February 27th, 2007

Roger Johansson details his browser testing strategy and it is far more extensive than mine–at least for CSS and markup, though I go much further when it comes to JavaScript.

  • I start with, and use extensively, Firefox on the Mac. The main reason why is the extensions, specifically Firebug. I think that Joe Hewitt's Firebug is the third single-most important component of today's new web development–following on Mozilla's innovative architecture, which enables such extensions, and REST.
  • I then test with IE7 on Windows XP. Why? Because if anything I do is going to break, it will break with IE. I no longer have an IE6 box, but I do use Total Validator to take screenshots in IE6 and Konquerer if I'm working on issues of design.
  • Next, I test with Opera on the Mac, which helps me discover those things that Firefox allows that aren't necessarily standard. I find Opera to be the most standards compliant browser.
  • Then I go to Safari and the most current WebKit, both still on the Mac.
  • I need to test with Camino and Flock more. However, my logs tell me I have people using IE, Firefox, Safari, some Opera, rarely Konquerer, and older versions of IE, on Windows and the Mac. These are my target audiences.
  • I tested the book with OmniWeb, but I don't have it any longer as it's a 'cost' browser and the cost isn't justified.
  • I test with Netscape and Opera on Windows XP, last. I used to test for IE6, and I did for the book. However, I don't have access to a IE6 machine, now, so am dependent on IE6 users to tell me if something breaks.
  • I provide a mobile stylesheet, which Ralph at There is no Cat, was kind enough to test for me. I also use Opera's mobile feature to test.

One thing I talked about in the upcoming Adding Ajax book is understanding your audience before making a choice of target test browsers. If we use progressive enhancement as a development approach, which means creating the functionality without the use of scripting and then gradually adding script effects, then we always have a natural fall back if a script effect doesn't work with one browser or another: just disable the effect for the browsers that choke. Those few who are still using IE 5.5 on the Mac (why?), or IE 3.2 (WHY!), at least get a decent shot at a workable page, if not a terribly interactive or visually appealing page.

Then there's my feeds. If all else fails, I provide full content feeds.

Roger's mention of semantic markup is spot on, also. I haven't been pursuing this as diligently as I should, and plan to go over my design one more time and look for better uses of markup—after the book has gone to production, of course.

My biggest design problem? Fonts. I can never find a font that seems to look good everywhere, and that scales as well as I'd like for each resolution. That's mainly because I haven't taken the time with fonts as I should. Another thing to explore as soon as the book is finished.

Oh, and this site is using a conditional IE stylesheet.

Comments
1
Bud Gibson - 10:33 am 2/27/2007

I agree with you concerning REST. Why not figure out how to co-opt into your programs the thing that the web has already successfully figured out how to implement vs. telling the web it has to work differently like SOAP and even XMLRPC do. In the courses I teach, it's sort of a joy to be able to say, "Look at all of the things that are already out there," vs. "Some day, vendors may achieve interoperability on this spec. Until then, here are 18 special cases."

2
shelleyp - 3:31 pm 2/27/2007

Agree. I find REST to be intuitive as well as complementary to the way the web works.

SOAP is awful stuff. I've used it, but it's like CORBA: highly over-engineered.

3
Elaine - 5:13 pm 2/28/2007

Funny, I was just here looking for a piece you did a while back about mobile stylesheets! Thanks for the reminder about Opera. I used to be primarily an Opera user, but Firefox pretty much stole my heart. ;)

The newer version of Firebug is amazing. I can't believe I was making websites w/out it.

"Those few who are still using IE 5.5 on the Mac (why?)"

At my old job, for the longest time the Mac people couldn't upgrade to OS X, I don't remember why. And so all they had was IE 5.5 and Netscape 4. Very very painful: not a large part of the audience, but the part in closest proximity to my desk. So it's likely to be people who can't or won't upgrade their Macs…not a whole heck of a lot available. OTOH, I imagine by now those folks are used to most of the web looking pretty messed up.

Thanks to all those who have contributed to the discussion. Comments are now closed, but you can contact the author of the post directly.