Comments on: Comic Update: IT Job Security vs Google Chrome Frame

By: Michael Kozakewich

Michael Kozakewich — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 09:06:18 +0000

Browser features like InPrivate Browsing purportedly don’t work, either. If it was just the rendering engine and the javascript, people could opt in when they wanted to, but the way things are working right now, there are some pretty big tradeoffs.

Essentially, this isn’t something every IE user should be using, and I think there should be more efforts on Google’s part toward leaving the healthy cells and targeting the cancer. (Er, I’m talking about the businesses stuck on the IE6 intranet.)
Although, it only works on XP and up. That automatically discounts everyone on 98.

For those companies who are stuck with IE6 intranets, but who want to get out, this could be a blessing.

By: Kyle Weems

Kyle Weems — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:10:21 +0000

@Bill – I’m not entirely sure how secure/insecure CF makes IE (Each company has a different stance), but I’m inclined to believe that at least on IE8 it creates new access points that wouldn’t otherwise exist.

I doubt Google gives a damn either way. Which is a shame.

By: Bill Woodland

Bill Woodland — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:21:49 +0000

Supposedly, this plug-in also is a security problem for IE: http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=4063

Back to the drawing board for Google.

By: Kyle Weems

Kyle Weems — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:12:15 +0000

@Jeff – I’m not precisely missing the points of it. I’m merely well versed in how phobic my grandmother is to any unexpected message on her computer. As it stands, the elderly are the least of the concerns. The real reason for such a plug-in would be corporations, who’ve had software frozen in various states for a long time. I’m not entirely convinced they’ll want to download any plug-in anymore than they’d want to upgrade the browser, but I suppose it’s plausible.

@Ragdoll – I’d make the same wager. Good thing I don’t have a lot of cred to worry about. ;)

@Simon – I admit some IT departments might take the plunge because of the advantage of using it for Wave while having their internal websites still run properly. I’m just not convinced that IT departments in such organizations move with any notable alacrity.

@John – Wow. That’s something I hadn’t even considered. If you’re going to hijack a browser, maybe serving something usable to those with accessibility needs would be in order. You’d think Google would care about this sort of thing, but then, I don’t know their track record on that score.

@Brad – The crutch bit actually worries me. I hate IE6 with the kind of passion usually reserved for Jets and Sharks getting into a rumble, but to casually add a meta-tag and say “Hey, this counts as support” just rubs me wrong. But somehow I would not be shocked to see that becoming a trend for the lazier among us.

By: Brad C

Brad C — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 13:21:12 +0000

Man, those were my thoughts exactly when I heard about Chrome frame, the people who need it won’t or can’t install it. On the flip side I can see a lot of lazy web designers using the frame as a crutch not to support old versions of IE anymore.

By: Jeff Schiller

Jeff Schiller — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 22:18:27 +0000

@Janae: Here's a link

By: Jeff Schiller

Jeff Schiller — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 22:15:33 +0000

@Janae: I don’t follow you. Web pages can suggest that you install Google Chrome Frame plugin (and bring you right to the point where you click “Install”). Just as YouTube suggests you install Flash and other sites suggest you install Silverlight. This isn’t anything new.

I’ll state what I said again: CF helps the bleeding edge web apps that want to deploy to more people. If you don’t rely on SVG, Canvas or other HTML5-type bits of functionality – then CF is overkill.

By: Janae

Janae — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 21:49:49 +0000

@Jeff I would say for general end users, both cases are unlikely. How many grandmothers without their geek-savvy grandchildren would even know what Google Frame is, let alone that they need to plug it into their browser?

I know that my mom wouldn’t be using Chrome if I hadn’t installed it for her and showed her how to use it.

I think that putting a bandaid on the problem isn’t actually a fix – it’s just a bandaid. Awareness is really what’s needed (and now I’m talking about IE6 as if it’s a terminal disease… wait, isn’t it?).

By: John Foliot

John Foliot — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 21:10:03 +0000

… and then there is the whole accessibility issue.

Less than 24 hours after Google launched Chrome Frame, the ever-fastidious Steven Faulkner wrote:

“Google have released Chrome Frame a plugin-in for Internet Explorer “…that seamlessly brings Google Chrome’s open web technologies and speedy JavaScript engine to Internet Explorer.” What it also does is seamlessly bring Google Chrome’s lack of support for assistive technologies to Internet Explorer. If a page is viewed through Google Chrome Frame in Internet Explorer no content is available to the user of assistive technology (AT).”

http://www.paciellogroup.com/blog/?p=444

My other fear is that some well-meaning but completely stoopid script-kiddy will try and find some back-door, malware type means of installing Chrome Frame on users systems “to help them”, revisiting shades of the SonyBMG rootkit ‘scandal’ of 2005:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_CD_copy_protection_scandal

I’m not saying that Google will do this or advocates this, but if you make the gun and bullets, you have *some* responsibility when the gun goes off.

By: Bobby Jack

Bobby Jack — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:32:00 +0000

On one hand, this is great because IE6 support – for a certain percentage of IE6 users – just got a whole lot easier. On the other hand, IT departments just got another reason not to upgrade from IE6. But on the other hand, it’s not REALLY IE6 anymore – it’s an IE6 shell around WebKit. Sort of. I just can’t work out if I like GCF or not! :S