Manage updates with the Download App
January 23, 2008 4:00 AM PST
Perspective: Acid2, Acid3, and the power of default
See all Perspectives
- Related Stories
-
Microsoft's amusing standards stance
February 22, 2007 -
IE attempts a comeback
October 19, 2006 -
For Opera, smaller really is better
October 10, 2006 -
The Acid2 challenge to Microsoft
March 16, 2005
The test, published by the Web Standards Project, has been a tremendous success in weeding out browser bugs that stop Web designers from reaching pixel perfection in their pages. Safari and Opera ship Acid2-compliant versions, and the upcoming Firefox 3 will also pass the test.
Recently, Microsoft announced that Internet Explorer version 8 can render Acid2, and it showed a screenshot to back the claim. The news was received with joy and excitement in the Web-authoring community.
Finally, it seems, Microsoft has decided to take Web standards seriously. Designers will no longer have to spend countless hours trying to get their pages to look right in Internet Explorer while adhering to standards. Unfortunately, I think that the celebration is premature. I predict that IE 8 will not pass Acid2, after all.
But first, a few words about the next Acid test, soon to be published by the Web Standards Project: Acid3.
Acid3 will follow in the footsteps of Acid1 and Acid2; it's a tough one-page test that displays a quirky graphic when rendered correctly. No browser will pass the test at the time of its release. All vendors are equally challenged.
Whereas Acid2 was a static Web page, Acid3 will be a dynamic Web application. When browsers are improved to pass Acid3, it will become easier to write Web applications that work interoperably across browsers.
Acid3 is written for and by the Web community. Ian Hickson is the editor of the test. While he has a unique ability to write test cases that expose bugs in all browsers, he has also asked for help from others. Code contributions are welcome.
Acid2 and Acid3 both state that they should be tested using the default settings of the browser. Web usability consultant Jakob Nielsen has discussed the power of defaults for search results. It applies to many other areas as well.
People are more likely to use the default browser than an alternate browser. They are more likely to save a document in the default format than in an optional format. And they are more likely to display Web documents using the browsers' default settings than to change the settings.
This brings me back to Microsoft and my prediction that IE 8 will not pass Acid2. I suspect that IE 8 will, at best, support standards in a circuitous way--they will exert the power of default.
What will happen when you type http://webstandards.org/acid2 in your freshly installed IE 8? Will Acid2 be displayed correctly when you hit the test button?
Microsoft has been asked that question, but it has not given an answer. I think that the company is considering three possible scenarios.
One scenario could be that IE 8 will require users or authors to "opt in" to support standards. For example, in order to render Acid2 correctly, users could be required to modify IE 8's default settings. This breaks with the guidelines of the test, and IE 8 will therefore not pass in this scenario.
A second scenario could be that Microsoft requires Web pages to change the default settings by flagging that they really, really want to be rendered correctly. Web pages already have a way to say this (called "doctype switching," which is supported by all browsers), but Microsoft has all but announced that IE 8 will support yet another scheme.
If it decides to implement the new scheme, the Acid2 test--and all the other pages that use doctype switching--will not be rendered correctly.
A third scenario could be to hard-code the Web address of Acid2 into IE 8. This way, the page is given special treatment to make it look like the browser is passing the test. It should be obvious that this breaks the spirit of the test and doesn't warrant a passing grade.
I predict that Microsoft will implement at least one of these scenarios to limit the impact of standards. This would be damaging for the Web, and I therefore hope that my prediction is completely and absolutely wrong. The IE 8 team has shown that it can render Acid2 correctly. Now it's time for Microsoft to put its code to good use.
Biography
Håkon Wium Lie is chief technology officer of
See more CNET content tagged:
scenario, standards, Microsoft Internet Explorer, Web browser, Web application
62 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment
If I am the maker of a product, would I be inclined to let third parties tell me how to build it? I would try to serve my audience in the best manner, while insuring that my product continued to serve my business needs as well.
