Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Startup Skips IE Support, Claims $100,000 Savings

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the what-about-being-platform-agnostic? dept.

Internet Explorer 273

darthcamaro writes "Guess what — you don't have to support Microsoft's IE web browser any more to build a successful website. In fact, you might just be able to save yourself a pile of cash if you avoid IE altogether." (Here's the story, from a few days back, in Canada's National Post, about the frugal financing of social startup Huddlers.) Evidently, no one complained about the lack of IE support either. I'd like to read more details about what $100,000 worth of IE-specific development would buy, though; not being dependent on IE sounds great, but loses some sparkle if it means requiring Chrome or Firefox.

cancel ×

273 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

They skipped IE support on their ADMIN pages (5, Insightful)

gabebear (251933) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141177)

They support all browsers when not editing content(the way most people use this site)... this article is also rather old

Re:They skipped IE support on their ADMIN pages (-1, Offtopic)

SluttyFuckingThomas (2650227) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141267)

About eight months ago, I was searching around the internet to find out why my computer was running so slowly (it normally ran quite fast, but had gradually gotten slower over time). After a few minutes, I found a piece of software claiming that it could speed up my PC and make it run like new again. Being that I was dangerously ignorant about technology in general (even more so than I am now), I downloaded the software and began the installation. Mere moments after doing so, my desktop background image was changed and warnings that appeared to originate from Windows appeared all over the screen telling me to buy strange software from an unknown company in order to remove a virus it claimed I had.

I may have been ignorant about technology, but I wasn't that naive. I immediately concluded that the software I'd downloaded was, in fact, a virus. In my rage, I broke numerous objects, punched a hole in the wall, and cursed the world at the top of my lungs. I eventually calmed down, cleared my head, and realized that the only remedy for this problem was a carefully thought out plan. After a few moments of pondering about how to handle this situation, I decided that since I barely knew how to properly handle a computer, I should turn it over to the professionals and let them fix the issue.

Soon after making the decision, I drove to a local computer repair shop and entered the building with my computer in hand. They greeted me with a smile and stayed attentive the entire time that I was explaining the problem to them. They laughed as if they'd heard it all before, told me that I'm not the only one who has trouble operating computers, and then gave me a date for when the computer would be fixed. Not only had they told me that the computer would be completely repaired in at most two days, but the price for their services was surprisingly low, and to top it all off, they even gave me advice for how to avoid viruses in the future! I left the building feeling confident in my decision to seek professional help and satisfied knowing that such kind-hearted people were the ones doing the job.

The very next day, I received a phone call from the computer repair shop whilst I was at a local library researching computer viruses. I had stumbled upon a piece of software that appeared to be very promising, and I was about to do more research on it, but seeing as how I required my computer as soon as possible, I decided to put the matter on hold. Upon answering the phone and cheerfully greeting the person on the other end, I was greeted with a high-pitched shriek. Startled, I asked what was wrong. A few moments passed where nothing was said, and suddenly, the person on the other end said to me, in a low voice oozing with paranoia, "Come pick up your computer." They hung up immediately after saying that, and I couldn't help but notice that they sounded as if they were on the verge of tears. I briefly wondered if it was due to stress from work, and then drove to the computer repair shop to acquire my computer.

I was positively dismayed upon entering the building. The inside of the computer repair shop looked nothing like the image from my memories. There were broken computer parts scattered throughout the room, ceiling tiles all over the floor, blood splattered in every direction I looked, and even a human toe on the ground. After processing this disturbing information, I began panicking and frantically looking around for my computer. I spotted an employee covered in blood sitting up against the wall, and noticed that his wrists had been slashed open. Thinking quickly, I ran up to him, grabbed him by the collar of his shirt, shook him around, and began screaming, "Where is it!? Where is my computer!?" After a moment of silence, he passed away, completely shattering my expectations. Such a thing! "What a meaningless individual," I thought.

Enraged, I tore the building up even further than it already had been in my desperate search for my computer. Eventually I discovered a door leading to an area that was normally only accessible to employees. I entered without hesitation and was met with a long, skinny hallway that a single person would have trouble moving about freely in. I proceeded down the dark hallway and bumped into the body of an employee hanging from a rope tied to something on the ceiling. I screamed, "Not only do you people have the gall to allow my computer to be endangered, but even in death you intend to block my path!?" After finally managing to push aside the worthless obstacle, I traveled down the hallway and came to a small black door. I entered without a moment's notice, and in the middle of the dark and dreary room, I spotted my computer; it was completely unharmed. With a sigh of relief, I picked it up, left the building, and drove home as if nothing of importance had occurred there.

Upon returning home and hooking up the computer (whilst wearing a cheerful expression the entire time), I, to my horror, discovered that the computer hadn't been repaired. There was nothing in the world that could have contained my fiery anger at that point. I broke almost every single one of my possessions, smashed all the windows on my house, physically abused my family, and then drove back to the computer repair shop to defile the dead lumps of meat that had failed to carry out the task I had given them. After realizing that I shouldn't be meaninglessly wasting my time with such worthless pieces of trash, I remembered the piece of software that I'd discovered earlier. With renewed confidence, I blissfully visited the local library, downloaded the software, and took it home to install on my computer.

I knew. I knew, even before installing it, that MyCleanPC [mycleanpc.com] would be my salvation. MyCleanPC [mycleanpc.com] would come through with flying colors where no one else could. MyCleanPC [mycleanpc.com] would completely, totally, and utterly eradicate the virus in the most merciless, efficient way possible. MyCleanPC [mycleanpc.com] was not a piece of software that could fail to meet my exceedingly high expectations. MyCleanPC [mycleanpc.com] would not fail me like all the other imbeciles had. At that point, it could be said that I could genuinely see into the future and be accurate in my predictions. I gleefully began installing MyCleanPC [mycleanpc.com] and laughed like a child at the thought of finally being able to attain revenge upon the virus that had shamed me so.

I was absolutely in awe of MyCleanPC's [mycleanpc.com] wonderfully efficient performance. Without a single issue, MyCleanPC [mycleanpc.com] utterly annihilated in moments the virus that many others had failed to remove after hours of attempts. I let out a victory cry and swore to never turn to any "professionals" to fix my computer ever again. Once again, I was able to predict the future. I knew that I would never need any worthless "professionals" again as long as I had MyCleanPC [mycleanpc.com] by my side.

MyCleanPC [mycleanpc.com] is outstanding! My computer is running faster than ever! MyCleanPC [mycleanpc.com] came through with flying colors where no one else could! MyCleanPC [mycleanpc.com] totally cleaned up my system, and increased my speed! I couldn't believe how much overclocking my gigabits and speed were doing! Even restructuring the BIOS wouldn't allow for the miraculously high degrees of efficiency that MyCleanPC [mycleanpc.com] allowed me to attain.

