4 ms·

Completely disagree. There are two very major problems with this idea: 1. Your reputation suffers when users encounter issues while using the browser that you

by nardi 14y ago

Completely disagree. There are two very major problems with this idea: 1. Your reputation suffers when users encounter issues while using the browser that you don't support. 2. The support cost of "letting users try anyway" is non-zero, and probably significant.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
Kesty 14y ago
You still can put a big red sign with "This browser is not supported, here's why.", and let the user decide if they want to try it with IE just to see if is worth it the browser change.
- nardi 14y ago
  That doesn't really fix either problem, IMO.
  - Kesty 14y ago
    IE9 is actually not that bad, and IE 10 should hopefully be very good. As a developer my bigger problem with IE9 is that sometimes I forget to comment a console.log after testing. Their problem is that they want to be "pixel-perfect" across all browser. I get why, but as a User I don't really care as long as everything else works. And chance are that with IE9 and IE10 it will. I'm not a IE user, but when we stop supporting IE6 we put a big sign saying that if there were problems we won't fix them and to download a modern browser. But people still went to the site even if some divs were in crazy places because basic function they needed worked and maybe they hadn't the chance of upgrading their browser. If one of your client is once on another computer with only IE installed and doesn't have permission to install another browser, the fact that he can't use the website at all, is that a feature ?
    - ludwigvan 14y ago
      You may use log() instead of console.log() for that. See http://paulirish.com/2009/log-a-lightweight-wrapper-for-consolelog/ http://paulirish.com/2009/log-a-lightweight-wrapper-for-cons...
    - TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
      The only thing IE10 seems to lack that's really significant seems to be WebGL. Which means IE9 may be the last version of IE that will ever "hold back" the web.
    - d4n3 14y ago
      You can use the javascript shim for console in HTML5 boilerplate to make it safe for use in IE. It even logs output to a global array, so you can inspect the console output in IE. https://github.com/h5bp/html5-boilerplate/blob/master/js/plugins.js https://github.com/h5bp/html5-boilerplate/blob/master/js/plu...
- TomAnthony 14y ago
  If they have already tried with all versions of IE, and they know it doesn't work, then why let people bump into the problems themselves. They are going to fail either way - it's better to fail gracefully, no?
maggit 14y ago
As a counterexample, let's consider Google's blocking of Opera. Google routinely blocks Opera when rolling out new stuff. I kind of get it, because of your point 1. However, they sometimes offer a "try anyway"-link and sometimes not. The times that I can not easily "try anyway" makes me dislike Google much more than the times that I "try anyway" and it ends up broken in funky ways. Bottom line; Yes, your reputation suffers when users encounter issues. Your reputation also suffers when users encounter the big blocking issue of not being welcome at all.
- scott_w 14y ago
  I think there are some differences here: Google are trying to keep existing users happy with the "try anyway" link. This is a new business, and they have decided they don't want to support IE. At worst, this annoys die-hard IE users, but they're not your customers anyway. The danger of adding a try anyway link is that people will click it, then still call and complain that your site doesn't work even if you place a huge disclaimer telling them IE is unsupported. Finally, your website may do things that not only break in IE, but can cause your users to lose data when it does break. Yes, standard backups, never deleting data rules apply. But there is time spent either recovering, or explaining to users why you won't recover data for them.
  - ticks 14y ago
    One thing to bear in mind is that Opera employs "web openers" who will lobby and actively help Google to support the browser (so that "try me" link may not be as superficial as it looks). That said, blocking IE is silly.
  - jdmichal 14y ago
    Well, you can guarantee that die-hard IE users aren't your customers anyway if you don't even let them sign up.
  - LocalPCGuy 14y ago
    How the blank would any front-end decisions result in the loss of data if the developer was any good? They may lose the data on the form they are entering if they encounter a crash, but I think the fears of IE are VASTLY overblown. I can understand locking out older versions, but it's been pretty well established that IE9 at least, can hang with it's counterparts. (Don't take me for a Microsoft apologist, I still hate developing for IE7 and still have to do so daily. But the IE8+ (IE9+ if you rely on HTML5/CSS3 features as core elements) is really not that hard to work with.
brudgers 14y ago
The reputation hit for blocking on the web is more or less permanent for most companies. Sure if I'm running Opera, I'll probably switch browsers to access Google. But Paydirt ain't free, it ain't Google, and I don't think I need it very badly. What I'll have to say about it probably won't be positive.
- chris_wot 14y ago
  What you have to say about it probably won't be positive if you use Internet Explorer and it doesn't work. No loss to Paydirt! In fact, a gain - they don't have to spend any development or support time explaining why they don't support the Internet Explorer specific bug you encountered.
  - brudgers 14y ago
    IMO, when it comes to accounting software, the browser shouldn't make a damn bit of difference to how it works, only to how it appears. If a choice of browsers breaks a modern accounting application, that's poor design, not a feature because an accounting app damn sure better not be relying on javascript's math capability.

