 |
 |
Let's not forget that Google has a business case for dropping IE8 support. Alerting folks to their old browser could (in SEO terms) turn into Chrome conversions. -Sean On 2/19/13 12:22 PM, "Eric Phetteplace" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > I guess my general philosophy is that, for any browser with a decent market > share (>1% ish), it's my responsibility that the website *works*. It is not > my responsibility to make it look the same or run as fast in every browser, > which means IE 8 can get flat colors instead of gradients or a fallback if > it's not too time-intensive to write. > > Google's web apps are dropping IE 8 support; visit Google Docs in IE 8 or > even an older Firefox and you'll see a warning. AFAIK, Google Search works > fine in almost any browser. > > And the jQuery thing is true but the versions are off; 2.0 will drop oldIE > support, 1.9 will be the maintained branch that keeps IE support. See their > announcement: > http://blog.jquery.com/2013/01/15/jquery-1-9-final-jquery-2-0-beta-migrate-fin > al-released/ > > > Best, > Eric > > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Bill Dueber <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> Keep in mind that many old-IE users are there because their corporate/gov >> entity requires it. Our entire univeristy health/hospital complex, for >> example, was on IE6 until...last year, maybe?... because they had several >> critical pieces of software written as active-x components that only ran in >> IE6. Which, sure, you can say that's dumb (because it is), but at the same >> time we couldn't have a setup that made it hard for the doctors >> and researchers use the library. >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Michael Schofield <[log in to unmask] >>> wrote: >> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> I'm having a change of heart. >>> >>> It is kind of sacrilegious, especially if you-like me-evangelize >>> mobile-first, progressively enhanced web design, to throw alerts when >>> users hit your site using IE7 / IE8 that encourage upgrading or changing >>> browsers. Especially in libraries which are legally and morally mandated >> to >>> be the pinnacle of accessibility, your website should - er, ideally - be >>> functional in every browser. That's certainly what I say when I give a >> talk. >>> >>> But you know what? I'm kind of starting to not care. I understand that >>> patrons blah blah might not blah blah have access to anything but IE7 or >>> IE8 - but, you know, if they're on anything other than Windows 95 that >>> isn't true. >>> >>> >>> * Using Old IE makes you REALLY vulnerable to malicious software. >>> >>> * Spriting IEs that don't support gradients, background size, CSS >>> shapes, etc. and spinning-up IE friendly stylesheets (which, admittedly, >> is >>> REALLY easy to do with Modernizr and SASS) can be a time-sink, which I am >>> starting to think is more of a disservice to the tax- and tuition-payers >>> that pad my wallet. >>> >>> I ensure that web services are 100% functional for deprecated browsers, >>> and there is lingering pressure-especially from the public wing of our >>> institution (which I totally understand and, in the past, sympathized >> with) >>> to present identical experiences across browsers. But you know what I did >>> today? I sinned. From our global script, if modernizr detects that the >>> browser is lt-ie9, it appends just below the navbar a subtle notice: "Did >>> you know that your version of Internet Explorer is several years old? Why >>> not give Firefox, Google Chrome, or Safari a try?"* >>> >>> In most circles this is considered the most heinous practice. But, you >>> know, I can no longer passively stand by and see IE8 rank above the >> others >>> when I give the analytics report to our web committee. Nope. The first >> step >>> in this process was dropping all support for IE7 / Compatibility Mode a >> few >>> months ago. Now that Google, jQuery, and others will soon drop support >> for >>> IE8 - its time to politely join-in and make luddite patrons aware. IMHO, >>> anyway. >>> >>> Already, old IE users get the raw end of the bargain because just viewing >>> our website makes several additional server requests to pull additional >> CSS >>> and JS bloat, not to mention all the images graphics they don't support. >>> Thankfully, IE8 is cool with icon fonts, otherwise I'd be weeping at my >>> desk. >>> >>> Now, why haven't I extended this behavior to browsers with limited >> support >>> for, say, css gradients? That's trickier. A user might have the latest >> HTC >>> phone but opt to surf in Opera Mini. There are too many variables and too >>> many webkits (etc.). With old IE you can infer that a.) the user has a >> lap- >>> or desktop, and [more importantly] b.) that old IE will never be a phone. >>> >>> Anyway, >>> >>> This is a really small-potatoes rant / action, but in a culture of all >>> accessibility / never pressuring the user / whatever, it feels >> momentous. I >>> kind of feel stupid getting all high and mighty about it. What do you >> think? >>> >>> Michael | Front End Librarian | www.ns4lib.com >>> >>> * Why, you may ask, did I not suggest IE9? Well, IE9 isn't exactly the >>> experience we'd prefer them to have, but also according to our analytics >>> the huge majority of old IE users are on Windows XP - where 9 isn't an >>> option anyway. Eventually, down the road, we'll encourage IE9ers to >> upgrade >>> too (once things like flexbox become standard), and at least they should >>> have the option to try IE10. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Bill Dueber >> Library Systems Programmer >> University of Michigan Library >>