Supporting IE11... still.
-
I've never specifically targeted IE, in any of its bastardized forms.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013Dun dun dun.
Jeremy Falcon
-
I have a client whose internal, country-wide web app is implemented using Java Server Pages and applets which interact with local hardware through JNIs. So, guess what I'll be stuck supporting until the dust buildup shorts out a vacuum tube at some point? Oy!
Cheers, Mike Fidler "I intend to live forever - so far, so good." Steven Wright "I almost had a psychic girlfriend but she left me before we met." Also Steven Wright "I'm addicted to placebos. I could quit, but it wouldn't matter." Steven Wright yet again.
:omg:
Jeremy Falcon
-
Car retailers and workshops make up the bulk.. IT knowledge varies quite a bit I have to say. Half the customers are using the newest and best, and the other half buys a new computer when the old one breaks.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
Gotcha. I appreciate the info. I may just have to let it ride for a couple of years to figure out the stats for my customers then. Thanks.
Jeremy Falcon
-
Well, it's not for a client per se... it's for my own company so I'd be the client. So, there are no other sites demanding the requirement. It's just 25 years of web development has taught me... people don't always upgrade. So, I need at least a base stat to start with.
BryanFazekas wrote:
these figures may not be accurate for YOUR market.
That's a good point. I have no idea what the figures are yet. Since the site is made to support IE11 I may just let it run for a couple years to find this info out... and drop support in two years if I get no customers using it.
BryanFazekas wrote:
What is the projected budget to develop and maintain the site for IE? If the budget is 10% of the total and the expected revenue from IE customers is 3%, supporting IE is counter-productive.
Very good point.
BryanFazekas wrote:
Why Edge? It's built into Windows so it's present for most of our user base. [Granted, the change to Chromium has eliminated a lot of testing.]
Agreed. Which is also the reason I'm still targeting IE11.
BryanFazekas wrote:
which is far from modern
I think we should all switch back to VBScript. :rolleyes:
Jeremy Falcon
On the plus side, if you determine that the costs of supporting IE are too high, convincing the client should be fairly easy! :laugh: I suggest you track the OS & browser usage of those who purchase from your site. Ignore the visitor statistics, as this will include bots, people who navigated accidentally, etc. The people who actually buy are your target audience. Since the site is built (or mostly), the cost of developing for IE is already expended. Keep an accounting of the costs to maintain IE and contrast that with your overall support costs and number of buyers who use IE. With the site built, if the support cost is low, it probably doesn't matter. However, when you eventually rebuild the site or if you build another, the statistics will help you decide go/no-go for supporting IE. Six months after you go live, please post statistics (OS and browser) on your customer base. I'm interested in seeing what the reality is.
-
Chris Maunder wrote:
I'm back on a Mac.
The irony here is... I'm the Mac fanboy but yet I'm on a PC. What is this world coming to? You hear about Apple Silicon? They're switching back to RISC (via ARM this time) processors like in the olden days. Except now Windows will still run on ARM so we're still good on the dual boot front. Never thought we'd see the day.
Chris Maunder wrote:
Know anyone who would love nothing better than to convert a WebForms site with roughly 300 web controls over to something better? Blazor and .NET 5? I mean: how hard could it be, really?
Hah... sure man. Just ask any rookie PM... all you need to do is press that shiny magic button to fix everything. That's what the sales pitch said. :)
Jeremy Falcon
Last I heard was no more bootcamp. Craig Federighi said pure virtualization is the path forward from here on in. "These hypervisors can be very efficient, so the need to direct boot shouldn’t really be the concern.” If they can truly make virtual Windows as fast as native then that's a huge win. If.
cheers Chris Maunder
-
Last I heard was no more bootcamp. Craig Federighi said pure virtualization is the path forward from here on in. "These hypervisors can be very efficient, so the need to direct boot shouldn’t really be the concern.” If they can truly make virtual Windows as fast as native then that's a huge win. If.
cheers Chris Maunder
Chris Maunder wrote:
If.
