7 ms·

If I, as a developer, decide my site supports a browser, I know I'm going to have to spend some time doing QA on that browser. Standards are cool, but I've run

by jayferd 14y ago

If I, as a developer, decide my site supports a browser, I know I'm going to have to spend some time doing QA on that browser. Standards are cool, but I've run into enough FF and Chrome bugs that I always test. That being said, the cost of testing in IE is waaay higher than the cost of testing in FF and Chrome. Why? Because FF and Chrome are cross-platform, I and my fellow developers can test on our OS of choice. With IE, a testing environment costs my company about $300 per developer. Not to mention that setting up a VM for testing is the opposite of straightforward. After shaving a few yaks to convert the stupid VHD format to something VirtualBox can understand, you need to hack your local network so the VM can see its host. Also, the developer tools are crappy. Has anyone worked on those in the last 10 years? I use Chrome for development not because of "web standards", but because the debugging tools are awesome (some people swear by Firebug, also, YMMV). So I guess the point "support" is a little more complicated than "look, it works!".

FuzzyDunlop 14y ago
ievms[1] aims to make testing IE on a non-Windows box less complicated (it depends on VirtualBox). [1] https://github.com/xdissent/ievms https://github.com/xdissent/ievms
- jayferd 14y ago
  That sounds useful. This gets me though: > The VMs provided by Microsoft will not pass the Windows Genuine Advantage and cannot be activated. I mean, there's a workaround, but where's the love from Microsoft? Don't they want me to be able to test on their browser so my sites will support it?
  - tensor 14y ago
    This is really not a big problem. A non-activated version of windows will run for a while before rebooting. It's mildly annoying to have to reboot every now and then in extended testing, but it works sufficiently well. Microsoft's suggested solution is to just start from the raw image each time you start the vm. This way it will run without problems for 30 days. The images come pre-setup so you don't need setup time unless you want to install some extra debugging tools.
  - jongalloway2 14y ago
    Windows 7 (and Windows Server 2008) have had a supported option to extend the evaluation period to 120+ days. This has been around since 2007. http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/01/extending-the-windows-vista-grace-period-to-120-days.html http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/01/extending-the-windo... http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/vista-hands-on-9-use-vista-for-four-months-free/224 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/vista-hands-on-9-use-vista-fo...
  - masklinn 14y ago
    > This gets me though: Why? They have no reason to pass WGA, and this is only mildly annoying for actual users, as a development VM I don't remember it ever causing me any issue.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
eagsalazar 14y ago
Aren't you creating an artificial dichotomy? The options you imply are: 1. block all IE9+ 2. spend lots of time and money making the site perfect in IE9+ What about this? 3. Have a quick glance and if things look 95% ok, let people know it is not optimized for IE9+ via a subtle notification. (That actually requires no more developer resources than blocking IE9 explicitly) Or: 4. Set up a VM (it isn't that hard, and you only have to do it once) and just fix the obvious big stuff (which it doesn't appear there are any). Again, very cheap. I'm no fan of IE or MS in general. Frankly, I'm a shameless hater. But I'm just not following your logic here. I would totally buy "I block MS because MS is evil, has caused me pain in the past, and now I am exacting revenge on them".
- jayferd 14y ago
  That's also fair - there's definitely middle ground. I particularly like the "not optimized for IE" notification, which would allow us to legitimately suggest trying another browser as the solution to a problem.
- ktizo 14y ago
  But I'm just not following your logic here. I would totally buy "I block MS because MS is evil, has caused me pain in the past, and now I am exacting revenge on them". That statement needs to be followed by maniacal laughter combined with a swivel leather armchair and an evil looking cat.
yummyfajitas 14y ago
With IE, a testing environment costs my company about $300 per developer. I.e., miniscule relative to the cost of actually having a developer.
- jayferd 14y ago
  fair.
  - barista 14y ago
    So you just agreed the premise of your whole argument above is not valid. Just saying.
    - jayferd 14y ago
      that's a little harsh, don't you think? The topic in question is a little more subtle than that. The comments about the developer tools and the wonky VM setup still stand. Also, they say money is fungible, but it rubs me the wrong way to be paying MS for the privilege of testing my site on their browser.
    - irrelative 14y ago
      He said that a testing environment costs $300. If developer time were free, then yes, he would have agreed that his argument is invalid. Developer time is rather valuable, especially when considering opportunity costs.
      - masklinn 14y ago
        A developer is not a testing environment, and the developer price is paid for testing in Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Opera or what have you. MSIE is no different on that front.
        irrelative 14y ago
        Of course a developer isn't a testing environment. Developers don't cost a fixed $300. If there are differences between IE and (Chrome|Firefox|Opera), then it will require additional developer time. Just testing for those differences will require additional developer time. I don't want to demonize IE. Supporting any browser requires testing. IE has been especially reluctant to adopt web developer trends and needs to work hard to regain developers' trust. Supporting it isn't just the cost of a testing environment.
ricardobeat 14y ago
We just keep a couple spare, old win laptops around for testing on IE. They have Win7 with IE9, plus VMs for <IE8, access over the local network. It's easy to create a bookmarklet that sends URLs over to them so you don't have to type. Also, neither Chrome, Safari or Firefox behave exactly the same on win/mac/linux. Delicate layouts and javascript-heavy apps still have to be tested. IE9 has a large share of the web, and is still growing. It's a perfectly ok browser (except for lack of WebGL). Not supporting it or adding a "not optimized for..." message reeks of "Optimized for 800x600" in the old days. Users shouldn't have to pay the toll. And please, if you are going to do this, do not block browsers by UA. Show a warning, whatever, but just don't lock them out. It's annoying.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- drhowarddrfine 14y ago
  But IE usage, overall, is shrinking. Lack of WebGL is only one glaring example you can read about while people forget it also lacks text-shadow and...oh forgetabout it. I'm not going into this list again. IE is an incompetent browser. Those who know how the web works don't use IE. That should tell you everything anyone needs to know.
- talmand 14y ago
  Could you possibly share this bookmarklet?
  - robocat 14y ago
    You can do something similar with Synergy. Laptop acts like another monitor, e.g. mouse over to the left and your keyboard and mouse now control the laptop, and cut&paste between machines mostly works too. Synergy works well, although it is old and unobvious how to set it up. I haven't seen anything better yet :-) However, I only used it between Linux and XP (I use virtual machines now).
  - ricardobeat 14y ago
    Using OpenKeyVal (http://openkeyval.org/ http://openkeyval.org/), the bookmarklet looks like this: (function(){ var data = { data: location.href } jQuery.post('http://api.openkeyval.org/myownkey', data) }()) And on each client you have a screen-sized iframe + an "update" button that triggers: $.getJSON('http://api.openkeyval.org/myownkey', function(data){ iframe.src = data }) You have to remember to use your local IP address, not localhost. I ended up making a small nodejs server so we could use websockets and drop the update button.
jongalloway2 14y ago
VirtualBox natively supports VHD format, so stop shaving those yaks. Where is that $300 coming from? You run VirtualBox on your computer (free), install free VHD's (free), and free the free free with your free free (free).
- robocat 14y ago
  Sure you can run the VHD in VirtualBox. Then you run into driver problems (the VM drivers are set up for VirtualPC) and activation problems (see comment on other thread). And you get to do everything again in three months and hope nothing else has changed. The VMs are free if your time is free.
  - jongalloway2 14y ago
    The only VM that requires any driver config is IE6, and these scripts handle that: https://github.com/xdissent/ievms https://github.com/xdissent/ievms You don't need to activate Windows, you can (legally, supported by Microsoft) extend the grace period to 180 days, and you can even automate that. http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/vista-hands-on-9-use-vista-for-four-months-free/224 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/vista-hands-on-9-use-vista-fo... It's been that way for 5+ years.
puppybeard 14y ago
> "Because FF and Chrome are cross-platform, I and my fellow developers can test on our OS of choice." Speaking from experience, you can't always. Having done a lot of browser-testing, I've seen the same version of the same browser behave differently on the same OS. Between OS's there are more discrepancies. Most of your users are going to be using Windows, so test on Windows first.

