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

141–150 of 151 posts

Re: Kogan imposes a tax on IE7 shoppers

#141

Post by esbwhat »

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…

Okay, sorry. Yeah obviously layouts will work, if you make them work. But that's the point, you have to make them work. IE has a weird box model, haslayout, buggy float handling, etc.

Of course it's possible to make things work, in case of a simple layout, most of the time not even hard (note that this wasn't my point at all), but if you code in a standards-compliant, normal way, without doing anything to especially accomodate IE7, there are a number of situation where things will just not work, while working in every other browser.

Is this a problem? Yeah. I would say so. People shouldn't be supporting something and thereby supporting the continued use of a product that doesn't work unless you coddle it. What if someone is a linux user? Are they supposed to buy a windows license just to coddle to users who are hurting the web with their browsing choice?

I'm by no means an expert designer, but I've been doing HTML stuff for a decade or so, from simple to complicated. I can and do get my layouts running in IE7, but that's not the point. The point is that I shouldn't, and if someone doesn't want to, they shouldn't be criticized for that. I'm pretty tired of running a VM to test my layouts as well.

Re: Kogan imposes a tax on IE7 shoppers

#142

Post by recursive »

27182818284 wrote: post #115
AndrewDucker wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have thousands of machines running an OS that works perfectly well for your purposes, then you only upgrade when support lapses, which is 2014 in this case.

I'm not buying it. This is the reason always given, and in real life I've not come across this as the actual reason. 99% of the time it is lack of staff and will not lack of "We don't know how to make the adjustments to make it work." I've also seen universities with faculty and staff still using IE7 not because of infrastructure requirements, but just because nobody had come around to upgrade because they hadn't bit…

What's the difference? There's no compelling business reason to upgrade.

Re: Kogan imposes a tax on IE7 shoppers

#143

Post by jack-r-abbit »

mayneack wrote: post #109
molmalo wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about a discount to cash then? Its the opposite, buy has the same result.

Most common (in the US) is just a minimum credit card purchase.

Many gas stations here (in California anyway) still offer a slightly lower price for cash customers.

Re: Kogan imposes a tax on IE7 shoppers

#144

Post by bmelton »

mayneack wrote: post #41
_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.

Many government offices now have firefox too. Not sure about the ones with higher security concerns, but I know the normal security places have FF.

And to be fair, the divisions in which we're talking about high levels of security aren't using those browsers on the internet anyway, they're locked away in SCIFFs, accessing internal-only applications.

Re: Kogan imposes a tax on IE7 shoppers

#145

Post by kentbrew »

kamjam wrote: post #128
esbwhat wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Have you gone to the site in question? I agree with DanBC, however I don't expect you to fully support all users if you don't want to, that's your perogative, you know your customer base better that we do so it's for you to decide what browsers and technology set you want to support. I think what DanBC is saying is if you are not going to support something, then tell the user why and they need. The user gets redirect…

Whoops, I need to let those guys know that aiee is broken. Thanks!

Re: Kogan imposes a tax on IE7 shoppers

#146

Post by mkmcdonald »

manuscreationis wrote: post #100
mkmcdonald wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I realize that a certain line must be drawn. However, a large subset of browsers can still be supported. I've found that I can support scripted pages until IE 4, wherein `throw` and `try/catch` are not supported. Niceties such as `Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty` and `Function.prototype.call` were introduced in IE 6⁰, so I can accept complaints about IE 5. A SyntaxError followed by a termination of script seem accept…

If it wasn't readily apparent how little you "got it" before this post, saying "We just don't work hard enough" destroys any credibility you may have here. Sorry, but there's a difference between "working hard" to make sure your site looks good and functions across as many browsers as you can, and wasting hours of your valuable time that could be better spent elsewhere, trying to get older versions of IE to show thin…

I don't write a single line of code that caters to one browser. This is where so many people miss the mark on understanding how I develop.

I test browsers in my spare time to discover how to degrade for them. I don't "bend them to my will"; I just use standards-compliant development with proper feature detection.

