Live data from Hacker News

We don't support Internet Explorer, and we're calling that a feature

paydirtapp.com

121–130 of 167 posts

Re: We don't support Internet Explorer, and we're calling that a feature

#121
It's real simple, medium and large enterprises are on IE 7 and 8. Technical end users are on Chrome and FF 80% of the time, the rest is a mix but it's less than 10% IE 8 and below. This application is not targeting enterprises, it's not a big deal.

We have a product that is enterprise only, if we didn't support IE 7 or 8, we'd have no business left. This is a few years out of date to be news, the guy's done well to get his free advertising.

Re: We don't support Internet Explorer, and we're calling that a feature

#122
post #67

There is not supporting IE, and there is blocking IE. You are blocking IE - I know because I changed my user agent on my firefox browser and you blocked me, and that is not cool! You don't even offer an option to let me try anyway! Use feature detection if you must, ignore IE completely in testing if you wish, but do not actively block it or you are just as bad as those who only support IE.

Obvisouly, positive inclusive action is better than negative action.

Properly detect IE without false-positives. And inform IE-users a clear and simple explaination that IE is obsolete. And there's options for easy solutions to update to better browser. Links to the usual browser choices.

Re: We don't support Internet Explorer, and we're calling that a feature

#123
I don't want to be a dick, but PayDirt isn't all that complex. Don't see what the big deal is here. Even if 1.63% of their traffic is IE... It's still 1.63% of potential customers you're theorectically dismissing. I also find it rather shocking that your IE traffic is so low. Are we talking about requests or unique visitors? What group are you advertising at?

Re: We don't support Internet Explorer, and we're calling that a feature

#124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The security of the application should never rely on the client-side. If you're using Javascript or similar for authentication, you're doing it wrong.

Not strictly true, most sites rely on the client's cross-domain policy for security. Without it, this site would be able to read your Gmail & facebook pages. If a useragent came out that had a major x-domain hole, I'd expect data-sensitive sites to block it. Not that IE fails in this way (and blocking IE in this case it wrong).

+1. Valid point but this is a bit different to what I was referring to and is an insecurity in the browser rather than the application. Still, fair point. I was mainly referring to people validating input only on the client-side, redirecting people away from private parts of the site using JS or meta redirect (last year I had to maintain a site that used this), etc.

Re: We don't support Internet Explorer, and we're calling that a feature

#125

I get annoyed when people are too lazy/incompetent to support IE6, but blocking IE altogether is beyond stupid. Don't get me wrong, I see the benefits and if dropping it makes sense (hint: it doesn't make sense when you quote average IE6 figures, check your own analytics and justify losing that many users), but quite frankly if you can't handle IE9 then I have no confidence in your product.

> I get annoyed when people are too lazy/incompetent to support IE6

That's kind of a strange sentiment, especially considering IE6 is basically extinct in the wild (unless you are targeting users of pirated copies of Windows in China)...

Also, I think many people these days have better things to do with their lives than f--k around hacking in circles in CSS to get things working for IE6...

Re: We don't support Internet Explorer, and we're calling that a feature

#126
post #90
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't really fix either problem, IMO.

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 supp…

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/plu...

Re: We don't support Internet Explorer, and we're calling that a feature

#127
post #10

Aw man. As a bootstrapping web business guy, I can say I've had way more problems with supporting iPads and iPhones than IE. IE costs me $0 to support, and I don't even bother (nobody asks!). Supporting hip and popular Apple browsers can run me a grand in a fast minute. Pleasing early adopters without working really well on the iPad3 is a tough sell. I think startups fighting to support I'm not crazy about getting an…

I'm confused why you believe you need hardware for testing? iOS simulator should be plenty sufficient in any standard dev environment...

So you don't need iOS hardware, just Apple hardware... so much better!

Re: We don't support Internet Explorer, and we're calling that a feature

#128
post #64
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have more trouble with Firefox than modern versions of IE. I also have a Pentium III that's running Windows 7 and IE9 now (and will be able to upgrade to IE10), and if that can upgrade to IE9, it's utterly and completely disingenuous to claim that the "smallest fraction" of Windows users can upgrade to it. Instead of being rational, you come off as a sneering cheerleader and, y'know, that can entirely be your bag i…

Is it rational to claim that if you upgraded a Pentium III computer to Windows 7 you aren't in "the smallest fraction" of users of old computers?

The point is having a Pentium III Win 7 machine covers using a Pentium 4, Athlon XP, and all those other old computers to install IE9 - covering the biggest fraction of users through backward compatability.

Re: We don't support Internet Explorer, and we're calling that a feature

#129
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

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 h…

Well, you can guarantee that die-hard IE users aren't your customers anyway if you don't even let them sign up.

Re: We don't support Internet Explorer, and we're calling that a feature

#130
post #81

IE market share has been going down for years, but it's still more or less 70% That means that by not supporting IE you don't get 70% of the market. Early adopters come and go, but "hockey stick" growth like the one Pinterest got? that comes from the mainstream market that uses IE and doesn't knows what Firefox is, and thinks that by Chrome you mean actual chrome... But as I said IE is going down, and when it hits 50…

70%? This looks like worst case scenario to me. Here we have IE hovering about 25%: http://www.ranking.lt/en/rankings/web-browsers-groups.html
Post reply on HN