Chrome or Firefox (or browser-agnostic) for an intranet app?

S

10

8

If you were designing a core business intranet app for a small business, and wanted it to be as responsive-feeling as possible, where the staff are indifferent to being stuck with a certain browser, would you design for Firefox, Chrome, or test more widely than you need to just to avoid lock-in? Are there other factors you'd consider before placing all your eggs in one browser basket or not?

For instance, does Chrome have any speed-related features that other browsers lack that would need Chrome to be targeted in a cross-browser-unfriendly way, and if it did, would it be worth designing around them?

Sailer answered 22/1, 2009 at 15:10 Comment(2)

Do you really mean "indifferent"? That would mean they don't care, which would imply you could just pick one they would have to use and they would live with it.... – Anklebone 22/1, 2009 at 15:14

Yep, even the handful of power users are fine with being told they need to use one thing or another. Currently Firefox is the standard. – Sailer 22/1, 2009 at 15:16

E

3

What is the business' IT policy on browsers? It seems like this would determine what you write it for. Why write it for either, if every computer at your client's company has IE6? Lock-in is not a problem for a company as they can dictate the policy on what people use and must have on their computers.

Speedwise you're not going to find significant gains choosing one over the other unless you're doing specific tasks that play towards their strengths (look at the range in benchmarking for instance, some google tests have chrome hundreds of times faster, where as others have firefox beating chrome).

Ideally, you'd want it to be agnostic, but if you had to choose one though, I would go with Firefox, as it's a more mature browser. I'd be reluctant to target the app for a browser that is only a couple months old, especially one that just hit 1.0.

Excuse answered 22/1, 2009 at 17:34 Comment(2)

code.google.com/apis/v8/run.html ejohn.org/blog/javascript-performance-rundown kourge.net/node/122 – Excuse 22/1, 2009 at 22:41

Using standard HTML/CSS, and some agnostic JavaScript library (think jQuery) it really (in most cases) won't matter anyway. 'Cept for IE6, that is. ;) – Homegrown 10/12, 2009 at 8:14

B

15

Go browser agnostic. There's no telling when somebody will mandate a certain browser, and you'll be stuck having to redo a certain module because it used a special plug or feature only available with the browser now outdated.

Technically we're an IE shop here, but I make sure all my apps function on at least IE and Firefox, and I'm doing more testing in Chrome as well.

Bathurst answered 22/1, 2009 at 15:13 Comment(1)

Unfortunately, as you probably know, in the real world there is no such thing as "browser agnostic", only "lowest common denominator" – Hireling 22/1, 2009 at 17:32

E

3

What is the business' IT policy on browsers? It seems like this would determine what you write it for. Why write it for either, if every computer at your client's company has IE6? Lock-in is not a problem for a company as they can dictate the policy on what people use and must have on their computers.

Speedwise you're not going to find significant gains choosing one over the other unless you're doing specific tasks that play towards their strengths (look at the range in benchmarking for instance, some google tests have chrome hundreds of times faster, where as others have firefox beating chrome).

Ideally, you'd want it to be agnostic, but if you had to choose one though, I would go with Firefox, as it's a more mature browser. I'd be reluctant to target the app for a browser that is only a couple months old, especially one that just hit 1.0.

Excuse answered 22/1, 2009 at 17:34 Comment(2)

code.google.com/apis/v8/run.html ejohn.org/blog/javascript-performance-rundown kourge.net/node/122 – Excuse 22/1, 2009 at 22:41

Using standard HTML/CSS, and some agnostic JavaScript library (think jQuery) it really (in most cases) won't matter anyway. 'Cept for IE6, that is. ;) – Homegrown 10/12, 2009 at 8:14

H

2

Although being standards compliant is certainly have many advantages, if your application is UI heavy and you don't want to struggle with lack HTML widgets, I suggest using a Gecko based browser which you can build UI in XUL much quicker with all the familiar functionality of a desktop application than HTML from scratch. Since Gecko is open source and actively developed, you don't risk being stuck if you were using something proprietary.

