Live data from Hacker News

Kogan imposes a tax on IE7 shoppers

lifehacker.com.au

51–60 of 151 posts

Re: Kogan imposes a tax on IE7 shoppers

#51
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.

True enough. But how many hours of life has ie sucked from developers? I mean ms purposefully held back the development of multiple internet standards, they deserve what they get imho, ideals or not.

Re: Kogan imposes a tax on IE7 shoppers

#52
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The OP means "assistive" as in "tools used by people who are disabled". It's not a choice to be blind.

What is the relationship between "assistive technology" and "old browser"? It would surprise me if that tech was only available for IE7.

The apps they use probably have a web browser embedded in them. They may not have 5k for a brand new version

Re: Kogan imposes a tax on IE7 shoppers

#53
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can understand why you make the requirements for your app very clear. I cannot understand why you'd chose to bounce potential customers from your website based on their browser. Isn't this just you failing to provide information to people who have made an effort to contact you and ask for it? I ask this next question gently: Have you checked you're not bouncing people using assistive technology?

Speaking only on my own behalf and not as part of Lexity, for whom I no longer work, I'd have to say that I'm fine with the risk of losing business from people who are unwilling or unable to update from a seven-year-old browser, "assistive" or not. Sorry to sound short about this, but it's the same sort of thing that happens when a road turns into a freeway. For everyone's safety, you don't get to ride your bicycle.

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 the "wrong browser" Bob is being stupid.

You might not like the fact that people use different computers and different operating systems and different browsers and different settings on those browsers. You may not like the fact that WWW was an attempt to solve compatibility problems across those variety of systems.

But if you are trying to sell me something, and I visit your website to get information about what you are selling, and you tell me that I'm using the wrong browser to get that information - well, I'm probably not going to spend my money with you. This is especially true if the information you're giving is trivially easy to give as text with a few diagrams (and even diagrams can usually go with good alt and longdesc attributes.). That was available in HTML 1.x[1] I understand the desire to give everything sliding transitions and round corners and shiny overlays and etc. I understand that CSS and correct design help impart meaning that isn't available in plain text.[2] But it is incredibly frustrating to be told that you cannot get simple information because you're not using what someone else thinks you should be using.

Remember that it is trivially easy for me to use the browser you want me to use, on the the OS you want me to use, on the computer you want me to use[3] and yet still totally destroy the design by increasing the font size. People used to specify font sizes. Most people know realise that's a stupid idea. (Imagine a TV station that broadcast a programme at a fixed volume, overriding the viewer's tv volume control. You'd call that station stupid.)

[1] (http://1997.webhistory.org/www.lists/www-talk.1993q1/0182.ht...)

[1] (http://www.alanflavell.org.uk/alt/alt-text.html#howlers)

[1] (http://www.alanflavell.org.uk/alt/)

[2] A List Apart used to have a nice page about this, but I can't find it at the moment.

[3] Baffling that people say that a 1 GHz machine with 256 MB ram is insufficient power to browse a website, but people do say that. And not forgetting that IE on Mac used to be created by a completely different team to IE on Windows. God knows who the poor souls who did IE on Unix were. See also the unreasonable bandwidth requirements for many websites. Sure, do what you like for fun, but again if I'm buying something from you I want a quick responsive website even if I'm on a stupid slow Australian link, or on some dial-up in the US (which is still surprisingly common) or if I'm using my mobile broadband dongle on a train, with a poor signal.

Re: Kogan imposes a tax on IE7 shoppers

#55

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. 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 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?

Re: Kogan imposes a tax on IE7 shoppers

#57
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.

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 too many floats is bound to make you hating ie7 even more.

Re: Kogan imposes a tax on IE7 shoppers

#58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's illegal in most states/violates all credit card agreements for the vendor. (but still a valid comparison)

Not illegal in Australia, where kogan is from. Unfortunately there's no limit on the amount a merchant can charge for payment/card fees. For example, I believe the most popular taxi charge company here (CabCharge) charges a 10% fee when paying by credit card.

I do believe the RBA was going to investigate this [1]. If they do anything about it is something else entirely however..

[1] http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/reserve-bank-is-investigati...

Re: Kogan imposes a tax on IE7 shoppers

#60
post #55

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?

So, you just keep using XP.

They probably have internal interfaces that aren't forward compatible, and re-factoring anything inside the DoD has got to be stupid expensive.

Post reply on HN