Today’s comic features the woodland creatures side of CSSquirrel, with the Opera Moose, Naepalm (the animal version of Mindfly Studio’s very own Janae) and none other than IE9 himself.

I’m actually shocked by the IE9 beta that was released today. It’s got a slick, minimal interface that is such a radical departure from what I’m accustomed to from Internet Explorer that I’m left speechless. It’s also fast. Surprisingly so.

These two facts are just a small portion of what IE9 brings to the table. Improved CSS3 support. HTML5 elements are now supported, including beautiful elements like <video>, <audio> and and the sexy girl on the block: <canvas>.

I could wax eloquent, but I prefer to direct your attention to smarter people saying the same thing with better word choices, like Rey Bango. Go check his blog post on the topic right now.

One beef people are pulling out to disparage the new release with is IE9′s lack of support on XP. I get the gist of where they’re coming from: the less operating systems IE9 is supported on, the harder it’ll get to make hardliners upgrade off IE6 or 7. But the fact is, XP is old. Really old. You don’t see people complaining because Safari 5 isn’t supported on Mac OS X 10.4, do you? I’m sure the reason Apple didn’t do backwards support is the reason Microsoft did what they’re doing. Both are in the habit of selling OSes. And if you’re not calling Apple down for that behavior, it’s more than a little hypocritical to do the same to Microsoft.

(Frankly, If you’re using a beast of an old OS, I suggest you go to other vendors like Mozilla and Opera for your modern web experience. Or upgrade your OS. Which path you pick is probably based on your pocketbook.)

Speaking of which, I’m not an IE user. It’s catching up, but it hasn’t surpassed my experience with other browsers like Firefox or Chrome (although FF is getting chunky in a way that alarms me, but I believe version 4 is going to correct that). But it’s improving by leaps and bounds, and I think we should acknowledge the effort Microsoft is putting into burying the mistakes of their past.

If you’d like to check IE9 out, you can download the beta here.

I’m going to get flak for this one.

Today’s comic features Stephanie Sullivan, Faruk Ateş and the Squirrel embroiled in a classic conflict of tribe in a setting that might be a bit familiar for Apple fans with some history under their belt.

Let’s lay it out on the table: On September 1, Apple announced some devices so small you could swallow them whole. I think they also promised to re-release a book about a duckling, although I might have lost some critical details there. Apple was so jazzed about this event that they made sure to provide a live video stream for their millions of fans to watch, “based on open standards”.

Excited people enjoyed the quality of this stream; some, including Faruk, made sure to rub this in with comments like: “Hey Flash people! I’m live streaming HD video at 30 fps and my CPU is at 10-15%. TAKE NOTICE.”

It’s clear how much a fan Faruk isn’t of Flash with later tweets like: “@dstorey  That’s why I disagree: I think there’s plenty of people advocating HTML5 because of its Open Web technology aspect, Flash be damned.” (Edit: I’ve learned that I completely misconstrued what Faruk meant here, which was HTML5 rocking for it’s own sake, irregardless of Flash. My apologies.)

I bet that video stream was great. I also didn’t see it, and not for a lack of interest. The reason I didn’t is that viewing it required you to be watching on an Apple device, complete with Quicktime, an Apple plugin, using HTTP Live Streaming which is an Apple streaming protocol that may someday grow up to be an open standard but is far, far away from that.

Firefox on my PC was politely told to go jump in a lake when I tried to view said stream.

Let’s make this clear: vendor-specific device, vendor-specific plugin, vendor-specific streaming protocol. What, exactly, is “open standards” about this stream?

I understand the concept of tribe. Apple makes good products, and it’s worth celebrating their successes if you’re a fan. But in this modern, Internet-centric world, I abhor the concept of walled gardens. The Open Web we all celebrate, that many of us castigate Flash for apparently opposing, it doesn’t belong to any single company, including Apple. It doesn’t matter how slick their products are, how good their intentions, we can’t rely on any single vendor.

Stephanie’s (sarcastic) comment on Twitter sums up the problem the celebration of this streaming video represents: “Hey, not only have we created the most awesome walled garden, but now we want to push you to a single browser—ours!”

