Browser Compatibility Details

Page Navigation

• Supported Browsers
• Unsupported
• Possible Future Support

Tested And Supported Browser Versions

Ideally, all browsers would render Web pages correctly, but they don't so far, and with so many of them existing, supporting all of them would simply be unfeasible. I try to support a variety of the popular ones, however, and below are the specific versions, with added commentary about functionality, notable display differences and errors, etc. However, none of my descriptions are exhaustive. The following browser names are arranged by my level of recommendation, with the browser I recommend most, on top, and if I support multiple versions of a browser, those are listed descendingly within the matching browser name.

List At A Glance

1. Firefox: 3.0.x, 2.0.0.x, 1.5.0.12, 1.0.7, .9
2. Netscape: 9.0.0.x, 8.1.3, 7.2
3. Opera: 9.6x, 9.27, 9.02
4. Safari: 3.x
5. Google Chrome: 0.2.x BETA
6. Internet Explorer: 7.0, 6.0
7. Lynx: 2.8.2

Detailed List

1. Firefox

   3.0.x (Current: 3.0.4)

   I originally coded and optimized my site for Firefox 2, but the recently released Firefox 3 improves on it. Compared to Firefox 2, my site overall looks sharper, more polished. Font rendering appears cleaner and smoother, and definitely so does the rendering of borders. I think the site even displays a little faster.

   2.0.0.x (Current: 2.0.0.18)

   There are no display errors or issues here, in relation to other browsers, since again, this is the browser I originally coded for my site for. I chose Firefox because it's an increasingly well-known alternative to the most popular browser, Internet Explorer (IE), one that follows Web standards more closely than IE. Also, Firefox is generally more secure and safer to use than IE, and is almost infinitely extendable with add-ons. However, in my experience, Firefox 2 uses more memory than IE, which could be a drawback on systems with relatively low memory (under 512 MB RAM).

   1.5.0.12

   All 1.5.0.x versions should display my site similarly, but I don't guarantee that. I don't test every minor release version (those with a version number change of less than .1), because I figure whoever is savvy enough to consider using alternative browsers such as Firefox, will also be savvy enough to keep them updated. During a light test (meaning I looked at just a few key pages), I noticed no differences between this and 2.0.0.x.

   1.0.7

   All 1.0.x versions should display my site similarly, but again, I don't guarantee it. I performed a light test using this version, and came across occasionally quirky behavior. The site renders well overall, except for a few incorrect margins in lists. However, I found that images would randomly fail to download, particularly in the Current Top 50 page.

   .9

   The above notes on 1.0.7 apply to this version too. However, another quirk I noticed was tables randomly failing to expand to their normal width.

2. Netscape

   9.0.0.6

   Released in October 2007, 9.0 sure looked impressive, featuring Firefox 2.0.0.12 at its core, and featuring a few new unique features. Because of the Firefox core, this browser renders my site correctly, just like the standalone Firefox 2. Note that essentially, however, Netscape is now dead; development and official support for the browser ceased on March 1, 2008.

   8.1.3

   This features Firefox 1.0.7 at its core, and so renders similarly as the standalone browser of the same name. However, in my light testing, I don't recall witnessing the quirky behavior I experienced in the standalone browser.

   7.2

   This features Mozilla Application Suite 1.7.2 at its core, and so should render similarly to that suite (I haven't tested my site in it). My light testing actually reveals similar behavior to Firefox 1.0.7, probably meaning both it and the Mozilla Suite core are based on the same layout engine, or similar version of it.

3. Opera

   9.6x (Current: 9.62)

   Opera is another worthy alternative browser, like Firefox and Netscape. However, its lack of precision in CSS widths made ensuring complete compatibility with the browser (while it was in the 9.2x stage), a slightly frustrating experience for me. Also, it renders partially transparent elements not very well, so I removed all transparency except on images. As for 9.5x and 9.6x, though, I can't seem to fix the width of my default horizontal navigation bar correctly, and, usually (at least for me), the "Extras" navigation link appears on its own row.

   9.27

   See my comments on 9.6x

   9.02

   I noticed no rendering differences between this and 9.2x. I think I could safely assume that all mainstream Opera versions 9.0+ render my site well.

4. Safari

   3.x (Current: 3.2)

   This browser does an overall good job of rendering my site; I even feel compelled to admit that the font rendering is excellent, even surpassing Firefox's, in my opinion. Plus, I took advantage of Safari's unique ability to add shadow effects to text; Safari is the only mainstream browser so far to support the CSS property, "text-shadow".
   
   Eventually, I hope to be able to support the earlier versions of Safari, however, or at least test my site in them.