by jayferd 14y ago

FuzzyDunlop 14y ago

ievms[1] aims to make testing IE on a non-Windows box less complicated (it depends on VirtualBox). [1] https://github.com/xdissent/ievms https://github.com/xdissent/ievms

jayferd 14y ago
That sounds useful. This gets me though: > The VMs provided by Microsoft will not pass the Windows Genuine Advantage and cannot be activated. I mean, there's a workaround, but where's the love from Microsoft? Don't they want me to be able to test on their browser so my sites will support it?
- tensor 14y ago
  This is really not a big problem. A non-activated version of windows will run for a while before rebooting. It's mildly annoying to have to reboot every now and then in extended testing, but it works sufficiently well. Microsoft's suggested solution is to just start from the raw image each time you start the vm. This way it will run without problems for 30 days. The images come pre-setup so you don't need setup time unless you want to install some extra debugging tools.
- jongalloway2 14y ago
  Windows 7 (and Windows Server 2008) have had a supported option to extend the evaluation period to 120+ days. This has been around since 2007. http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/01/extending-the-windows-vista-grace-period-to-120-days.html http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/01/extending-the-windo... http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/vista-hands-on-9-use-vista-for-four-months-free/224 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/vista-hands-on-9-use-vista-fo...
- masklinn 14y ago
  > This gets me though: Why? They have no reason to pass WGA, and this is only mildly annoying for actual users, as a development VM I don't remember it ever causing me any issue.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

eagsalazar 14y ago

Aren't you creating an artificial dichotomy? The options you imply are: 1. block all IE9+ 2. spend lots of time and money making the site perfect in IE9+ What about this? 3. Have a quick glance and if things look 95% ok, let people know it is not optimized for IE9+ via a subtle notification. (That actually requires no more developer resources than blocking IE9 explicitly) Or: 4. Set up a VM (it isn't that hard, and you only have to do it once) and just fix the obvious big stuff (which it doesn't appear there are any). Again, very cheap. I'm no fan of IE or MS in general. Frankly, I'm a shameless hater. But I'm just not following your logic here. I would totally buy "I block MS because MS is evil, has caused me pain in the past, and now I am exacting revenge on them".

