Is it considered bad practice (and how bad) to run different JavaScript for IE? Currently im writing some JavaScript and the simplist way to work arround IE quirks seems to be to check for browser version and run different code

var browserName = navigator.appName;

if (browserName == "Microsoft Internet Explorer") {
  //Do some stuff
//Do other stuff

It's quick and works well but does lead to duplication of code and feels "hacky".

  • 18
    One might say that it is bad practice for Microsoft to write a browser to where such Javascript is necessary
    – maple_shaft
    May 16, 2012 at 13:14
  • 3
    @keppla Best practice questions are a better fit for programmers May 16, 2012 at 13:19
  • 2
    Not only is it not bad practice, its absolutely essential. Just look at what JQuery has to go through. May 16, 2012 at 14:50
  • 2
    @keppla - not really. He's not asking how to do it, but whether it's good practice or not.
    – ChrisF
    May 16, 2012 at 15:42
  • 8
    The really bad practice in the question is how you are testing for what to do, use capability detection not browser detection, the way you are doing it or much failure and pain will ensue.
    – user7519
    May 16, 2012 at 15:46

6 Answers 6



Inferring functionality from a user agent string is a weak and error-prone test. Though relatively common, in this day and age I would say it is certainly considered a bad practice.

For example jquery has a function for detecting which browser a user is using and it's been deprecated since version 1.3

Therefore: Don't do UserAgent sniffing to decide what the browser is or what it's capable of.

Best practice

The accepted best practice for handling the differences between browser capabilities is to use feature detection.

There are a few libraries around for this, the most well known is probably: Modernizr. Modernizr makes it easy to tailor your javascript to the abilities of a browser. It works by detecting what's available; not guessing based on a UserAgent string (except as a last resort fallback) and simply adding classes to the html tag. This makes it not-only possible to easily handle different cases in your js - but also to address certain deficiencies with css alone. e.g. (purely for illustration only):

ul.menu {
ul.menu:hover {

# A touch device can have no hover - so show it always
html.notouch ul.menu {
    display: block;

It’s ok when it’s valid JS and there are no abstractions

It's not exactly bad practice, even though it got better, browsers aren’t 100% identic.

But, before starting special cases, look carefully, if they are really special cases and not just idiosyncracies of another browser. In this case, you should search for a solution using standards all browsers share (caniuse.com is of great help for that).

When you are sure that it is indeed browserspecific, imho you should look if you can use a library that hides this detail from you. Cross Browser Compatibility is a hard thing to get right, so if someone did it for you, just profit.

As a last resort, do what you have to do ;)

  • 2
    +1 for libraries. jQuery, Dojo, Prototype, Ext.js are just some examples.
    – pap
    May 16, 2012 at 13:06
  • Yes. I was reluctant to add recomendations, because until now i just used prototype and jquery, so i am very biased.
    – keppla
    May 16, 2012 at 13:07
  • 2
    it is NOT ok to check for browser name then run different code. Make it clear there is a difference between browser sniffing and feature sniffing
    – Raynos
    May 17, 2012 at 7:25
  • Raynos, youre right. luckily, the better answer is the accepted one :)
    – keppla
    May 18, 2012 at 12:06

If by "do some stuff" you mean "use IE specific facility x" and by "do some other stuff" you mean "use more common facility y", then it is better practice to just check for the presence of x or y.

I'm guessing that you are currently not using any external Javascript library. In that case, I would check to see if jQuery supports the task you are trying to accomplish. If it does, I would use it.


Use the IE specific comments <!--[if IE &gt; 6]>... or something like that. Works on all super crappy browsers IE? -> IE8, but not on IE9+ which is considered sort of ok as a browser.

The bottom line, once you deal with super crappy browser that needs workarounds, it's ok to do whatever is necessary, but avoiding turning well written baseline code into a hackatron.

Hopefully, IE will go away one day, and you will be able to delete the hackatron code and leave the well written baseline only.


I think it is better to defer this kind of decision-making to the framework designer, and use one JavaScript framework that encapsulates this kind of complexity. Nowadays we have AngularJS, JQuery, ReactJS, and so on, doing things without a framework would get you this kind of difficulties.

  • Your answer does not answer anything.
    – Andy
    Jun 12, 2016 at 11:20

Well, assuming you're actually interested in learning JavaScript, the best practice is this: Prefer testing by absence/existence of methods and write normalizing functions. So a totally lame example but it hits three principles:

    document.getByClass = function(){ //look at all elements, check for class etc...
else { document.getByClass = document.getElementsByClassName }
  1. Don't browser sniff.
  2. You might as well eliminate a little bit of the DOM cruft as you go. The DOM API's purpose is to be explicit, not to go easy on your carpal tunnel if you've failed to notice how freakishly flexible JS is. The barely-eliminates-any factor is what makes the example lame.
  3. Cache to a new function. Don't do the method test every time it's called.

The advantage is that you can never 100% trust browser sniffing and you never know when some other library being linked to didn't actually add an equivalent method back in for you.

Whether you're just trying to get stuff done or want to learn more, I recommend JQuery. It does a bang-up job of eliminating DOM API cruft and maintaining a high level of cross-platform normalization but it's also something you can learn a fair bit from studying under the hood. More importantly, if you bother to continue actually learning core JS, it doesn't become useless like so many other JS frameworks and libraries and you'll continue to benefit from being able to de-soupify your JQuery junk with your mad OOP-ish skills.

Also, check out quirksmode.org to understand why Microsoft should be truly despised for all IEs prior to 9 on the JS front and a lot of nitty gritty details on exactly how much is wrong with their proprietary DOM API and suggestions for working around it.

  • 1
    I'm a bit confused, would you have preferred if I hadn't deleted that obnoxious trolling comment? Next time you have an issue with a comment like that, flag it, instead of taking the bait. This is a good answer but it's losing value because of its crudeness (same with a few of your other answers). Just flag the crap and keep your answers professional, it's as easy as that.
    – yannis
    May 18, 2012 at 6:22
  • Yes actually. I get minused, (probably deservedly so), and my comment stays. Why shouldn't the origin-irritant comment stay too? It's just the internet. People need to fight more when there's no guns involved. May 18, 2012 at 6:46
  • 1
    If you want to fight, take it elsewhere, Programmers is a Q&A platform, one that we try hard to keep low noise.
    – yannis
    May 18, 2012 at 6:50

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.