Comments on: Progressive Enhancement, Designing for the Future

By: Lou Marin

Lou Marin — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 17:06:59 +0000

PE DOES NOT MEAN YOUR SITE WILL WORK.

I agree with Craig, it’s not really worth the time to make sure your content is readable for every legacy browser. Even if you did, that does NOT mean the user is going to have a meaningful experience. Take IE6 for instance – I can design a site using PE that looks acceptable on IE6, but if my javaScript doesn’t work, what good does it do the user if they can’t click on “next page” or a menu link? I used to have to code “hacks” for IE6 all the time just so the functionality works, let alone have the site look good.

I think instead of worrying about legacy browsers, we should be focused on educating our users about version upgrades. As a matter of fact, many people don’t even realize there are version upgrades available! And many more don’t realize there are other browsers besides IE.

Take a look at this and you will notice just how quickly IE6, and IE7 for that matter, is dying. Notice January 2009 to January 2010. Huge drop!
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp.

In conclusion, for me, it’s not worth doing PE just so legacy browser can see things correctly, especially when I usually develop javaScript/jQuery/AJAX intense websites. Nonetheless, excellent blog. I highly respect the proactive approach of PE vs GD and if nothing else, this is a good idea moving forward for future browser/CSS versions ;)

By: AMH

AMH — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 04:30:32 +0000

When you build this way the thing just works. It works for microbrowsers (in phones and pertable game machines), inarchaic browsers, and in text and special browsers to help those who have disabilities. I frequently test what I’m building in a browser called “off by one” which is a simple-stupid HTML 3 capable browser with no CSS or JS support. I want my web apps to simply work reasonably well in that, but work really great in the latest browsers with all of the extra bells and whistles. I don’t care if we call it PE or GD. I just need to assure my client that for all of the visitor, the thing will just work.
And that’s what the client expects of us, for the thing to just work for their customers. The customers with the newest browsers get all of the extra bells and whistles; for those with the older browsers, the thing just works.
Happy clients and happy users are the upside.
So, where’s the downside?

By: Jay Goldman

Jay Goldman — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:36:49 +0000

Great article!

A (minor) pedantic observation: the class on the UL really shouldn’t be “rounded_nav”. Clean separation of content and presentation people! Especially when it won’t display as a rounded_nav on platforms that don’t support it.

“nav” would have been a good choice. I would lean toward id=”main_nav” rather than a class, unless the same presentation is going to apply to more than one nav on the page. Possibly even a id=”main_nav” class=”menu”.

By: Mo Jangda

Mo Jangda — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:24:24 +0000

Progressive Enhancement presents somewhat of a problem for web developers, and is likely why graceful degradation seems like a more widely adopted approach. We’re a breed that likes to stay on the brink of technology and more often than not will be using the latest, greatest, unreleased browsers/technologies. So, we end up developing for and catering to these platforms first since that’s what we’re working with and then build downwards to older browsers. Maybe it’d be better if we all started our development on IE6, and then built upwards? ;)

But then again, I suppose this could just be solved with a deeper understanding of browser capabilities…

By: Matt

Matt — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:45:56 +0000

I love the TV analogy and the philosophy behind this approach but many users don’t really differentiate between browser versions, at least not to the extent that they would a TV – a lot of people don’t even know which version they use.
I’d worried showing off an awesome design to a client and then when previewed on their company computers the design has degraded to an extent where the nice touches which bring life to it have been lost.
I do agree with Chris though using progressive enhancement will take time, I would much rather spend time initially designing something that we can show to users how website x may look on a couple of browser versions than spend hours creating hacks and workarounds.

By: Chris Erwin

Chris Erwin — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 15:55:41 +0000

@Iain – I personally think you should be delivering the same content no matter what the device or it’s capabilities. This doesn’t mean every device has to have the same experience though. I think if you want to create a ‘lite’ version of your content it should live in a different area so I can choose whether or not I see the lite content.

@Nate – I totally agree that Progressive Enhancement and Gracefully Degradation seem very similar, and at first I didn’t quite get the difference. They are basically opposite sides of the same coin. GD makes sure that if something doesn’t work we have a back-up plan, or message the user and tell them why it’s broken. IE: “you have javascript disabled so this widget won’t work”. PE on the other hand has you build for the lowest common denominator and then layer complexity on that newer browsers and devices will be able to render. GD has you start with the best and work backwards. PE has you start with the worst and work forwards.

@Craig and Adam – Great discussion. Using Progressive Enhancement would take time and care, but I honestly think it would take more time trying to make a design look pixel perfect in every browser. We’ve all been there, we all know it’s painful to get IE6 to play nice. When we do try to make everything look exactly the same in every browser we end up with frivolous code and ugly hacks that really don’t help anything but the design. With PE your code will be cleaner and you’ll pushing the envelope with your designs because IE6 isn’t holding you back anymore. I think that’s worth it alone. Thanks for your kudos and respect, it means a lot to us all, and FYI, not many die-hard Leafs fans here at T+L, just sayin ;)

By: Derek

Derek — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 15:39:42 +0000

Great post Chris.

It’s easy at first to confuse progressive enhancement and graceful degradation but it really is more than semantics. This small change in philosophy and practice can have a huge impact on what’s output.

Thanks for this!

By: Craig Hooper

Craig Hooper — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 02:15:05 +0000

I hate typos. Can someone please read my post directly above, and fix ‘em?

My eyes are fucking bleeding right now.

Again, much respect.

Peace from Ottawa.

By: Craig Hooper

Craig Hooper — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 02:12:46 +0000

@Adam: I see your point, I really do, and I agree that it makes sense, in every respect. But I do still believe that we also need to really understand and grasp our target market as best we can, and then do our very best to cater to them, and what we feel would best support the specs they would most likely have. We can only make due w/ the specs and stats we have access to, but I do think many of us should pay closer attention to them—you really will begin to get a finger on the pulse of what is going on out there.

Again, I do not disagree w/ your comments. Maybe I am simply frustrated w/ older browsers, deprecation, and a pace of change that is not as quick as I would like. I am impatient. I will admit that. I bitch when my tea at Starbucks takes too long. I think we all (and I am just as guilty), from time-to-time, begin to think everyone has a Macbook Pro, w/ 4GB of RAM, 20” Cinema Display, etc. Reality is that do not. But I digress…

Great blog, by-the-way. You now have a new reader.

Another thing I think is really important: the simple fact that we can all have this conversation on a blog like this, in an intelligent, respectful, and productive manner. I really do like the type of reader this blog seems to attract, at least w/ the comments (for the most part).

Kudos to T+L, again, for doing what they do, which I have nothing but respect for them (even though they are most likely Toronto Maple Leafs fans).

By: Adam Thody

Adam Thody — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 23:01:54 +0000

@craig: The spectrum of support for CSS between IE6, and modern browsers is vast. Old approaches meant playing to the lowest common denominator. With progressive enhancement users are rewarded for using modern browsers with an improved experience, while IE6 users still see a usable website. Best of both worlds.