|
Written by Tom Johnson
|
|
Wednesday, 19 September 2012 |
 Recent posts in the LDSTech Forum have highlighted some incompatibility problems for people using Internet Explorer 8 with LDS.org tools. The LDS.org directory, calendar, and other tools have various incompatibilities with Internet Explorer 7 and 8. Sometimes the tools function correctly but don't always display as intended. Other times, as with newsletter, functionality isn't the same (image uploads for the newsletter do not work in Internet Explorer 8 or 9).
About 67 percent of clerk computers are still running Windows XP, which is not compatible with Internet Explorer 9. So if Internet Explorer 7 or 8 is the only browser on your clerk computer, you won't have the best experience with many of the LDS.org tools.
To ensure the best browsing experience using the new tools on LDS.org, update to a newer supported browser such as Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. This will typically resolve most issues encountered.
Both Chrome and Firefox support a number of advantages. In addition to loading faster, these browsers support current features and technologies that project teams are starting to take advantage of, such as responsive design for mobile-friendly displays.
Safari (the default browser for Macs) works too, but most quality assurance testing in ICS is not done with Safari, so there may be unidentified issues with Safari.
|
Comments
WinXP is still supported by Microsoft, so it's still a "valid" OS.
Seems more efficient and less expensive to obtain a stake president's approval to install an alternative browser than to push the church into upgrading all computers. It should be easy to obtain approval with this blog entry as support. Installing an alternate browser is a very simple, quick procedure.
Sadly, Linux is not an option, because there are a few parts of MLS that don't work on Linux. I've gotten it to partially work on Linux before, but printing and networking doesn't work.
Until everything can be done on the web (which I think would be the best approach for the church), or MLS gets modified to work properly somewhere other than Windows, the computers used by ward/stake clerks need to run Windows.
Based on this, I believe the division on what needs stake approval is based on software licensing requirements.
Best Practice though is; if you have a question, ask the Stake Clerk to discuss it with the Stake President.
I hope this helps
Why do you believe this is not the best fix? Chrome and Firefox are excellent browsers and in many ways superior to IE. Chrome is widely considered more secure than IE. This is the result of an aggressive security campaign in which Google pays bounties to hackers who find security vulnerabilities in Chrome.
As a web developer, I can assure you that this is, in fact, the best fix. Internet Explorer is consistently the worst browser, and has been for well over a decade. Microsoft is starting to catch up, but they've got a long way to go.
IE is not only consistently behind in implementing new standards (so basic features don't work), but is also consistently behind in security updates. Microsoft is simply not as good at patching security issues as Google and Mozilla are.
Even if all the church computers were upgraded to Windows 7 and running IE9, it would still be better for them all to be using alternate browsers.
Well said!
As a consumer and a computer user, I can assure you that the average home user is still using IE as a browser. This is due to the fact that windows is still the main operating system on computers purchased in the local store.
And while Microsoft is going to stop supporting XP come next spring, XP will still be used by many home computer users due to the cost of upgrading. And these people will still be using IE.
While I know to use a different browser, its only because I'm frequent the tech forms that I knew what to do then the calendar went wacky using IE. However, I afraid the average member trying to use the calendar system will not know this. Will not know who to ask to fix the problem, and will just not use the calendar at all.
Mind you I'm talking about the average home computer user, not the clerk computers.
Chrome is a better browser in almost every way. It's faster, more secure, supports newer standards, etc. Why would anyone be against using it?
Web development has been held back long enough. It's time to say no to IE and leave it in the past.
In our ward, we sent an email - referencing this blog post - with the browser upgrade recommendation. Simple solution.
Not true: usatoday30.usatoday.com/.../1
Not true:
usatoday30.usatoday.com/.../1
It may have in the past but IE is no longer the browser of choice, mainly because of incompatibility issues like this.
Quoting Jason Kentner:
Because if they developed for IE the sites would be incompatible with most other browsers. The problem is Microsoft marches to their own drum and their browser simply does not follow standards. So, in order to get applications to work in IE, developers have to include special code to handle IE's idiosyncrasies. The Church is not alone in this. Most other IT shops are also developing to the standards and only deal with IE when and if they absolutely have to because it just costs too much to deal with IE problems.
Boy isn't that true. Very few business sites support and target IE as their primary browser. Also look at the installed base and you will see Chrome, IE and Firefox. Look out in your congregation and you will see iPads and iPhones and talk to members and you will find they are buying Macs. Apple is the ONLY computer manufacturer still growing quarter over quarter and yet the church still sticks its head in the sand when it comes to Apple (and Safari which is cross platform). I think it is is time to wake up and smell the Postum. Apple is here and continually growing. They will represent approx ½% of this countries GNP this year -- that is incredible.