jayferd 14y ago
That's also fair - there's definitely middle ground. I particularly like the "not optimized for IE" notification, which would allow us to legitimately suggest trying another browser as the solution to a problem.
ktizo 14y ago
But I'm just not following your logic here. I would totally buy "I block MS because MS is evil, has caused me pain in the past, and now I am exacting revenge on them". That statement needs to be followed by maniacal laughter combined with a swivel leather armchair and an evil looking cat.

yummyfajitas 14y ago

With IE, a testing environment costs my company about $300 per developer. I.e., miniscule relative to the cost of actually having a developer.

jayferd 14y ago
fair.
- barista 14y ago
  So you just agreed the premise of your whole argument above is not valid. Just saying.
  - jayferd 14y ago
    that's a little harsh, don't you think? The topic in question is a little more subtle than that. The comments about the developer tools and the wonky VM setup still stand. Also, they say money is fungible, but it rubs me the wrong way to be paying MS for the privilege of testing my site on their browser.
  - irrelative 14y ago
    He said that a testing environment costs $300. If developer time were free, then yes, he would have agreed that his argument is invalid. Developer time is rather valuable, especially when considering opportunity costs.
    - masklinn 14y ago
      A developer is not a testing environment, and the developer price is paid for testing in Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Opera or what have you. MSIE is no different on that front.
      - irrelative 14y ago
        Of course a developer isn't a testing environment. Developers don't cost a fixed $300. If there are differences between IE and (Chrome|Firefox|Opera), then it will require additional developer time. Just testing for those differences will require additional developer time. I don't want to demonize IE. Supporting any browser requires testing. IE has been especially reluctant to adopt web developer trends and needs to work hard to regain developers' trust. Supporting it isn't just the cost of a testing environment.

ricardobeat 14y ago

We just keep a couple spare, old win laptops around for testing on IE. They have Win7 with IE9, plus VMs for <IE8, access over the local network. It's easy to create a bookmarklet that sends URLs over to them so you don't have to type. Also, neither Chrome, Safari or Firefox behave exactly the same on win/mac/linux. Delicate layouts and javascript-heavy apps still have to be tested. IE9 has a large share of the web, and is still growing. It's a perfectly ok browser (except for lack of WebGL). Not supporting it or adding a "not optimized for..." message reeks of "Optimized for 800x600" in the old days. Users shouldn't have to pay the toll. And please, if you are going to do this, do not block browsers by UA. Show a warning, whatever, but just don't lock them out. It's annoying.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
drhowarddrfine 14y ago
But IE usage, overall, is shrinking. Lack of WebGL is only one glaring example you can read about while people forget it also lacks text-shadow and...oh forgetabout it. I'm not going into this list again. IE is an incompetent browser. Those who know how the web works don't use IE. That should tell you everything anyone needs to know.
talmand 14y ago
Could you possibly share this bookmarklet?
- robocat 14y ago
  You can do something similar with Synergy. Laptop acts like another monitor, e.g. mouse over to the left and your keyboard and mouse now control the laptop, and cut&paste between machines mostly works too. Synergy works well, although it is old and unobvious how to set it up. I haven't seen anything better yet :-) However, I only used it between Linux and XP (I use virtual machines now).
- ricardobeat 14y ago
  Using OpenKeyVal (http://openkeyval.org/ http://openkeyval.org/), the bookmarklet looks like this: (function(){ var data = { data: location.href } jQuery.post('http://api.openkeyval.org/myownkey', data) }()) And on each client you have a screen-sized iframe + an "update" button that triggers: $.getJSON('http://api.openkeyval.org/myownkey', function(data){ iframe.src = data }) You have to remember to use your local IP address, not localhost. I ended up making a small nodejs server so we could use websockets and drop the update button.

jongalloway2 14y ago

VirtualBox natively supports VHD format, so stop shaving those yaks. Where is that $300 coming from? You run VirtualBox on your computer (free), install free VHD's (free), and free the free free with your free free (free).

robocat 14y ago
Sure you can run the VHD in VirtualBox. Then you run into driver problems (the VM drivers are set up for VirtualPC) and activation problems (see comment on other thread). And you get to do everything again in three months and hope nothing else has changed. The VMs are free if your time is free.
- jongalloway2 14y ago
  The only VM that requires any driver config is IE6, and these scripts handle that: https://github.com/xdissent/ievms https://github.com/xdissent/ievms You don't need to activate Windows, you can (legally, supported by Microsoft) extend the grace period to 180 days, and you can even automate that. http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/vista-hands-on-9-use-vista-for-four-months-free/224 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/vista-hands-on-9-use-vista-fo... It's been that way for 5+ years.

puppybeard 14y ago

> "Because FF and Chrome are cross-platform, I and my fellow developers can test on our OS of choice." Speaking from experience, you can't always. Having done a lot of browser-testing, I've seen the same version of the same browser behave differently on the same OS. Between OS's there are more discrepancies. Most of your users are going to be using Windows, so test on Windows first.