Is that the open web we want?

I don’t want to go back to ten years ago where I’d have to load up a specific browser, or worse yet, use a specific brand of computer, in order to access or use the content of the Internet. Heck, I don’t want to have to load a specific plugin (Flash, Quicktime, Silverlight, take your pick), especially in an ecosystem where vendors are creating devices that aren’t compatible with each other’s plugins. It doesn’t matter if the devices are in a slick glass case or blueberry-colored. I just want my web to work, regardless of who made the website, without a single vendor controlling the pipe.

Today’s comic expresses my love affair with cheesecake, which is perhaps the most inappropriately named desert ever. It is not a cake, my friends. It is pie. Cheesepie, if you will… although that sounds like some sort of cheddar-filled crust with that title. The comic also features Pete LePage as a Microsoft stand-in, being subjected to the horror that is Quirks Mode.

I know we’re up to IE8 now, and IE9 is deliciously around the corner somewhere, waiting to pounce upon us. We’ve reached a point in our lives where many of us web designers can now tell IE6 support to bugger off… and actually get away with it. But IE7 still has an unfortunate market share, and in Mindfly Studio‘s case it’s something we still actively support for clients because they have enough users of that variety to make it a worry.

Most of the time, this isn’t an issue. We are, dare I say, good at what we do. But there are times where we’re required to use certain antiquated CMSes for a client that can’t switch out of that environment… and the problems begin to kick in. Code you can’t completely control is bound to be code that is going to repeatedly kick you in the nuts.

Gentlemen, I like my nuts.

Last week I spent almost two full days having the boys repeatedly booted by a hotel reservation CMS’s code that was making my best attempts at goods practice CSS and HTML look instead like what happens when you stuff a stick of dynamite in a sock packed with rancid meat. No matter how I tried to wrestle things around, IE7 was determined to kick into Quirks Mode, doing the most unexpected, unusual things to my layout.

I eventually got better, but I’d very much like to email a shovel to either the CMS’s manufacturer or Microsoft with a note explaining where to shove said farm implement.

To those of you trapped on corporate intranets forever, let me say how badly I feel for you. I can only imagine that this is your daily toil, your repentance for some unspoken crimes. But for the rest of us, let me say how glad I am that we can see an end date out there for Quirks Mode and it’s foul, reprehensible style-mangling.

P.S.: Wouldn’t Pete make a great representation of mild-mannered Bruce Banner? (Cue Lonely Man)

Today’s comic features the chairs of the W3C HTML WG, Sam Ruby, Maciej Stachowiak and Paul Cotton as they and the Squirrel try to deal with the dangers of a cave monster in the dark. You’ll have to take my word for it, however, unless you follow the instructions on the comic to read the transcript. In a reversal of what is the norm, my sighted readers will have to take some extra effort to experience the joke; my visually impaired readers should be able to access the transcript like normal through the longdesc attribute on the comic.

Recently, these three personages made a Working Group decision about the fate of the longdesc attribute which you can read over here. The summary is this: the longdesc attribute, which is a method of serving detailed alternate text for complex images to visually impaired web users, is now obsolete and not a part of HTML5.

So much for backwards compatibility.

Almost a full year ago I addressed the issue of blind web users, encountering the topic on a personal level when I found that my commentary CAPTCHA at the time was challenging for a reader of mine because he was blind. A reader, at a web comic, who couldn’t even see the comics that my commentary accompany. I made a change to the site, setting up transcripts for every comic starting with that one, which can be accessed via either the longdesc attribute or an aria-describedby attribute, both attached to the comic’s image. I’ve been uneven at times in keeping the transcripts synchronized, but every comic since then has that alternate text so you don’t need operational eyes to be in on the joke.

I’m a bit confused to why it’s an issue for non-experts in the accessibility field to constantly be pushing against the presence of accessibility features that pre-exist HTML5 like longdesc. The most common arguments are that it’s largely unused. I know this is true. But that doesn’t seem like a reason to throw validator warnings for those sites that correctly use it for their users (like myself.)