by nardi 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

Kesty 14y ago

You still can put a big red sign with "This browser is not supported, here's why.", and let the user decide if they want to try it with IE just to see if is worth it the browser change.

nardi 14y ago
That doesn't really fix either problem, IMO.
- Kesty 14y ago
  IE9 is actually not that bad, and IE 10 should hopefully be very good. As a developer my bigger problem with IE9 is that sometimes I forget to comment a console.log after testing. Their problem is that they want to be "pixel-perfect" across all browser. I get why, but as a User I don't really care as long as everything else works. And chance are that with IE9 and IE10 it will. I'm not a IE user, but when we stop supporting IE6 we put a big sign saying that if there were problems we won't fix them and to download a modern browser. But people still went to the site even if some divs were in crazy places because basic function they needed worked and maybe they hadn't the chance of upgrading their browser. If one of your client is once on another computer with only IE installed and doesn't have permission to install another browser, the fact that he can't use the website at all, is that a feature ?
  - ludwigvan 14y ago
    You may use log() instead of console.log() for that. See http://paulirish.com/2009/log-a-lightweight-wrapper-for-consolelog/ http://paulirish.com/2009/log-a-lightweight-wrapper-for-cons...
  - TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
    The only thing IE10 seems to lack that's really significant seems to be WebGL. Which means IE9 may be the last version of IE that will ever "hold back" the web.
  - d4n3 14y ago
    You can use the javascript shim for console in HTML5 boilerplate to make it safe for use in IE. It even logs output to a global array, so you can inspect the console output in IE. https://github.com/h5bp/html5-boilerplate/blob/master/js/plugins.js https://github.com/h5bp/html5-boilerplate/blob/master/js/plu...
TomAnthony 14y ago
If they have already tried with all versions of IE, and they know it doesn't work, then why let people bump into the problems themselves. They are going to fail either way - it's better to fail gracefully, no?

maggit 14y ago

As a counterexample, let's consider Google's blocking of Opera. Google routinely blocks Opera when rolling out new stuff. I kind of get it, because of your point 1. However, they sometimes offer a "try anyway"-link and sometimes not. The times that I can not easily "try anyway" makes me dislike Google much more than the times that I "try anyway" and it ends up broken in funky ways. Bottom line; Yes, your reputation suffers when users encounter issues. Your reputation also suffers when users encounter the big blocking issue of not being welcome at all.

scott_w 14y ago
I think there are some differences here: Google are trying to keep existing users happy with the "try anyway" link. This is a new business, and they have decided they don't want to support IE. At worst, this annoys die-hard IE users, but they're not your customers anyway. The danger of adding a try anyway link is that people will click it, then still call and complain that your site doesn't work even if you place a huge disclaimer telling them IE is unsupported. Finally, your website may do things that not only break in IE, but can cause your users to lose data when it does break. Yes, standard backups, never deleting data rules apply. But there is time spent either recovering, or explaining to users why you won't recover data for them.
- ticks 14y ago
  One thing to bear in mind is that Opera employs "web openers" who will lobby and actively help Google to support the browser (so that "try me" link may not be as superficial as it looks). That said, blocking IE is silly.
- jdmichal 14y ago
  Well, you can guarantee that die-hard IE users aren't your customers anyway if you don't even let them sign up.
- LocalPCGuy 14y ago
  How the blank would any front-end decisions result in the loss of data if the developer was any good? They may lose the data on the form they are entering if they encounter a crash, but I think the fears of IE are VASTLY overblown. I can understand locking out older versions, but it's been pretty well established that IE9 at least, can hang with it's counterparts. (Don't take me for a Microsoft apologist, I still hate developing for IE7 and still have to do so daily. But the IE8+ (IE9+ if you rely on HTML5/CSS3 features as core elements) is really not that hard to work with.

brudgers 14y ago

The reputation hit for blocking on the web is more or less permanent for most companies. Sure if I'm running Opera, I'll probably switch browsers to access Google. But Paydirt ain't free, it ain't Google, and I don't think I need it very badly. What I'll have to say about it probably won't be positive.

chris_wot 14y ago
What you have to say about it probably won't be positive if you use Internet Explorer and it doesn't work. No loss to Paydirt! In fact, a gain - they don't have to spend any development or support time explaining why they don't support the Internet Explorer specific bug you encountered.
- brudgers 14y ago
  IMO, when it comes to accounting software, the browser shouldn't make a damn bit of difference to how it works, only to how it appears. If a choice of browsers breaks a modern accounting application, that's poor design, not a feature because an accounting app damn sure better not be relying on javascript's math capability.