Humble answered 22/1, 2009 at 17:25 Comment(3)

XUL's a good point, I'd forgotten about that. I wonder if Chrome will eventually support XUL or something like it? – Sailer 22/1, 2009 at 17:41

I don't think anything similar will ever be included in webkit, which is not designed with a kitchen sink. – Humble 22/1, 2009 at 18:10

Huh, I thought the next major version of webkit had a plumbing plugin. Oh well. ;) – Sailer 22/1, 2009 at 18:23

T

1

Always write properly - i.e cross-browser - since you never know when a new version of a browser might change old behaviour.

However, using Chrome's 'applicationising' of web apps is a good choice for intranets. (Especially if it helps stops users saying "my browser is broken")

Teleran answered 22/1, 2009 at 15:27 Comment(2)

If you're using 'properly' in this way in this context, doesn't that mean it's just as improper to write a platform-specific client? ;) – Sailer 22/1, 2009 at 18:6

If a language/technology is designed to be platform independent and you make it platform specific, that's not doing things properly. If the language used is designed for a specific platform, then it's a different story. – Teleran 22/1, 2009 at 21:37

A

1

"If you were designing a core business intranet app for a small business, and wanted it to be as responsive-feeling as possible, where the staff are indifferent to being stuck with a certain browser."

Chrome. You can make chrome-less web app, so you can make your intranet app looks like and act like a desktop app(fast Javascript helps a lot here). You can even make an application shortcut with Chrome so there'll be no more address bar displayed, more screen real estate.

Chrome launch a tad faster than other browsers too, everytime I want to read something on Stackoverflow immediately, I use Chrome.

Adiel answered 22/1, 2009 at 18:13 Comment(0)

F

0

"and wanted it to be as responsive-feeling as possible, where the staff are indifferent to being stuck with a certain browser"

Sounds like you need a smart client application.

EDIT: By smart client I mean an application that runs seperatly from a browser and uses web services to talk to the server.

Fielder answered 22/1, 2009 at 15:10 Comment(4)

Smart in what way? Would there be much difference between this and a web app optimized for Chrome? – Sailer 22/1, 2009 at 15:53

Yes. Lots. For example you could use the Win32 API, .Net's windows Forms, Java etc. – Fielder 22/1, 2009 at 17:47

Web services? Why not talk to the server directly if you're doing a client application? – Sailer 22/1, 2009 at 18:2

How is using a web service not talking to the server directly? – Ame 10/12, 2009 at 8:31

C

0

The cheapest way to go would be to tailor the intranet app to the standards of the organization. If they are paying you by the hour, really it is their decision as to what you spend your time on. If they say it is FireFox only, then that is the way it should be done. If it is a fixed bid, then you might have some leeway, but ultimately it is their decision. They may have reasons why they don't want it to work with chrome (I can't think of a reason, but that doesn't mean there aren't some.)

Cheung answered 22/1, 2009 at 15:25 Comment(1)

Sorry, I wasn't clear, they're fine with changing the standard browser. – Sailer 22/1, 2009 at 15:36

J

0

Be browser agnostic.

My experience is that while there is a strong preference for a browser (of their like) in tech communities, the actual user population does not really bother...or to put in other way, there is no significant difference between the modern browsers that would matter for the end-user.

I think IE and Firefox (IE especially) are designed for standards conformance where as Chrome might be lenient, especially to work great with Google apps which themselves are not really w3c spec conformant.

A safe bet is to design your app per w3c standards and be assured it would work the same in most of the browsers.

Juliettajuliette answered 22/1, 2009 at 15:41 Comment(0)

B

0

To be politically correct, web standrards-wise, you'd have to make it presentable in the major browsers, and all that jazz about existing company config. However, what about the advantages of using Chrome with Gears?

Biradial answered 22/1, 2009 at 15:42 Comment(1)

That's what I'm wondering--do the immediate benefits of Chrome with Gears outweigh the potential future disadvantages of lock-in? – Sailer 22/1, 2009 at 17:30

M

0

I'd go as browser-agnostic as possible. We've got a couple systems like this, where technically they only support one browser, but we make really sure they at least function (even if they're not pretty) across the IE - Gecko - WebKit universe.

(On the other hand, if I was going to be starting one of those from scratch today, optimizing for Chrome rather than IE would be really, really tempting.)

Miniskirt answered 22/1, 2009 at 18:21 Comment(0)

Recommended topics

Hot tags