4 ms·

The biggest issue holding back Web Development isn't Internet Explorer. It's incompetent developers. I agree entirely with this post. Sure, coding a site to wo

by EnderMB 14y ago

The biggest issue holding back Web Development isn't Internet Explorer. It's incompetent developers. I agree entirely with this post. Sure, coding a site to work in IE6 is a pain in the ass, especially when working with JavaScript-powered elements on a site that need to work in every browser. I've always followed the Yahoo graded browser support (http://yuilibrary.com/yui/docs/tutorials/gbs/ http://yuilibrary.com/yui/docs/tutorials/gbs/) baseline when building new sites and have even moved it over to personal projects. I would chalk it up to experience with older browsers, but I've worked with students fresh out of university that have had to pick up projects that have IE6 as a requirement, and they've coped just fine. Many of the developers that are so up-in-arms over cross-browser support are largely new developers or aren't that good at their job. They'll only be versed in what their favourite blogs will preach, they'll use any jQuery plugin or JS polyfill they think sounds good to make their site better, they've never used the profiler within Firebug and never check the size of their web pages. I spend a lot of time on /r/web_design on Reddit and it is not uncommon to see users posting "great websites" that use Modernizr to "make their sites cross-browser" and weigh in around the 5-10MB mark for something as simple as a basic home page. A large number of front-end developers probably wouldn't last a month at your average agency or development team for a large website. We all want IE6 and to an extent IE7 to die a horrible death, and Microsoft have clearly done their best to try and get people off a dead platform and onto a new OS. However, we're not talking about rocket science, we're talking about rejigging some code or learning the nuances of each browser your users use. Quoting the latest StatCounter figures (or whatever backs up your argument) to provide an argument for ditching old browsers will have battle-hardened developers laugh in your face, because they aren't your users! If you're making an application then you have a case for not supporting legacy browsers, but if you're complaining that setting up your crappy WordPress-powered site is too hard in IE6 then either shut up or find alternative employment.

lucian1900 14y ago
From my meagre experience, the biggest problem with IE6 and 7 (and to some extent 8) is incorrect layout. Beyond very simple pages, it becomes almost impossible to get the same page to look even remotely the same on both IE6 and modern browsers. One solution I've seen used is to disable styles entirely on IE6 (and suggest Chrome Frame) and deal with IE7/8 quirks only.
georgemcbay 14y ago
"The biggest issue holding back Web Development isn't Internet Explorer. It's incompetent developers." IMO the biggest issue holding back web development is that the technology at the foundation of the web is all pretty shitty for building real applications and now we have hacks upon hacks to have a stateless protocol meant for document display to act as a full application environment. Don't get me wrong, I stand in awe at the amazing things some people are able to build on this shaky foundation and I don't discount how incredible it is that the web even exists at all with buy in from all the major corporations (Google, MS, Apple, etc) who otherwise want to rip each others throats out... But at the end of the day, ignoring all of the context of history, if the web didn't exist and I asked someone to come up with a way to develop rich, secure, network-bound apps and he went to work on it for some years and the wire protocol he came up with for it was anything like HTTP/HTML/CSS/JavaScript, I'd think he was a complete moron.
- pjmlp 14y ago
  > IMO the biggest issue holding back web development is that the technology at the foundation of the web is all pretty shitty for building real applications and now we have hacks upon hacks to have a stateless protocol meant for document display to act as a full application environment. That is what the OS and desktop is for.
  - maigret 14y ago
    I used to think that, but honestly the desktop lost in 2005 with the rise of Ajax. There's probably no way back. And HTML5 is even doing markup elegant.
    - pjmlp 14y ago
      > There's probably no way back. Yes there is, native applications in mobile devices.
      - maigret 14y ago
        If anything, I see the same pattern on mobile as on desktop: - Native is the only way at the beginning - Multiple platforms appear - Devs begin to see the cost of developing x times the same app - Browsers get more powerful and easier to program, native functions are made available on the browser. Have you seen Boot to Gecko? I've seen that in real on a phone, that looked real good. Don't know how the day to day use is, but is not mature yet and will probably gain capabilities. I see lots of potential in that kind of technology.
melling 14y ago
Just stop supporting IE6 and IE7 then tell users they need to upgrade. If enough sites did this then these browsers would go away. People could even recommend that IE8 be upgraded. Legacy support takes non-zero time. Apple drops legacy hardware support pretty quickly, for example. Being "lazy" has its advantages.
- EnderMB 14y ago
  What you think about legacy browsers is irrelevant. If 5% of your clients users use legacy browsers then they'll not want to throw that market away just because their web developer is terrible at his/her job. If a company is making $1M over two years and 5% of their customers use legacy browsers you're missing out a potential $25,000 a year, probably more than you'd charge for "legacy browser support" for the lifetime of that website. This simply isn't your decision to make, and if your tech-illiterate boss found out that you don't want to do it because it's hard then they'd be pretty annoyed. As I said before, either learn to do your job correctly or find alternative employment.
  - eostyx 14y ago
    You may not think about it but by NOT supporting those 5% or telling them they have to upgrade (which is unbelievably easy) saves much, MUCH more than 25,000. Hell, my friends dev team wasted thrice that just adding support for a heavy JS web app. They complain about the cost and later said it'd cost a 1/10 to just get their admins off their fat hairy arse and update their computers. If not that, you could even use Chrome frame!
    - EnderMB 14y ago
      Read the article. It pushes Progressive Enhancement, so if you are building an app that relies on JS your only choice is to either strip back the JS or ditch older browsers. My beef is with normal websites that don't support legacy browsers. Regardless, you don't get a choice in what your users use, and more often than not they don't have a choice in what they can use or install. Chrome Frame is a good option, but the average user isn't going to jump through hoops to view your site and if the average marketing manager looked through a site the requirement for an external tool before a user can use the site would be the first issue flagged. As I said above, it's not hard to get a typical website working in IE6-8.

