[OPEN-ILS-DEV] ***SPAM*** Re: ***SPAM*** Google Chrome Frame

[Dan Scott]

On 9 June 2010 12:06, Thomas Berezansky <tsbere at mvlc.org> wrote:
> I don't know about anyone else, but I feel like putting patches over things
> is more of a problem than a solution.

Well, we're always patching things, normally to make code more robust.
Mike's suggestion is just a different angle on how to patch things -
to make the catalogue experience more robust by altering the user's
browser, instead of the code served up to the browser.

> Many users won't use the button, either due to being lazy, not trusting
> installing things, or not being ABLE to. Limited users on home computers,
> work machines that are locked down, etc.

This is definitely a problem in institutions like universities or
hospitals (we have a few of those in Conifer).

Amusingly, on many of those locked down machines it will actually be
possible to install the full Google Chrome browser - no admin
privileges necessary there. So it might be more effective to point to
a different browser.

> Making IE support dependent on not supporting IE, basically, seems like the
> wrong approach to me. It WILL have to work without Google Chrome Frame for a
> lot of people, and not just because of those people's personal preferences.
>
> Thus, I say that if you think you can get around developing for IE by
> telling people to use a different browser, even via a plugin for IE, then
> you're wrong. Full stop.

I (sadly) have to concur. IE still maintains a 60% market share.

> Having said that, having the patch offer a given person a one-time prompt
> that says Google Chrome Frame may improve speed and such with the install
> button, a cookie saying not to show it again if they say no for any reason,
> is perfectly fine in my eyes.

This is a reasonable idea. The same prompt may also say "You might
also want to install a full browser, such as Google Chrome or Mozilla
Firefox."

Perhaps, though, the time has come to consider dropping support
efforts for IE6 in Evergreen 2.0? That would alleviate the worst of
the IE-isms, and IE6 is not nearly as predominant as it was even a
year ago; statcounter put it at below 5% as of June 1, 2010
(http://gs.statcounter.com/press/ie6-falls-below-5-perc-for-first-time-in-us-and-europe).