IE bashing is now officially justified

[AZRedhawk44]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet/8674678/Internet-Explorer-users-have-below-average-IQ.html


No mention of "Iron."

Also no mention of "Safari" users.  I'd expect them to score somewhere below IE6 users.


ETA:  Wow.  I was wrong about Safari users.


Regarding IE users:  I'm not aware of any windows Group Policies capable of being applied to FireFox or Chrome, which makes IE the default browser of choice for institutional environments that require a degree of control over the browser application.  Users that need to be "controlled" tend to have lower than average IQ's.  If Firefox/Chrome were supported by Group Policy mechanisms then you would see their aggregate IQ score drop as well, since more institutions would choose to use them as the default browser (since geeks tend to SET the default browser for an institution).

[Brad Johnson]

I saw the story on Fox.  Pffft.  It's bunk, and in more ways than one.

The "results" can be seen here...
http://www.aptiquant.com/IQ-Browser-AptiQuant-2011.pdf

Couple of things that stood out:

-They gathered data from a generic web page with no oversight for page stuffing or to insure data security and credibility.

-They presented the data in a single format with no correlation to anything concerning age, location, etc..

-Their conclusion that "individuals on the lower side of the IQ scale tend to resist a change/upgrade of their browsers." is totally and completely unsupported by the proffered data (which mentions nothing about asking respondents why they stayed with their older browsers).

-Their statement of "It is common knowledge, that Internet Explorer Versions to 6.0 to 8.0 are highly incompatible with modern web
standards." is, for lack of a better word, complete crap.  IE is the predominant brower, meaning it IS the standard.  If yuo're developing web apps you develop them for the biggest player on the block, then make changes so it might work with less popular products.  That's a simple matter of good business.  The statement is the kind of twisted illogic I would expect from some environazi to support their love of electric cars ("It is common knowledge that gasoline engines are highly incompatible with modern automotive standards.")  It is an idiotic statement not only from an economic standpoint, but from the standpoint of it being completely unsupported by anything else in the "report".

-Finally, the report is utterly undermined by it's massive, inherent lack of credibility.  Their data gathering strategy is mentioned in fairly generic terms and mentions nothing about controls or efforts to maintain data integrity, they give no supporting or correlation data for the data points they take great pains to say they gathered, and they do not present the web page or the test questions for review.

Just my two cents, but I think a quote from the company founder and Pres, Leonard Howard, is illuminating. 

(from an e-mail to Seattle Weekly) "We were just trying to add some features to our website, and found IE 6.0 and 7.0 to be extremely difficult to work with," he said. "So we thought of doing this study."

 Translation... "All our 'smart' people are too dumb to get a simple web page to work with the number one browser on earth, so we concocted a way to call people stupid rather than show our ignorance."

By the way, I googled the company name.  I went all the way to page 20 on the search results and the ONLY thing I can find about this company is this single study.  Plus, all the "News" on their web site consists of this one "study" plus blurbs for testing services they will be glad to sell you.  Not a single other credible story.  None.  They also list no history for the company.  At all.  Contact is by email only.  No phone, no physical address.

In short, the study is a bunch of bupkiss, but ignorant techno-heads can't see through the complete lack of credibility and are emotionally latching onto in order to fuel their hatred of IE.

Brad

[Perd Hapley]

Waste of effort, Brad. Plenty of smart people are unaware of alternative browsers, or have never felt inclined to try one, so it stands to reason that you'd have plenty of low-to-average IQ folks using the most common browser for the most common OS.

So even if it's true, it doesn't mean much.

[Regolith]

-Their statement of "It is common knowledge, that Internet Explorer Versions to 6.0 to 8.0 are highly incompatible with modern web
standards." is, for lack of a better word, complete crap.  IE is the predominant brower, meaning it IS the standard.  If yuo're developing web apps you develop them for the biggest player on the block, then make changes so it might work with less popular products.  That's a simple matter of good business.  The statement is the kind of twisted illogic I would expect from some environazi to support their love of electric cars ("It is common knowledge that gasoline engines are highly incompatible with modern automotive standards.")  It is an idiotic statement not only from an economic standpoint, but from the standpoint of it being completely unsupported by anything else in the "report".

No, it isn't crap.  Microsoft does not establish standards for HTML, and IE does not implement the standards correctly. Which means coding for it is a major pain in the ass, because it doesn't do what it SHOULD be doing, and you end up either searching for advice from people who have run into the same problems or you sit there and do a bunch of trial and error adjustments to make sure everything works and displays correctly.  It also makes it a pain in the ass to make a web page browser independent, because it doesn't implement the code the same was every single other *expletive deleted*ing browser.

[AJ Dual]

Well laid out rant of butthurt with lots of supporting arguments redacted for brevity.

Even as I read that article, I knew there's a ton of holes in their methodology that you could push battleships, icebergs, and maybe even Rosie O'Donnel through...

but I still LOL'ed... hard.   

