Three recurring challenges in web development

While there’s many things that keep us web developers busy, I think there are three challenges that keep coming back and bugging us all the time. I’m not talking about any special pitfalls when it comes to programming itself here. Mostly, I’m talking about limitations that we just can’t overcome - the user’s choice.

What do I mean by choice?


For starters a user can choose which browser they use. When I started out coding some years back, usage logs showed us some 90%+ percent use of Internet Explorer 5(.5)/6. Although it was always good to also think of those poor non-IE users, there were also considerations whether or not it was actually worth the hassle (and the money) to fix IE-induced bugs in other browsers.

Along came Firefox to make the world, err … web, a better place - meaning that it all of a sudden made sense to actually stick to the rules set by the W3C. And soon there were more than 25% of users that actually used Firefox, going up to more than 35% right now - that makes it the market leader if you calculate IE6 and IE7 separately (usage statistics taken from here).

Now, what does this mean for web developers (i.e. programmers and designers)? Nowadays, we have to worry about satisfying (X)HTML/CSS needs for all kinds of different browsers. Sites like Position Is Everything keep us up-to-date with the latest tricks how to trick IE into producing valid visual output. Today’s web developer really needs multiple environments to validate that their code produces acceptable results in Windows, Linux and Mac OS X with all their different browsers. Günther probably spends a good third of his time making his perfectly valid HTML and CSS work in IE6 and IE7.


I’ve had huge discussions about using JavaScript, especially since AJAX surfaced and made our lives on the web more interactive. While one can safely assume that a good deal of people have JavaScript activated in their browsers, it is still mandatory to think of those few souls that don’t - either because they don’t want to have it active or because they’re for example using a mobile device to surf the web.

I’ve got used to a certain approach when it comes to relying on JavaScript. My answer is: don’t. When developing a site, I usually start out developing it for use without JavaScript. As soon as the basic stuff works, I start adding AJAXy stuff (if I use it at all) and some things to make a user’s life easier, such as pre-filled form fields that automatically reset their values when being clicked. This way, people with JavaScript deactivated can still use the site while others are rewarded with some fancy effects and added functionality. I would generally suggest sticking to that rule when building a site that is being used by a user base you can hardly determine or instruct upfront.

The case is different for stuff like admin areas. With backends and admin stuff, you can usually rely on the fact that there’s only few people using it and you can set up a constraint telling them that they need to have JavaScript enabled to use it. While it may still be a good idea to maintain a fallback for use without JavaScript (say, the user is on a business trip and uses a computer in an Internet Café or logs in using their iPhone), I think in this case it acutally is valid to require JavaScript for functionality.


While fixing browser bugs is a necessity due to market shares and incompatibilities and the whole JavaScript-optimization doesn’t necessarily include lots of extra work if done properly (especially when using Rails), dealing with users that have their cookies deactivated can quickly become a real pain in the ass. Most users think of cookies as ways of advertising and other crazy stuff, they don’t realize that even a simple thing such as a shopping cart usually relies on cookies. Even if the site doesn’t store the shopping cart itself in cookies, it most definitely uses cookies to store the user’s session ID.

Of course, there’s alternatives like PHP’s way of adding its wicked PHPSESSID to each and every URL. This doesn’t only look ugly but also bears some crucial security issues - all of a sudden, you have to validate that the supplied session ID is actually used by the user it was generated for (i.e. storing session IDs and their corresponding user IP addresses in the database), expire the session manually and whatnot. This usually just gives me a headache and isn’t worth the fuzz.

I tend to be harsh when it comes to users disabling their cookies - I just don’t allow them to view the site. I’d have the standard approach to check whether or not cookies are enabled and then redirect the non-cookie users to a site that politely ask them to accept cookies for the site. I do this because I simply think it’s not economic to spend hours just to pave the way for some 0.something per cent of extra-paranoid users (especially since these users are - in my humble experience - usually the ones that buy/use the services least and complain about it in the forums/support area most … so you don’t even really want them to use your site).

Summing up

These are three recurring issues that I see in my every day work. As I said, I’m strongly in favor of ensuring cross-browser compatibility (although you should really take a peek at Andy Clark’s Transcending CSS where he makes some valid arguments against hacking HTML/CSS just to make sure web pages look the same in every browser). I usually also agree when people are saying that a page should be functional without JavaScript. But: I definitely don’t want to spend hours fixing security holes just because some paranoid users deactivated their cookie support.

That being said, I’m looking forward to hearing your opinions about it.