can't use the Conde Nast CMS in anything other than Chrome, so I can't switch completely. Highlight of the article tucked in at the end there.

zlynx 9y ago
Chrome is IE6 all over again.
- mseebach 9y ago
  It shares a fraction of one property with IE6. It's nothing like IE6 in all other respects. A quick refresher for those that perhaps was not around in those heady days: to build even moderately advanced (dynamic) web pages that were cross browser compatible was not merely a question of remembering to test in both, it was a significant engineering commitment. To add to the badness, Netscape in those years was frankly just not a very good browser, so it was not a particularly easy sell. Thus a lot of apps built in those years only (and quite rationally, too) targeted IE4, 5 and finally 6, Microsoft being very focused on backwards compatibility. IE7 was the first browser standards compliant enough to make cross browser development reasonably easy, also being the first browser in the line to have to compete with Firefox. It broke backwards compatibility, which is why IE6 ended up hanging around for so long and being so hated, even if was the DHTML API of IE4 that was the original culprit. Today, there is no good excuse to build web apps that does not work in all the major browsers, it's just so (relatively) easy. But that was emphatically not the case 15-20 years ago.
spystath 9y ago
You'd think that a technology-oriented magazine like wired would at least try to aim for cross-browser compatibility in their infrastructure. But why bother, make your CMS Chrome-only a policy and free yourself of extra testing. And it's not only wired. I've come across a lot of internal sites and intranets that are poorly tested on anything but Chrome. I know, it's not exactly the same thing as the old IE/ActiveX but it still grinds my gears when it happens.
- TAForObvReasons 9y ago
  If Firefox had a larger market share, it would be easy to make the argument for cross-browser compatibility. But when Firefox is not even 12% of Chrome's usage globally http://gs.statcounter.com/ http://gs.statcounter.com/ and likely much less for your customers it's difficult to appeal to ideals
  - eitland 9y ago
    Oh come on. We've been pushing this since IE6 ruled. :-) Cross browser compability should be easier than ever so it should just be a matter of being a professional developer.
    - TAForObvReasons 9y ago
      There are a different and arguably smaller set of warts in 2017 compared to 1999 but that doesn't mean that it's easy to reproduce the exact layout, pixel for pixel, across Firefox, Edge, Opera, UC Browser, Safari, Chrome and other browsers in use.
      - eitland 9y ago
        That's true and to be honest I don’t care too much about pixel perfect. But I think this thread started with a CMS that didn't even work except in Chrome.
      - the8472 9y ago
        There is a difference between "it works" and pixel-identical results. Those are probably impossible due to font rendering differences anyway.
      - richardknop 9y ago
        Nobody cares about pixel for pixel perfection. But as a professional developer you should make sure that functionally it works in all major browsers.
      - 9y ago
infogulch 9y ago
I always wondered why they branded Chromecast with Chrome, it has almost nothing to do with a browser besides the funny gimmick where you could show a web page through it. Maybe an implementation detail. I suppose I get it now. It was originally just branding to promote a Chrome monopoly, and now it's an artificial exclusive feature. I love the idea of Chromecast but it's sad that it's still so closed off.
- Grazester 9y ago
  Closed off how if I may ask? Is it not free for anyone to implement in their applications?
  - firloop 9y ago
    To implement Cast support in an application, you have to link a closed source binary to your project. Google only provides binaries for iOS and Android (via Play Services), and has a closed source implementation in Chrome.
    - notatoad 9y ago
      doesn't cast implement the dial protocol, which is open? http://www.dial-multiscreen.org/ http://www.dial-multiscreen.org/
  - Nullabillity 9y ago
    Where are the open source Chromecast receivers?
- hamandcheese 9y ago
  Also Google is just sort of terrible at consistent branding.
- mseebach 9y ago
  What does the Condé Nast CMS have to do with Chromecast (or other bits of Chrome branding strategy)?
combatentropy 9y ago
Websites and -apps that run in just one browser are worse than ones that haven't yet switched to HTTPS. It is 2017. This has been going on for 20 years. Browsers are more like each other than ever before. There is no reason for this in a new app.
zanedb 9y ago
Couldn't you just fake a user-agent, or does the website require components only available in Chrome?