[roo_ster]

No, it isn't crap.  Microsoft does not establish standards for HTML, and IE does not implement the standards correctly. Which means coding for it is a major pain in the ass, because it doesn't do what it SHOULD be doing, and you end up either searching for advice from people who have run into the same problems or you sit there and do a bunch of trial and error adjustments to make sure everything works and displays correctly.  It also makes it a pain in the ass to make a web page browser independent, because it doesn't implement the code the same was every single other *expletive deleted*ing browser.

This. 

[mtnbkr]

This.  

Not only that, but IE6 has such glaring and well known security holes that I almost question the intelligence of anyone remotely well informed that still uses it.  I'm not an IE basher by any means, but using IE6 is like walking through the ghetto with tons of bling and no gun.

Still, the "study" is a joke.  Some folks just aren't as concerned about their computer as others, regardless of their IQ.  Some really stupid folks are very upgrade-happy.  Of course, some of those types also push Linux as a solution to any computer problem.  You see, stupid people can't fix problems, so they switch systems.  That's easier than solving the root issues.

Chris

[KD5NRH]

(since geeks tend to SET the default browser for an institution).

And real geeks tend to carry a bootable flash drive with Linux, Tor, and whatever browser they want. 

[KD5NRH]

You see, stupid people can't fix problems, so they switch systems.  That's easier than solving the root issues.

When "solving the root issues" would involve rewriting most of the OS, it's a lot more productive to switch OSs.

[Tuco]

Brad,

What version of IE are you running?

 

[Fitz]

I specify IE for my users because of group policy.

That said, I do my personal browsing in Chrome

[mtnbkr]

When "solving the root issues" would involve rewriting most of the OS, it's a lot more productive to switch OSs.

90% of the problems people blame on Windows are user error and/or configuration mistakes.  The other 10% don't affect most home users and can be mitigated by security devices elsewhere on the network for corporate users.

Chris

[CNYCacher]

-Their statement of "It is common knowledge, that Internet Explorer Versions to 6.0 to 8.0 are highly incompatible with modern web
standards." is, for lack of a better word, complete crap.

The only thing wrong with the statement is that it's not really common knowledge, as you demonstrate.  IE6,7,8 do a piss-poor job of applying standards properly.  6 is an absolute nightmare and drags pages back to the 1990s. 7 is marginally better and 8 better yet, but they still lag far behind modern browsers.

IE is the predominant brower, meaning it IS the standard.

This isn't a VHS v. Beta or HDDVD v. Blu-ray thing.  You can't just create a crap browser which doesn't do what it is supposed to do and claim you are standard because 51% of people use it.  There are rules about how a browser is supposed to behave given specific code.  They are called standards.

If yuo're developing web apps you develop them for the biggest player on the block, then make changes so it might work with less popular products.  That's a simple matter of good business.

Developing web apps around IE and then trying to tweak them for other browsers is a noob mistake and a great way to make your project take 4 times as long as it should take, and be an absolute maintenance nightmare when it's done.  No, you develop everything to standards, and then sit back and watch EVERY browser except IE takes the page and does exactly what you intended.  Then when you are all done, you apply bug fixes for IE.  That is the state of the industry.

[Fitz]

The only thing wrong with the statement is that it's not really common knowledge, as you demonstrate.  IE6,7,8 do a piss-poor job of applying standards properly.  6 is an absolute nightmare and drags pages back to the 1990s. 7 is marginally better and 8 better yet, but they still lag far behind modern browsers.
This isn't a VHS v. Beta or HDDVD v. Blu-ray thing.  You can't just create a crap browser which doesn't do what it is supposed to do and claim you are standard because 51% of people use it.  There are rules about how a browser is supposed to behave given specific code.  They are called standards.
Developing web apps around IE and then trying to tweak them for other browsers is a noob mistake and a great way to make your project take 4 times as long as it should take, and be an absolute maintenance nightmare when it's done.  No, you develop everything to standards, and then sit back and watch EVERY browser except IE takes the page and does exactly what you intended.  Then when you are all done, you apply bug fixes for IE.  That is the state of the industry.

This entire post is truth.

[AJ Dual]

I specify IE for my users because of group policy.

That said, I do my personal browsing in Chrome

In a virtual machine.

Tethered...

 

[Fitz]

ROFL

[Brad Johnson]

I'm not defending IE, but they are the number one brower by a HUGE margin.  Even if they don't strictly stick to "standard" HTML protocols, they are still the biggest player on the block.  Intentionally ignoring them when designing a web page is like an aftermaket autoproduct mfg intentionally ignoring GM when designing a new product. 

You don't push aside your largest market just because you don't like the way their product works, but that's exactly what many people are doing when it comes to web pages.  They are pissy at IE and are "just gonna show them!" so they set up the site under "strict" HTML protocols so it will work with all the "real" browsers.  Sorry, but that's just plain dumb.  With very few exceptions its a perfect business plan for forever relegating yourself to the industry outskirts.

