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

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

paydirtapp.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 167 posts

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

#141

Post by josteink »

FaceKicker wrote: post #70
josteink wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, adding support for Retina displays is definitely an iOS-specific thing (at least right now). Not "right now". As long as you intend to support "retina displays", it will always be an Apple-specific thing. If you want to support something as general as high-DPI devices, you know, something concrete and not an Apple marketing-term, there are certainly lots of those being made and sold as we speak. They run Androi…

I downvoted you because your post seemed unnecessarily pedantic and condescending to me. I think it was pretty clear that GP was casually (or accidentally) using "retina display" as a generic term for "high DPI display".

Fair enough and I guess you are free to do that.

Still: targetting "retine display devices" is wrong for a multitude of reasons. You don't want your website to be tailored for a device which has 4x the number of pixels of another very specific device made by one vendor only. That is not the problem you are trying to solve.

The problem you are trying to solve is creating a DPI-independent site layout which exploits the resolution and estate available, while degrading gracefully on lower class devices.

If your solution to that problem is making your website hardcoded to fit two devices made by one vendor, as long as they remain true to leaving everything pixel perfect as they are now, for all eternity, needless to say, it's not a good nor elegant solution.

It's the "This website was made for MSIE" of olden days all over again, only this time for Apple-devices. And thats just not going to cut it.

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

#142

Post by WiseWeasel »

vibrunazo wrote: post #33
dclowd9901 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Buying a mac to run the simulator on is much more expensive than buying an ipad.

You can get a refurbished Mac Mini for around the same cost as a new iPad.

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

#143

Post by brudgers »

chris_wot wrote: post #133
brudgers wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reputation hit for blocking on the web is more or less permanent for most companies. Sure if I'm running Opera, I'll probably switch browsers to access Google. But Paydirt ain't free, it ain't Google, and I don't think I need it very badly. What I'll have to say about it probably won't be positive.

What you have to say about it probably won't be positive if you use Internet Explorer and it doesn't work. No loss to Paydirt! In fact, a gain - they don't have to spend any development or support time explaining why they don't support the Internet Explorer specific bug you encountered.

IMO, when it comes to accounting software, the browser shouldn't make a damn bit of difference to how it works, only to how it appears.

If a choice of browsers breaks a modern accounting application, that's poor design, not a feature because an accounting app damn sure better not be relying on javascript's math capability.

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

#144

Post by computerslol »

Users don't understand. Browsers are browsers, and for a vast majority of users, IE came with their machine. You aren't going to provoke thought, you'll just lose potential users.

I can understand not supporting legacy IE. Not supporting modern IE doesn't make sense. It seems a lot like nerd rage misdirected.

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

#146

Post by EnderMB »

vbtemp wrote: post #125
EnderMB wrote: post #119

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...

> 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)...

Incorrect, at least in the UK. If you believe the general stats that are pushed (hint: don't) then that would be the case, but we test on a client-by-client basis for many large sites and there are still a decent number of people using IE6, enough to justify a few thousand on making a site IE6-capable.

> 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...

I can't wait for IE6 to die, but for most of our clients 2% of users would easily pay off any cost for us to handle IE6. For now, we follow the Yahoo baseline (http://yuilibrary.com/yui/docs/tutorials/gbs/) at minimum and make sure that our sites work in IE6.

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

#147

Post by gm »

There is a lot of danger in defining yourself in terms of what you DON'T do.

For example, I don't know what your company DOES do, but I know you have devoted time and energy to taking a pissing-match stance against a browser.

This is not new, for many years there are many sites that block IE or serve IE users special pages that say "let me help you get a better browser in a highly-condescending, smug, and self-righteous way". You are not inventing anything by putting in this browser blocking.

Anyway, not my problem really.

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

#149

Post by tommorris »

Deestan wrote: post #96
josefonseca wrote: post #54

This widely depends on your geographics. Writing from Brazil here : still over 70% of the visitors, on average, to most sites I monitor are using some version of IE. So claiming a "feature" like that down here would be like rejecting 70% customers on a popular mall because they're not wearing red shoes(or some other arbitrary reason).

They are not selling the product in Brazil.

They are on the World Wide Web. If they aren't intending a world wide customer-base, they are missing one of the major features of the web.

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

#150

Post by chucknelson »

WiseWeasel wrote: post #139
lloeki wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Making sure you use Flash fall-forwards with HTML5 video/audio available for iPad / non-flash devices. Can't you for the love of all that is binary do it the other way around? I hate it when sites push Flash on me on the desktop when there's a pure html version ready a user agent string away.

Desktop browser support for h.264 video via HTML5 is a crap shoot. Sometimes it works well (Safari), sometimes it works poorly (Chrome), and sometimes it doesn't work at all (Firefox and IE9-).

I think he's just asking for a flash fall-back if native playback through HTML5 isn't supported. Maybe that is what "fall-forwards" already meant, but I'm not too familiar with that term...
Post reply on HN