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

Kogan imposes a tax on IE7 shoppers

lifehacker.com.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 151 posts

Re: Kogan imposes a tax on IE7 shoppers

#131

Post by tcpekin »

beedogs wrote: post #55
sliverstorm wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not part of the DoD, but as I understand it a lot of entrenched usage of IE6 these days is usually internal apps. So, perhaps they use IE6 for private networks, and use IE8, Firefox, et al for public-facing workstations.

But IE6 won't even run on new versions of Windows. You'd need to run up a VM on a user's machine with a copy of XP. What's the refresh cycle at DoD? Two decades?

At the large research university I work at in a lab, almost all of the computers run XP, and a few even run Windows 2000. Is it frustrating to use IE6 on the Windows 2000 computer? Yes. However, the software for the old equipment we have is designed for Windows 2000, and most likely will never be upgraded, for lack of support for newer OSs. I don't think (anecdotal evidence) that a 10-15 year refresh cycle is absurd on some machines. That being said, for the entire DoD to not at least update some of their workstations is a little incredible.

Re: Kogan imposes a tax on IE7 shoppers

#132

Post by rythie »

mindstab wrote: post #18
marshray wrote: post #14

I think it's cute but it's hard to get over the sense that it's the moral equivalent of "This site best viewed with frames at 1024x768 screen resolution with Netscape Navigator 2.0."

I think asking the user to use tech that is less than 5 years old is more reasonable then specifying 1 version and resolution. And in those days there barely was a browser that was over 5 years old.

Anyone who bought a Windows PC 4 years ago would have IE7 on it, since IE8 didn't come out till March 19, 2009.

Re: Kogan imposes a tax on IE7 shoppers

#133

Post by greyfade »

MrVitaliy wrote: post #44
_wp3r wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe not for Kogan, but most of the DOD is still on IE6, as an example that is something like 2 million daily users. Uber large business and government is were the users are hiding. The reason the numbers are still off is because those same users are using chrome at there house in the evening. There should be a business only metric for browser usage. That would be very interesting.

> Maybe not for Kogan, but most of the DOD is still on IE6, as an example that is something like 2 million daily users. With each passing day, this statement made less and less sense to a point of absurd. And that point has been reached a long time ago. I work for Department of Interior (the armpit when compared to DOD) and here its either fully patched IE8, latest Firefox or you are booted off of network. Can DOD be…

I don't know about the rest of the DoD, but I know that most of the fire brigades on Marine Corps and Army bases are using IE7 or Firefox.

But I don't think their CAC-managed systems allow them access to the web at large.

Re: Kogan imposes a tax on IE7 shoppers

#134

Post by DanBC »

esbwhat wrote: post #91
DanBC wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bob sells software. To run that software Ann needs X, Y, and Z. When Bob tells Ann that she must have X, Y, and Z to run the software he is giving her important information. When Bob tells Ann (who is blind, or deaf, or has a motor-control disability (or just likes the software she uses), but who also buys the software her engineers use) that she cannot get information about the product that he sells because she uses…

This all sounds nice and reasonable, until you realize that these companies have to pay people to actually make it work in a browser that's 10 years old. Their website is a product, and they can choose who to offer it to. This is like complaining that this android app won't work on your 10 year old dumbphone. Yes, it sucks that some screen reading software depends on outdated browsers, but the fault lies at the manuf…

> until you realize that these companies have to pay people to actually make it work in a browser that's 10 years old

Text and images don't work in ten year old browsers?

> Their website is a product, and they can choose who to offer it to.

And, as I've said more than once, it's fine if their product only works in some browsers and can only be used by some people. (Except, you know, there's some laws you need to comply with.)

But the product part of the website is different from the sales part of the website. Why not make a sales website that degrades gracefully to text and images?

> This is like complaining that this android app won't work on your 10 year old dumbphone.

No. It's like complaining that a listing of software for smartphones is unreadable on anything but the very latest generation of smartphones. (Except it isn't because all analogies are awful.)

> Why should everyone have to pay money to make stuff work in outdated software

This isn't about screen reader software. This is about compliance with web standards for information that is an excellent candidate for standards compliance. Remember that I'm not talking about web apps or software here - I'm only talking about websites describing software, websites that give information to potential customers.

> Why make compromises and waste time when implementing a new feature because it might screw up the viewing experience in your decade old browser?

Because these are not apps that I'm talking about. It's information. Why would you take something simple like text and images and a bit of CSS and make it hard for people to use it on the device of their choice? Why do people make websites that can't be viewed on a mobile phone? What features do they absolutely need that can't be provided on a mobile phone? Usually, it appears to be a mistake they made.

> the viewing experience

FUCK the viewing experience. Seriously. My life has been transformed reading pages of plain text. My life hasn't been transformed by a really nice CSS border. I want to read information. I don't want some idiot designer to mess it around. Let designers do the hard work - give it a nice font, give it a nice clean layout, make it useful. (And this is where good CSS is important - it's hard to make things clean and minimal.) See this example of an error, from the only other tab I had open, Chrome on OSX Snow Leopard. Not an obscure browser.

