A thorn in the side of many web developers is Internet Explorer 6. It's an old browser that has many annoyances that cause those creating websites to have to add additional code just to have things render as they should. Google, being a company that develops a web browser, has taken it upon themselves to solve this problem somewhat. It has just released an early version of a project called Google Chrome Frame, which, when used, will cause Internet Explorers 6 through 8 to use Chrome's rendering engine, not their default one. This allows stubborn users (or those in a workplace environment) to continue using the browser they want to, and no longer aggravate web developers.Google's official blog explains it in detail, and demonstrates how simple it is to get it up and running. All web developers need to do is add the following tag to their sites:
<meta-http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="chrome=1">
Once that's done, and everything is installed correctly, Google Chrome Frame detects the tag and promptly switches automatically to Google Chrome's WebKit-based rendering engine. If you're a web developer and/or Internet Explorer user, head over to the Chrome Frame page and give it a whirl. Google has released a video about the feature, as they usually do, which we have included below in HD.
Whoever this software is designed for: they won't use it, even if they were able to...
Also: the site owner decides that the page has to be rendered by webkit instead of the user, which makes it even more useless
Whoever this software is designed for: they won't use it, even if they were able to...
Mostly the people that still use Windows 2000, this OS does not support ie7
Although with the header, site owners can set if their site should use it (by default it'll use IE).
But it still requires the user to download or install. Which they won't do/can't do.
Did you RTFA?
on Windows Vista / XP SP2.
We're talking technology on a level here that even IE 8 lacks.
But yes, IE 6 is of course the most extreme example here. But this is just as much for IE 7 users lacking CSS2 support, IE 8 lacking some HTML 5 support, and so on.
I'm unsure of your reasoning here. The webmaster will normally know better than the user which technologies it's using. The main objective is not really to bind it to WebKit, but to higher levels of standard support, better on par with: Chrome, Safari, and Firefox. All of these.
I'm sure there are a lot of sites out there where the webmaster doesn't know or care about IE users. I just think it would be better to let the user decide as well, just like the compatibility view in IE8. Microsoft even has a list with sites that don't run in IE8, and where the tag isn't implemented, that gets automaticly downloaded by the browser.
<meta-http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="chrome=1">
Such a simple request, but something tells me that web developers won't add it. And I think they're missing the point at why corporations won't upgrade their browsers - it has very little to do with GUI at all. Those corporates that won't install IE8 certainly won't give the go ahead to install the Chrome Frame, which is essentially a new browser anyway.
So the IE engine is still in place. The Chrome engine can be utilized if the developer of the website calls on it.
<meta-http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="chrome=1">
Such a simple request, but something tells me that web developers won't add it. And I think they're missing the point at why corporations won't upgrade their browsers - it has very little to do with GUI at all. Those corporates that won't install IE8 certainly won't give the go ahead to install the Chrome Frame, which is essentially a new browser anyway.
Exactly. I don't know where this would be able to be used. It seems like an interesting technology, but interesting or not it's without a viable market I think.
Such a simple request, but something tells me that web developers won't add it. And I think they're missing the point at why corporations won't upgrade their browsers - it has very little to do with GUI at all. Those corporates that won't install IE8 certainly won't give the go ahead to install the Chrome Frame, which is essentially a new browser anyway.
Almost exactly what I was thinking. Also, partially because web developers think they have to add so much junk coding to their site to begin with, is what the issue is with IE6. It IS NOT that difficult to construct websites the are fully functional in EVERY browser out there.
As far as IE6, I would use that over IE7 anyday, so there probably are quite a few people out there who didn't like IE7 at all either and figure IE8 has to just as bad.
Another also is this just looks like a way for Google to get their paws into everyones computer and start phoning home like EVERYTHING of Googles does, and I will not tolerate that!
Such a simple request, but something tells me that web developers won't add it. And I think they're missing the point at why corporations won't upgrade their browsers - it has very little to do with GUI at all. Those corporates that won't install IE8 certainly won't give the go ahead to install the Chrome Frame, which is essentially a new browser anyway.