MS isn't a charity, it's a business, so take a little perspective.
That said, I don't especially like IE7 because MS is continuing their trend of dumbing down the interface and I expect IE8 to continue this trend.
As to ACID3, it is going to take much more than a rendering test to make browsers a stronger application delivery platform, with a major rearchitecture of the underlying protocols and systems to provide the efficient, consistent and reliable infrastructure, web applications need.
You're right: they are no charity. Supporting open standards is not in their business interest, that's why they will never change.
[i]"If I am the maker of a product, would I be inclined to let third parties tell me how to build it?"[/i]
If I were to build a car, and in my execution of building it, ignore the NTSB, California's Emissions Board, and such... I suspect that I'd be screwed.
You see, Acid is a standards test. Does the browser meet it? If not, then it shouldn't be allowed to claim that it does.
As for "dumbing down" the browser, that's a problem with Microsoft's UI department, not the Web.
[i]"As to ACID3, it is going to take much more than a rendering test to make browsers a stronger application delivery platform, with a major rearchitecture of the underlying protocols and systems to provide the efficient, consistent and reliable infrastructure, web applications need."[/i]
Umm, I'll try to say this as delicately as possible: bullcrap.
* Right now, Microsoft's ideas of "application delivery" (e.g. ActiveX) also happen to be the main avenues for web-borne malware infection today... in spite of Java (and JavaScript).
* If it doesn't render worth a damn, then the UI (and consequently the user experience) is going to suck.
* You all-too-easily confuse 'intranet' with 'Internet'. A protected internal network is fine for running web-borne apps that really dig deep. The public Internet is not.
/P
*raises glass* --To the ACID team!
"The IE 8 team has shown that it can render Acid2 correctly."
OK, but your own sayings tells us that they can be "faking it" thru
any one of the 3 options you posted!
Likewise, I'm sure Microsoft have the resources to support ODF in Office, but they prefer to use formats they have control over.
Now, all that being said. What frustrates me the most, is when I click on a link and the page looks all screwy in Opera. Obviously, the HTML/CSS is broken so that it looks good in IE. I don't care!!! Why can't they all look the same, regardless of browser. Or, when I click to view my GMAIL account and Google says the browser isn't compatible and I can try at my own risk. ARGGHH!!!
Please, please, please web browser companies, try and get along. Try and iron out the differences. Try and make each other look the same, even if it means breaking your browser. I could care less about a smiley face... :(
They can't all look the same regardless of browser because of Microsoft's anti-competitive practices! Instead of coding to STANDARDS, web developers are forced to code to specific browsers, and that means that they can only support one or two browsers, and the rest will be ignored.
Iron out the differences? Microsoft has been given the benefit of the doubt for many years, and yet they fail to deliver on their promises. Opera, Mozilla and others have tried to iron ou the differences for years, but Microsoft has been stalling, cheating, lying and doing everything it can to prevent competition.
where you want -- a web page looks how it's designed in any
standards-compliant browser. It's not that browser vendors should
get along, it's that they should fully conform to the standards,
which is a goal of the ACID tests. It will allow more money to be
spent on innovation rather than making it work with every browser.
However Opera is obviously biased here because of their massive lawsuit against MS.
I would ask this question:
If MS not following standards prevented Opera from succeeding, then how in the heck did Firefox do so well?
Why does Firefox decimate Opera in market share and is still growing?
Why do I use Firefox instead of IE on my computer?
If all these things are possible with big bad Microsoft in place it certainly seems Opera had the opportunity to get me to use their browser instead of Firefox.
One point I do agree with MS on is innovate don't litigate. The MS "monopoly" is not stopping Google one bit.
What massive lawsuit? All Opera did was to ask the EU to look into Microsoft's anti-competitive practices.
"If MS not following standards prevented Opera from succeeding, then how in the heck did Firefox do so well?"
Firefox did well? After all that money spent on Firefox, IE still has more than 80% of the market globally. It is still in a position to prevent competition.