I highly and wholeheartedly recommend that you use MyCleanPC [mycleanpc.com] if you're having any computer troubles whatsoever. In fact, even if you're not having any visible problems, I still recommend that you use MyCleanPC. [mycleanpc.com] There could be dormant or hidden viruses on your system, or problems that MyCleanPC [mycleanpc.com] could easily and efficiently resolve. Just by using MyCleanPC, [mycleanpc.com] your gigabits will be running at maximum efficiency, and at last, you'll be overclocking with the rest of us! What are you waiting for!? Get MyCleanPC [mycleanpc.com] today!

MyCleanPC: For a Cleaner, Safer PC. [mycleanpc.com]

Re:They skipped IE support on their ADMIN pages (-1, Offtopic)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141279)

tl;dr spam

Re:They skipped IE support on their ADMIN pages (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40141325)

Flag it. We can do that now.

Re:They skipped IE support on their ADMIN pages (0)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 2 years ago | (#40142013)

Spam?

More like a bizarre joke/parody, trying to mock this MyCleanPC product...

It's actually funny, in a sick and twisted way. But indeed it doesn't need to be reposted hundreds of times. Now it's just like all the other bizaar Slashdot trollls and memes...

Re:They skipped IE support on their ADMIN pages (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40141351)

http://idle.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2876337&cid=40121377 is another instance of this spam. Who exactly doing this sort of spam?

When I feel like it, I'll go looking at the account user to see if these are hijacked accounts or if someone is registering accounts just to spam. I'm not an admin. I'm curious.

Re:They skipped IE support on their ADMIN pages (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40141753)

Jesus! That is the longest, most drawn-out piece of spam I have ever seen in my life. Give rhe man sime kind of award or something!

Re:They skipped IE support on their ADMIN pages (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40141773)

I didn't read the whole thing, but I'll guess the moral of this story is, avoid mycleanpc at ALL costs.

Re:They skipped IE support on their ADMIN pages (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40141841)

Avoid Windows at all costs and you can help send these anti-malware snake oil salesmen out of business.

Re:They skipped IE support on their ADMIN pages (4, Interesting)

ilguido (1704434) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141295)

this article is also rather old

Come on: Julia Johnson May 25, 2012 – 2:53 PM ET | Last Updated: May 28, 2012 7:45 AM ET

Re:They skipped IE support on their ADMIN pages (-1, Offtopic)

I have no weakness! (2650235) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141369)

About six months ago, I was overexerting myself trying to get rid of a terrible virus on a client's PC (I own a PC repair shop and have been fixing computers for over 10 years). Given my level of expertise, I thought I'd be able to get rid of it fairly quickly and without hassle, but as was made evident by my colossal failure, I was horribly, horribly wrong.

I couldn't remove the virus no matter what method I used. I tried all the latest anti-virus software and all the usual tricks, but it was all in vain. Failure after failure, my life was slowly being sucked away as I spent more and more of my time trying to get rid of this otherworldly virus.

Frustrated and stressed by my own failure, I began distancing myself from my wife and children. After a few days, I began verbally abusing them, and it eventually escalated into physical abuse. I was slowly losing what remaining sanity I had left. If this had continued for much longer, it is highly probable that I would have committed suicide. A mere shell of what I once was, I barricaded myself in my bedroom and cried myself to sleep for days on end.

That's when it happened: I found MyCleanPC [mycleanpc.com] ! I installed MyCleanPC [mycleanpc.com] right on the client's PC, ran a scan, and it immediately got rid of all the viruses without a single problem. MyCleanPC [mycleanpc.com] accomplished in record time what I was unable to accomplish after a full week. Wow! Such a thing!

MyCleanPC [mycleanpc.com] is outstanding! My client's computer is running faster than ever! I highly recommend you install MyCleanPC [mycleanpc.com] right this minuteness, run a scan, and then boost your PC speed in record time! MyCleanPC [mycleanpc.com] came through with flying colours where no one else could!

My client's response? "MyCleanPC [mycleanpc.com] totally cleaned up my system, and increased my speed!" All the PC repair professionals are using MyCleanPC [mycleanpc.com] to solve all of their problems. This should be reason enough for you to switch to MyCleanPC [mycleanpc.com] ! It'll speed up your computer, rid it of all viruses, and you'll be able to work productively again! Wow!

Even if you're not having any obvious computer problems, you could still be in danger. That's why I very highly recommend that you still use MyCleanPC [mycleanpc.com] . After all, it will boost your PC & internet speed to levels you never would think are possible!

MyCleanPC: For a Cleaner, Safer PC. [mycleanpc.com]

Re:They skipped IE support on their ADMIN pages (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40141655)

This shows you this site is getting really pathetic, once this kind of crap gets through. Yey scrub my PC with viruses.

Re:They skipped IE support on their ADMIN pages (5, Insightful)

Xest (935314) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141421)

It sounds fucking stupid anyway.

"No one complained about lack of IE support"

Yes, that's probably just because they fucked off to your competitor who made even more cash than you because they did support the 33% or whatever of the global population that is still using IE.

Besides, modern IE isn't exactly that difficult to support. Most browsers are much more forgiving and less picky than they were just a couple of years ago so if it displays right in Chrome/Firefox, chances are it does actually work just as well in say, IE7+ anyway.

I don't like IE, but not supporting it is still just plain fucking stupid as you a) throw away a sizeable portion of potential customers, and b) It's not hard to support recent versions (which is the bulk of usage) now anyway. The $100,000 savings thing is either a big fat troll, or they have some either really really incompetent developers, or really really overpaid developers. If it costs you that to support most IE users when you already support say Firefox, Chrome, Safari etc. then your site and/or team is horribly broken.

We support all these browsers as well as Blackberry, Android, iOS, WP7, Symbian to boot, and I can't see how if you've been sensible about your use of templating/stylesheets/javascript libraries like jQuery etc. you could possibly spend this much on IE support unless you're trying to support as far back as like IE3 or something. It implies they're willing to pay the equivalent of say, a standard front end developer $50k a year to spend 2 years on IE support which is frankly fucking insane.

I suspect this story is just a rather long winded way of saying "We don't like Microsoft, down with IE" rather than something that has any basis in fact, which is also a shame really, because if they'd just come out and said that - i.e. exactly what they meant - then I'd have been able to just reply and say "Yep", instead.

Re:They skipped IE support on their ADMIN pages (5, Insightful)

TheNinjaroach (878876) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141613)

Besides, modern IE isn't exactly that difficult to support. Most browsers are much more forgiving and less picky than they were just a couple of years ago so if it displays right in Chrome/Firefox, chances are it does actually work just as well in say, IE7+ anyway.

I wish this lie would simply go away.

There is something fundamentally broken when your web browser requires non-standard markup in order to display standards-based markup.

