What Does the Demise of Internet Explorer Mean for the Future of Website Design?

On January 21, 2015, web developers everywhere let out a great collective sigh of relief. Why? Because that was the day Microsoft announced that Windows 10 will ship with a brand new browser, code-named “Project Spartan,” thus effectively signaling the inevitable demise of the old stalwart Internet Explorer. According to Microsoft, Spartan is designed to provide a more interoperable and reliable experience with advanced features including the ability to annotate web pages, a distraction-free reading experience and integration of Cortana for finding and doing things online faster. While this all might sound appealing to the average user, it is particularly welcome news for web developers, for whom Internet Explorer has long been regarded as the very bane of their existence. You see, each browser interprets code in different ways, and each has different versions that offer different capabilities. While Chrome, Firefox and Safari do have their differences, for the most part they have the same capabilities. However, Internet Explorer, or IE, has historically been the odd one out, notorious for causing issues for website designers due to its lack of capabilities, especially in older versions like IE7 and IE8 (which, for example, does not support such simple design elements as rounded corners and text shadows). But while web devs are raising their glasses to toast IE’s impending downfall, you’re probably left with more than a few questions. After all, since IE has been the standard Windows browser since the mid-1990s, that little blue “e” icon has become synonymous with the Internet for many everyday users. So what exactly does Microsoft’s decision to do away with Internet Explorer mean for you – and most importantly – for your website? Let’s explore (no pun intended).

The challenges of IE

On today’s Web, the various browser manufacturers have agreed on a certain set of standards that they will all obey. This is incredibly important for web designers (and, by extension, for businesses that have websites), because it means that as long as your website conforms to those agreed upon standards, it should be displayed in a fairly consistent manner no matter which browser a visitor uses to access your site. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. In the mid-to-late 1990’s, Microsoft was engaged in a heated race for market share with the other most popular browser of the day, Netscape Navigator. Instead of agreeing on a singular set of standards, these two companies tried to outdo each other by adding proprietary features to their software that would interpret and display websites differently. This created a lose-lose scenario for web designers and businesses, as it meant that you either had to develop two different versions of your site (one for each popular browser) or dictate which browser visitors should use (this is why it became commonplace to see disclaimers on sites reading something like “Best viewed in Internet Explorer 4”).  This exclusive approach is what led some companies to build the software they use to run their business for those specific platforms. Even now, almost 20 years later, companies that continue to use that software may still be dictating that their employees must use a woefully outdated browser. This is where IE begin to falter, especially in the court of public opinion. As newer browsers, such as Google’s Chrome – which now ranks as the most popular according to many studies – began to enter the market, people started using them at home. They quickly discovered that these modern browsers were not only much faster but that they also included many new features and capabilities. It didn’t take long for consumers to develop a strong preference for these newer browsers and to begin pushing back against their IT departments’ requirements that were keeping them shackled to antiquated versions of IE at the office.

Microsoft realizes the problem

You might think that Microsoft would love any scenario in which people are forced to use their browser. On the contrary, however, it has created a major PR problem for them. The same IT departments that would not allow employees make the switch to a new browser also prevented them from upgrading to newer versions of Internet Explorer. The reality is that those new versions of IE are very capable browsers that, like the others on the market today, conform to the standards that are an important part of modern web design. Microsoft wants customers to begin using these new versions of their software because the continued use of versions that were originally released 10 years ago or more has created a vey negative perception of their product in the marketplace that has tainted the Internet Explorer brand as a whole.

The struggles of web designers

While old versions of web browsers certainly pose problems for consumers, they are doubly challenging for web designers and for the companies they build sites for. Testing newly developed websites in legacy browsers to ensure reliable backwards compatibility  is a critical step in the process that requires significant time and effort, creating overhead that adds to the timeline and budget of every project. Exactly how many people are visiting your site with those outdated browsers? It depends on the nature of your business. For instance, my company works primarily with IT professionals, and our traffic numbers indicate that the majority of our audience uses newer browsers (including many on mobile devices). As a result, we don’t need to develop and test for very old browsers because our visitors simply aren’t using them. However, if your business serves a more broad base of consumers – and especially if many of your customers are likely to be older and/or less tech savvy – it is important to ensure that your site performs equally well on new and old browsers alike. A good place to start is by examining the analytics data for your site, which can tell you which browsers are being used to access your site. One of the nice things about newer browsers like Chrome and Firefox (and even current versions of IE) is that they auto-update. This means that they automatically download and install their own updates so we no longer need to worry about radically outdated versions of the software. However, older versions of IE do not do this, which is why we still struggle to support software that came out over 10 years ago. With Microsoft’s new browser – which we expect will include auto-update approach – we may hopefully have arrived at a point where even that legacy software is forced to be rewritten for the new age and we can all say a final goodbye to outdated browsers.

