Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Wikitech

Features vs. Internet Explorers

 

 

Wikipedia wikitech RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


cmcmahon at wikimedia

Jun 13, 2013, 8:22 AM

Post #1 of 5 (268 views)
Permalink
Features vs. Internet Explorers

In recent times QA has expanded our automated cross-browser testing: we
re-organized our builds, pointed the tests to beta labs wikis as well as
test2wiki, and we've written a number of new tests. In the course of that
a lot of our builds for Internet Explorer versions began to fail.

I've just cleaned up most of the build failures and discovered what I think
are some interesting facts about support for older versions of Internet
Explorer across the set of WMF features.

Not supported in IE6:
AFTv5 by design
VisualEditor by design
UniversalLanguageSelector by design
Interlanguage "Add links" feature known issue
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49139
PageTriage by design
PDF export broken: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49485
Page editing: degraded UI
ACUX display garbled but functions, known issue

Not supported in IE7:
VisualEditor by design
UniversalLanguageSelector by design
Interlanguage "Add links" feature known issue
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49139
PageTriage by design
PDF export broken: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49485

Not supported in IE8:
VisualEditor by design
UniversalLanguageSelector minor issue
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49447
Interlanguage "Add links" feature known issue
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49139

Not supported in IE9:
AFTv5 broken for now
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49445(AFTv5 has a
history of IE9-only issues)
VisualEditor broken for now
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49187
Interlanguage "Add links" feature known issue
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49139

One other interesting note: we have an effective test for GuidedTour (it
has turned up regression bugs) that runs properly across all the browsers,
so thanks E3 team.
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


mflaschen at wikimedia

Jul 5, 2013, 3:07 PM

Post #2 of 5 (216 views)
Permalink
Re: Features vs. Internet Explorers [In reply to]

On 06/13/2013 11:22 AM, Chris McMahon wrote:
> In recent times QA has expanded our automated cross-browser testing: we
> re-organized our builds, pointed the tests to beta labs wikis as well as
> test2wiki, and we've written a number of new tests. In the course of that
> a lot of our builds for Internet Explorer versions began to fail.

Yes, IE is particularly an issue for this, since it often requires a
fair amount of specific work. However, our browser compatibility
requirements in general are somewhat in limbo. James Forrester marked
the guidelines at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Compatibility#Browser
historical, rightly pointing out they were somewhat unrealistic (they
didn't reflect what people could afford the time to actually do).

Now, we need something to replace them. This might be a case for an RFC.

Matt Flaschen

_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


bvibber at wikimedia

Jul 5, 2013, 3:44 PM

Post #3 of 5 (215 views)
Permalink
Re: Features vs. Internet Explorers [In reply to]

On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Matthew Flaschen <mflaschen [at] wikimedia>wrote:

> Yes, IE is particularly an issue for this, since it often requires a
> fair amount of specific work. However, our browser compatibility
> requirements in general are somewhat in limbo. James Forrester marked
> the guidelines at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Compatibility#Browser
> historical, rightly pointing out they were somewhat unrealistic (they
> didn't reflect what people could afford the time to actually do).
>
> Now, we need something to replace them. This might be a case for an RFC.
>

I'm reluctant to put a blanket policy on something like browser
compatibility.

Browser compatibility really comes down to several separate things:
* HTML/CSS/JavaScript feature support -- does the browser actually supply
the things we need?
* Bugginess -- do the browser features we make use of work as expected?
* Feasibility of workaround -- can a little code fix it, or is there a
fundamental limitation we're stuck with? (Crashing browsers are hard to
work around except by disabling a feature, for instance...)
* Cost/benefit of degrading/disabling the feature -- is the feature
actually needed, or can folks ignore it or work around it?

These are going to balance out differently depending on the wiki feature,
on the browser features it depends on, on what the feature does/is used
for, and the relative ease of user workarounds like updating or using
another browser.


In the specific case of VisualEditor, that project should have its own
compatibility policy, which I would expect to be more stringent than the
general read-the-text-on-the-wiki compatibility requirements (which
accommodates all kinds of weird stuff like "no CSS support" and "JavaScript
is disabled").


If we must set a blanket policy for MediaWiki, I think it should be pretty
general, something like:
* *current* release of all major browsers with 'evergreen' releases
(Chrome, Firefox, Safari)
* a chosen *subset* of major versions of IE
* a clear expectation that some advanced features won't work with some
versions of some browsers, and a sane policy for acceptable fallbacks?


Fallback examples:
* VisualEditor -> editable source with preview button
* drag-n-drop photo upload -> upload photo by clicking on a button
* video -> still photo(s)
* 3d rotating molecule viewer -> still photo of molecule
* GPS -> geo-IP lookup
* round corners -> square corners

-- brion
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


mflaschen at wikimedia

Jul 6, 2013, 8:54 PM

Post #4 of 5 (213 views)
Permalink
Re: Features vs. Internet Explorers [In reply to]

On 07/05/2013 06:44 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:
> These are going to balance out differently depending on the wiki feature,
> on the browser features it depends on, on what the feature does/is used
> for, and the relative ease of user workarounds like updating or using
> another browser.

Agreed. I think we should set a go-to baseline, while allowing
considered deviations (e.g. VisualEditor temporarily supporting no
Internet Explorer version but having it as a part of their roadmap).

It's also important to set what browsers we absolutely won't crash or
throw JS errors for (even if full functionality isn't there) (this
should be automatically testable in most cases).

> If we must set a blanket policy for MediaWiki, I think it should be pretty
> general, something like:
> * *current* release of all major browsers with 'evergreen' releases
> (Chrome, Firefox, Safari)
> * a chosen *subset* of major versions of IE
> * a clear expectation that some advanced features won't work with some
> versions of some browsers, and a sane policy for acceptable fallbacks?

Agreed, that's kind of reflected in the current (deprecated) Class
A/Class B, though it could be more clear, and people are not happy with
the current actual versions (e.g. IE6+ being class B).

Another example:

search auto-complete -> search

Auto-complete is a feature people expect for "modern" browsers, but it's
okay to just provide search for the others.

Of course, we should use feature detection to avoid throwing errors, and
support extra browsers when possible.

Matt Flaschen


_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l


delirium at hackish

Jul 9, 2013, 5:06 AM

Post #5 of 5 (216 views)
Permalink
Re: Features vs. Internet Explorers [In reply to]

On 7/6/13 12:44 AM, Brion Vibber wrote:
> If we must set a blanket policy for MediaWiki, I think it should be pretty
> general, something like:
> * *current* release of all major browsers with 'evergreen' releases
> (Chrome, Firefox, Safari)
> * a chosen *subset* of major versions of IE
> * a clear expectation that some advanced features won't work with some
> versions of some browsers, and a sane policy for acceptable fallbacks?
>

Safari is a bit complex, because Apple forks stable branches for
different versions of OS X, so it's not quite an evergreen browser.
*But* these stable branches sometimes have significant back-end
rendering functionality quietly backported into their point releases.
That can make assuming the latest version of the rendering engine is
everywhere close to correct, but not always. The currently maintained
branches are 5.1.x (OS X 10.6) and 6.x (OS X 10.7, 10.8). The 5.0.x
branch (OS X 10.5) is definitely on an older rendering engine, since it
hasn't had a point release since 2011; its market share is declining but
still has around 10% of Safari users.

-Mark


_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l [at] lists
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Wikipedia wikitech RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.