Exactly. I don't know where this would be able to be used. It seems like an interesting technology, but interesting or not it's without a viable market I think.
While this will be hard to push in the corporate sector, as with any "new" plugin like Silverlight too, I definitely would call the private sector usually without this obstacle a "viable market". It's possible users with this plugin will get enhanced versions of the websites with more functinality, but those in the office or using "vanilla IE" will get more restrained functionality. A bit like Flash or Silverlight, only now for the web itself, not just animations and games.
<meta-http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="chrome=1">
Such a simple request, but something tells me that web developers won't add it. And I think they're missing the point at why corporations won't upgrade their browsers - it has very little to do with GUI at all. Those corporates that won't install IE8 certainly won't give the go ahead to install the Chrome Frame, which is essentially a new browser anyway.
I agree. If corporations won't upgrade their browsers, then they won't install Google Chrome Frame. The corporate market for this is most likely limited.
If they don't distribute it far and wide, though, it's just a useless tech demo. Anybody taking bets yet?
And I am not quite sure what this has to do with the google toolbar. It is not like they are going to force it as a download with the google toolbar. They have never done anything like this before, it is more Microsoft and Apple that force downloads on you.
And I am not quite sure what this has to do with the google toolbar. It is not like they are going to force it as a download with the google toolbar. They have never done anything like this before, it is more Microsoft and Apple that force downloads on you.
Oh yeh because Apple including a browser with the OS is a totally nice way for them to get their numbers up
Google toolbar doesn't have to be forced on you, its just included with like every freeware app available on the internet..
it would be much more useful if it defaulted to chrome rendering and required an IE6 tag to switch to IE mode for backwards compatibility.
also if you can install this, just install IE8 or chrome itself.
Actually, that would make it more useless.
The point is that you can install the engine, and then on sites like YouTube where IE6 is, iirc, no longer supported or soon to not be supported, YouTube can tell the browser to use the Chrome engine.
It is opt-in, meaning in office environments the local web apps some offices use can still run on the IE6 engine, while other sites that simply can't support IE6, or can only offer limited support for it, can opt into the Chrome frame, if it is available.
m.keeley - it is like IEtab, except the web developer clicks the button for you
The point is that you can install the engine, and then on sites like YouTube where IE6 is, iirc, no longer supported or soon to not be supported, YouTube can tell the browser to use the Chrome engine.
It is opt-in, meaning in office environments the local web apps some offices use can still run on the IE6 engine, while other sites that simply can't support IE6, or can only offer limited support for it, can opt into the Chrome frame, if it is available.
m.keeley - it is like IEtab, except the web developer clicks the button for you
Wow, somebody who get it. This won't work on all websites, only those ones requesting the chrome plugin. This is a brilliant idea. It will help some people, just not those poor people stuck in a Jurassic IT department.
If you have the plugin installed, you can use cf:http://mysite.com to force chrome frame. It's not final yet, so my guess is that they will make it easier in a future version.
it would be much more useful if it defaulted to chrome rendering and required an IE6 tag to switch to IE mode for backwards compatibility.
also if you can install this, just install IE8 or chrome itself.
You guys with this stance seem to miss one important aspect here. Yes, usually it's because they NEED the IE 6 engine. But these users then often also just neglect all other browsers since it's too much of a hassle, even for the bulk of the sites out there were they do NOT need the IE 6 engine, thus helping to hold back the web. This plugin offer selectivity in which sites use the old IE 6 engine, and those who do not.
(also remember that this plugin is just as much for IE 7 and IE 8 -- those also suck in the department of modern standard support compared to the competition we're talking here... many of you seem to assume that IE 8 is alright, but it just recently came out with CSS2 support for christ sake.. We're talking SVG, Canvas, open audio/video via HTML5 here...)
Powerful web services requiring better standards support than what even IE 8 can offer.
Then why not just install and use Chrome and be done with it?
That makes more sense then, thanks for the info.
What web services? If your writing a web site in HTML5, your audience isn't going to be very large to begin with. Besides, writing a web site based on a standard that is still being drafted is a stupid move.
