Uber large business and government is were the users are hiding. The reason the numbers are still off is because those same users are using chrome at there house in the evening.
There should be a business only metric for browser usage. That would be very interesting.
With each passing day, this statement made less and less sense to a point of absurd. And that point has been reached a long time ago.
I work for Department of Interior (the armpit when compared to DOD) and here its either fully patched IE8, latest Firefox or you are booted off of network. Can DOD be really that archaic and still allow employees to browse wild wild web with IE6?
What's the refresh cycle at DoD? Two decades?
I've also seen universities with faculty and staff still using IE7 not because of infrastructure requirements, but just because nobody had come around to upgrade because they hadn't bitched loudly enough.
They probably have internal interfaces that aren't forward compatible, and re-factoring anything inside the DoD has got to be stupid expensive.
What I don't understand is the bank should be promoting use of latest technology. If your online account was robbed of all it's money and they found out yuo are using IE6 (with all its security flaws) what's the likelihood they try to say it was your own fault?
But I don't think their CAC-managed systems allow them access to the web at large.
IE6 use (even among business) is extremely rare right now. Which makes sense, because very few websites would actually work.
Agreed. About 1/3 of our users - all of whom are insurers or brokers - use IR7
Either way, I bet the developers had fun with this feature.
We still get a significant amount of traffic from IE7.
For html5 use the html5 boiler plate and ensure your code validates. Also do not use floats to position everything, only elements that need to flow with the contents of the document. Use position absolute for elements that are static and of course in the block that holds said elements add position relative. Using too many floats is bound to make you hating ie7 even more.
I cannot understand why you'd chose to bounce potential customers from your website based on their browser. Isn't this just you failing to provide information to people who have made an effort to contact you and ask for it?
I ask this next question gently: Have you checked you're not bouncing people using assistive technology?
Sorry to sound short about this, but it's the same sort of thing that happens when a road turns into a freeway. For everyone's safety, you don't get to ride your bicycle.
No special hardware running antiquated hardware, just a stock windows system.
While I don't doubt there are solutions with a web browser embedded in them, the refresh cycle on such hardware is so old that people have moved off them on to more "generic" solutions a while ago.
When Bob tells Ann that she must have X, Y, and Z to run the software he is giving her important information. When Bob tells Ann (who is blind, or deaf, or has a motor-control disability (or just likes the software she uses), but who also buys the software her engineers use) that she cannot get information about the product that he sells because she uses the "wrong browser" Bob is being stupid.
You might not like the fact that people use different computers and different operating systems and different browsers and different settings on those browsers. You may not like the fact that WWW was an attempt to solve compatibility problems across those variety of systems.
But if you are trying to sell me something, and I visit your website to get information about what you are selling, and you tell me that I'm using the wrong browser to get that information - well, I'm probably not going to spend my money with you. This is especially true if the information you're giving is trivially easy to give as text with a few diagrams (and even diagrams can usually go with good alt and longdesc attributes.). That was available in HTML 1.x I understand the desire to give everything sliding transitions and round corners and shiny overlays and etc. I understand that CSS and correct design help impart meaning that isn't available in plain text. But it is incredibly frustrating to be told that you cannot get simple information because you're not using what someone else thinks you should be using.
Remember that it is trivially easy for me to use the browser you want me to use, on the the OS you want me to use, on the computer you want me to use and yet still totally destroy the design by increasing the font size. People used to specify font sizes. Most people know realise that's a stupid idea. (Imagine a TV station that broadcast a programme at a fixed volume, overriding the viewer's tv volume control. You'd call that station stupid.)
 A List Apart used to have a nice page about this, but I can't find it at the moment.
 Baffling that people say that a 1 GHz machine with 256 MB ram is insufficient power to browse a website, but people do say that. And not forgetting that IE on Mac used to be created by a completely different team to IE on Windows. God knows who the poor souls who did IE on Unix were. See also the unreasonable bandwidth requirements for many websites. Sure, do what you like for fun, but again if I'm buying something from you I want a quick responsive website even if I'm on a stupid slow Australian link, or on some dial-up in the US (which is still surprisingly common) or if I'm using my mobile broadband dongle on a train, with a poor signal.
