Skip to content

A podcast for those who design, develop and run websites.

Boagworld is the personal website of Paul (the Wurzel) Boag who lives in the heart of rural Dorset. He produces a weekly podcast along with Marcus (pop star) Lillington on all things relating to building and running websites.

Latest shows

147. Ho Ho Ho
This week on Boagworld: IT'S CHRISTMAS!
146. Obsessive
On this week's show, Paul interviews Nicholas Felton about designing with data, we celebrate the return of 24Ways, and explain how community can keep users coming back for more.
145. Baby Jack
On this week’s show Paul looks at how to communicate better with your users. Marcus examines ways to improve your contracts and Ryan has a baby (not actually on the show).
144. Scale
On this week’s show Paul talks to Joe Stump from Digg about scalable websites, we review the best apps for web designers and investigate services for sending bulk emails.
143. Partnership
On this week’s show Paul and Marcus discuss how to promote your web application, ways to improve the client/designer relationship and tools for managing your font library.

or view all shows

Have your say

Leave a message for the show...

Buy my book: The website owners manual. A book for all those involved in designing, developing or running websites on a daily basis.

The Boagworld podcast will be back on Wednesday the 14th January.

Effective browser support

Published on: January 5, 2009 by Paul Boag

Browser support should focus on usability and accessibility rather than pixel perfect design. Sites should render in all browsers, but provide advanced features and aesthetics to those which can support it.

Most web design contracts address browser support. Many agencies still treat support as a black or white decision - a browser is either supported or it is not. If the browser is not supported the site is often unusable. However, this approach fails to acknowledge the diverse and evolving nature of the web. We should be supporting all browsers.

What does 'support' mean?

Although we support all browsers, that does not mean every user will have the same experience. For example, it is unrealistic to expect a user accessing the web through a text only browser to have the same experience as somebody using the latest version of Firefox.

As Yahoo states in their own browser support documentation:

Requiring the same experience for all users creates a barrier to participation. Availability and accessibility of content should be our key priority.

Supporting a browser should provide the best experience possible within the constraints of that browser, and should exclude none.

Expecting pixel perfect accuracy across browsers is unrealistic and not cost effective.

The problem with pixel perfect design

With browser technology improving all of the time it is unsurprising that modern websites do not always render the same in older browsers such as Internet Explorer 6 (released 2001) as they do in more contemporary counterparts. In fact even modern browsers differ in the way they display HTML.

Many web designers go to extreme lengths to ensure consistency across their 'supported browsers'. However although this is achievable if the number of supported browsers is limited, it comes at a cost. This includes:

  • Significant overhead in the time required to overcome limitations in older browsers.
  • Increased likelihood that unsupported browsers cannot access the site. This is because of hacks and excessive code employed to ensure consistency.
  • A tendency to design for the lowest common denominator.

A better approach is to ensure that the site works well and looks reasonable on the lowest common denominator browser, and then 'enhance it' for more capable browsers.

For example, modern browsers support design enhancements such as:

  • rounded corners
  • drop shadows
  • Improved typography

and various other styling not supported by older browsers without additional code and effort. However as Andy Clarke explains - because these design elements are not intrinsic to the usability or functionality of the site they can be safely dropped.

If this approach is adopted, it is less likely browsers will render sites incorrectly and so the level of testing can be reduced.

Testing

When a black and white approach to browser support is employed, testing can become expensive and time consuming. While website owners want to support as many browsers as possible, web designers want to limit the number supported to make testing manageable.

However, if a modern approach is adopted the burden of testing is reduced. This is because instead of testing focusing on pixel perfect precision across all browsers, the focus is on usability and accessibility.

Obviously, when claiming support for all browsers it becomes impossible to test in every browser combination. Instead it is necessary to prioritize browsers based on website statistics and ensure accessibility by testing in these.

The number of browsers and versions that a site is tested on will vary depending on the budget available for testing. However, even testing on a handful of browsers will normally cover the majority of users experiences (as a relatively low number of browsers dominate the market). In addition, those browsers that are not tested should reliably render the page because no unnecessary code or hacks are used to build the site.

Conclusion

In conclusion, building websites that are enhanced for more capable browsers - improves accessibility, reduce costs and ensure every user gets the best experience possible within the limitation of their choice of browser.

Comments

Comments are for the discussion of this post. If you have other questions / comments then post them to the forum or send me an email

  • Post by Jason Zimdars on January 5, 2009 5:37 PM

    I've recently embraced a similar attitude and have jumped in using modern CSS techniques with near impunity.

    CSS properties like border-radius are well supported by Firefox and Safari eliminating the need for countless background images and often additional mark-up. And what do users of a browser that doesn't support it see? Square corners. I can live with that and so can our users.

    Similarly, I've used box-shadow, text-shadow, PNG images, and CSS adjacent selectors where browsers support them. Users who can't see these effects aren't seeing the design exactly as I intended but they're not missing anything that causes the design to be less accessible or useable.

    When we think of these techniques as enhancements, everyone wins. The entire project becomes simpler. Less mark-up, fewer images, and fewer cross-browser workarounds all save time in development, testing, and maintenance. These things also save in bandwidth and make for a snappier experience for users. And the only loss is to some design effects that don't get in the user's way by their absence.

  • Post by Smart Boy on January 5, 2009 5:40 PM

    Thank you for sharing your thoughts. It's an interesting discussion in deciding how to balance usability and design. Where do we focus more of our attention - and how do we create the best experience for the end user? Not only do developers need to analyze these ideals - but webmasters need to be involved also.

Leave a comment

Additional Information

Supporting boagworld

Boagworld only exists thanks to the kind support of the following people. Check them out.

Speaking and writing

View Paul's current location, speaking engagements and various online ramblings:

Succoured by Feed Informer