Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

What purpose does browser-specific blocking serve?

<< < (3/4) > >>

Renegade:
Browser bias simply is not viable in the long run, regardless the efforts required to accommodate.
-barney (May 08, 2012, 09:41 PM)
--- End quote ---

That's the thing -- if you are a small business, or have limited resources, and must have a web site, you can either piss away your budget on 1% of the market, or you can do a spectacular job for 99% of the market. (Or whatever the actual percentages are.)

It's like having a restaurant -- just because some people are allergic to some food doesn't mean that you can't serve it. They can go elsewhere. Serve your own customers and be content with that. Not everyone has to love/eat your food. But, the ones that do eat your food, you can certainly work at making their meals delicious.

At some point you MUST say that effort beyond a certain amount is too much. Limited fund. Limited resources. Limited browsers.

Taking your statement a bit further... Why not support Netscape as well? And Netscape versions down to v1 while we're at it. Obviously any site that does that is going to be total crap, or insanely expensive.

It would be better if developers/designers simply stopped supporting IE entirely. If nobody supported IE's insanity, MS would either have to finally come around to playing nicely, or people would have to get a browser that worked.

By forcing browser companies to adhere to standards, the web becomes a better place. Letting them run rampant is wasteful and counterproductive.

barney:
Browser bias simply is not viable in the long run, regardless the efforts required to accommodate.
-barney (May 08, 2012, 09:41 PM)
--- End quote ---

That's the thing -- if you are a small business, or have limited resources, and must have a web site, you can either piss away your budget on 1% of the market, or you can do a spectacular job for 99% of the market. (Or whatever the actual percentages are.)
-Renegade (May 08, 2012, 10:21 PM)
--- End quote ---

OK, it seems there are two (2) different arguments here. 

From the development side, my argument stands.  It is the developer's job to develop for as many venues as possible/practicable.

From the business owner's side, it is not only feasible, but required, to try to attract the largest possible audience.

I don't see a real difference there.  (And I've been in both positions  ;).)

So we're basically talking apples 'n oranges in approach  :P.

However, I'm approaching this from the technical, not financial, standpoint. 

As developer, it is my job to design for the widest possible selection of browsers in order to provide the widest possible coverage for the Website owner.

As a site owner, I would, of course, want to pay for the minimum amount of developer time.

I don't see that the arguments on either side of this question are contrary.

I also think we've wandered far afield from IanB's original post, so I'll shut up now.

Renegade:
@Barney - Got it! :) I know what you mean. I'm all for trying to get as much support for as many browsers as possible, but... limitations on time, etc. can pose problems. I coded the design for one site and had to hack through some IE issues. Wasn't optimal, but that's IE for ya! :)

IainB:
It is odd though, isn't it?
Initially, I thought that maybe they couldn't cost-justify building an IE extension and reckoned that they could get away with not doing it, because their target market wouldn't be IE-dependent - as Renegade says:
Their audience doesn't use IE, so why bother?
--- End quote ---

But, that's not necessarily a safe assumption, as @db90h says:
...that's killing too much of your user base.
--- End quote ---
- and as @barney says:
With the inherently catholic audience that is the Web, you pretty much have to design for all.
--- End quote ---

If it was being purely business-driven, then presumably they would want to spread the net as wide as possible, but they don't seem to be doing that and are even making a "thing" out of not doing it, so it could be that there is a technical issue that is taking priority over the business driver.
It doesn't seem to be their website - that apparently works fine for current IE. Maybe there is some coding in those extensions that makes it a nightmare to develop one to work in IE?
Odd.

TaoPhoenix:
I'll throw some stuff on all this from another angle.  Y'all are looking at this from a "nice innocent" angle, both on the business side and the developer side. "Let's develop for all the browsers!" "The widest reach possible is best for business".

But what if that's only "Level 1" type strategy? "Build the website for all the browsers and they will come."

What if you *don't* need to develop for all the browsers? This is the exact same argument over Flash on iPads. "The widest reach" is of course to put Flash on iPads. "It's the developer's job to make it work" etc etc.

But Apple made a "Level 2" strategy move not to. They wanted to rearrange the ecosystem.

So here's a snarky Level 2 strategy: Look at it from the Support Side. Maybe you don't want a customer base filled with the type of people who post comments on Youtube.  So anyone who can't read enough to know what the words browser and IE are, isn't going to read anything about your app either! "If you can't download Firefox, you're not worth my time to support on the help desk."

Edit: I'll say it even stronger. "Honest-to-goodness time tracking and invoicing for
browser-based freelancers, consultants..."

You're a *consultant*. This isn't a Zynga Facebook app. It's a tool for *working knowledge advice professionals*. If you as a consultant can't download another browser, then I wouldn't hire you, and if "the CEO did" then put me in a padded room now. I can't even fathom a conversation to a consultant that goes like this:
"Hmm. I can't use this website."
"Oh, that's okay, you have to use a different browser than IE."
"What's a browser? What's IE?"

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page