Yes, it sucks that some screen reading software depends on outdated browsers, but the fault lies at the manufacturers of that software, not every single website designer in the world. IE7 doesn't work, even for simple layouts, it doesn't work. Furthermore, it's insecure. Maybe they didn't want their customers accounts being compromised because they use an insecure browser, and then have to hire more people to take care of that person who lost their account becuase they're using software a decade old. I don't go into a store expecting to be able to still buy heroin as my cough medicine of choice, either.
Why should everyone have to pay money to make stuff work in outdated software because the screen reader company refuses to pay money to make their software work with anything but outdated software? Why make compromises and waste time when implementing a new feature because it might screw up the viewing experience in your decade old browser? Why support that browser at all, giving people the impression the site is broken, and not their browser?
Still waiting for someone to tell me exactly which brand of "assistive technology" absolutely requires IE<8, and why Chrome Frame can't fix it.
I think what DanBC is saying is if you are not going to support something, then tell the user why and they need. The user gets redirected to http://lexity.com/aiee.html which if you visit in IE6 or 7 puts you in an infinite loop... works fine in browsers that actually the site actually supports, kinda ironic.
What in the world are you talking about?
I'd guess 2. You can get most layouts to work in IE7, and with a lot of effort, IE6 even. Agree on the security aspect, but bear in mind that the majority of home users probably have Windows Auto Updates on so they should be running IE8 (I know IE7 was a forced update for XP users, not sure if IE8 is...) So that means either a user has turned off auto updates, OR mroe likely it is a business with policies in place.
There's nothing on that lexity site (at least from the demo) that couldn't be coded to work in IE7 with an conditional css include.
Of course it's possible to make things work, in case of a simple layout, most of the time not even hard (note that this wasn't my point at all), but if you code in a standards-compliant, normal way, without doing anything to especially accomodate IE7, there are a number of situation where things will just not work, while working in every other browser.
Is this a problem? Yeah. I would say so. People shouldn't be supporting something and thereby supporting the continued use of a product that doesn't work unless you coddle it. What if someone is a linux user? Are they supposed to buy a windows license just to coddle to users who are hurting the web with their browsing choice?
I'm by no means an expert designer, but I've been doing HTML stuff for a decade or so, from simple to complicated. I can and do get my layouts running in IE7, but that's not the point. The point is that I shouldn't, and if someone doesn't want to, they shouldn't be criticized for that. I'm pretty tired of running a VM to test my layouts as well.
Text and images don't work in ten year old browsers?
> Their website is a product, and they can choose who to offer it to.
And, as I've said more than once, it's fine if their product only works in some browsers and can only be used by some people. (Except, you know, there's some laws you need to comply with.)
But the product part of the website is different from the sales part of the website. Why not make a sales website that degrades gracefully to text and images?
> This is like complaining that this android app won't work on your 10 year old dumbphone.
No. It's like complaining that a listing of software for smartphones is unreadable on anything but the very latest generation of smartphones. (Except it isn't because all analogies are awful.)
> Why should everyone have to pay money to make stuff work in outdated software
This isn't about screen reader software. This is about compliance with web standards for information that is an excellent candidate for standards compliance. Remember that I'm not talking about web apps or software here - I'm only talking about websites describing software, websites that give information to potential customers.
> Why make compromises and waste time when implementing a new feature because it might screw up the viewing experience in your decade old browser?
Because these are not apps that I'm talking about. It's information. Why would you take something simple like text and images and a bit of CSS and make it hard for people to use it on the device of their choice? Why do people make websites that can't be viewed on a mobile phone? What features do they absolutely need that can't be provided on a mobile phone? Usually, it appears to be a mistake they made.
> the viewing experience
FUCK the viewing experience. Seriously. My life has been transformed reading pages of plain text. My life hasn't been transformed by a really nice CSS border. I want to read information. I don't want some idiot designer to mess it around. Let designers do the hard work - give it a nice font, give it a nice clean layout, make it useful. (And this is where good CSS is important - it's hard to make things clean and minimal.) See this example of an error, from the only other tab I had open, Chrome on OSX Snow Leopard. Not an obscure browser.