Better days ahead

So what does the emergence of Project Spartan mean for your business and your website? In the short term, you may not feel an immediate impact, but you likely will begin to reap the benefits in the not-too-distant future. If Microsoft succeeds in its objective of transitioning customers away from old versions of IE and adopting their new Project Spartan (or other more current and capable browsers), by the next time you are ready for a redesign, the amount of time required for browser testing may be significantly reduced because the browser landscape will have gotten less diverse with the continued shift away from those legacy browsers, which can only mean good things for your project budget! Another benefit will be a greatly reduced potential for users to encounter problems on your site due to browser compatibility issues, which of course means less chance that a frustrated visitor will need to call your company for support (best-case scenario) or will give up on your site and go elsewhere (worst-case scenario). Finally, the release of a new, more capable option from a company that has been at the forefront of browsers for years (despite popular opinion, Microsoft remains a power player in the world of the Web) is a great thing because it gives users more options. And if Microsoft is successful, their competitors will inevitably up their game as well – and that is good news for everyone!

Don’t throw dirt on IE’s grave just yet

While there is certainly much to look forward to with the future release of Project Spartan, unfortunately, we can’t call time of death on IE yet (as much as we might like to). As AdWeek’s Krista Monllos explained to NPR, Spartan is in for an uphill battle: “By introducing a new browser, you're asking people to change their daily habits. If someone is used to Chrome or used to whatever it is they use, they probably don't want to change.” After all, Internet Explorer still accounts for almost a quarter of the present-day desktop browser market, and IE8 is still used by almost seven percent of people in the United Sates. Therefore, moving forward, it will be important to keep a finger on the pulse of the shift in these numbers – as well as any changing trends in your own analytics data – in order to ensure that your site is designed and tested to serve the needs of your users, no matter where they may fall in the continuum of browser evolution.

---

Mistrustcasting: A Tale of Two Brands

One day recently, a high school math class decided to conduct an experiment to ascertain whether Oreo’s Double Stuf cookies actually contain twice the “stuf” – crème filling – as implied by the treat’s name.

The class’s work yielded the faintly damning discovery that the Double Stuf contain only 1.86 more filling than the original incarnation – a shortage of 7 percent. Hardly headline-making news, right? After all, most folks would agree that it’s close enough and simply applaud the teacher’s creative, hand-on approach to this classroom exercise.

And that’s where Oreo should have left it, but they chose not to. Instead, when contacted about the matter by Business Insider, the company issued a formal statement claiming the math class had reached an inaccurate total and that their Double Stuf recipe does indeed include fully twice the amount of filling. So Business Insider put together its own experiment, which came down in favor of the math class.

Oreo’s response made this story bigger than it needed to be, and as a result, the brand’s overall reputation took a hit. After all, if they felt the need to lie about 7 percent of their filling, what else might they be hiding? The cookie controversy served up good fodder for a few days of news bites and morning drive-time humor, but given the public’s lasting love for Oreo, the Double Stuf kerfuffle blew over in short order.

More than filler

The Double Stuf debacle is an entertaining – if relatively innocuous – example of just how easily the integrity of even the most well-known brands can be called into question. That’s why the task of building and maintaining trust in your brand is such serious business. For more evidence, let’s take a closer look at BP and SC Johnson, two huge corporations with very different approaches to brand integrity – and very different reputations.

Both companies deal in products under close scrutiny in today’s increasingly green-minded business and marketing environments. BP is the world’s sixth largest petroleum fuel interest, and SC Johnson is one of the world’s largest producers of household cleaners.

If you look at their advertising and PR, both companies use strikingly similar language, which is logical, given that each company has a vested interest in portraying itself as environmentally responsible and forward-thinking.

But the court of public opinion tells a very different story, making it clear that their efforts to define themselves are yielding drastically different results.

BP’s big problem

More than three years after the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, BP is still dealing with the aftermath on many fronts. In addition to the illegal practices which led to the spill, the company has been found guilty of felony for lying in its response to the disaster and has paid out more than $42 billion in clean-up costs, settlements and fines.

BP was found to have engaged in multiple deceptions before, during and after the spill. The company repeatedly refused to disclose accurate or timely information for months after the disaster, which resulted in a far greater impact on the environment than would have happened if the company would have been immediately forthcoming.

A visit to BP’s website shows that the spill still dominates much of the company’s PR efforts. That’s as it should be.

But even as BP touts its gulf clean-up efforts in carefully crafted feature articles, it releases defensive statements whenever its efforts and motives are called into question. For example, in a statement dated August 28, BP responds to recent allegations by the state of Louisiana claiming that BP has not adequately addressed the clean up. Here’s the money quote that leads the statement: "Any suggestion that BP has failed to address the clean up of the Louisiana coastline is both false and irresponsible.”

No acknowledgement of BP’s responsibility, no conciliatory tone indicating that BP is committed to repairing the damage it caused, no apology for all of the suffering. Just a hardline defense, with copy that reads like it was drafted by a stereotypical Hollywood lawyer. This antagonistic tone is at odds with the shiny, happy stories that appear throughout the special section of its site dedicated to the Gulf of Mexico restoration.

