Taxpayers should demand only the most cost-effective solutions from their government. So the U.S. copyright office is polling people to see how they feel about reducing overhead within the Library of Congress by creating only one online version of their new Copyright Preregistration system. You should respond to their request.
As any in-touch I.T. guru can tell you, there is a large battle being waged over what some people like to call “standards” for writing web software. Standards, some will argue, come from the W3C in the form of recommendations to which every software company should adhere. The strongest argument in favor of standards simply cannot be denied: If all web browsers conform to the same standards, then every web page will look the same in any browser.
Utilizing older standards, it is absolutely possible to write a single web site today, that will render identically in any web browser. However, in today’s world, many companies and governments are creating multiple versions of their web sites. There are two primary reasons. First, some companies wish to take advantages of features available in some of the web browsers but not others. Some would call these features “non-standard.” Secondly, companies are hiring programmers who insist upon using modern “standards” that are not cross-compatible, or those programmers simply do not know how to develop a cross-browser compatible site by utilizing the lowest-common denominator technology.
Regardless, it is in the interest of businesses and governments to provide their services to as many people as possible. Today, Microsoft’s Internet Explorer is used by more than 85% of the people surfing the web. Interestingly, it is also known to be the least compatible with the W3C’s recommendations.
If a business or a government was working to save money by creating only one version of their online software, it would absolutely make sense to design that site for Internet Explorer, assuming it was not within their capabilities to build it cross-browser compatible.
If a government or a business decided to adhere strictly to modern W3C recommendations for their only application version, they would reduce their audience to less than 15% of the available audience. Clearly, and without question, this would be a poor, poor decision.
Assuming the Copyright Office intends to reduce taxpayer expenditure by releasing only one version of their new software, they are making the right choice by choosing Internet Explorer. According to an article on News.com, the software will become cross-browser compatible in a future version anyhow, so why pay for two versions now?
In its request for comments, the office made clear that it plans to support other browsers in the future. In an interview, an attorney with the office said that the sticking point was Siebel software that guaranteed compatibility with only selected browsers--including both IE and Netscape 7.02, a browser with negligible market share--in the current Siebel 7.7 software.
The question is not which browser platform to design around. The question is: How much of your money do you want the Copyright Office to spend?
Your government wants your opinion before they make their decision.
If hand delivered by a private party, an original and five copies of any comment should be brought to Room LM-401 of the James Madison Memorial Building between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. and the envelope should be addressed as follows: Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Copyright Office, James Madison Memorial Building, Room LM-401, 101 Independence Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20559-6000. If hand delivered by a commercial courier, an original and five copies of any comment must be delivered to the Congressional Courier Acceptance Site located at Second and D Streets, NE., Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. The envelope should be addressed as follows: Copyright Office General Counsel, Room LM-403, James Madison Memorial Building, 101 Independence Avenue, SE., Washington, DC. If sent by mail, an original and five copies of any comment should be addressed to: Copyright GC/ I&R, P.O. Box 70400, Southwest Station, Washington, DC 20024-0400. Comments may not be delivered by means of overnight delivery services such as Federal Express, United Parcel Service, etc., due to delays in processing receipt of such deliveries.
If you believe that U.S. citizens who need this type of copyright protection will honestly have absolutely no access to a computer running Internet Explorer before the software is upgraded, then you may suggest that they spend more money building multiple versions of the same software.
If you believe that the U.S. Library of Congress should conserves some of your tax money and that most anybody should be able to find a computer running Internet Explorer before the software gets upgraded, you should contact them and encourage their plan.
Do it, or don’t let me catch you complaining about taxes, or having too little money.
W.S.