5 ms·

Really? Not even relevant anymore IMO.

by owenwil 11y ago

bildung 11y ago
You'd be amazed :) I write web applications for internal use at non-profits. If the office boxes still run IE8, IE8 has to be supported by the application.
- dexterdog 11y ago
  Have you tried talking them into the current century and all of its spoils?
  - bildung 11y ago
    Heh, sure have :) Problem is most (European, e.g. less donation-financed) non-profits have a cash flow fundamentally different to that of a company: Most of the budget comes from a foundation, the government etc. and is tied to a specific use. So if the non-profit got funds for a specific project, they have e.g. full wages for 3 persons, much money for train tickets/renting of cars, food and accomodation, renting of kit, paying people like me for needed solutions, office rent and so on - but with fixed budgets for each! Stuff the non-profit could use after the funded project is finished (like modern computers, office inventory, cars) is much harder to get funded. This setup is meant to prevent corruption, not save the foundation money. The foundation usually has no qualms to grant 10k for renting cars, but will refute 5k for buying a car. In short, freely usable funds for upgrading IT equipment can be scarse even in well-financed non-profits.
    - davorak 11y ago
      What is the incentive with staying with IE? Do they anticipate that the app might one day be used outside of the non-profit and therefore can not be written for Firefox or chrome?
      - smitherfield 11y ago
        Probably relies on ActiveX controls or something else proprietary to old IEs.
      - bildung 11y ago
        Sometimes switching to Firefox or Chrome works, sometimes not. The more technically literate orgs often don't use IE anyway. The problem are the technically illiterate people. I'm wary to not inadvertently fall into the IT support role by advising not to use IE. If a bunch of really unskilled folks switch to Firefox because I say so, whom will they call if something doesn't quite work as before? :) I can (and do) say no to calls like these, but I'm always wary it taints the relationship a bit. An approach that usually works if I explain the reasons beforehand is transparent pricing: The solution costs $x for all browsers incl. IE9+, or more if IE8 has to be supported. That way the argument is about the org being able to afford IE8, not about me being the picky geek.

Really? Not even relevant anymore IMO.

by owenwil 11y ago

Really? Not even relevant anymore IMO.

You'd be amazed :) I write web applications for internal use at non-profits. If the office boxes still run IE8, IE8 has to be supported by the application.

dexterdog 11y ago
Have you tried talking them into the current century and all of its spoils?
- bildung 11y ago
  Heh, sure have :) Problem is most (European, e.g. less donation-financed) non-profits have a cash flow fundamentally different to that of a company: Most of the budget comes from a foundation, the government etc. and is tied to a specific use. So if the non-profit got funds for a specific project, they have e.g. full wages for 3 persons, much money for train tickets/renting of cars, food and accomodation, renting of kit, paying people like me for needed solutions, office rent and so on - but with fixed budgets for each! Stuff the non-profit could use after the funded project is finished (like modern computers, office inventory, cars) is much harder to get funded. This setup is meant to prevent corruption, not save the foundation money. The foundation usually has no qualms to grant 10k for renting cars, but will refute 5k for buying a car. In short, freely usable funds for upgrading IT equipment can be scarse even in well-financed non-profits.
  - davorak 11y ago
    What is the incentive with staying with IE? Do they anticipate that the app might one day be used outside of the non-profit and therefore can not be written for Firefox or chrome?
    - smitherfield 11y ago
      Probably relies on ActiveX controls or something else proprietary to old IEs.
    - bildung 11y ago
      Sometimes switching to Firefox or Chrome works, sometimes not. The more technically literate orgs often don't use IE anyway. The problem are the technically illiterate people. I'm wary to not inadvertently fall into the IT support role by advising not to use IE. If a bunch of really unskilled folks switch to Firefox because I say so, whom will they call if something doesn't quite work as before? :) I can (and do) say no to calls like these, but I'm always wary it taints the relationship a bit. An approach that usually works if I explain the reasons beforehand is transparent pricing: The solution costs $x for all browsers incl. IE9+, or more if IE8 has to be supported. That way the argument is about the org being able to afford IE8, not about me being the picky geek.