(http://imgur.com/9Ts2b)

The link to, I think, the links to view // communications are obscured by the grey background to the menu bar and search box. (Notice also that the top line is partly dark grey while the second line is light grey, leading to a confusing mix of colours for menu items.)

> I don't go into a store expecting to be able to still buy heroin as my cough medicine of choice, either.

A weird analogy. Say you went into a store to ask about information for blood glucose testing meters. You ask the clerk for information. She shows you 4 machines. She gives you manufacturer leaflets, and prices, for 4 machines. But you notice there are 5 machines on the shelf.

"What about that one?" you ask.

"Oh that," she says, "that's the new Blood-o-matic-9001. It's a great machine. Do you have a computer with Windows 8 on you?"

"Well, er, no, I don't." you reply, wondering why she'd ask such a thing. You only want information about it.

"That's a shame," she says "we'll only give information about that machine to people using Windows 8. Come back when you have it and we'll give you information."

Can you see that the app (the meter) can be flash-bang-whizzy and can set limits on the use because that's what apps do, but that it's stupid to set limits on what is essentially a bit of text and graphics just because you wish to force users to "enjoy" the viewing experience of transitions and curved borders.

I guess, because you've mentioned it, that I strongly agree that people should not support broken browsers. But that's very different from not allowing websites to gracefully degrade. I apologise for not being clear enough to convey my point. Communicaing my meaning is something I need to work on.

Re: Kogan imposes a tax on IE7 shoppers

#135

Post by alttab »

Zak wrote: post #67
paul9290 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are a good front developer then fixing ie7 issues shouldn't be an issue or take you long to fix! For html5 use the html5 boiler plate and ensure your code validates. Also do not use floats to position everything, only elements that need to flow with the contents of the document. Use position absolute for elements that are static and of course in the block that holds said elements add position relative. Using t…

I think you're missing the point. We're all tired of making one version for normal browsers and a bunch of special fixes for six year old browsers nobody should be using anymore. We're all tired of having to constrain the development techniques we use to make it easy to support six year old browsers nobody should be using anymore. We're all tired of thinking about six year old browsers nobody should be using anymore.

This. it also makes doing things that were not thought of in 2000 nearly impossible. popovers , css3, JavaScript, And animAtion libraries all have problems. its not just a bunch of zoom 1 fixes anymore. the web has moved on. display bugs are not the only problem

Re: Kogan imposes a tax on IE7 shoppers

#136

Post by takluyver »

seanp2k2 wrote: post #125
pwaring wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just large businesses. About 1/3 of our users use IE7, although thankfully there's hardly anyone still on IE6. About 1/2 are still on XP (NT 5.1). Some of these are small companies with <10 employees.

Don't forget third-world countries that largely rely on XP. IIRC as of about a year ago, a double-digit percentage of asia was still on XP.

A double digit percentage overall is still on XP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_system...

Re: Kogan imposes a tax on IE7 shoppers

#137

Post by trebor »

_wp3r wrote: post #32
ceol wrote: post #12

I doubt their userbase using IE7 is large enough for this to be a big deal. This tax's real goal is PR for Kogan.

Maybe not for Kogan, but most of the DOD is still on IE6, as an example that is something like 2 million daily users. Uber large business and government is were the users are hiding. The reason the numbers are still off is because those same users are using chrome at there house in the evening. There should be a business only metric for browser usage. That would be very interesting.

For one of our clients they had 100k+ hits from IE6/7 alone in the last 30 days. It's not that uncommon a browser, no matter how much it should be.

Re: Kogan imposes a tax on IE7 shoppers

#138

Post by talmand »

kamjam wrote: post #126
talmand wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"IE7 doesn't work, even for simple layouts, it doesn't work." What in the world are you talking about?

From this I get 1. A server side developer (C#/Java/PHP/Whatever) trying to be a HTML designer 2. A n00b HTML designer that's not been around long enough to know the different IE box models and workarounds needed. I'd guess 2. You can get most layouts to work in IE7, and with a lot of effort, IE6 even. Agree on the security aspect, but bear in mind that the majority of home users probably have Windows Auto Updates on…

Although I understand what you're saying, it sounded to me as if the person has direct experience with IE7 not working with "simple" layouts. In fact, it reads as if the person is saying that IE7 just doesn't work at all despite the design and layout. I'm curious as to what that means because based on my experience simple layouts are not much of an issue for IE7 and complex ones are not that bad. The claim that it "just doesn't work" requires further explanation regardless of the person's experience.

Re: Kogan imposes a tax on IE7 shoppers

#140

Post by lukejduncan »

_wp3r wrote: post #32
ceol wrote: post #12

I doubt their userbase using IE7 is large enough for this to be a big deal. This tax's real goal is PR for Kogan.

Maybe not for Kogan, but most of the DOD is still on IE6, as an example that is something like 2 million daily users. Uber large business and government is were the users are hiding. The reason the numbers are still off is because those same users are using chrome at there house in the evening. There should be a business only metric for browser usage. That would be very interesting.

Ford Motor Company as of a year ago was 100% IE 6. There was talk of change, but all the internal apps only work in IE 6.
Post reply on HN