Re:They skipped IE support on their ADMIN pages (3, Informative)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141805)

Besides, modern IE isn't exactly that difficult to support. Most browsers are much more forgiving and less picky than they were just a couple of years ago so if it displays right in Chrome/Firefox, chances are it does actually work just as well in say, IE7+ anyway.

I wish this lie would simply go away. There is something fundamentally broken when your web browser requires non-standard markup in order to display standards-based markup.

IE 9+ maybe.... pre 9 I no longer bother for flashiness unless someone wants to pay. But, even then, since we're doing truly standards based development or utilizing supported toolsets on 99% of our websites anyways, we have very good odds of a large percentage of the website working all the way back to IE7, and the important workflows, i.e., ordering and purchasing, are tested thoroughly. That image flyover on hover, not so much.

Re:They skipped IE support on their ADMIN pages (1)

GodInHell (258915) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141851)

Having not coded a web page in ... oh ... ten years, which is the lie: that different browsers require different mark-ups or that IE7 and Firefox/Chrome basically all work the same now?

I think its the former, but I wouldn't be surprised by the later.

Re:They skipped IE support on their ADMIN pages (1)

Tohuw (1641271) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141639)

Supporting IE 9 is fairly easy, unless you're doing some wacky JQuery madness (stop doing that, nothing needs to be that fancy) or creating renders that expect really consistent text shadows (stop creating visuals that require text shadows to be readable). There are exceptions a colleague ran into whilst creating a rather extensive admin interface for a webapp that had many forms and parts on a single page, but he seemed to clear the hurdle without too much bleeding. IE 8 is notably less easy, especially if you're using CSS rounded corners (though you should be able to make a design that doesn't require them to at least look acceptable). There's also other bits of weirdness STFW for countless rants can reveal to you. IE 7 is a pain in the ass, and incompatibilities abound. It's nowhere near as bad as the hell that was supporting IE 6, but it's still costly and time-consuming. So, in summary, I agree with the core of your statements, but also can sympathize (but not agree with) the desire to drop IE for editing and control interfaces.

Re:They skipped IE support on their ADMIN pages (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40141775)

I'd agree with you, about IE support, if people were using IE9. The fact is that people are using a spattering of IE7, IE8, and IE9. http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp That means if you intend to support IE, you are obligated to support IE7/8 as well. Given that IE is now less than 20% of the market, and the exponential amount of time it takes to debug sites for IE7/8 I'd like to think at least that there may come a day when we can just toss those browsers on the unsupported heap where they belong and just make things work... and yes I like my jquery based .4% opacity overlay animations.. :P

Not really - they skipped IE support everywhere (2)

Hemi Rodner (570284) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141657)

Here's an example [4ormat.com] of what they are telling their customers:

IE is becoming a really outdated browser - we can't offer full support for IE, though we do try our best to offer that. IE uses different syntax for CSS than many other browsers, and generally causes problems. It will be nice when everyone stops using it!

Thanks for using 4ormat, Stefan

So it implies that IE manages to display most of their content, but thet don't really bother fixing IE-related problems.

Re:Not really - they skipped IE support everywhere (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40141985)

So it implies that IE manages to display most of their content, but thet don't really bother fixing IE-related problems.

Which is a very sensible position if you ask me.

Useless (3, Informative)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141189)

I'd like to read more details about what $100,000 worth of IE-specific development would buy, though

Boring pixel perfect rendering to make the artists happy. Blah. At least I know they're putting most of their effort into how it looks; I will have no use for it, and can avoid it.

Re:Useless (4, Informative)

ilguido (1704434) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141281)

It's the admin part that's Firefox/Chrome only. So it may be something else than boring pixel perfect rendering. The portfolios(which need the "boring pixel perfect rendering to make the artists happy") can be browsed with any browser.

Re:Useless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40141337)

Perhaps it buys one overpaid developer that doesn't know what he is doing? Or divide the cost up more and figure some of it goes for testing on non-compliant platforms too.

It is worth asking what content of value the site has that couldn't be presented in a simplified form compatible with more browsers (both type and age diversity), and function while requiring a minimum of technologies that potentially expose users to security issues, or simple bogging down on older or lower-powered (mobile?) hardware.

Is there a fork of FF 3.x that is still getting security fixes? There ought to be some lean option that is bare-bones focused and free of evolving bug-filled technology.

Re:Useless (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141397)

In my experience, tacking IE7 support onto a modern web site adds up to 15% to the total cost. Call me jaded, but I don't expect this Huddlers thing to be all that complex, certainly not enough to justify a $100k premium for IE support. So maybe they pulled a number out of their ass to look important and draw attention, or they're projecting that $100k over several years of development. Either way, it's a load of bullshit.

More importantly, how much business are they losing over that $100k "savings" ? I don't put in extreme effort to support IE, but then again I usually don't need to. It's pretty easy, as long as you're not shooting for 100% pixel accuracy - which is a dumb goal anyway, regardless of browser preference. That 15% figure I mentioned earlier, that's a worst-case scenario, meaning everything's messed up and I need to spit out completely different HTML for IE. Most of the time, all that's needed is a conditional stylesheet and a Javascript shim.

Re:Useless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40141549)

Huddlers wasn't even the website the figure was from. "To save more than $100,000, 4ormat decided to skip Internet Explorer, opting to only allow users to access its service through Mozilla’s Firefox and Google Chrome browsers."

This isn't even the original article about this figure. I read an earlier article about 4ormat specifically and the 100,000 figure. If I remember correctly it was the admin side and they were using a bunch of html5 stuff that was in firefox and chrome but not IE at the time. I wouldn't be too surprised if it did actually work in IE 9 now.

I support a webapp and I know that IE is the number 1 browser when it comes to weird issues that need to be worked around for us so I have no problem believing large numbers for the savings. Unfortunately for us we work with higher ed institutions so we can't even rely on them having the current version of IE.

Re:Useless (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40141427)

I'd like to read more details about what $100,000 worth of IE-specific development would buy, though

Boring pixel perfect rendering to make the artists happy. Blah.

This. So very this. I'm involved in a web project right now where both IE support AND pixel-perfect rendering are apparently vital (it took us about a month to convince the spec designers of the concept of "your fonts are not the user's fonts" and "Illustrator is NOT a web design tool"). We're actually expected to maintain pixel-perfectness in an automated testing environment. Seriously, half our development time has been wasted trying to figure out how to test this with an art department breathing down our necks with pixel-measuring tools for a web application.

So you can see why I posted anonymously.

