41–50 of 217 posts
IE may be annoying, and I certainly sympathize with the Paydirt crew. But this author makes a good point: "it’s exactly this type of behavior (writing for or against specific browsers) that sets the Web back again." Sometimes doing the right thing isn't the easiest path forward.
The problem is, IE 9 and 10 are not everywhere. I know for certain that my school (and, I'd be willing to wager, many businesses) only deploys IE 7 and 8. IE 6 still isn't dead, despite Microsoft publicly encouraging migration. Until Microsoft gets IE 9 and 10 adoption up, supporting Internet Explorer is tricky.
> Until Microsoft gets IE 9 and 10 adoption up
Part of me wishes MS forced updates like these. Sure it would probably break a few ancient mission critical ActiveX apps, and my god the outcry would be immense and furious, but it would be better for everyone in the long run. Better for software developers who can stop coding around the foibles of ancient versions of software, better for Microsoft who can devote resources to the newest things, and better for the internet at large not being subject to Microsoft's old shitty browsers.
It's kind of like ripping off a band aid that gets stickier as time goes by. Pull the damn thing off already and get it over with.
Supporting IE has nothing to do with how well it renders a site. Supporting IE carries massive baggage as you have to pin yourself to Microsoft's erratic, tactic based release cycles and limiting yourself with future features. Chrome and Firefox now how have rolling releases and are closely tied with the developer community, so new features and rendering uniformity is what you gain. There's also the ethos you buy int…
IE's moving to a similar "rapid release" schedule with other browsers. Microsoft has played many sneaky pete tricks in the browser wars (such as supporting a CSS standard that couldn't be correctly implemented in Netscape's codebase) but you can't blame their release schedule entirely on that -- Windows users tend to be a conservative lot who are terrified that Microsoft will push something that will break their chea…
Due to...everybody say it with me...lack of standards support.
This may be schadenfreude, but as someone who's been around the web a long time, it really tickles me to see Microsoft have to fake their user agent string to get around an arbitrary browser restriction. Other browsers used to fake the IE user agent string. I suppose it's full circle since IE originally had to pose as Netscape's browser (Mozilla compatible).
Supporting IE has nothing to do with how well it renders a site. Supporting IE carries massive baggage as you have to pin yourself to Microsoft's erratic, tactic based release cycles and limiting yourself with future features. Chrome and Firefox now how have rolling releases and are closely tied with the developer community, so new features and rendering uniformity is what you gain. There's also the ethos you buy int…
IE's moving to a similar "rapid release" schedule with other browsers. Microsoft has played many sneaky pete tricks in the browser wars (such as supporting a CSS standard that couldn't be correctly implemented in Netscape's codebase) but you can't blame their release schedule entirely on that -- Windows users tend to be a conservative lot who are terrified that Microsoft will push something that will break their chea…
So, if Microsoft renamed IE10 to something entirely different, and packaged it as a standalone browser, would a site like Paydirt support it then? It seems to work fine, so why not? This, and comments like "The site happening to work" seem to have an underlying prejudice about IE. "It was IE, so it must be fucked some way or another." The old versions are, but try running the site on Chrome 1, or Firefox 3.6 (I belie…
You're forgetting quite how bad IE was. Having worked for a place that had to support many ancient browsers, getting IE8 working was three times as much work as FF3.2.
I hear the IE team have turned over a new leaf and are supporting all the standards, but I heard that about IE7 too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is quite true, but ultimately irrelevant to the article's point, which is that they are seemingly locking users out just for the heck of it.
No, it's not irrelevant. Someday the site will change in a way such that it no longer happens to work in IE. But since they don't support IE, it won't be a bug. Support is a commitment to people, not a mere technical hurdle.
tl;dr the site works with IE9 and IE10. I find the style of writing of this post extremely obnoxious, was it really necessary to say the exact same thing with slightly different order in the words over and over? If your post is to be short because there's not a lot to say, don't extend it unnecessarily, get to the point, move on.
https://paydirtapp.com/assets/ie_broken-7502950b14013927bbde...
You would be pissed too, if someone claimed your product that you worked hard on to work well is publicly called out to be broken when it is not and dropping support for it a user feature(indirectly suggesting others should do it too).
This may be schadenfreude, but as someone who's been around the web a long time, it really tickles me to see Microsoft have to fake their user agent string to get around an arbitrary browser restriction. Other browsers used to fake the IE user agent string. I suppose it's full circle since IE originally had to pose as Netscape's browser (Mozilla compatible).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is quite true, but ultimately irrelevant to the article's point, which is that they are seemingly locking users out just for the heck of it.
No, it's not irrelevant. Someday the site will change in a way such that it no longer happens to work in IE. But since they don't support IE, it won't be a bug. Support is a commitment to people, not a mere technical hurdle.
But because there's a 25% chance that the site could break sometime in the future, they go out of their way to break it right now? That's what they're talking about, and it's orthogonal to the idea of choosing what configurations to support.
At the company where I work, we don't support people trying to eat the newspapers we put out, but we don't go out of our way to make the newspapers poisonous either.
