81–90 of 226 posts
As long as they continue to support IE8 in 1.9 until Windows XP EOL next year I don't really see a problem.
Asking jQuery to support those browsers longer than Microsoft itself is willing do seems a bit harsh.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there any list of companies that currently require old versions of IE? I know a lot of hospitals do, and people handwave banks and whatnot. If there was a big list of "These people still use old versions of IE", then we could: A. Properly shame/advertise for attack/avoid getting work from these people. B. Expose a dedicated market audience for compatibility-minded dev shops Either of these would seem to be a Good…
You're missing an important part of this. There's a large number of companies whose web capabilities need to support people who use their website while working at the companies that have older versions of IE. The company I'm with has embedded video players on a large number of web retailer's pages (we're hiring a javascript+flash developer in Austin, TX right now, particularly around video players. If you're interest…
I fully agree. This is what we have accepted with the mobile web since the 1990s.
This is a smashing opportunity for web application frameworks to provide that sort of accessible experience while permitting more "flashy" features on more capable platforms.
A js meta-library that abstracted 1.9 and 2.x as long as possible would be worth a licensing fee for many sites. The others would make the decision based on their own analytics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Third parties have been trying to throw shitty old IE under the bus for a long, long time and haven't had much success in doing so. I fear jQuery 2.0 will see very low take-up on mainstream sites, and the resulting fork will be tricky to manage.
> Third parties have been trying to throw shitty old IE under the bus for a long, long time and haven't had much success in doing so. On the contrary. Lots of big volume mainstream websites (including even Google properties) have stopped supporting IE6 and some even IE7 for years. For IE6 it has been at least 4 years since most sites stopped caring about it. (Heck, even Microsoft created a site to convince people to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there any list of companies that currently require old versions of IE? I know a lot of hospitals do, and people handwave banks and whatnot. If there was a big list of "These people still use old versions of IE", then we could: A. Properly shame/advertise for attack/avoid getting work from these people. B. Expose a dedicated market audience for compatibility-minded dev shops Either of these would seem to be a Good…
Go into a local small business with about [$|€|£]2-5m in turnover per year. A moderately successful veterinary practice comes to mind. They have applications that need to be managed by what is undoubtedly an outsourced IT service, very likely related to some other system (practice management, diagnostic hardware, goofy industry-specific file formats, accounting, back-office, etc.). They will stay on XP for ages becau…
The purpose of having a list like this is to record the service providers who do have products out there that break using modern browsers--because they're ripe opportunities for "doing it righter and cheaper".
Do people not see how hard they are making the lives of future developers (or even their own lives down the road) by continuing to coddle these people?
Your vet example would be happy to switch to a cheaper service (cheaper because the devs were cheaper, because the tech is more modern and less finicky) if it were available, and a hitlist of companies ripe for displacement (due to running old platforms) would help the vet as much as help the devs.
This is so frustrating.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the post: "...we’ve got jQuery 1.x to handle older browsers and fully expect to support it for several more years."
Exactly. What does "several" mean? Are we talking two years? Five? A decade? Until jQuery changes their minds?
I cannot believe IE8 is now considered 'old'. It is the second most used browser+version on our site, and has about 80% as much usage as the leader, IE9. Can't see IE8 support being droppable for many years yet.
Even IE9 is pretty old. It's over 2 years old by now. IE8 is over 4 years old. IE11 will be released soon. How many versions of IE do you intend to support?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"No choice in the matter." Does someone have a gun the CEO's head stopping him? He could tell everyone to install latest Chrome or Firefox and have everyone upgraded in 10 minutes.
These decisions typically have much wider reaching ramifications, like an existing tech stack which relies on some quirk of IE6, or activeX. Yes, it's simple to upgrade a browser, but the potential impact must be evaluated, and this takes time (more than 10 mins to install a new browser).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that's true. There were a handful of competing libraries (Prototype.js, Mootools, etc) and jQuery won out because people seemed to prefer its API.
I can only speak for myself, but IMO jQuery won because of their docs. I seem to remember having a hell of a time trying to get MooTools to work in the summer of '06, and finding docs to be of no help.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Keeping old-IE compatibility prevents some optimizations and makes the code have to do extra checks, but using one file that supports it is simpler than using two files?
Ok, so the problems it causes are pain points for the jQuery devs and not for website devs? Also, the underlying code is more complex and lacks optimizations? Until old drops off the radar completely we'll have to use 1.9 solely or do a conditional check and serve the suitable version - serving 1.9 seems simpler ^^, call me lazy, many have,