This stark discrepancy between rosy PR fluff pieces and sharp legal statements defines the very heart of BP’s brand integrity issue. This is a company whose practices are squarely at odds with the public image it attempts to project.

Start with the logo

Petroleum is hardly a “clean” business; the best any oil company can offer is diligent safety practices and commitment to mitigating its environmental impact.

When BP debuted its green sun logo in 2001, the flowery “helios” mark, it was a clear effort to position the brand as somehow “cleaner” and more environmentally conscious than its competitors. The green sun implies a very different focus than, say, an oil derrick looming over a seascape. Yet in the decade plus since its logo shift, BP has actually decreased its efforts in the arena of solar power, finally announcing plans to shutter them altogether in 2011.

The fact remains that BP is first and foremost an oil concern, with all the environmental risks that such companies encounter. Until BP’s research spending on alternative fuels exceeds the 50 percent mark, that logo is a blatant lie.

Follow the money

Many brands seeking to build trust with the public establish charitable foundations or make contributions to causes. With its image in desperate need of a reboot, BP has made significant donations to gulf cleanup efforts and regional charities that focus on hunger and housing. These are all high-profile, press-release-ready efforts.

It’s certainly better than nothing, and BP does seem to grasp the idea that it needs to spend big to show its concern.

But you won’t find much in the way of marine environmental research on BP’s books or any slowdown whatsoever in the company’s high-risk deepwater drilling projects. No, right along with its more environmentally friendly efforts like wind and biofuels, BP is still using the lion’s share of its research dollars to pursue the same kind of risky drilling that damaged the Gulf of Mexico so dramatically.

As John Bell writes in Forbes Magazine, “BP’s talk about caring for the environment was for naught, as its actions failed to match its message.” Small wonder that a site like boycottbp.com is still growing strong. Or that the brand ranked at number seven in MarketWatch’s 2013 poll of companies with the worst reputations.

SC Johnson’s evolving transparency

While SC Johnson certainly faces environmental concerns, it does have an inherent advantage over a company like BP. After all, a Gulf-scale tragedy is highly unlikely in the arena of household cleaners.

But this field carries its own set of risks. Many of SC Johnson’s products – insect repellents, cleaners and baby shampoo, to name a few – are used by families on a daily basis. And in the last decade, concerns have increased about how these types of products impact not only the health of customers but the greater environment as a whole.

In large part, SC Johnson has responded to such concerns with a careful trust-building approach that includes admission of mistakes and a proactive willingness to change corporate policy and behavior. While there have been a few bumps in the road, even their response to setbacks has been characterized by a tone that emphasizes responsibility over defensiveness.

Open policies

One major area of concern with consumers about household products is the ingredients. Many cleaners and air fresheners tout a natural, organic identity while their labels contain a long list of unpronounceable components unfamiliar to anyone lacking a degree in chemical engineering. In an effort to counteract this, SC Johnson launched its "What’s Inside SC Johnson" website in early 2009, where it has published complete ingredients lists for almost all of its products.

However, the company’s track record is not perfect. Its “Greenlist” label, featured on Windex and other products SC Johnson claimed passed its highest environmental standards, was the subject of several consumer-advocate lawsuits. Because the label closely resembled other third-party designations for independently vetted products, the suits rightly called into question the legitimacy of SC Johnson practice of promoting its own – potentially misleading – self-proclaimed green standard.

Response to criticism

One of the ways in which SC Johnson has been most successful in upholding the integrity of its brand is in its response to controversy. The company trades heavily on its identity as a family-owned business, something that can be difficult to buy given its global scope and multi-billion-dollar annual sales numbers. But when issues arise, it is not a corporate lawyer that does the talking for SC Johnson; it’s Fisk Johnson, CEO and true blood family representative.

In the case of the Greenlist issue, Johnson reiterated the company’s commitment to the environment, but admitted its misstep. “When you're out in front of an issue like this, it means that you're not always going to get it completely right, as was the case with this particular issue," he said.

SC Johnson has also demonstrated a willingness to change its formulas and policies ahead of any legal mandate – and also ahead of many competitors. The company has reduced its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 42 percent since 2000, and it has installed two wind turbines at its largest global manufacturing facility, enabling that facility to produce most of its electrical energy onsite.

Integrity gets results

All of this earnest effort is certainly paying off for SC Johnson. In 2012, the United Nations Foundation for Social Change honored the company as a global Leader of Change, and in 2013, the company received an EPA Climate Leadership Award for Aggressive Goal Setting.

SC Johnson’s mix of staying true to its family roots, increasing transparency with customers and demonstrating a willingness to change combines to reinforce its reputation as a brand that operates with integrity. While the company isn’t perfect, its actions maintain consistency with its image. By any measure of consumer confidence, that’s a powerful – and to borrow from BP’s ill-used lexicon – sustainable strategy.

---