Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

What purpose does browser-specific blocking serve?

<< < (2/4) > >>

db90h:
Yes, but IE users make up too much of a market share. That's why I indicated to block older versions of IE makes some sense, but newer versions -- that's killing too much of your user base.

Anyway, I speculated about other causes because the OP suggested this was not their true reason.

EDIT: I had concluded that their SSL cert was signed by an untrusted root authority for IE, but am re-evaluating that for older versions. I posted too hastily. Turns out I was wrong, had my adrenaline pumping ;p. The root CA is a branch of Comodo, who is certainly trusted, but I don't know whether that branch is.

db90h:
Fixed oopsie on my premature conclusion, although that may be accurate for *older* versions of IE. Also, this site seems to work fine for the latest version of IE, even /w SSL. They may simply be saying they aren't going to try to work around the issues with all the older builds of IE. No ulterior motive... entirely possible. Maybe this policy hasn't went into effect yet, I dunno.

Indeed, I myself quit caring about older IE versions too. Too much of a pain to create multiple CSS files, etc.. That said, my site *works* under those older versions, I did make sure of that.

Renegade:
If a site is designed for a particular browser, coded such that it only displays properly in one (1) or two (2) browsers, that burden/failing falls upon the Website developer, not upon the browser creator.  And the site owner should be cognizant of and forceful about inadequate design.

Yes, all browsers should adhere to all standards, but they don't  :(.  If a developer is too damned lazy [or ignorant] to make the site work in the four (4) or five (5) major browsers, then the site owner is the one (1) who gets hurt. 

Adding a disclaimer to the effect that a site only works in {ie|firefox|chrome|opera|safari|add your browser here} is, to my mind, just not being willing to put forth the effort to make it fully functional.  Yeah, it's extra work, but that's what developers get paid to do  :tellme:.  There's most always a workaround that will fit that particular browser's engine  :-\.
-barney (May 08, 2012, 08:31 PM)
--- End quote ---

Sorry. Not on board there. And no, there isn't always a work-around. Sometimes you are forced to have entirely different behaviour for different browsers -- again, IE is the problem here.

One of the core issues is that HTML is a declarative, markup language, and conditional logic is at best completely insane for it. The conditional logic for IE for style sheets is just moronic. Trying to put conditional logic into JavaScript is similarly idiotic. But, you are FORCED to use conditional logic for what would apparently be trivial tasks, e.g. using a transparent PNG as a design element.

Taking that example, transparent PNGs, you end up with an entire world of pain. It's simply insane. Anyone who has ever done any web design knows that the IE filters used to "fix" the problem are voracious in their appetites for CPU. It's extremely easy to create an otherwise simple design that will grind almost any computer to a halt, and will certainly destroy an older computer.

Trying to code for IE is like swimming with a concrete cinderblock chained to your neck, both arms, both legs, and just to add insult to injury, to any other external appendage that you may have. :P ;D

At some point you simply need to say, "Bugger this. We're not going to support that anymore."

Sure, you *can* support IE... But do you have the time and money to do it? Development costs money. For a primarily developer audience, there's ZERO reason to support IE 6, 7, or 8, and 9 is debatable. :P

The site there made the right choice to not support IE. Their audience doesn't use IE, so why bother? It's like manufacturing ski jackets for Mexicans.

Now, for general sites aimed at non-developer audiences, that's a different matter... You have to be careful in how you choose which browsers to support.

If you're doing government or corporate work... god... They're often still using IE6... So you're forced to do a massive amount of work so that the people that commissioned the work can see it, even if the audience for the site doesn't use IE6 at all. That's entirely about who's paying the bills... :( (IE6 was around for a dog's age, and there are a large number of applications built for it that are still in use.)

barney:
(IE6 was around for a dog's age, and there are a large number of applications built for it that are still in use.)
-Renegade (May 08, 2012, 08:58 PM)
--- End quote ---

Yeah, that's an albatross tied 'round MS' neck.  There are so many in-house apps built on IE6 that MS has been having Hell's own time retiring it.  Those apps just won't work in a real browser  :'( ;D.

As to the developer/non-developer audience, I don't think choice is really a valid option.  With the inherently catholic audience that is the Web, you pretty much have to design for all. 

On the other hand, stats that I've seen in several different venues indicate the IE6 is less than one (1) percent of the market, so things have improved somewhat.  IE7&8, as you've stated, are still pretty crappy, but IE9 has gotten closer.  And from what I've read - no direct experience - the [putative] browser for Win8 (IE10?) toes the mark about as closely as any other extant browser.

But a bottom line here is that there'll always be browsers that do not hew to the line on standards, or perhaps interpret them differently.  If those browsers are/become popular, we have to design with them in mind.  Or find a different line of endeavour.  Browser bias simply is not viable in the long run, regardless the efforts required to accommodate.

db90h:
I amended my statement above, as I wanted to clear one thing up .. although I quit caring much about older versions of IE, I do make sure my site *works* in them. It just is not as pretty ;).

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page