[thelist] RE: [ - Examples of Importing XML into Netscape or Mozilla? - ] - Jeff

[Michael KImsal]

aardvark wrote:

>>From: Michael Kimsal <michael at tapinternet.com>
>>
>[...]
>
>>As more and more people start coding CSS, XML and Javascript to
>>enhance both the development experience (faster) and the end
>>user experience (more interaction without large round trips to the
>>server) the browsers are starting to *need* a stronger
>>application-type interface. The fact that there are some browsers that
>>*can* do this and some that can't will mean that more people will
>>continue to use the one(s) which can give a better end user experience
>>for web applications.
>>
>[...]
>
>i would like to propose that because some browsers can do this
>does *not* mean more people will use them (because they give a
>better experience for end-user web apps)...
>
>instead, it means more developers will code for these browsers...
>
Quite correct.  I don't mean to imply that there's a one-to-one causal
relationship there,
but the fact that certain browsers can't provide good end user
experiences is
ammo against them.  Once that ammo is gone, there's fewer arguments
against it.
There are already some reasons in favor of alternative browsers
(security being
the first to mind) but people are willing to live with poor security in
exchange for
a good user experience (they are probably mutually exclusive to many
people, but not
to everyone).  When the user experience and developer experiences
improve for
Mozilla, those issues, along with increased security, will ideally begin
to sway more people
towards it.  One "feature" alone does not a revolution make, and IE was
hardly a sweeping
success in its first incarnations.  There was a steady stream of
improvements
(I won't get into bundling) which MS has made to gain mindshare among
users and developers,
and NS/Mozilla was essentially sitting out the past 3-4 years.
 Hopefully they'll be
able to make a comeback, though I'm not holding my breath for the short
term. :)