11–20 of 217 posts
The site happening to work is not the same thing as support. Trust me.
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.
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 believe a lot of old Ubuntu LTS releases have that). They'll be exactly the same.
This should not become a trend.
The site happening to work is not the same thing as support. Trust me.
The site happening to work is not the same thing as support. Trust me.
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.
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.
It's all very well that it technically might work, but we're dealing with humans here, humans that have been annoyed for a long time...
The site happening to work is not the same thing as support. Trust me.
Yes, but the site working provides absolutely no reason to actively block it. Display an 'upgrade your browser' message fine, but actively block a certain browser based on user agent string? Ridiculous.
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.
The problem really is that they are lumping ALL IE users into one "incompatible bucket" irregardless of the version and features supported. There's no need to get religious here, just support the browsers that have the features your web app needs.
These guys have been burned by IE to the point where they don't want to test it period. Feature testing doesn't get them there, but blacklisting does.
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…
If it's my comment you're referring to, I said it "happens" to work in IE because if we are to believe the team, they didn't try to make it work in IE. It just does, by coincidence, for now.
Support is a commitment, and committing to IE will mean work down the road that these people have decided not to do, because it is not valuable to them. This attitude of "Oh, it works in IE right now so they must just be pedantic asses" is short-sighted.
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.
I thought that. Plus the commenter that tries to explain that Microsoft built up a good deal of "trust debt" over the IE 6-8 period for those who had to code through it, gets the same repeated in the comments. It's all very well that it technically might work, but we're dealing with humans here, humans that have been annoyed for a long time...
It's still at about 10% worldwide so many of use still have to fix mystery JS bugs in IE7 and even still some CSS oddities in IE8.