4 ms·

Looks like it dropped support for IE8, which unfortunately eliminates this as an option for a lot of client work. Seems like a solid go-to for more forward-thin

Looks like it dropped support for IE8, which unfortunately eliminates this as an option for a lot of client work. Seems like a solid go-to for more forward-thinking projects though.

TylerE 13y ago
I suspect that will no longer the case much longer, if it's not already. One of the sites I run has a VERY non-techncical/older skewing customer base, and even in that group IE <= 8.0 is down to 12% of traffic, from about 28% a year ago. Also, a year ago non-IE browsers were split pretty much 50/50 with IE, but now down to about 35/65. (Chrome and Safari were the big risers, Firefox actually dropped from 2nd to 5th)
gopher1 13y ago
Foundation 4 had also dropped IE8 support. For basic stuff like the grid, it's quite easy to manually add IE8 support, given that you're never going to be seeing IE8 on a mobile phone or tablet. For some of the more advanced components you could run into issues.
ericcholis 13y ago
Year to date 27% of our IE users are on 8 or less, which oddly enough accounts for 27% of our revenue from visitors using IE. IE 8 or less is 10% of our site revenue. I simply cannot exclude 10% of our revenue. With that being said, traffic from IE 8 or less is down 58% from last year. Windows XP isn't going to die fast enough for me to begin supporting Foundation 4+. I could push Firefox or Chrome aggressively, but that's an unfriendly half-measure.
kibibu 13y ago
I don't think Foundation 4 supported IE8. It's not a huge deal except for the navbar, which is horribly broken in IE8. There are workarounds though.
highstep 13y ago
...this being Foundations greatest failure. Until IE8 is under 2% usage, it going to be hard to convince an ecommerce client that it's OK to leave these users on the table. Sure we can implement workarounds, but that adds a lot of overhead to development. Does it not make sense for a front-end framework to handle cross-browser compatibility for us?

Looks like it dropped support for IE8, which unfortunately eliminates this as an option for a lot of client work. Seems like a solid go-to for more forward-thinking projects though.

TylerE 13y ago

I suspect that will no longer the case much longer, if it's not already. One of the sites I run has a VERY non-techncical/older skewing customer base, and even in that group IE <= 8.0 is down to 12% of traffic, from about 28% a year ago. Also, a year ago non-IE browsers were split pretty much 50/50 with IE, but now down to about 35/65. (Chrome and Safari were the big risers, Firefox actually dropped from 2nd to 5th)

gopher1 13y ago

Foundation 4 had also dropped IE8 support. For basic stuff like the grid, it's quite easy to manually add IE8 support, given that you're never going to be seeing IE8 on a mobile phone or tablet. For some of the more advanced components you could run into issues.

ericcholis 13y ago

Year to date 27% of our IE users are on 8 or less, which oddly enough accounts for 27% of our revenue from visitors using IE. IE 8 or less is 10% of our site revenue. I simply cannot exclude 10% of our revenue. With that being said, traffic from IE 8 or less is down 58% from last year. Windows XP isn't going to die fast enough for me to begin supporting Foundation 4+. I could push Firefox or Chrome aggressively, but that's an unfriendly half-measure.

kibibu 13y ago

I don't think Foundation 4 supported IE8. It's not a huge deal except for the navbar, which is horribly broken in IE8. There are workarounds though.

highstep 13y ago

...this being Foundations greatest failure. Until IE8 is under 2% usage, it going to be hard to convince an ecommerce client that it's OK to leave these users on the table. Sure we can implement workarounds, but that adds a lot of overhead to development. Does it not make sense for a front-end framework to handle cross-browser compatibility for us?