by EnderMB 14y ago

lucian1900 14y ago

From my meagre experience, the biggest problem with IE6 and 7 (and to some extent 8) is incorrect layout. Beyond very simple pages, it becomes almost impossible to get the same page to look even remotely the same on both IE6 and modern browsers. One solution I've seen used is to disable styles entirely on IE6 (and suggest Chrome Frame) and deal with IE7/8 quirks only.

georgemcbay 14y ago

"The biggest issue holding back Web Development isn't Internet Explorer. It's incompetent developers." IMO the biggest issue holding back web development is that the technology at the foundation of the web is all pretty shitty for building real applications and now we have hacks upon hacks to have a stateless protocol meant for document display to act as a full application environment. Don't get me wrong, I stand in awe at the amazing things some people are able to build on this shaky foundation and I don't discount how incredible it is that the web even exists at all with buy in from all the major corporations (Google, MS, Apple, etc) who otherwise want to rip each others throats out... But at the end of the day, ignoring all of the context of history, if the web didn't exist and I asked someone to come up with a way to develop rich, secure, network-bound apps and he went to work on it for some years and the wire protocol he came up with for it was anything like HTTP/HTML/CSS/JavaScript, I'd think he was a complete moron.

pjmlp 14y ago
> IMO the biggest issue holding back web development is that the technology at the foundation of the web is all pretty shitty for building real applications and now we have hacks upon hacks to have a stateless protocol meant for document display to act as a full application environment. That is what the OS and desktop is for.
- maigret 14y ago
  I used to think that, but honestly the desktop lost in 2005 with the rise of Ajax. There's probably no way back. And HTML5 is even doing markup elegant.
  - pjmlp 14y ago
    > There's probably no way back. Yes there is, native applications in mobile devices.
    - maigret 14y ago
      If anything, I see the same pattern on mobile as on desktop: - Native is the only way at the beginning - Multiple platforms appear - Devs begin to see the cost of developing x times the same app - Browsers get more powerful and easier to program, native functions are made available on the browser. Have you seen Boot to Gecko? I've seen that in real on a phone, that looked real good. Don't know how the day to day use is, but is not mature yet and will probably gain capabilities. I see lots of potential in that kind of technology.

melling 14y ago

Just stop supporting IE6 and IE7 then tell users they need to upgrade. If enough sites did this then these browsers would go away. People could even recommend that IE8 be upgraded. Legacy support takes non-zero time. Apple drops legacy hardware support pretty quickly, for example. Being "lazy" has its advantages.

EnderMB 14y ago
What you think about legacy browsers is irrelevant. If 5% of your clients users use legacy browsers then they'll not want to throw that market away just because their web developer is terrible at his/her job. If a company is making $1M over two years and 5% of their customers use legacy browsers you're missing out a potential $25,000 a year, probably more than you'd charge for "legacy browser support" for the lifetime of that website. This simply isn't your decision to make, and if your tech-illiterate boss found out that you don't want to do it because it's hard then they'd be pretty annoyed. As I said before, either learn to do your job correctly or find alternative employment.
- eostyx 14y ago
  You may not think about it but by NOT supporting those 5% or telling them they have to upgrade (which is unbelievably easy) saves much, MUCH more than 25,000. Hell, my friends dev team wasted thrice that just adding support for a heavy JS web app. They complain about the cost and later said it'd cost a 1/10 to just get their admins off their fat hairy arse and update their computers. If not that, you could even use Chrome frame!
  - EnderMB 14y ago
    Read the article. It pushes Progressive Enhancement, so if you are building an app that relies on JS your only choice is to either strip back the JS or ditch older browsers. My beef is with normal websites that don't support legacy browsers. Regardless, you don't get a choice in what your users use, and more often than not they don't have a choice in what they can use or install. Chrome Frame is a good option, but the average user isn't going to jump through hoops to view your site and if the average marketing manager looked through a site the requirement for an external tool before a user can use the site would be the first issue flagged. As I said above, it's not hard to get a typical website working in IE6-8.