Re:Useless (5, Insightful)

n5vb (587569) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141679)

And the original concept of the Web was specifically not intended to do pixel-perfect rendering of anything. HTML was specifically designed to mark up flexibly depending on the dimensions of the window space, and use local fonts on the client rather than supply fonts from server side, so getting pixel perfect rendering of a site is essentially fighting a whole pile of client-side unknowns that may vary widely even between instances of the same browser rendering engine that are doing exactly what they were designed to do based on the HTML spec (although because everyone wants their site to "pop" and grab viewers' attention and all that other marketing BS, the spec itself is now starting to drift toward pleasing high-end art departments .. ::eyeroll::)

And remember that JavaScript was originally part of MS' "embrace, extend, extinguish" strategy, and the open standard it evolved into differs subtly from the version MS still implements in IE. (And that aspect of IE integration can be a massive rectal pain loaded with horrendously screwy little gotchas.) So if you do anything major on client-side, including pretty much anything even vaguely resembling Ajax, you're stuck with two parallel development/testing cycles, one for IE, one for pretty much everything else. I actually abandoned IE support on one site I was building because I just didn't have the time to mess with it.

Re:Useless (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141529)

Remember when people used to make the entire page one giant image with clickable areas, just to get pixel perfect rendering in every browser?

Re:Useless (1)

hobarrera (2008506) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141761)

Or even worse; one big flash covering the entire page/website.

Re:Useless (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141979)

I worked at a start up. We followed this policy.

We support Chrome/Firefox/IE using the latest versions.
The non-latest versions we just made sure the application worked. If graphics were a bit off, or the eye candy didn't work, no big deal.

This policy seemed to help much with development. Because we are not spinning our wheels in getting old IE to work perfectly. Saving development time. What usually hurts these companies is trying to fully support older browsers while putting in the new features.

imho (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40141225)

While my preference is Safari, anything that a) drives users away from IE and/or b) drives users towards Webkit (Safari or Chrome) is, in my humble opinion, a very good thing. Yes, I know that Firefox is good and Opera is fancy and blah blah blah. In my experience, Webkit is simply superior in every single way, be it Safari or Chrome (like I said, my preference is Safari but I'm quite all right with people who choose the other option).

And, really, _anything_ that drives people away from IE is a very good thing...

Re:imho (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141273)

Yes on (a) no on (b).

IE, with the possible exception of the waning days of netscape, has been a pox on the internet. However, that said, any flavor of 'BEST IF VIEWED ON', be it IE6, or something technically superior, is the real pox upon the internet...

Re:imho (2)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141587)

To be honest, I'd not have a big problem with Webkit becoming the reference implementation for HTML. For one it's trying pretty hard to stick to the standard and if all else fails you can look at the code to see what the hell it's doing. Comparing that to IEs black box layout where I've been doing pixel-by-pixel adjustments waiting for the one pixel to turn my entire layout into monkey barf isn't even on the same planet. As long as they don't fall into the "yeah this is wrong but we can't fix it because that'd break too many sites" crap. Fix it and the crappy web developers who've relied on buggy and incorrect behavior will have to fix their shit, I don't have a problem with that.

Re:imho (1)

Eirenarch (1099517) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141737)

I have yet to see front end dev look at rendering engine code. I will be really impressed if I ever do see such a sight.

Re:imho (2)

IAmGarethAdams (990037) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141923)

We've got a front end dev in our web shop with rendering patches accepted into Gecko. It's a rare sight, and it takes the right kind of developer, but it's not unheard of

Re:imho (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40141821)

And why is it such a thing?

Are you going to moan and whine that you have to get a new graphics card to use Shader Model 15?
No? Then stop bitching at innovation.
It isn't the web developers faults that stupid companies decide not to implement something EVERY OTHER BROWSER MAKER IN EXISTENCE has supported. (EVEN NETFRONT!)

But speaking about it logically, I can't begin to even think what isn't supported.
The only reasons I can think of for them moaning is:
they are pixel-perfect retards
they don't know the actual standards and probably use some web dev blogs and think they are geniuses.
Microsoft even supports web blobs and I assume is ready to add window.url support for generating virtual URLs to said content.
The Web Apps age is going to bring on the next browser wars. I, for one, am glad.

Re:imho (2)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141315)

I haven't had any issues with IE8 or IE9 that isn't present in any of the other major browsers. Even IE7 was decent when it first came out. It's not my browser of choice, but it competes with Chrome for the #2 spot. No browser is "superior in every single way" - each one has its strengths and weaknesses. I prefer Opera for the bulk of my day-to-day browsing, IE for certain types of interactive content and Chrome for speed on media-heavy sites (mostly Netflix and Pandora). I only have Firefox and Safari installed for testing my websites and they get no use otherwise.

Re:imho (-1, Offtopic)

It'sHopelessSlashdot (2650239) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141403)

A few months ago, I accepted what at first appeared to be a very simple job: remove a virus from someone's computer. Given the fact that I owned a PC repair shop (and I still do) and had over 15 years of experience, I was confident that I could complete the job in a timely manner without any complications along the way. Little did I know, however, that accepting this job would spiral my life into a nightmarish den of anguish and uncertainty.

First, I tried booting up the PC. When Windows finally loaded, it became apparent that this was no ordinary virus; it was a merciless monstrosity of a virus that would stop at nothing to ruin your entire life. However, despite this, I bravely pressed on and attempted to combat the virus. "I absolutely will not let a mere virus scare me off!" I thought.

After numerous unsuccessful attempts at removing the virus and after exhausting every single option to combat viruses that I had, I finally realized that the situation was absolutely devoid of hope. This was a virus more fearsome than any other, and it was simply impossible for someone with my abilities (skilled as I was) to fight against it alone. Even reinstalling the operating system completely didn't help. I quickly sank into a pit of depression and despair.

Being that I was extremely stressed due to my numerous failures, I began verbally abusing my wife and kids a few days after I received the job. This situation soon worsened when I began resorting to physical abuse in order to relieve some of my anger. Eventually, after not being able to withstand my daughter's constant moans and whines any longer, I locked her in the basement in order to retain an ounce of my sanity.

That's when I had a stroke of genius: "If I can't fight this nightmare alone, then why don't I call in the World's Greatest Minds?" I immediately contacted the World's Greatest Minds and pleaded that they examine the computer. To my delight, they accepted the proposal, collected the computer, and began their experiments.

After weeks of trial and error, numerous experiments, and many failures, the World's Greatest Minds had at last reached a conclusion. They contacted me by phone and told me that this, being no ordinary virus, called for extreme measures. They quite vehemently recommended the use of MyCleanPC [mycleanpc.com] to combat the virus and destroy its very existence once and for all. "MyCleanPC [mycleanpc.com] will completely eradicate the virus without a single problem," they enthusiastically told me.

As soon as I got the computer back from the World's Greatest Minds, I installed MyCleanPC [mycleanpc.com] , ran a free scan, and then sat back and watched in awe as it totally eliminated the very same virus that I had spent weeks trying to get rid of in mere seconds! MyCleanPC [mycleanpc.com] had accomplished a feat that nothing else in existence could have accomplished! I was positively astonished by MyCleanPC's [mycleanpc.com] miraculous performance.