The vast majority of computer users don't give a flying rat fart what browser they use.  All they care about is that the page comes up and works when they click on the bookmark.  They could care less that Chrome or Firefox or UncleJedsElectricPictureViewer perfectly adheres to standards or protocols.  And when I say "work", I mean it all works, including playing nice with Windows and running all the web site apps.  They don't care that Firefox has fewer security holes than IE.  They DO care that a couple of their favorite web sites don't work properly with Firefox because they are *gasp* optimized for IE.

In short, just because you don't like something, or don't care for how their product works, you simply cannot afford to ignore the largest player in the game just because they don't play it the way you want.

Brad

[CNYCacher]

I'm not defending IE, but they are the number one brower by a HUGE margin.  Even if they don't strictly stick to "standard" HTML protocols, they are still the biggest player on the block.  Intentionally ignoring them when designing a web page is like an aftermaket autoproduct mfg intentionally ignoring GM when designing a new product. 

You don't push aside your largest market just because you don't like the way their product works, but that's exactly what many people are doing when it comes to web pages.  They are pissy at IE and are "just gonna show them!" so they set up the site under "strict" HTML protocols so it will work with all the "real" browsers.  Sorry, but that's just plain dumb.  With very few exceptions its a perfect business plan for forever relegating yourself to the industry outskirts.

The vast majority of computer users don't give a flying rat fart what browser they use.  All they care about is that the page comes up and works when they click on the bookmark.  They could care less that Chrome or Firefox or UncleJedsElectricPictureViewer perfectly adheres to standards or protocols.  And when I say "work", I mean it all works, including playing nice with Windows and running all the web site apps.  They don't care that Firefox has fewer security holes than IE.  They DO care that a couple of their favorite web sites don't work properly with Firefox because they are *gasp* optimized for IE.

In short, just because you don't like something, or don't care for how their product works, you simply cannot afford to ignore the largest player in the game just because they don't play it the way you want.

Brad

It's pretty obvious that you have a pre-existing dislike of a particular behavior pattern and are choosing to unleash some of your frustration about it in this thread.  Some of what I am saying probably sounds a little bit like this disliked behavior but in reality, it's not.

I am not advocating ignoring IE.  I am merely stating the facts that using IE as your model browser for writing your code is a failed approach.  Writing standards-compliant code and then adding little tweaks after you are done to compensate for IE's BUGS and to massage IE into behaving properly is the way to go.

Also, standards-compliant browsers make up the majority of the market as of earlier this year, so even if someone WAS advocating writing code to completely ignore IE, you would be wrong to assert that they are ignoring the majority of the market.

[Brad Johnson]

I am not advocating ignoring IE.  I am merely stating the facts that using IE as your model browser for writing your code is a failed approach.  Writing standards-compliant code and then adding little tweaks after you are done to compensate for IE's BUGS and to massage IE into behaving properly is the way to go.

That's what I was trying to say, just doing a poor job of it.

Also, standards-compliant browsers make up the majority of the market as of earlier this year, so even if someone WAS advocating writing code to completely ignore IE, you would be wrong to assert that they are ignoring the majority of the market.

Combined, the non-IE browser have more than 50%, but no single browser comes anywhere near IE's market share.  IE's share ranges from 38% to 54% depending on which source you use.  Median among the top four interwebz stats companies is 40.9% for June 2011.  The closest other browser is Firefox with 26.8%.  Chrome, Safari, Opera, and mobile apps make up the remainder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers#Summary_table

Brad

[CNYCacher]

Yeah, IE is the largest single player (for now), but for the purposes of this discussion, I was grouping the other major players together because they are more or less standards compliant.

[GigaBuist]

The "study" was a hoax:  http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_id=0030000054BU

[mtnbkr]

The "study" was a hoax:  http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_id=0030000054BU

I wonder what could be said about the intelligence of people who use such "studies" to bash others on Internet forums.

Chris

[Brad Johnson]

I wonder what could be said about the intelligence of people who use such "studies" to bash others on Internet forums.

Chris

*snicker*

Google it and see just how completely, fully, utterly, and totally duped those "smarter" IE Haters Of The World actually were.  There is much pie on many faces, and the crow is being plated for serving.  *gigglesnort*

Brad

[lee n. field]

Not only that, but IE6 has such glaring and well known security holes that I almost question the intelligence of anyone remotely well informed that still uses it.  I'm not an IE basher by any means, but using IE6 is like walking through the ghetto with tons of bling and no gun.

One of my customers has a user who uses an Illinois State Police web app.  Written ten years or so ago, for IE4 or 5, never updated.  At some point it stopped working on his computer. 

I could not get it to function again until I rolled back to IE6.  Which (because of the order things had been installed) required I roll off XP SP3. 

Long afternoon getting to that point.

[Perd Hapley]

http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_id=0030000054BU

The good news is that journalists will be more careful before accepting at face value whatever appears in press statements released by organizations lacking an established standing.

guffaw