IQue - Our Twist on the Web

As web designers, we must always be conscious of a user’s experience when visiting our websites. One major aspect of that is making sure that a website provides a functional and comparable experience to the user, regardless of what browser they are using. Over the years, developers have often pulled their hair out trying to make a website perform well under the significantly varying standards of different browsers.

From a standards point of view, the situation has gradually been improving in the last few years. Browsers that were once running roughshod over industry standards (I’m looking at you, Internet Explorer), have made concerted efforts to move toward adherence. But there are still notable differences between browsers from both a development and user perspective, so here are some things to consider when choosing a browser:

Internet Explorer (IE)

For some, Internet Explorer continues to be indistinguishable from the Internet: it’s what you click on your desktop to access the web. Many users are not even aware that they have a choice in web browsers, thanks in large part to Internet Explorer being packaged with Windows operating systems (a famously controversial practice).

Developer: from a development perspective, IE can be very vexing. Early on in its development, IE expanded on a lot of the web standards to allow for some novel functionality. This was not a problem in 2003, when over 90% of users browsed using IE. But other browsers started springing up, and it became increasingly apparent how many websites had been built using standards that didn’t work outside of IE. So, a website that looked terrific in Explorer suddenly looked like a Picasso painting in Opera. The mantra among many web designers became “build it according to standards, then hack it as needed for IE.” Microsoft has made great improvements towards standards adherence beginning with IE7, and is expected to build on that with IE8. The issue is that an estimated 25% of web users still use IE6, which lacks support for some key functionality (countless web pages have been devoted to workarounds for IE6’s inability to support transparent PNG images). As long as a significant percentage of people are using IE6, it will continue to be the thorn in the web design industry’s side.

User: IE made some great advances beginning with IE7. Besides improved support for web standards, there were added features like tabbed browsing, an RSS feed reader, and multi-search box. Of course, the cynic would point out that these were already features in other browsers first, but Microsoft has always done well incorporating existing ideas into their products. If you’re looking for a familiar experience, or require IE (e.g. for Exchange web access), then you can definitely use it without raising the hackles of web developers. Just be sure you’ve upgraded to version IE7 or later, or you’re missing out.

Firefox (FF)

Originally a branch-off of the Mozilla Suite in 2003, Firefox has become Mozilla’s flagship product. Since then, the browser has steadily grown in market share, thanks in large part to IE users jumping ship over security concerns. In addition, Firefox is an open-source browser, allowing a wide community of developers to create extensions and plug-ins that build on the FF experience. Mozilla has also recently released Firefox 3, which improves on web standards support and updates their bookmark system and download manager.

Developer: Having developed around the quirks of IE6 for so long, web developers breathed some relief when Firefox gained popularity. While it has its own idiosyncrasies regarding web standards, they are quite minor by comparison. And with its growing popularity (W3C has its adoption rate at over 40%), FF helps ensures consistency among viewers.

User: While IE has made improvements to security in the last few years, Firefox is still widely considered superior against security threats like malicious scripts and phishing. And it is simply the champion when it comes to customizing your browsing experience. In addition to standard features like a download manager to handle the various things you grab off the Internet, its community of open-source contributors have created thousands of custom themes, plug-ins and extensions. This allows you to optimize and extend your browser functionality to suit your use. One downside is that Firefox tends to be a bit more taxing on a computer’s resources than other browsers, particularly with a lot of add-ins running.

Opera

Over a decade old, Opera has never made a big dent in the browser market, but it has maintained a small, devoted group of followers. It has enjoyed better success with its browser for mobile phones and PDAs. In addition, Nintendo selected Opera to be the browser for its Nintendo DS and Wii systems. While the browser originally had to be purchased, and then later was supported by ads, as of 2006 the desktop browser is ad-free and at no cost to download.

Developer: Opera is a quick-performing browser that utilizes notoriously strict standards support. The upside is reliable performance, security and consistency. The downside is that with fewer than 2% of users browsing with Opera, many developers will focus on IE and FF performance. One factor in Opera’s low adoption rate is that poorly built websites tended to display badly due to its strict standards adherence. Over the years, individuals who have tried Opera may have experienced problematic browsing and fallen back to a more forgiving (read: less standards-compliant) browser.

User: With recent versions, Opera has made incorporated some workarounds that help users view websites that do not adhere as strictly to web standards. Sites can still behave unexpectedly, however. And while Opera shares Firefox’s reputation for security, it lacks the wealth of open-source contributions. While this helps prevent buggy or insecure code from being added, it also limits what features can be enjoyed. Luckily, many of Opera’s standard features (like the widely emulated Speed Dial) and add-able Widgets offer some nice functionality.

Safari

Since 2003, Safari has been the default browser for Apple computers. In 2007 the browser was ported to Windows for the first time, allowing it to reach the wide audience of non-Apple users. The browser has also seen a lot more exposure as the default browser for the iPhone.

Developer: Safari far outperforms the previous default Apple browser, the now-defunct Internet Explorer for Mac. And now that the Windows version is available, the browser has become more than just an afterthought in a web developer’s process.

User: While Safari also lacks a lot of Firefox’s customizability, it likewise doesn’t suffer from the same bloated demand on your computer’s resources. It is also notably quick to load HTML and CSS, and handle Javascript. For lean, speedy browser, Safari makes a great choice.

