I know for a fact that my grandparents would find it a big deal to have to launch different browsers for different sites, and I'd venture to suggest that the majority of web users feel the same.
I know for a fact that "normal" users were well aware that some web sites didn't work with some browsers, usually had two browsers installed, and tried the other browser when a web site looked broken in their favorite browser. It isn't a difficult concept, no different in users' minds than having two different kinds of stain remover in their laundry room. They didn't like it, but they had no problem understanding it. My mother, who at 67 is old enough to be a grandmother, still tries IE when something doesn't work in Firefox.
The question is whether a browser innovation war would provide benefits that would compensate for the inconvenience of installing and using several browsers. I think it would. Actually, I think it would be much better than the first time around, because we've finally reached the point where most web sites can work across all browsers. (Perhaps it would be best if the impulse toward complete compatibility and uniformity across browsers came and went like the tide.) A web site that only worked with one browser engine would be at a severe disadvantage compared to a similar web site that worked in all browsers. Browser innovations would have to enable really radical improvements before they were adopted. That's assuming that web developers are smarter this time around, which I think they are. If there's a surge in incompatible innovation, you won't see banks or insurance companies jumping on the bandwagon. Nor will you see any plain-jane sites that mysteriously require one browser or another. If a site requires you to launch a certain browser, it will be immediately obvious why, or you'll never go back to that site again.
The question is whether a browser innovation war would provide benefits that would compensate for the inconvenience of installing and using several browsers. I think it would. Actually, I think it would be much better than the first time around, because we've finally reached the point where most web sites can work across all browsers. (Perhaps it would be best if the impulse toward complete compatibility and uniformity across browsers came and went like the tide.) A web site that only worked with one browser engine would be at a severe disadvantage compared to a similar web site that worked in all browsers. Browser innovations would have to enable really radical improvements before they were adopted. That's assuming that web developers are smarter this time around, which I think they are. If there's a surge in incompatible innovation, you won't see banks or insurance companies jumping on the bandwagon. Nor will you see any plain-jane sites that mysteriously require one browser or another. If a site requires you to launch a certain browser, it will be immediately obvious why, or you'll never go back to that site again.