Re: Kogan imposes a tax on IE7 shoppers

#147

Post by mkmcdonald »

zbuc wrote: post #120
mkmcdonald wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I realize that a certain line must be drawn. However, a large subset of browsers can still be supported. I've found that I can support scripted pages until IE 4, wherein `throw` and `try/catch` are not supported. Niceties such as `Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty` and `Function.prototype.call` were introduced in IE 6⁰, so I can accept complaints about IE 5. A SyntaxError followed by a termination of script seem accept…

...how many users are you seeing on IE 5? IE 6, even? It sounds like a waste of time.

The objective of testing on older browsers is to break feature testing logic.

For example, Opera 6 has no DOM Core implementation. Ergo, I use it to test code that uses the DOM Core to observe graceful degradation. This enables the code to be "future-proof", or compatible with past, present and future browsers.

Re: Kogan imposes a tax on IE7 shoppers

#148

Post by mkmcdonald »

Zak wrote: post #76
mkmcdonald wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I realize that a certain line must be drawn. However, a large subset of browsers can still be supported. I've found that I can support scripted pages until IE 4, wherein `throw` and `try/catch` are not supported. Niceties such as `Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty` and `Function.prototype.call` were introduced in IE 6⁰, so I can accept complaints about IE 5. A SyntaxError followed by a termination of script seem accept…

We just don't work hard enough. There are 24 hours in a day, and some smaller number usable for working. What percentage of them should I spend making cool stuff, and what percentage should I spend making sure that cool stuff works in six (IE7), eleven (IE6) or twelve (Opera 5) year old browsers that only a tiny percentage of potential users use?

Spend some weekends reading up on feature detection[0] and documented "bugs" (read: expected behavior) on MSDN. The time I've spent on both has transformed my perspective as a developer.

We really don't work hard enough because we decry the DOM and blame Microsoft for problems research can and will solve.

[0]: http://peter.michaux.ca/articles/feature-detection-state-of-...

Re: Kogan imposes a tax on IE7 shoppers

#149

Post by mkmcdonald »

csallen wrote: post #65
mkmcdonald wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I realize that a certain line must be drawn. However, a large subset of browsers can still be supported. I've found that I can support scripted pages until IE 4, wherein `throw` and `try/catch` are not supported. Niceties such as `Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty` and `Function.prototype.call` were introduced in IE 6⁰, so I can accept complaints about IE 5. A SyntaxError followed by a termination of script seem accept…

I disagree that it's an issue of simply not working hard enough. The reality is that it's an issue of opportunity costs: There are only so many hours in a day, and every hour you spend on backwards compatibility is an hour that could have been spent on something else. Naturally, as time passes and the older browsers get older (i.e. less popular and harder to develop for), people are going to see less value in support…

Backwards compatibility isn't a proper way of describing what I do.

Graceful degradation is the proper description. In short, scripts can degrade by testing for the existence of a property (e.g. `Array.prototype.push`) and ignoring the property if it does not exist.

I'll be posting a large project here soon that should clarify the strategy. Stay tuned.

Re: Kogan imposes a tax on IE7 shoppers

#150

Post by Zak »

mkmcdonald wrote: post #148
Zak wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We just don't work hard enough. There are 24 hours in a day, and some smaller number usable for working. What percentage of them should I spend making cool stuff, and what percentage should I spend making sure that cool stuff works in six (IE7), eleven (IE6) or twelve (Opera 5) year old browsers that only a tiny percentage of potential users use?

Spend some weekends reading up on feature detection[0] and documented "bugs" (read: expected behavior) on MSDN. The time I've spent on both has transformed my perspective as a developer. We really don't work hard enough because we decry the DOM and blame Microsoft for problems research can and will solve. [0]: http://peter.michaux.ca/articles/feature-detection-state-of-...

I'm pretty sure I read that article around the time it came out. Looks familiar, anyway.

It doesn't have anything to do with my point, which is about opportunity costs. I have a finite amount of time, money and other resources. Why should I spend them making sure old browsers used by a small number of the lest sophisticated users work instead of building features?

Post reply on HN