Which Do You Choose?

While Firefox is the current rising star in the browser world, there are many reasons to look at other options. Beyond the major players, smaller browsers enjoy their ardent supporters who are attracted to more niche features or use (for example, Flock, which focuses strongly on the integration of social media and networking). Whatever you choose, be sure to keep your browser up to date with security patches and updates to ensure safe browsing and the best enjoyment of what the web has to offer.

And if you are still using Internet Explorer 6, please upgrade! The web development world will thank you.

I recently heard a story about a business owner that I thought was worth sharing.

One day this business owner realized that he was not receiving any emails. After a lot of digging to find out the problem he realized that he had let the registration expire on his domain (www.mydomain.com), which in turn disabled his email and website. He contacted the registrar of his domain who informed him that the domain had expired and that they had made numerous attempts via email to contact him to renew it. Turns out all those emails ended up in his junk email folder and were never opened. As a result, someone bought his domain out from under him and advised him that they would be happy to sell it back to him for $150,000!

These days, domain brokering is becoming becoming quite a business in itself. These individuals keep an eye out with domain registrars for expiring domains and snap them up for a nominal fee—sometimes as low as $10.00 a year. Then they turn around and try to sell them for an exorbitant amount of money that the average business owner cannot afford.

Don’t let this happen to you!

• Be aware of where and who is the registrar of your domain
• If possible host your domain with a company that will handle the renewals for you like Twistique!
• You can often set up an auto-renewal with registrars
• Mark the renewal date on your calendar. Set up a reminder for a month before
• Consider renewing your domain name for 3 years or more years at a time, so you don’t have to worry about it for while.

In our ever-changing economy everyone is trying to make money and keep their businesses competitive. Don’t let these domain brokers take advantage of you. Once you have an established business and domain, losing it can cause serious setbacks to your business. Your website goes down, no one can email you and all of your business collateral is no longer valid—a pretty expensive misstep.

If you are not already aware of who the registrar of your domain is, find out and keep track of it or ask Twistique how to find out this information. If you already have all of this information, consider yourself a step ahead of everyone else!

I have been using Flash as a development tool for almost 10 years now, and over that time it has become an increasingly powerful tool for the Web and other media platforms. At the same time, the role of Flash in a website has sometimes been confused, and many people seem to like or dislike Flash for the wrong reasons. So when should one choose Flash? Here are some items about when Flash might not be a good fit:

Website Intros

As a firm rule of thumb, I recommend against a Flash intro serving as a website’s home page. From a usability standpoint, you’re creating a barrier between the visitor and the content they are looking for. We’ve all been to a site where we realize we’re being presented with a Flash intro, and we quickly begin to scour the page looking for the “Skip Intro” button (assuming the developer has been helpful enough to provide one).

Even if a user finds the intro to be worthwhile, will they the second time they visit your site? The tenth? Unless there is a very specific reason a user needs to see the intro before they get to the meat of your site, you should find another way to incorporate it, or leave it out altogether.

SEO Goals

Flash is often portrayed as being at odds with search engine friendliness, and with a good bit of truth. Now more than ever, your site’s content is a crucial part of search engine success. When your site’s content is embedded in Flash, however, it is for the most part invisible to Google and its kin. Over the past few years Google has made baby steps toward properly indexing Flash content. But even with their recent announcement with Adobe that significant Flash searchability was on the horizon, it remains to be seen how successful it will be, or how widely applied.

This isn’t to say that a heavily Flash-based site cannot rank well in Google, but the additional efforts necessary to make them successful must be considered. The bottom line is that if search engine placement is a big part of how you plan to market your site, you should probably avoid a full-Flash website, and keep main content elements outside of Flash.

Content Management

Just like some simple Flash features are difficult or impossible to achieve in another medium, some simple websites features can become awkward or unwieldy when they’re attempted in Flash. Sites that require frequent updates and additions can often become cumbersome when in a Flash environment, particularly if they were not originally developed in anticipation of those changes. In considering Flash for a website, one should consider not only the immediate needs, but what the needs for the site may be in the next one to two years.

Animation

Flash began its existence in 1995 as the humble FutureSplash Animator, a vector-based animation tool for the Web. Since then its power and versatility have grown exponentially, but that animation framework still lies at the core of its identity, for good and bad. When it comes to animation, a little goes a long way. While the visual possibilities with Flash are immense, so too is the need to be judicious in choosing which of those to use.

One common pitfall is to excessively animate a site: menus that blink, images that rotate, sparkling rollovers that would put Las Vegas jealous. I have seen sites where a user literally has to wait 15 seconds or more while each site element individually animates into place. When a client tells me that they don’t want a site that’s “Flash-y”, this is what they’re referring to.

Alternatives

In Web development, there is usually more than one way to skin a given cat. Could a given animation effect be achieved using Javascript or a smartly applied CSS technique? Or if you need to load content without navigating between website pages, it may be worth comparing Flash to an AJAX-based solution.

Form follows function, as the saying goes. The form your site content and elements take should be dictated by the functionality you are trying to achieve. There will be number of instances where using Flash is the smartest solution available for the goals you’re trying to achieve (more on these in a later article). But care must be taken that the goals of the site don’t become secondary to the means used to achieve them. Flash is a great tool in a Web developer’s arsenal, but like any tool, it won’t be the right one for every job.