Apple makes good products. However, Apple is a closed, proprietary ecosystem that uses technology to lock in its customers:
tinyurl.com/2yu2f5
Also, Apple exerts excessive control over its suppliers squeezing their profits to enrich themselves - which results in the exploitation of Chinese labor:
tinyurl.com/d68p8sd
Apple leverages its industry clout to extract excessive subsidies from carriers:
tinyurl.com/87q48nq
Apple is also one of the most litigious tech companies:
tinyurl.com/53nkhc
So, yeah, Apple makes good products, but I don't buy them.
The point is, Safari is a very highly used browser and should be included in those ICS tests. Our Family History Center with 9 systems (currently), housed in our ward (again, small) all have Safari as the primary browser due to the speed and security. We also have Chrome and Firefox available for those who prefer.
I agree with John Olsen's comments. I am concerned about the links on S. Michael Convey's response. They seem an attempt to put Apple in a bad light. How many computer parts for other makers are not manufactured in China?
Seriously? Safari is a decent browser, but it is in no ways the fastest. The only place that Safari is the fastest browser is on iOS. Chrome and Firefox are both faster. If you have replaced the default browser for "speed and security" issues, Safari should not be your best choice. Chrome should.
Well said! Just this week in the news, Google paid $60,000 to a white-hat hacker who found a security flaw in Chrome:
goo.gl/dKywv
This year alone, Google has paid over $300,000 in bounties to hackers who successfully find chrome vulnerabilities . Also, Chrome is now available (for free) on the iPhone, iPad, as well as Macs:
itunes.apple.com/.../...
Sadly, Chrome on iOS isn't really Chrome. Because of the restrictions that Apple places on apps that can be approved to the App Store, browsers must still use the stock rendering and Javascript engine. What this effectively means is that on iOS, Chrome is really just Mobile Safari with a Chrome façade. It has many of the features of Chrome for Android, but it's not near as fast, nor as secure. In fact, because of optimizations done on Mobile Safari, Chrome for iOS is much slower than Mobile Safari.
Yes it is. Unlike most people who just state their own opinion on the Internet, as if it were fact, I actually research my statements before I post any comment. I found multiple independent studies that confirm that Safari is not the fastest browser on Windows, under any circumstance.
Quoting Marilyn Kay Wiley Howard:
There are always exceptions, and while I seriously doubt that you are, it's certainly a possibility that in the very limited case of your particular computers, Safari is faster and more secure, but you would be the extreme exception, as many tests have proven.
We have iPads and iPhones in my congregation, and Android phones and tablets. I'm fairly certain that we've got a decent iOS/Android split in my ward.
Quoting John Olsen:
I do talk to some of the members in my ward about computer choice. As a web developer, people frequently want to talk to me about computers. And I haven't met a single person in my ward who uses a Mac. I'm sure there are some, but not that many.
I think Apple really hoped that iOS would get more people on Macs, but I don't think it has. Not based on my observations, anyway.
As Mark Peterosn aptly explains in his reply to Jason Kentner, "compatibilities " with industry standards are a prime consideration. It just so happens that newer browsers are more compatible with the standards.
Not even close to the best solution. Especially for computers in the church building.
I used to use Firefox, but now prefer Chrome.
Millions are still using xp, I have 300 computers and less than ten have non xp
In my experience, if something works in Firefox or Chrome, it works in Opera.
Opera holds a special place in my heart, even though I don't use it anymore. It was the first browser I started using when Microsoft stopped trying with IE, and Netscape was becoming too bloated to be usable. Opera was the first browser to support tabbed browsing, and now everyone does. Opera was my browser of choice for a very long time before switching to Firefox.
There are other free alternatives as previously mentioned that work much, much better.
Why use budget to support something that is 3+ years old when there is a better free alternative? Yes...67% of the church is on XP (MS ending support in 2014) BUT there are free quick alternatives for browsers.
Spend minimal resources on educating users about the alternatives so that funds can be dedicated to the future and not the past.
Thanks, I didn't realize that. I'm not surprised. I gave up all Apple products a couple of years ago. This is just another reason to not purchase their products.
I'm the front-end lead for the content portions of LDS.org (so not calendar, directory, etc). As such, this is speaking for those portions, not others (unless specified below).
We do support IE8, but do not expect that it will have a perfect experience. Users should be able to consume all content, but occasionally it may not be pretty. One of my happiest days will be when we drop IE8. IE9 is a decent browser and we don't have to jump through many hoops for it.
IE7 was dropped about a year ago (another happy day). It currently generates less than 1% of our traffic. Due to that low usage it has been dropped for ALL lds.org properties (including calendar, directory, etc).
We will of course continue to support IE. Which versions we support is what will change over the years. I anticipate IE8 will be dropped next year as a result of reduced usage (currently around 10%)
RSS feed for comments to this post