I went through hell making sure my websites were compatible with the brand new Google Chrome browser and I went so far to blow off a few extra hours making sure Safari support was good… I’ve even (believe it or not) had to make changes to accomodate Firefox when they release newer versions.

Let’s not forget who came up with the XHHTPRequest, The build in WYSIWYG editor capabilities and innerHTML…

I think Google just has a bunch of hacks working for them who can’t put the extra effort forward to make it work.

I mean come on… WAVE is a server side technology… The least you could do is put the effort forward like the GMAIL team did to support every browser.

Wave sucks and this is a big black mark on how I feel about the company as a whole…

Obiviously Google browser would be used by many, hence its market share has gone up. You can understand it from the search engine market share graph itself http://www.hermesmyth.com/internet_marketing_blog/2009/09/search-engine-market-share/

That might very well be the case for you, but I think a lot of people think otherwise.

Is it mischief and a ploy? Sure, sort of. Is it a disservice? I don’t agree. I think what’s important here is at least the implications that Microsoft will step up, and/or popular services on the web will require more and better support.

But like I mention in the post, I’m on the fence about this: I think content, in one form or the other, should be accessible, but at the same time, financially and time-wise, I understand a move like this.

Lars,

Agreed that Chrome is no Messiah for the web, and I hope, like you, that those aspects you mention you like will come through.

In terms of harder push for Silverlight, isn’t that already happening? Difference is know, the web browser landscape is more varied, so they can’t choose technology on their own anymore.

Google Chrome accessibility definitely has a way to improve.

And about Opera, yeah, I can really understand why they consistently neglect to mention or acknowledge them.

That said there are two aspects I like:

1. The potential upgrade of MSIE 6 and 7 for some users.

2. Microsoft feeling the heat so that they must prioritize MSIE 9, perhaps by throwing a few more really good programmers on it.

However:

1. It might backfire, so MS instead opts for an even harder push of Silverlight.

2. Chrome still has zero accessibility for blind people and other users of screen readers. Until Google makes this a priority to fix they are still not good enough in my book.

3. The prompt that the users see to install Chrome Frame or another browser should really mention Opera as well.

In many ways Google acts as if their main enemy is Opera. This is only one more piece of evidence towards such a conclusion.

Good point!

Eli,

Read your post.
I agree that the home users part could be discussed, and yes, if the installation process becomes super-smooth, maybe it could be an option.

When it comes to System Admins and wanting to upgrade, at least my experience have been that that is not the case. The ones I’ve seen in various companies mostly care about just locking the users down and make sure they can’t do anything that might cause any problems.

But, if Google Chrome Frame becomes very easy to centrally distribute, and proves to be no hazard, stability risk etc, it might at least get some implementation.

Either way, I hope this move improves the web interface developing landscape.

I’d like to hear your take on my opinion, see Elis.ws.

Good point. I think it’s a difference, though, because Google Wave will support any web browsers up to a certain standard, which is every web browser based on open source code.

And it is a browser war, but more against IE, than just for Google Chrome.
But sure, I agree, locking users out isn’t a good thing either.

Ah, right, the proxy server block as well…

Andreas,

Absolutely – it’s a delicate balance.