5. Google Chrome

   0.2.x (Current: 0.2.149.30 BETA)

   Google's foray into the browser world seems promising so far. It features the WebKit engine that powers the Safari browser. Consequently, my site displays here in Google Chrome, very similarly to Safari.

6. Internet Explorer

   8.0 BETA

   I've configured my site to render in Internet Explorer 8, the same way it renders in Version 7, so, there should be no display differences between the two.

   7.0

   This version of IE adequately correctly renders most elements on my site, with a notable exception being the alternating table rows, which are absent because IE apparently doesn't properly display the partially transparent PNG image that backgrounds them.

   6.0

   I think I can accurately proclaim that this is the bane of Web designers everywhere, including me. Buggy and woefully incomplete CSS support frustrates to no end, costing me quite a few hours of time in devising workarounds. Make no mistake, I only support this browser because it's still so popular, meaning I would never endorse it. I tried my best to repair the rendering errors it caused originally, but one notable issue defies repair, the reduced functionality of my default navigation menu. In this IE version, submenus may or may not appear, but the top-level items link to either a page with the corresponding sublevel links, or the default page in the section, which too has links to the other sublevel items. If even that inconveniences, however, my left-hand navigation menu functions well. But, the best advice I could give is to upgrade to IE7 (for whoever's able and willing to), or better yet, consider an alternative browser (again, for whoever's able and willing to).

7. Lynx

   2.8.2

   For the typical Internet user, Lynx is a waste of time since it's only a text-based browser. However, if a site is still usable in Lynx, such as for extracting content, then that generally speaks well of the site's accessibility to handicapped visitors (who may rely on text-to-speech screen readers, for example). Even search engine spiders are "handicapped", perusing only pages' text and links and ignoring images and other graphics. So, obviously, my site is hardly anything worth viewing while in Lynx, but for whoever only wants to access the text content, this makes that task quick and painless.

Tested But Unsupported Browsers

I informally tested various browsers that for various reasons do not properly, if at all, support my site. I also most likely won't support any of these browsers because they're generally too old and buggy, and they (especially IE 5.5 and lower, and Netscape 4 and lower) hamper progress towards Web standards compliance.

List At A Glance

1. Firefox: .8, .7 and lower (Firebird)
2. Netscape: 6.2.3, 4.8 and lower
3. Opera: 8.54 and lower
4. Internet Explorer: 5.5, 5.01, 4.01 and lower

Detailed List

1. Firefox

   .8

   This version displays my site mostly well, but it suffers from quirky behavior, similar to .9 and 1.0.x. Additionally, it does not support individual table column backgrounds, so at times, the tables may be hard to read.

   Firebird .7 and lower

   Before .8, Firefox went by the name of Firebird. This version displays my site about as well as .8 does, but in my experience, some headings and other elements weren't aligned correctly. Whoever used Firebird has likely long since upgraded to Firefox, so I won't try to ensure my site's complete compatibility with Firebird.

2. Netscape

   6.2.3

   Significant rendering bugs plague my site on this version. Since this browser is anyway an immature release, and since most if not all Netscape users would had upgraded to at least 7.0, it is not worth optimizing for.

   4.8 and lower

   Netscape before 6.0 does not offer any support for the CSS my site uses; therefore, my site, although it could still be usable, will look plain if not horrible.

3. Opera

   8.54 and lower

   In my informal testing of various Opera versions ranging from 5.0 to 8.54, I noticed every single one of them rendered my site significantly incorrectly. This used to be a pay-for browser (though now entirely free), so given that, I figured all paying customers would make sure to keep their browsers up to date. Additionally, since this is an alternative browser anyway, I don't think any of its users would lag behind. So, I won't support any Opera before 9.0.

4. Internet Explorer

   5.5

   This version mysteriously crashed when I tried to open my home page, so, enough said. May we let this browser and its ancestors die a quick death.

   5.01

   I'm not sure why my site opens okay in this version and not in 5.5; that's a mystery. It's not worth opening in this version, however, for my navigation menu is totally inaccessible, as the default horizontal top menu and as the left hand vertical menu. Almost everything else about the display is wrong, as well, leading me to recommend the use of a more recent browser or even a text-based browser over this IE, any day.

   4.01 and lower

   In my experience, my home page would load about half-way in 4.01, looking horrible at that, before the browser crashes. I doubt there's any hope for older versions, which I can't even test on my computer, if for some reason I wanted to.

Possible Future Browser Support

In the future, I would like to be able to test my site in additional browsers, particularly ones for Mac and Linux, and perhaps even officially support those browsers. These include, in no particular order:

• Safari 2 (Mac)
• Konqueror
• Galeon
• Epiphany
• Camino
• and perhaps more I may think of in the future