zlynx 9y ago

Chrome is IE6 all over again.

mseebach 9y ago
It shares a fraction of one property with IE6. It's nothing like IE6 in all other respects. A quick refresher for those that perhaps was not around in those heady days: to build even moderately advanced (dynamic) web pages that were cross browser compatible was not merely a question of remembering to test in both, it was a significant engineering commitment. To add to the badness, Netscape in those years was frankly just not a very good browser, so it was not a particularly easy sell. Thus a lot of apps built in those years only (and quite rationally, too) targeted IE4, 5 and finally 6, Microsoft being very focused on backwards compatibility. IE7 was the first browser standards compliant enough to make cross browser development reasonably easy, also being the first browser in the line to have to compete with Firefox. It broke backwards compatibility, which is why IE6 ended up hanging around for so long and being so hated, even if was the DHTML API of IE4 that was the original culprit. Today, there is no good excuse to build web apps that does not work in all the major browsers, it's just so (relatively) easy. But that was emphatically not the case 15-20 years ago.

spystath 9y ago

You'd think that a technology-oriented magazine like wired would at least try to aim for cross-browser compatibility in their infrastructure. But why bother, make your CMS Chrome-only a policy and free yourself of extra testing. And it's not only wired. I've come across a lot of internal sites and intranets that are poorly tested on anything but Chrome. I know, it's not exactly the same thing as the old IE/ActiveX but it still grinds my gears when it happens.

TAForObvReasons 9y ago
If Firefox had a larger market share, it would be easy to make the argument for cross-browser compatibility. But when Firefox is not even 12% of Chrome's usage globally http://gs.statcounter.com/ http://gs.statcounter.com/ and likely much less for your customers it's difficult to appeal to ideals
- eitland 9y ago
  Oh come on. We've been pushing this since IE6 ruled. :-) Cross browser compability should be easier than ever so it should just be a matter of being a professional developer.
  - TAForObvReasons 9y ago
    There are a different and arguably smaller set of warts in 2017 compared to 1999 but that doesn't mean that it's easy to reproduce the exact layout, pixel for pixel, across Firefox, Edge, Opera, UC Browser, Safari, Chrome and other browsers in use.
    - eitland 9y ago
      That's true and to be honest I don’t care too much about pixel perfect. But I think this thread started with a CMS that didn't even work except in Chrome.
    - the8472 9y ago
      There is a difference between "it works" and pixel-identical results. Those are probably impossible due to font rendering differences anyway.
    - richardknop 9y ago
      Nobody cares about pixel for pixel perfection. But as a professional developer you should make sure that functionally it works in all major browsers.
    - 9y ago

infogulch 9y ago

I always wondered why they branded Chromecast with Chrome, it has almost nothing to do with a browser besides the funny gimmick where you could show a web page through it. Maybe an implementation detail. I suppose I get it now. It was originally just branding to promote a Chrome monopoly, and now it's an artificial exclusive feature. I love the idea of Chromecast but it's sad that it's still so closed off.

Grazester 9y ago
Closed off how if I may ask? Is it not free for anyone to implement in their applications?
- firloop 9y ago
  To implement Cast support in an application, you have to link a closed source binary to your project. Google only provides binaries for iOS and Android (via Play Services), and has a closed source implementation in Chrome.
  - notatoad 9y ago
    doesn't cast implement the dial protocol, which is open? http://www.dial-multiscreen.org/ http://www.dial-multiscreen.org/
- Nullabillity 9y ago
  Where are the open source Chromecast receivers?
hamandcheese 9y ago
Also Google is just sort of terrible at consistent branding.
mseebach 9y ago
What does the Condé Nast CMS have to do with Chromecast (or other bits of Chrome branding strategy)?

combatentropy 9y ago

Websites and -apps that run in just one browser are worse than ones that haven't yet switched to HTTPS. It is 2017. This has been going on for 20 years. Browsers are more like each other than ever before. There is no reason for this in a new app.

zanedb 9y ago

Couldn't you just fake a user-agent, or does the website require components only available in Chrome?