Browser testing checklist
I’m in the midst of poking around in code, so I thought I’d open the old browser testing can of worms. Here are the browsers I prioritise in order:
- Firefox (Mac)
- Safari (Mac)
- Firefox (PC)
- Internet Explorer 6 (PC)
- Internet Explorer 7 (PC)
[EDIT] To clarify, the list is the order that I test in, not of importance. That order would go: IE6, IE7, Ff (PC), Safari (Mac), Ff (Mac).
The Mac browsers are higher up the list because I work on the Mac. It makes sense to use the tools at hand. I have two reasons for placing a higher priority on testing in IE6 than IE7, its majority market share and simply that IE7 is a marked improvement. If your web page renders acceptably up to the point of testing it in IE7 you’ll probably find no issues at all. Mercifully there are ways to run both IEs without needing two PCs.
Where it comes to minority browsers like Opera I take a more relaxed view. If the latest version of the browser renders the page in an acceptable manner, then it’s fine. Users of such applications are technically savvy enough to have actively chosen their browsers. It’s safe to assume that they maintain up to date software. It isn’t worth the time and effort it takes to hack your way around the quirks of obsolete software. For this reason I’ve (reluctantly) abandoned testing in IE5 for the Mac.
I use the word acceptable rather than identical. When testing a web page you should view it in isolation - the question isn’t “does it look the same?” because pixel-perfect reproduction from one browser to the next is an impossible goal. The subtly different text sizes, line spacing or even anti-aliasing alone will see to that. The question is “does it look right?”
In case you wondered which browser I prefer, let me spell it out 
So, you web designers out there: what’s your take on this issue?
Recent Posts RSS
February 8th, 2007 at 11:13 am
I usually get my websites to work in internet explorer 6 then 7 first (as I tend to do most web stuff on a pc at work) then Firefox then Safari. Like yourself I’ve given up bothering with internet explorer 5 it just adds too much time too the production of a site.
Most clients are PC based and their priority (not mine) is to have it working in internet explorer above all others.
I think it’s all very frustrating having to re-write code for different browsers. I’m happy with my sites if they are as you say ‘acceptable’ on the most popular browsers.
[EDIT] Fixed timestamp.
February 8th, 2007 at 11:22 am
I just noticed from your post that the timezone offset for my blog was set to 1! Oops!
Fixed.
At least things have come a long way since the so-called “browser wars” of the 90s. Microsoft for their part do seem to be committed to improving support. The appointment of Molly Holzschlag to the IE team to work on standards and interoperability is a positive move.
February 8th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
That’s good to hear I hope that we see some of the improved support filtering in soon.
February 8th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
At least things have come a long way since the so-called “browser wars
February 8th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
“It isn’t worth the time and effort” were my words, which I thought made it plain enough that “it is too time and cost prohibitive” were exactly what I meant.
don’t make some assumption that you know the demographic of your end user
A bit of a turnaround since you said that “No one cares what your site *does*, so even if you don’t make good on your promises … they’ll still come barrelling into your site and sign up.” is a valuable lesson in SEO and site promotion.
The intent of this post was to have a constructive discussion about browser testing approaches. Do you have something to add?
February 8th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
A bit of a turnaround since
Where’s the assumption of demographic there? I pointed out that regardless of your content, slap Porn in the keywords and people will still flock to your site and sign up, despite not finding the content they came looking for.
Do you have something to add?
As I’ve said before… Legacy.
The problem (and reason) behind this browser incompatiblity shite is that it is all too new.
Write yourself a HTML (non css2.0) page and test it where ever you like. That’s what I did with FD and found that even on devices like mobiles, PSPs, my Wii, Palms, the site still looks perfect and works.
Sure the browsers may all fight over absolute positioning and other aspects, but pretty much all of them them these days know how to render a table spot on.
Not exciting, but strips out 99% of your testing time. UI should be a tiny part of your project and even then, the focus should be on flow and user interaction. I’ve got not desire to spend my time worrying about xxx new browser or version thereof and how it’ll affect my web app. As the saying goes : “It should just work”.
February 8th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
…slap porn in the keywords…
I suppose that’s your company’s SEO strategy for client websites, is it? Ridiculous.
I’ve no intention of reverting to development practises that I’ve happily discarded in favour of ones I think are better. I’m well aware of your opinions on the matter.
February 8th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
I suppose that’s your company’s SEO strategy for client websites, is it? Ridiculous.
So is taking a passing comment about a 3rd party’s SEO tactic and taking it to mean myself or the folks I work for adhere to it
Though I admit, while advertising non-existant porn is a little much, the underlying principle (Don’t be scared of using related ‘high traffic’ keywords even if you don’t have such content) is certainly one I may well use in my next project.
February 8th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
I didn’t think for a moment that your company adheres to it. To suggest that noone is interested in what your site does, but people will blindly sign up anyway is so absurd that it makes my judgement call on the habits of less than 1% of visitors look like a non-issue.
OK bored now. I repeat - the topic of this discussion was browser testing approaches. If you want to rant against CSS-based design or debate the pros and cons of dirty tricks SEO, would you mind hosting a thread on your own site rather than sidetracking one of mine?