The link to, I think, the links to view // communications are obscured by the grey background to the menu bar and search box. (Notice also that the top line is partly dark grey while the second line is light grey, leading to a confusing mix of colours for menu items.)
> I don't go into a store expecting to be able to still buy heroin as my cough medicine of choice, either.
A weird analogy. Say you went into a store to ask about information for blood glucose testing meters. You ask the clerk for information. She shows you 4 machines. She gives you manufacturer leaflets, and prices, for 4 machines. But you notice there are 5 machines on the shelf.
"What about that one?" you ask.
"Oh that," she says, "that's the new Blood-o-matic-9001. It's a great machine. Do you have a computer with Windows 8 on you?"
"Well, er, no, I don't." you reply, wondering why she'd ask such a thing. You only want information about it.
"That's a shame," she says "we'll only give information about that machine to people using Windows 8. Come back when you have it and we'll give you information."
Can you see that the app (the meter) can be flash-bang-whizzy and can set limits on the use because that's what apps do, but that it's stupid to set limits on what is essentially a bit of text and graphics just because you wish to force users to "enjoy" the viewing experience of transitions and curved borders.
I guess, because you've mentioned it, that I strongly agree that people should not support broken browsers. But that's very different from not allowing websites to gracefully degrade. I apologise for not being clear enough to convey my point. Communicaing my meaning is something I need to work on.
Here's a baseless graph that John Resig of jQuery fame included years ago in a speaking session: http://i.imgur.com/1OOcg.png.
Developers are inundated with "ugh; IE sux" propaganda, but the complaints are rarely quantified beyond "my site breaks in IE".
Further suggestions to let us elite middle-class types feel superior to others:
1. Extra 25% surcharge for anyone who shows up at your cafe wearing Crocs
2. Anyone driving up to your hotel in a Pontiac Aztek has to pay a fifty-dollar uglification fee
3. If a fat person shows up at your store, employ a security guard to stand around going "Ha ha! Fatty fat fat fat" until they leave.
It would be reasonable to charge extra for anyone who enters a shop with a beautiful wooden floor wearing spikes on their shoes. Spikes induce extra maintenance costs - so does IE7.
But yes, agree the work/personal related thing, they can easily buy at home and if the workplace has such an antiquated attitude to these things then they probably also have your internet access to watch and lock down anyway.
You're free to do whatever you want on your own personal time. You don't have to shop online while you're at work (and it's a huge security risk to do so), so complaining that it's inconvenient doesn't really fly.
(but still a valid comparison)
For instance, they could automatically impose the tax but then offer a discount for switching browsers. That's more of a win for everyone involved. For the shopper, they aren't treated poorly, but they're moved towards a better browsing experience and they stop being a burden on the internet. For Kogan they can still impose their "tax" without alienating customers.
As it reads right now, it's rather condescending. I do get that they're probably being intentionally provocative to impress an entirely separate audience, but if you were to take the idea seriously I think there would be better ways to pull it off.
It may actually be costing Kogan money overall by driving away some consumers, but no doubt they've done the sums and think the goodwill from the tech crowd and marketing will outweigh that
This is badly worded - no question.
I'm no lawyer, but I imagine there may be some law about actually calling it a "tax" - tax tends to imply something imposed by the government. They are of course free to charge whatever surcharges or discounts they want.....
A smarter move would simply to have notified the customers upon hitting the site that their browser is incompatible with the site and that they could switch to some others that are more compatable. Telling them you are going to charge them more is absurd - either you're going to support Ie7, or you aren't.
Really weird marketing move either way...
It didn't take 5 years, a lot would change in just 2 or 3 and there were still many users running old junk (or AOL).
There were a few Mac users back then too. At one time they were influential enough that Microsoft had developed a port of IE to Mac.
a) Try to get the web hooked on nonstandard behavior such as lenient parsing.
b) Charge money for the browser.
HTML and CSS gracefully degrade. Host objects (DOM, etc.) require some care, but can degrade as well.
On an open platform with open software, we continue to punish and castigate users for their choice (or lack thereof) of environment. How infuriating is it for a user that's stuck on IE < 8 at work because of paranoid sysadmins?