What was my daughter's response, you ask? "MyCleanPC [mycleanpc.com] is outstanding! My dad's client's computer is running faster than ever! MyCleanPC [mycleanpc.com] came through with flying colours where no one else could! I recommend that you use MyCleanPC [mycleanpc.com] right this minuteness to fix all of your problems!"

MyCleanPC [mycleanpc.com] totally cleaned up my client's system, and increased his speed! As a computer repair professional, I highly recommend that you use MyCleanPC [mycleanpc.com] to fix all of your problems. That's not all: The World's Greatest Minds also recommends MyCleanPC [mycleanpc.com] for all of your computer repair needs. By using MyCleanPC [mycleanpc.com] , you're ensuring that your gigabits will be running faster than ever, that all viruses will vanish off of your computer in seconds, and that you'll be overclocking with the rest of us!

Even if you're not having any visible problems with your computer, I still wholeheartedly recommend that you use MyCleanPC [mycleanpc.com] . After all, you could have a dormant/silent virus on your system. Additionally, MyCleanPC [mycleanpc.com] will speed up all of your gigabits to levels you could never imagine! You'll be overclocking in no time thanks to MyCleanPC [mycleanpc.com] !

MyCleanPC: For a Cleaner, Safer PC. [mycleanpc.com]

Re:imho (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40141545)

What the fuck is wrong with you? You wrote all this for a commercial? I adamantly tell my customers this service is a joke! With most virus's today, your internet connection is horked up. Now how do you get to this bullshit service? It is also EXTREMELY difficult for a virus to be left over is the OS is wiped off and reinstalled. Spam like this is sad, keep this bullshit on a different site. Your story is very disrespectful to this site, to the public in general and to peoples intelligence. Go to this site if you want to ruin your computer.

Re:imho (1)

dskzero (960168) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141591)

I have no idea why would anyone use Safari over Chrome or Opera. That said, I agree with you and it's a major point: IE9 is a good browser. It's just inferior. It's definitely better than Firefox nowadays.

Re:imho (0)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141925)

I have no idea why would anyone use Safari over Chrome or Opera. That said, I agree with you and it's a major point: IE9 is a good browser. It's just inferior. It's definitely better than Firefox nowadays.

Because Safari generally works better on macs than Chrome, some people aren't comfortable with running a Google browser since they feel Google has enough tendrils in them already, and Firefox isn't a bad browser, I still use it occasionally for development. Firefox's major flaw (and Safari's too, Chrome fixes this by running each window/tab? in a separate process IIRC) is the single thread running the JS engine across all pages. One badly written JS script can lock up all windows and tabs. In Firefox it's worse because of the memory leaks that abound in the JS engine implementation. (Note: stopped using FF as main browser around the 4 release, so no idea what they've done since with the JS engine, it was supposed to be replaced) Safari has significantly fewer JS leak issues, and Chrome virtually none if you open new windows and close existing ones (or tabs, again, haven't researched this in depth). A good way to see how badly your browser's JS implementation leaked used to be to use the ebay auction countdown timer, and let it run to 0 and leave the page open (available in the last ten minutes or so of an auction) I believe they've fixed whatever the bug was that caused GB of swap page use over the course of a few hours after an auction ended.

Re:imho (1, Informative)

Keeper Of Keys (928206) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141367)

Did you know that really.__anything__() can be written as anything(really) ?

Re:imho (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141441)

Have you even used IE8 or 9 ? Safari/WebKit is quite nice, though I prefer Firefox, but I really cannot dump on IE like we used to. IE9 tends to work fine with the vast majority of my sites. When I have to add IE-specific fixes, they are for IE7. IE8 is missing some CSS3 stuff, but is usually pretty close.

As a web developer in 2012, I really don't mind any current browser. They have all come a long way, and if I'm not targeting older browsers, I hardly ever need to do any tweaking at all. I can develop with any of those browsers and the result will be near-identical across the board. To hate on any of them is a display of ignorance.

Might be TOUGH in Korea though (for example) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40141261)

Why? Koreans "love their 'ActiveX'" is why -> http://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=%22Korea%22+and+%22ActiveX%22&btnG=Search&gbv=1&sei=vsfET6reBaiT6gHt9-i_Cg [google.com]

* Now, I don't mean they "love it" better than anything else - it's just how MUCH of their internet for the masses IS designed, still to this very day...

APK

P.S.=> Personally, I've got NOTHING against anyone doing what the article states, but what happens IF a site's "ASP.NET" though (.aspx)?

Then, the "pressure" would be on the OTHER browser makers to support it, not how the website's designed imo @ least!

(Additionally - That'd mean they'd be "dropping support" for customers that use such sites IF they don't support access to them directly (I've seen FF addons that do "IE pages" via using an instance of IE set into a TAB in FF though, @ least that's a "work-around start"))... apk

Re:Might be TOUGH in Korea though (for example) (-1, Troll)

BattleInValor (2650229) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141301)

You are nothing compared to one such as I. Do you wish to know why?

It's because I use Gamemaker. I returned to Gamemakerdom quite some time ago! Your hosts file is no match for Gamemaker!

How comical! How comical! Pathetic little Gamemakerlessnesses like you make me vomit! The mere sight of such an existence...!

Turn to dust and die now! And then return to Gamemakerdom!

You're only PARTIALLY correct... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40141493)

"You are nothing compared to one such as I" - by BattleInValor (2650229) on Tuesday May 29, @09:08AM (#40141301)

No, you're just 'nothing' (but a troll) & downmoderation of your post showed it... So there: I corrected your trolling off-topic statement for you! LMAO - "YOU OWE ME ONE"!

* "Next"... lol!

APK

P.S.=> "Onwards & UPWARDS"... apk

Why a moddown? It's just fact... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40141889)

Ahem: See subject-linea above - Obvious TROLL has mod points -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2880951&cid=40141301 [slashdot.org] , via MANY OTHER registered 'luser' accounts he has, ala the constant "gamemaker" b.s. ones seen here in recent weeks, turned around and used a few unjustly on my post that only extolled KNOWN ACCEPTED FACTS?

No doubt about it as to what happened here and downmods that aren't justified on the post of mine I am replying to & noting here!

(Especially considering there's NO VALID COMPUTING TECHNICAL JUSTIFICATION behind said downmoderation of the post I just replied to, makes it PRETTY OBVIOUS what went on here...)

* Pretty pitiful...

APK

P.S.=> After all trolls - IF THE "BEST YOU'VE GOT" is UNJUSTIFIED MODDOWNS? You've got nothing/zero... period!