Also as the site developer has to apply this it is even less likely to make a difference. Especially considering only those who care about standards will apply it.
Its good to have IE6 breaking things... it means eventually it will get left behind. Workaround and fixes will just keep it on the shelf longer.
Correction "...what's the chance they have Google Chrome Frame installed?"
If they cant install things this bears no solution
... unless the company wishes to install it as a workaround to retain usability on a local interface
... this however still requires all other websites that are broken to implement it which they will be little to no take up on
If they can install software they could just install another browser
... okay they would have to switch from one browser to the other
... or use IE tab/compatibility mode? Which means all websites work better regardless of other people updating their markup.
... why install chrome plugin and extend IE 6's life, we want it gone. Next they will be having plugins to revive even older more useless software.
What difference are you expecting? Do you use any advanced features on your site that aren't supported by IE (like css for example
it'll be nice if Google just hijack trident with webkit and leave IE8's GUI intact. I'm sure they can cut a deal with Microsoft on this.
So, no this doesn't cure world hunger, it doesn't help everybody stuck on ie6/7/8, but it helps some of them.
This is just as much for the more recent upgraders to IE 7 and 8. These also don't support e.g. SVG or HTML5 well or even at all, or CSS animations. IE 8 is much better than IE 7 thanks to the CSS2 support, but IE still sucks at supporting modern standards, bar no version. Google themselves run the Acid3 test in the video for this to summarize what they're talking about.
This is just as much for the more recent upgraders to IE 7 and 8. These also don't support e.g. SVG or HTML5 well or even at all, or CSS animations. IE 8 is much better than IE 7 thanks to the CSS2 support, but IE still sucks at supporting modern standards, bar no version. Google themselves run the Acid3 test in the video for this to summarize what they're talking about.
IE8 is compliant with CURRENTLY RATIFIED web standards. HTML5 and CSS3 are NOT ratified and are still being drafted.
So no help to those that have old versions of windows.
Those may then not be able to run this plugin. OK. But that's expected. They can also not run, jeez, the latest version and any new versions of Microsoft .NET Framework? They have far greater issues than not being able to run this plugin.
It could help distribute the tech if the IE6/7 people at least get Chrome, because otherwise i don't think it will get a big distribution. If i were the stubborn user and read a friendly explanation in the setup, i guess i wouldn't mind installing it for the benefit of web devs without requiring a full separate browser.
Anyway, it's an excellent tool. I'd implement it in an instant.
Last edited by thartist on 22 Sep 2009 - 23:22
Dont you love how free and open Google is about choice?
I would think that the bigger problem is most web sites are not using standard coded, but coded specifically for IE, particularly IE6. It is the non-IE browsers that has problems rendering those sites.
I'm an Firefox user and this is where IE tab plugin is useful.
[/sarcasm]
The sad thing is, I'd actually trust MS more with my privacy and data than Google
The only browser i know that got the 3 engines its lunascape which looks like **** the UI
cf:http://mysite.com
and thinks they may make this easier to use at a later date.
I guess a lot of IT departments keep the continuing function of business systems that may be reliant upon IE6 available a higher priority than making Youtube or Facebook work properly.
It seems to solve one problem with the introduction of more. A standard user does not usually have the required permissions to be installing plugins on a works machine. A home user is more than likely going to either going to be oblivious to the problem completely and be using a browser that works, or if they have some nouse they wouldn't be using an out dated browser anyway. It seems that this is only going to appeal to a very small demographic of users.
And the second problem is not the render but javascript, for example the infamous ajax script: ActiveXObject('Microsoft.XMLHTTP');
Eventually meaning you can migrate from IE6, to IE8 or Chrome or whatever.
I'm not sure of the implications for MS. I guess they wont like Google fixing the problems for them that people have been moaning about for ages. Namely running the IE6 renderer and IE7/8 one simultaneously (in an easy fashion); and its a handy migration route to Chrome. Interesting... =)
IE6 users are split up into 2 groups, those who cannot upgrade (due to work restrictions) and those who simply do not care about upgrading.
Either way, it wont get installed.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.