Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A clever way to fight IE6

igorpartola.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 114 posts

Re: A clever way to fight IE6

#81

Post by bherms »

powrtoch wrote: post #33
bherms wrote: post #28

This is what we do too, but this isn't going to kill IE6. It's not a problem that sites support it, it's a problem that large companies and non-techies don't want to or know how to upgrade. What I do for all my sites is add http://pushuptheweb.com/ to all my pages and customize the message to say they're not getting the full experience and that their browser may be unsecure.

I disagree, I think that techniques like this do contribute to killing IE6. The reason that corporations don't upgrade their browsers is pretty simple: they don't have to. As it stands now, IE6 is "good enough" for their employees to do whatever it is they need to do. The more websites that drop IE6 support, the more IE6 becomes "not good enough", and the more pressure accumulates for corporations to upgrade. Right n…

Good points and I agree with you to an extent.

However, large corporations that aren't upgrading probably aren't encouraging, nor do they want, their workers to be visiting cutting edge sites. Usually the computers/browsers are used for company intranet stuff, which doesn't require advanced features. If anything keeping workers from visiting new, cool, cutting edge sites (regardless of what they may be) would actually be incentive to stay with IE6. I do concede, though, that there probably is a fair amount of necessary browsing to other client websites, distributors, etc that needs done.

Re: A clever way to fight IE6

#82

Post by trustfundbaby »

I used to do html/css layouts very frequently just a few years back, and after tracking my hours to determine this, I found that coding for IE6 idiosyncrasies essentially doubled my html/css dev time.

So I'd have a layout done and ready to go in Safari, Opera and Firefox (Chrome wasn't on the market then) in 4 hours, and it'd take another 4 just to get it working correctly in IE6.

Luckily though, I billed hourly (so it was never really a problem), but it just amazed me to realize how much money clients were throwing away trying to support IE6 at the time.

Re: A clever way to fight IE6

#83

Post by MJR »

Many people keep talking about "driving the point home" like the majority of people using IE6 are doing so by choice. Gmail doesn't work, Youtube soon won't work, site after site that people use for personal browsing are limiting IE6 users or shutting them out. Which begs the question why are there still IE6 users. I propose the simple answer - the majority of IE6 are corporate users. Those who have no control over their browser.

I'm not going to be redundant, but I spelled this out further down the page and I think it's been mostly ignored. If you want to cut off corporations using IE6 from getting to your site - go for it. Just be aware and let you clients know this is what they're doing.

Re: A clever way to fight IE6

#84

Post by mseebach »

umjames wrote: post #71
dkarl wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Subcontract the IE6 compatibility work to someone who doesn't know how much you're charging for it.

And if the subcontractor does crappy work, the client will think you did a crappy job. I would think that if the subcontractor was good enough not to do bad work, he/she would also not want to do IE6 compatibility work.

> And if the subcontractor does crappy work, the client will think you did a crappy job.

If you passed through your subcontractors work without reviewing it, you did do a crappy job.

> I would think that if the subcontractor was good enough not to do bad work, he/she would also not want to do IE6 compatibility work.

That's assuming a lot about other peoples priorities. You'll be surprised how many perfectly qualified people who does not place the same premium on creative freedom you do.

If you find yourself with a lot of well-paid IE6 work, spending some time on elance finding someone good to offload it to and putting him on a handsome retainer could turn out to be a very good investment.

Re: A clever way to fight IE6

#85

Post by dkarl »

umjames wrote: post #71
dkarl wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Subcontract the IE6 compatibility work to someone who doesn't know how much you're charging for it.

And if the subcontractor does crappy work, the client will think you did a crappy job. I would think that if the subcontractor was good enough not to do bad work, he/she would also not want to do IE6 compatibility work.

If you're jacking up prices in an attempt to drive away business, I think you can afford to buy pretty good work. But if we go by your logic, no good IE6 compatibility work ever gets done, so expectations will be low anyway.

Re: A clever way to fight IE6

#86

Post by mseebach »

kenjackson wrote: post #23

Of course the problem with this strategy is that you may not be in a vacuum. If I'm a competing shop I simply say that I'll do it all for a price somewhat south of your +IE6 price. And if I have some experienced webdevs who have done this type of stuff since forever, the cost is already largely locked in. Sure I may not be "helping the web" (whatever that means), it may mean a substantial boost in revenue.

I recently had out a RFP for some construction work. One guy called me and told me to call him back when I've got some offers, he'd knock 10% off the lowest one.

Needless to say, I said thanks, hung up, laughed and crossed his name off the list of candidates.

Re: A clever way to fight IE6

#87

Post by gord »

melvinram wrote: post #53
yock wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused. Are you or are you not notifying your customers of the added expense of supporting IE6? If you are, then I don't see how your method differs from what is stated in the post. No one is making their client "feel bad" about a business decision. Whether or not they do is more a function of how that unfortunate news is delivered, or perhaps whether or not they irrationally view IE6 support as mission-critica…

If we determine that it's in their best interest to support IE6, we don't line-item IE6 support (i.e. we don't say IE6 will cost you $xxxx extra.) We simply quote them a price that includes that cost (i.e. your website will cost $xxxx.) If we determine that support IE6 will likely not matter, we break it out as an extra line-item cost and give them the option to support IE6 by paying extra. We explain the facts of th…

What is $xxxx in practice, for IE6? [or as a percentage]

Re: A clever way to fight IE6

#89

Post by melvinram »

gord wrote: post #87
melvinram wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we determine that it's in their best interest to support IE6, we don't line-item IE6 support (i.e. we don't say IE6 will cost you $xxxx extra.) We simply quote them a price that includes that cost (i.e. your website will cost $xxxx.) If we determine that support IE6 will likely not matter, we break it out as an extra line-item cost and give them the option to support IE6 by paying extra. We explain the facts of th…

What is $xxxx in practice, for IE6? [or as a percentage]

For some simple brochure sites, it's 4-6 hrs more of testing & tweaking during the lifecycle of the project, which usually translates to $500ish extra. i.e. 10-25% of the project.

For involved sites, it just depends what is being done and whether you're trying to replicate the experience or if you're just creating a graceful degradation for IE6 users, which is often "good enough" for a lot of clients.

Re: A clever way to fight IE6

#90

Post by 5teev »

melvinram wrote: post #89
gord wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is $xxxx in practice, for IE6? [or as a percentage]

For some simple brochure sites, it's 4-6 hrs more of testing & tweaking during the lifecycle of the project, which usually translates to $500ish extra. i.e. 10-25% of the project. For involved sites, it just depends what is being done and whether you're trying to replicate the experience or if you're just creating a graceful degradation for IE6 users, which is often "good enough" for a lot of clients.

For basic "looks the same" stuff this is probably true. The difficulty comes from clients who devise features that only work well on newer browsers, then insist on keeping the same functionality rather than "degrade gracefully" on IE6.
Post reply on HN