(YOU know it, I KNOW IT, & everyone/anyone reading here, knows it)... apk

so windows ARM tablets and metro mode will be lock (-1, Flamebait)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141271)

so windows ARM tablets and metro mode will be locked out?

MS better open up to any web browser.

Re:so windows ARM tablets and metro mode will be l (-1, Offtopic)

Give it up, (2650237) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141381)

A few weeks ago, I foolishly ran a strange executable file that one of my acquaintances sent me by email. As someone who doesn't know much about computers, at the time, I thought nothing of it. "Why would my acquaintance want to hurt me?" Following this line of thought, I ran the file without question.

How naive I was. Despite having what was supposedly the best anti-virus software out right then, a virus took over my computer and held it hostage. It was pretending to be a warning from Windows telling me to buy some strange anti-virus software I'd never heard of from a company I'd never heard of to remove the virus.

This immediately set alarm bells off in my head. "How could this happen? My anti-virus is supposed to be second to none!" Faced with this harsh reality, I decided to take it to a PC repair shop for repair. They gladly accepted the job, told me it'd be fixed in a few days, and sent me off with a smile.

A few days later, they called me and told me to come pick up my computer. At the time, I noticed that they sounded like whimpering animals, but I concluded that it must just be stress from work. When I arrived, they, with tears in their eyes, told me that the virus was so awful and merciless that they were unable to remove it. "Ah," I thought. "That must be why they sounded so frustrated and pathetic over the phone. Their failure must have truly ruined their pride as professionals." I later found out that two of them had committed suicide.

After returning home, I tried to fix it myself (despite the fact that even the professionals couldn't do it). After about a day or so, I was losing my very mind. I stopped going to work, stopped eating, was depressed, and I would very frequently throw my precious belongings across the room and break them; that is how bad this virus was.

That's when it happened: I found MyCleanPC [mycleanpc.com] ! I installed MyCleanPC [mycleanpc.com] , ran a scan, and let it remove all the viruses! They were removed in precisely 2.892 seconds. Wow! Such a thing! I can't even believe this as such never before! MyCleanPC [mycleanpc.com] is outstanding! My computer is running faster than ever! MyCleanPC [mycleanpc.com] came through with flying colors where no one else could!

MyCleanPC [mycleanpc.com] totally cleaned up my system, and increased my speed! If you're having computer problems, or even if you aren't having any obvious problems, I recommend that you use MyCleanPC [mycleanpc.com] . As a user, it did more for me that any so-called "professional." It'll even boost your PC & internet speed!

MyCleanPC: For a Cleaner, Safer PC. [mycleanpc.com]

Skeptical (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141275)

I'm no fan of IE, but I'm skeptical of the $100,000 savings. Of course if I chose to hire one guy to do nothing but support a single browser then that would easily account for the money saved, but who in their right mind would do that?

Also the lack of complaints about incompatibility could be an indication of how all the major web browsers are finally converging on the HTML standard.

It's almost as if he went to the local library and read a book from the 90's about web development.

Re:Skeptical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40141361)

My company values my time at $500/hour

100,000 / 500 = 200 hours = 5 weeks

I've easily spent double that in the past 6 years here fixing dumb IE issues. So have the other employees.

Re:Skeptical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40141511)

is that what they pay you, or is that what they hire you out at?

It's shennanigans (5, Informative)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141383)

First of all, the summary has it wrong. The company is 4ormat, not Huddles. And read this article [techcrunch.com] for an explanation of how this claim is just a publicity stunt. It works just fine in IE (ironically, the only browser it doesn't work in is Opera).

Re:Skeptical (1)

hackula (2596247) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141573)

I agree. Browser compatibility is rarely any sort of major issue. Sure, it is a PITA to deal with, but it is usually one or two tiny little formatting issues per page that take 10 minutes to test and fix. If you are not relying on the dark corners of any of the browser specs and write generally standards compliant code, this really should not be a 100,000 dollar problem for all but the largest of sites (some social networking site nobody has ever heard of does not qualify).

Does it filter the browser ID? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40141297)

That would be a mistake as IE becomes more and more compliant.

Re:Does it filter the browser ID? (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141335)

This has been the main reason people complain about Opera - sites redirect Opera users to a page bitching to download IE or Firefox without giving the option to proceed with Opera. It's easy to circumvent, but still very annoying. I'm fine with sites that give you the warning that it hasn't been tested in your browser as long as there's an option to "Proceed Anyway".

Here's the memo the interviewees missed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40141299)

Users don't complain if your web site sucks... they just don't come back.

Re:Here's the memo the interviewees missed (5, Funny)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141345)

You obviously haven't spent much time on Slashdot or Facebook.

So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40141309)

My pages mostly just work on ie nowadays. It's far from being a big issue by now. IE6 is mostly dead, IE7 users, bah.. :)

I do support IE, but not really actively. I fix the occasional bug, but there aren't more than chrome vs. firefox. Some features lacking, nothing that is really needed to survive on the pages.

100'000$ is quite much for the minutes I spent, at most, to focus on ie. I'd like to get that money :) Can I do the ie support for them??

I'd like to complain (2)

Eirenarch (1099517) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141323)

I'd like to complain that /. does not work well (hides part of comments) in IE. /. will probably claim that no one is complaining but here I am. So are you going to fix it now?

Re:I'd like to complain (1)

jones_supa (887896) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141589)

I every now and then see a bug (or maybe it's my score settings?) where I can see a comment, but its child is missing, and then immediately after comes the grandchild comment (with proper two levels of indentation). So a comment disappears in between. This with all browsers.

Re:I'd like to complain (1)

Eirenarch (1099517) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141857)

No, it's some IE specific issue that cuts longer comments in the middle and hides the reply link. I sometimes log in with Opera to post comments but most often decide to skip commenting. While /. may not care for this in particular I have dropped several sites I intended to spend money on for not supporting my browser of choice. For example playhem.com . I make sure to tell them they suck though ( http://feedback.playhem.com/forums/130623-ideas-improvements/suggestions/2577693-internet-explorer-support [playhem.com] )

The other day I decided to test the c9.io and to my surprise it did not work not only in IE but in Opera as well. I don't have any other browsers on my laptop so the test kind of failed.

Webkit (3, Informative)

hackus (159037) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141329)

I would target the latest version of webkit.

IE:

1) Developer tools
2) Server software
3) Desktop Software
4) Virus Checking your updates from Microsoft/MSDN
5) Specific time for setup, maintain IE development environment. (Server, Desktop, Tools)
6) Debug time for IE specific stuff and Development

And of course all the licensing BS costs.

I can see lots of reason to dump IE altogether and just target webkit.

-Hack

Re:Webkit (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40141539)

I can see lots of reason to dump IE altogether and just target webkit.

Right, because a mono-culture is exactly what the world needs. Just stop being lazy. If you want to run a successful website you support the browsers that are in common usage.