Here’s the validator results for my comic page in HTML5 mode. Mind you, the page isn’t HTML5 yet (I’m really behind on a site redesign), but the one warning that shouldn’t be present is the last one: “The longdesc attribute on the img element is obsolete. Use a regular a element to link to the description.”

Excuse me?

Since when does a validator need to tell me how to design my site? The premise of a link on an a element is plausible (I’ve heard it a million times by now), but it seems to disregard the consequences for sighted users in some design experiences. In the case of the current comic page, I could wrap the comic in a link to the transcript, I suppose. That won’t work in the future design of the page due to interactions that I’ll be adding, however. Furthermore, for many sites, complicated images often have other functionality attached to a link around the image, like loading a larger version of the image or popping open a lightbox gallery. The only alternative at that point is add a separate link by putting an additional element on the page, aka, modify the design based on validation needs.

The fact is, most sighted users don’t want to click on an image description for alt text, because they can see the image. And non-sighted users have access to the accessibility features like longdesc. If a web developer is going to be providing alternative text for complex imagery to the point that he or she would actually create a description hyperlink, why wouldn’t this same person go an extra three inches and just use the longdesc attribute? The premise that a simple hyperlink is somehow more likely to be used is false: lazy people will be lazy no matter what.

I don’t expect this decision to somehow change. Not because I think it shouldn’t. I think it’s an incredibly stupid choice made to please punditry who largely don’t use any sort of alternate text for their sites whatsoever. I just think the issue’s been fought over for so long that those in the position to have the final say will gladly sit on the wrong decision just to move forward.

As a website owner who does make use of accessibility features for my actual blind users, I’ll take my validation error. The code was valid, it does work, and I don’t see any reason to clutter the visual design to implement a less elegant solution.

I’m not always comfortable with labeling technology-related positions as “evil” or “good” considering the difficulties of applying morality to anything in the 21st century without being told that it’s all subjective. However, considering the importance of the Internet and equal access to its content in today’s society, I think I’ll ask you all to excuse me when I say that net neutrality is a good thing.

Unless you’re a greedy content provider corporation interested in your bottom line. Then it might be a pain in your ass.

But since I’m not a greedy content provider, I’m going to go ahead and say that the recent joint proposal for an “open Internet” that Google and Verizon have made public is them knowingly abusing terminology, trying to falsely claim support for a neutrality their actions oppose, and are therefore being “evil”.

Today’s comic provides a desert-themed metaphor to my opinion on the topic, featuring Faruk Ateş and Manu Sporny, who stumble through the dunes with the Squirrel before encountering a familiar-seeming water merchant.

Let’s break down the timeline

• The New York Times publishes an article claiming Google and Verizon are nearing a web tier deal, which Manu Sporny tweets about here, tying it into a threat to net neutrality.
• Web citizens share their thoughts. Faruk’s pretty clear on his opinion here, which I think sums up how a lot of us feel.
• Google and Verizon jointly announce a proposal for the “open Internet”… sort of. An open Internet for those with wired connections.
• Web citizens share their thoughts. This blog post by Jeff Sayre indicates some serious problems with it, specifically in their fifth and sixth elements of the proposal. In particular, they feel that “additional, differentiated online services” should be exempt, and explicitly are stating that net neutrality shouldn’t apply to the wireless Internet, but only the wired one. Other people, like Faruk, are more brief but share their thoughts clearly like he does here.

I’m aware there’s plenty of idiots on the Internet. But it’s absurd, and childish, to claim you’re not threatening net neutrality when you’re in fact doing that exact thing and actually expect us to buy into the lie. They can try to pretend that how you access your water matters, but the fact is that water is water, regardless of whether you’re drinking with a straw or a spoon.

The op-ed piece that Google and Verizon put in the Washington Post today is just more attempts at obfuscation, claiming without any effort at being convincing that somehow the wireless access to the Internet makes it somehow a different Internet that should be subject to unique rules (or, better yet for them, no rules.)

I’m willing to say that manipulating the public through intentional deception (aka lying), especially on an issue as important as net neutrality, is evil. And it’s clear that Google and Verizon are (badly) attempting to do this for a mutual financial gain.

Welcome to being evil, Google.