Moreover, version detection is moronic. Twitter does this by banishing IE 6 users to a "mobile site" because the "desktop site" is poorly written. Browsing in IE 5 yields a broken version of the "desktop site" (CSS and all).
No. Not when the targetted browser has bugs, or implements half the properties used for a given technique and not the other half. When a button is hidden and its replacement can't display the degradation is not graceful, when elements are all over the page because positioning doesn't work correctly the degradation is not graceful, when activating buttons doesn't even work because you happened to use an attribute or a property the browser doesn't like the degradation is not graceful, and when the browser just throws or crashes altogether because you accessed a js property the degradation is not graceful.
And that's just user-facing, Kogan notes that their issue is cost, and the cost of supporting IE6 and IE7 is huge not just because their engines are gigantic piles of shit full of bugs and incorrect behaviors but because they don't even provide the tools to debug them.
Supporting anything is possible, the problem is the cost sunk into it for the complete absence of a return on investment.
Also, where does it end? Should we still support Netscape or IE6 just because users have the right to choose to use old browsers? There has to be a limit to the support for older technology and IE7 has reached that limit.
It cuts both ways, sure you can choose to use IE7 but also I can choose not to support it, if that loses customers then so be it, if it gets them to upgrade it has done both them and the internet a service.
These are not things that allow for "graceful degradation"
These things are horrible aberrations birthed forth from hells bowels designed to destroy any chance of having a single, concise, clear approach to CSS and HTML when trying to be backwards compatible.
I'm sorry, but it's time for browsers of a certain age to die off. There is no elitism here; Newer browsers are irrefutably better in every way than the old dregs of IEs growing pains.
Too many man hours are wasted on trying to get things to work in these old browsers, and it simply is not worth it.
This isn't elitism, it's sanity.
I've seen this sentiment tossed around a few times now.
I guess it's valid as long as
(a) You're not working to strict wireframes, or
(b) You are, but you don't have deadlines
However, HTML and CSS should degrade fine in old browsers. I have no problems with presenting an acceptable page in IE 6 or Opera 5, even with their quirky float handling. We just don't work hard enough.
⁰ JScript version 5.5, which is implemented in IE 5.5 introduced these. Verson 5.6 was implemented in IE 6.
Graceful degradation is the proper description. In short, scripts can degrade by testing for the existence of a property (e.g. `Array.prototype.push`) and ignoring the property if it does not exist.
I'll be posting a large project here soon that should clarify the strategy. Stay tuned.
There are 24 hours in a day, and some smaller number usable for working. What percentage of them should I spend making cool stuff, and what percentage should I spend making sure that cool stuff works in six (IE7), eleven (IE6) or twelve (Opera 5) year old browsers that only a tiny percentage of potential users use?
We really don't work hard enough because we decry the DOM and blame Microsoft for problems research can and will solve.
It doesn't have anything to do with my point, which is about opportunity costs. I have a finite amount of time, money and other resources. Why should I spend them making sure old browsers used by a small number of the lest sophisticated users work instead of building features?
Sorry, but there's a difference between "working hard" to make sure your site looks good and functions across as many browsers as you can, and wasting hours of your valuable time that could be better spent elsewhere, trying to get older versions of IE to show things properly without damaging all the other browsers.
I test browsers in my spare time to discover how to degrade for them. I don't "bend them to my will"; I just use standards-compliant development with proper feature detection.
For example, Opera 6 has no DOM Core implementation. Ergo, I use it to test code that uses the DOM Core to observe graceful degradation. This enables the code to be "future-proof", or compatible with past, present and future browsers.
To be clear: I wanted to see this amusing "tax notice" first hand, but when I visit kogan.com using Internet Explorer 7.0 with all default settings using a Windows XP/SP3 system, it shows the front page but it then hangs.
Is IE9 available for Windows XP? Most of the corporates still rely on Windows XP machines. I can't help thinking Microsoft's persuading people to get IE9 is just another try to get them out of Windows XP. And while there's ample reason to move on from IE7, there isn't any so many for upgrading from Windows XP, really.