Re:Webkit (2)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141939)

Just write to the standards. WebKit happens to support them, as do several other browsers. The one left in the cold? IE.

IE is far from as terrible it used to be. (1)

thomthom (832970) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141341)

As of version 9, IE isn't that awful any more. I didn't have to do anything special for IE) when it came out - the sites looked like they did in Firefox, Opera Webkit etc - finally using the nice CSS3 features. The design is built on adaptive degrading so the newer the browser the prettier it looks. And it gets even better with IE10. For the most part, IE9+ just works. It's becoming less of a pain. The new pain is the various HTML5. CSS3 support that varies greatly among the whole browser-spectrum. (Though, not surprisingly considering the are note complete.)

Not that I'm skeptical or anything.... (3, Interesting)

Toreo asesino (951231) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141349)

....ah sod it, I'm calling BS on this. Back in the days of IE6 & 7, maintaining cross-browser compatability was a nightmare. Now not really - IE renders as well as any other browser, and there's not a single one that doesn't have it's own quirks in some form or other.

Re:Not that I'm skeptical or anything.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40141477)

....ah sod it, I'm calling BS on this. Back in the days of IE6 & 7, maintaining cross-browser compatability was a nightmare. Now not really - IE renders as well as any other browser,

That's not true. Try to use anything reasonably modern (say, file upload using HTML5). Good luck on IE.

and there's not a single one that doesn't have it's own quirks in some form or other.

That is true, the other major browsers also have their quirks. But unlike IE, they can usually be worked around/fixed quite easily because the source is availabel. WIth IE, you're just stuck with a black box that is broken in mysterious ways.

Re:Not that I'm skeptical or anything.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40141515)

>Back in the days
Those days are still here, dude.

Re:Not that I'm skeptical or anything.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40141597)

....ah sod it, I'm calling BS on this. Back in the days of IE6 & 7, maintaining cross-browser compatability was a nightmare. Now not really - IE renders as well as any other browser, and there's not a single one that doesn't have it's own quirks in some form or other.

I can't point you to specific examples right now, but I can tell you that as a developer I really can't count how many times I've developed something and found it works fine in FF and Chrome only to discover it's hopelessly broken in IE9.

Re:Not that I'm skeptical or anything.... (1)

Fosterocalypse (2650263) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141835)

I second that BS calling. Or I am developing web pages and apps for the wrong people

In other news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40141359)

Not leaving 35 pounds of junk in the trunk of your car will save you 100,000 USD in gas!*
 
*(given the right number of miles drive under conditions x, y, and z)

Right. Sure. (3, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141373)

Sounds more like they are either making shit up to try and get new bites for advertising (my bet) or they suck at design.

While you do encounter some differences with browsers, you don't encounter the level of differences that would require $100k of work to fix unless you either suck or are doing something supremely stupid with your design.

Certainly a mark against your product if I'm evaluating it. I don't use IE, but any time you are telling me that I have to use browser X or can't use browser Y all I can think is you suck at design work. The stuff I use works fine in everything. No, it doesn't always look 100% the same, but it works. My web host has a fairly involved backend for all their various management features and it'll work in all browsers.

Part of it is just not getting too stupid with HTML 5. Yes it is neat and all however it doesn't all work. All the browsers have issues with it in one form or another so maybe leave off all the crazy features for a bit. My favourite example is the HTML5 Angry Birds. It says works best in Chrome, which isn't a good sign that it should matter. It does run well in Chrome, but seems to blow Chrome up from time to time. IE is stable with it and all the features work but the rendering is a little slower. Can't seem to maintain a solid 60fps. Firefox has fast rendering and doesn't seem to have stability issues, but has no sound.

With a bit of smarts about the design, supporting all browsers is not a herculean feat. Our web guy (there's only one) manages it just fine.

It sounds high but ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40141385)

The most expensive part of software is debugging and maintenance. [Actually ... its the most expensive time to make changes] But discovering IE version specific bugs is a giant PITA which occasionally involves heavier UI refactoring and therefore regression testing. In a nice sized team where you have dedicated developers, qa team, etc. Each simple bug is still and "expensive" proposition considering the time to track and properly QA it.
 

Bullshit all-round (1)

magic maverick (2615475) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141425)

$100,000 to support MSIE? Bullshit. Unless they are supporting MSIE 6 or 5.5 there is no way it would cost that much to support MSIE. Even if they are supporting backwards and ancient browsers like those, it still shouldn't cost that much unless they are aiming for the website to look exactly the same on every possible browser.

Also, the whole thing is an ad. There have been a number of start-ups that have gone on about how they don't support MSIE. Some of these block anything with an MSIE user-agent (and then the site works fine in MSIE 9 with a different user-agent), and some use MSIE conditional comments (which won't work on MSIE 10). Both ways are, a bit, well crap. Unless you explicitly test in those browsers and find that things seriously break, you shouldn't not block them. Hell, who blocks Lynx (and similar)? Even though Lynx (et al.) don't support fancy CSS, images, JS or similar.

The sensible, and correct, way of doing things is to say, "we don't support MSIE (or any other browser explicitly), but because we build to the standards, any standards compliant browser should work well". And also make your site degrade gracefully (that is, continue to present content even to inferior or older browsers, or to browsers without JS, and/or without images, and/or without CSS).

So, basically, this whole thing is a stunt by the start-up in question, and they deserve no press because of it.

Re:Bullshit all-round (1)

tgd (2822) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141453)

Well, to be fair, it can cost a lot of money to support all the browsers if you have lousy developers. Its easy to write code the right way the first time, but if you write it the wrong way, it costs a lot of money to keep twiddling with things.

Replacing their developers with people who have better knowledge/skills would be cheaper than throwing $100k at a problem that shouldn't have existed to begin with.

Just curious (1)

bbbaldie (935205) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141435)

I couldn't find a link to the site anywhere, did they abandon the alt tag for images and go with title? AFAIK, "alt" is strictly an IE thing.

Re:Just curious (1)

cdrudge (68377) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141625)

The alt attribute is strictly an IE thing? No. It's part of the HTML5 standard [w3.org] as well as XHTML. The title attribute should be used for captioning an image, while the alt attribute should be descriptive of the image. The end goal is the alt tag should not provide additional, nor leave out information whether the images are displayed nor not. The meaning of the page should not change.

Yes, it's true, they saved $100k (3, Interesting)

Hermanas (1665329) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141437)

Although not $100k in IE-specific development; They saved $100k in advertising for their PR stunt, because now they get tons of free PR from all over.

Article is wrong; no IE support on the ADMIN pages (1)

Aphrika (756248) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141471)

The story here misses out one key piece of information; that just the administration pages don't work on IE. The sites they're creating with said admin system work fine on IE. The company explicitly points this out - go here and click the sign up button: http://4ormat.com/ [4ormat.com]

Now, that's not such a big deal and nobody's going to complain because they can easily get the thing working by downloading another free browser. .