"If all these things are possible with big bad Microsoft in place it certainly seems Opera had the opportunity to get me to use their browser instead of Firefox."
Not as long as Microsoft continues its anti-competitive practices. Even today, many sites still require IE. Even Firefox won't work.
"One point I do agree with MS on is innovate don't litigate. The MS "monopoly" is not stopping Google one bit."
Haha, that's funny.
Fact: Microsoft logged an antitrust complaint against Google last year.
Fact: Google logged an antitrust complant against Microsoft before that.
Apparently Google though Microsoft was engaging in anti-competitive practices as well! And apparently Microsoft's "innovate, don't litigate" is just nonsense. Because not only doesn't Microsoft innovate, but they complain about alleged anti-competitive practices too!
"One point I do agree with MS on is innovate don't litigate. The MS "monopoly" is not stopping Google one bit."
This comment ignores the fact that Microsoft logged an antitrust complaint against Google, and before that, Google did the same with Microsoft!
So what happened to your hero Microsoft, eh? Looks like they are concerned about anti-competitive practices as well!
90+% of the market and developers have no choice but to code
for us. What are you crybabies gonna do if IE8 is not standards
compliant? Refuse to let IE8 users access your web site? Yeah,
right.
Acid2, Acid3. pppffffftttt! What's that, some new drug?
Sincerely yours,
Steve Ballmer
Opera hasn't sued Microsoft. They have sent a complaint saying that competition doesn't work for browsers.
cant tell you how sick I am of jumping through hoops for IE. I
have started recommending to all clients that they move to
Firefox or preferably Safari because its just not worth it to be on
IE. I have been holding out hope that MS would do the right
thing with IE but I can see now that its just wishful thinking.
I'm sick of conforming to MS... its time they conform to us.
If it renders in ACID then you know you'll be advertised to most effectively.
I'm happy to say that both browsers I have fail.
I install Flash on Firefox for the rare times I want to see a flash file. Default is to run IE without Flash installed, Active X disabled, no video, no animation, no sounds, and large fonts. It makes for a sensible non-animated browsing experience - but don't let the marketing folks know cause it fails the acid test
Advertisers? Huh?
I would take a hard line approach like the EU and sue Microsoft and all other vendors that are not compliant.
IE costs every single country $1 millions per year in lost productivity - Governments and business have to pay web developers more money to make their web pages work!
THIS ISSUE EFFECTS EVERYONE!
Standards are developed for a reason - people are winging about "blu-ray vs HD-DVD", well, with web browsers, it is 10x worse.
PS - great article.
PPS - as a developer, we non built for Firefox, Opera and Safari and then spend countless hours getting the code to work on IE.
Check the source article out for yourself here:
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://alistapart.com/articles/beyonddoctype" target="_newWindow">http://alistapart.com/articles/beyonddoctype</a>
Sneaky, innit?
/P
Gecko and Webkit are the future. altenate useragents are the present.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.webstandards.org/2007/12/19/ie8-passes-acid2-test-2/" target="_newWindow">http://www.webstandards.org/2007/12/19/ie8-passes-acid2-test-2/</a>
Your reporters really need to grow a brain
together here.... :)
I have seen countless times that two browsers even Acid 2
compliant display incorrectly. I am not sure you can blame this on
IE. Some of it is just bad web design. Plus, is it not true that Opera
has a beef with Microsoft right now. Did they not go crying to the
EU about IE being in windows. Maybe they should complain about
Safari being in OS10 too.
Opera did not go "crying to the EU". They asked the EU to look into Microsoft's anti-competitive practices.
Similarly, Microsoft asked the EU and the FTC to look into anti-competitive practices by Google recently.
And before that, Google did the same to Microsoft.
So according to you, Google and Microsoft went crying to the EU as well.
> Maybe they should complain about Safari being
> in OS10 too.
How clueless can you get? Mac does NOT have a dominant position in the desktop market, and they are NOT abusing their position to prevent competition in the browser market.