Best viewed with Firefox.

Not sure if anyone else has come across these type of sites, where they tell you that the site can not be viewed with IE and you must download Firefox.

Just gotta say that this is the dumbest trend I've ever seen. Turning away 75 to 90% of your website traffic?

 

I agree. That is the worst form of web design.

That's like telling people you can't go into a store without having red socks.

Webmasters need to know that sites have to be built so that multiple browsers can view them properly.

IMO it's either lazy webmasters or new webmasters who do this.

(If you are new (not you Chopster) then get help . . .there are plenty of resources)

The time and effort certainly pays off.

Skinny

 

I have a feeling it has something to do with the fact that Firefox pay webmasters $1 each time a user downloads and installs Firefox using the link from their site!

 

There's a difference, of course, between saying (1) "This site is best viewed with Firefox" and (2) "This site requires Firefox" or "This site cannot be viewed without Firefox".

#1 is just a simple statement saying "designed with Firefox in mind".

#2 is, as noted, shooting yourself in the foot with an anti-tank missile.

A while back, when I got tired of trying to make sites look the same in IE and various versions of Netscape in pre-Firefox days, I had a footer for one site that said, "This page optimized for viewing in Internet Explorer. It may not display as intended in other browsers." That was when I was using Netscape 4.7x as my worst-case-scneario browser and there were some things I just could not get to look right in NS. In the end, I gave it up, made sure the siote was readable and navigable in NS, and added that footer.

 

Option #2 is exactly what I mean. The site I visited "required" Firefox and wouldn't load unless I was using it. I can't remember the url to the page now, but I do remember it saying something about not letting the Evil Empire Microsoft dominate the browser market.

Maybe you agree with this philosophy, maybe not, but throwing away that many visitors based on this principal, in my opinion...is lame.

 

I absolutely think that is lame. And completely dumb.

 

I think it's just a little too late.

But yes it is dumb. You eliminate visitors . . .and people aren't going to switch over to another browser to view your page. There are more than 8 billion websites. They will go elsewhere.

Skinny

 

That was my first thought too.

Chopster: did they provide one of those 'get firefox with Google toolbar' banners?

 

As far as I know, there is no Firefox specific mark up for pages. Firefox is supposedly designed to work from the actual specification, with no added, special tags. Where the problem is, as with all browsers, is in its ability to render CSS.
The point is the website is just turning people away based on the user-agent string. I don';t think it is smart, but I want to attract people to my work.
That suggests the site's content is smug and is probably just another website, which is hostile toward ordinary folk. Including those who use Firefox, but don't know the difference between RAM and ROM.

 

I agree. ANY SITE THAT IS VIEWABLE ON FIREFOX IS VIEWABLE IN IE6. lol.

Its just stupidity and a marketing scam.

I now see websites that have annoying floating layers on them that appear when you use IE that says things like "YOUR BROWSER IS UNSECURE! DOWNLOAD FIREFOX".

Ughh... its annoying.

 

generally there should be this statement

"best viewed in firefox" etc..

following absolutly wrong but it should be above sentence

"where they tell you that the site can not be viewed with IE and you must download Firefox."

 

Surely it's entirely up to the individual creating the site if they want to exclude a particular sector of the browing public e.g. IE. While the vast majority wouldn't want to I don't see as it's anyone else's business to be honest. Stating that a site "requires firefox" is not deceptive if the site is checking the user agent and blocking access based on that... in that case it's perfectly true... the site does require Firefox to be viewed.

 

Missing the point, Zenith. The question is not whether the site owner has a right to do it or whether it's accurate or inaccurate. The question is why anyone would be foolish enough to do it.

 

Not all sites are built with the purpose of maximising traffic. You can't just say they're dumb without any knowledge of the content of the site or the motivation of the webmaster. It may not be "foolish" to them, and it's their site.

 

I agree with Minstrel. It's foolish.

 

It may not be foolish if they have all the traffic they want. Not everyone is in the business to make money.

Besides, they may be getting a buttload of money off of affiliates.

 

Or maybe their entire goal is to convince people to use a safer browser?

How many sites exist solely to try to convince people to switch from Windows to Linux/BSD?

I don't imagine there's much money in it (except for, say, Red Hat, but I'd say their site(s) have a different slant). But some people have different motivations.

BTW, I've actually run across the site that's probably behind all this. They offer complete step-by-step directions about how to do add this 'feature' to your site. As far as I can tell, it's a complete non-profit. Can't remember the URL now, but there does seem to be a central organization behind the whole thing.

It takes all kinds, right? <shrug>

 

We have a habit of adding a little note on the credits/About This Site page of our sites:

"To ensure the most enjoyable viewing experience of this site and others on the Web, we recommend downloading and installing one of the following free browsers:"

Followed by links to Mozilla, Firefox, K-Meleon and Opera, just to give a range of choices. IE works just fine for us...it's simply a recommendation It's our little way of spreading the word about other browsers without making it such that something other than most people's default browser is necessary.

Designing for one particular browser is foolish, regardless of whether it's a nearly six-year-old dinosaur or one of today's upstarts.

 

Whats ghey is those websites who submit articles to social bookmarking sites and do the whole "block IE, download FF" thing. All so they can get their referrral.

 

If the site is getting a buttload of traffic, then they are only getting the small percentage of some odd traffic from Firefox users. If they were to allow IE to access the site, then their "buttload of traffic" would suddenly skyrocket to an obscene amount of traffic.

So, the question is...are they trying to make money? If so, then they are foolish to exclude all the potential customers that are using IE.

If their incentive is not to make money, then the only other option I can think of is that they are trying to get across a message to the world. And excluding IE users from receiving that message is...again...foolish.

Then of course, what if their message is that Microsoft is an evil empire and you should be using Firefox. If that's the case, then that's a lame message.

Does anyone know of any features in Firefox in default mode that IE doesn't do in default mode? I mean, in regards to navigating and viewing a website.