I'v done the same thing in the past, and also the exact opposite - making an admin interface that only works in IE. It's not a big deal, and in most cases it's the norm for intranet-style sites. That said, if someone reads this, runs out and decides to make their public-facing site IE-unfriendly, thinking they'll save $100,000, then they're nuts...

Re:Article is wrong; no IE support on the ADMIN pa (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141523)

You would have to code like a moron to make it IE unfriendly.

Code to HTML standards and you will be fine. Not everything has to be WEB 4.0Beta with fricking blinking beeping and sliding crap everywhere. In fact most sites that are crap embrace all that garbage. Look at how much slower Slashdot became when they added in all that garbage that really was not needed.

Re:Article is wrong; no IE support on the ADMIN pa (1)

n5vb (587569) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141885)

Depends on how much client-side functionality you're using for your web app UI. If all you send to the browser is flat HTML (whether it's from a file or dynamically generated, and I usually generate mine pretty dynamically), your page may not render pixel-perfect on every browser but it'll render consistently and look acceptable at least. If your client side scripting reloads with the page frequently, probably still ok. If you have persistent scripting that relies on Ajax-type RPC backend fetches, there are significant differences that will make the scripts behave noticeably differently (at least) if you try to use the same code for everything and you pretty much have to detect which browser you're in and select between different versions of functions. I often just dynamically generate flat HTML for this exact reason.

IE can just be a pain... (1)

rrossman2 (844318) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141479)

On my internship I had to convert a flash site over to just HTML keeping the same format etc (using flash can cause a screen reader to have issues which could have brought a ADA lawsuit).

Anyhow, to make the menu list they had on the left side I just used one type of div for the buttons, and another div to act as a spacer between the buttons. While every other browser like opera, firefox, chrome, safari, etc handled the spacer div size via CSS correctly, IE (versions 6, 7, and 8) would completely ignore the CSS height size of the spacer div, making the menu take over a page and a half of scrolling for something that should only have been half a page.

Real men browse www on notepad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40141501)

But oh dear, that means a notepad requirement... o_O

Only amateurs..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40141503)

Code a site to specific browsers....

Code to a standard and watch how all browsers do it nicely.

Group Policy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40141505)

Its great that you want to avoid IE, but what about when IE is your only browser for your organization due to group policy's configured for the computers?

Why would supporting IE costs extra at all? (1)

assertation (1255714) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141531)

Why would supporting IE cost extra and especially $100,000?

Just follow w3.org standards and test in a standards compliant browser.

The latest IEs support the standards and since they are not a bank or a government org they don't have to worry about supporting earlier versions of IE.

Re:Why would supporting IE costs extra at all? (1)

hackula (2596247) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141609)

they don't have to worry about supporting earlier versions of IE.

I think this is pretty debatable. Most sites for general public use should probably work in some form for ie7 and ie8. For most, there is probably still enough market share there to justify the effort.

Re:Why would supporting IE costs extra at all? (2)

assertation (1255714) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141831)

I think this is pretty debatable. Most sites for general public use should probably work in some form for ie7 and ie8. For most, there is probably still enough market share there to justify the effort.

I think the only people left using the dreaded IE 6 are orgs who built webapps hardcoded to it and maybe a few people with very ancient computers. The first group is not really relevant to the kind of site the startup is making ( and they likely have modern machines where other modern browsers are likely installed ).

I'd like to note that the article misses the point (1)

dskzero (960168) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141557)

The entire point about IE still plaguing the world is not that web developers need to support it, it's that old software can only run in that browser (and that means IE6). The new IE is actually pretty good, and this article is rubbish. Then again, it's /. MICROSOFT BASHING FRONT PAGE

Not Huddlers, and not a business app (2)

optimism (2183618) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141617)

TFS talks about the "huddlers" website, which was absolutely nothing to do with this topic. TFA mentions (briefly) that the artist-portfolio site 4ormat skipped IE support. What the hell? Do the editors here not even bother to skim the articles they post?

Anyway, it ain't a business app. If you create web apps for the "enterprise market", you absolutely positively need to support IE. Often back to IE6, yes, even today. I don't like it, but that's just the way it works in big business. Platform shift is veeery slow when a business has tens of millions of customers, partners, and employees who rely on a particular application.

Anyway I don't understand the $100K savings. Come on, what startup is dumb enough to write directly to the browser in HTML & CSS? There are tons of AJAX/DHTML libraries that hide all of the differences across browsers and browser versions. smartclient.com and extjs come to bind as a couple of systems with extreme breadth & depth.

Competition (1)

jones_supa (887896) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141637)

Ok, maybe those guys saved some money, hooray and cheers, but shouldn't we generally support all browsers to keep a healthy competition active? Until we at some point reach a state when we can just write to the spec...

Coaching (1)

jimmerz28 (1928616) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141689)

I'm glad at least the company is claiming to "coach" their customers to use modern web browsers.

It's extremely irritating when companies fail to educate their clients and just take whatever money grab they can even when it's to support a project for IE6/7/8.

correct code (2)

erica_ann (910043) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141711)

If you write the code correctly in the first place and w3c compliant.. you dont have to worry about supporting ie.. it just works right.

Re:correct code - Mod parent up (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40141879)

Creating a standards compliant site is the answer. It gives a couple of important advantages. It improves your Google page ranking. It is accessible for the handicapped.

I see it increasing business, not decreasing it. It costs less to write. win/win

Original 4ormat article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40141809)

http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/01/bootstrapped-startup-saves-over-100k-by-dropping-ie/

Has more details and context to the comment about saving 100k.

All versions? (3, Interesting)

Millennium (2451) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141825)

I'll give them IE6 and IE7. I'd give an awful lot to not have to support IE8, even. But there really isn't any reason to not support IE9, unless you need WebGL for something. A lot can be said about Microsoft's past shenanigans in the browser space, and none of it is good, but they pretty much cleaned up their act with IE9, and that should be acknowledged and encouraged.

Though I'm still suspicious of their WebGL stance. That sounds, much like the NPAPI plugin thing in the past, more like a simple attempt at lock-in than an actual security concern.

umm (1)

buddyglass (925859) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141911)

Isn't IE support fairly easy if you use an off-the-shelf UI library (e.g. jQuery, etc.)?

A little off topic (1)

DaMattster (977781) | more than 2 years ago | (#40141953)

I know this is a little off topic but I liked the bit on rentership and bootstrapping. While the article really had nothing directly to do with IE development costs, it did highlight some of the benefits of cloud computing. Prior to cloud computing, it took lots of money to build out infrastructure to support an application or system in development. Cloud computing makes enterprise-sized infrastructure available to the bootstrapper. It has leveled the playing field!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>