Dun dun dun. :laugh:
Jeremy Falcon
-
On the plus side, if you determine that the costs of supporting IE are too high, convincing the client should be fairly easy! :laugh: I suggest you track the OS & browser usage of those who purchase from your site. Ignore the visitor statistics, as this will include bots, people who navigated accidentally, etc. The people who actually buy are your target audience. Since the site is built (or mostly), the cost of developing for IE is already expended. Keep an accounting of the costs to maintain IE and contrast that with your overall support costs and number of buyers who use IE. With the site built, if the support cost is low, it probably doesn't matter. However, when you eventually rebuild the site or if you build another, the statistics will help you decide go/no-go for supporting IE. Six months after you go live, please post statistics (OS and browser) on your customer base. I'm interested in seeing what the reality is.
:thumbsup:
Jeremy Falcon
-
So, I'm about to release a new website. Over the past few years I've gotten used to using polyfills to handle older browsers like IE11 for public sites, but the more and more polyfills I tack on to a site for compatiablity the slower IE11 is running. Yes, it supports flexbox and also a basic CSS grid, so I can get IE11 to work-ish if I need to. My question is though, how many of y'all are still targeting IE11 for publicly accessible sites? I've made this site work in IE11, but still... The latest stats I've seen suggest IE is still used for approximately 6% of desktop traffic and about 3% of all web traffic (if you combine desktop and mobile). But is making your site bloated for 3% of people really worth it... I used to think so, but with WASM down the road, etc. I mean for real... it's time IE died. What do y'all think?
Jeremy Falcon
Two things, my friend. 1. If they are using IE-something, it means this is a public machine nobody has cared to give maintenance, so it's always slow and people don't expect otherwise 2. Using polyfills was supposed to be an interim solution, since as it's author suggested "if you removed the polyfill script, your code would continue to work, without any changes required in spite of the polyfill being removed" which, of course, is impossible in modern context. So most normal polyfillers like core-js and CSS3 PIE use lots of convolution to make this work. With that in mind, the appropriate way to go is to avoid polyfills altogether and start creating more basic "shims", that will actually break the site if not found. Since nobody has the time to do those, I would suggest you use a "critical path" approach. Since you want your WEBSITE TO BE BROWSED BY EVERYONE, BUT NOT EVERYWHERE, just consider this. Target IE11 for essential pages that give an overview of your company and its services. Any deeper links are safe Chrome only, as they will be visited by the stakeholders on their own devices, including iOS and Android. Remember that if a page is just tooo slow on the common machine, anybody can fire up a browser on its phone and get the missing content.
-
Two things, my friend. 1. If they are using IE-something, it means this is a public machine nobody has cared to give maintenance, so it's always slow and people don't expect otherwise 2. Using polyfills was supposed to be an interim solution, since as it's author suggested "if you removed the polyfill script, your code would continue to work, without any changes required in spite of the polyfill being removed" which, of course, is impossible in modern context. So most normal polyfillers like core-js and CSS3 PIE use lots of convolution to make this work. With that in mind, the appropriate way to go is to avoid polyfills altogether and start creating more basic "shims", that will actually break the site if not found. Since nobody has the time to do those, I would suggest you use a "critical path" approach. Since you want your WEBSITE TO BE BROWSED BY EVERYONE, BUT NOT EVERYWHERE, just consider this. Target IE11 for essential pages that give an overview of your company and its services. Any deeper links are safe Chrome only, as they will be visited by the stakeholders on their own devices, including iOS and Android. Remember that if a page is just tooo slow on the common machine, anybody can fire up a browser on its phone and get the missing content.
Member 2896020 wrote:
If they are using IE-something, it means this is a public machine nobody has cared to give maintenance, so it's always slow and people don't expect otherwise
That's a good point.
Member 2896020 wrote:
Using polyfills was supposed to be an interim solution, since as it's author suggested "if you removed the polyfill script, your code would continue to work, without any changes required in spite of the polyfill being removed" which, of course, is impossible in modern context. So most normal polyfillers like core-js and CSS3 PIE use lots of convolution to make this work.
I get the technical pros and cons. Polyfills aren't 100% perfect though. It's just one example of many. Autoprefixer isn't perfect, etc. For instance, in some versions of IE11 flex shorthand can't be parsed but in other versions of IE11 it can be. Autoprefixer won't catch this. The issue I'm addressing is more from a "should I bother" perspective rather than the technical side. As in, if I support it... it needs to be included with testing, etc.
Member 2896020 wrote:
Since nobody has the time to do those, I would suggest you use a "critical path" approach.
I disagree. If you know how to make a cross browser site for one-page you know how to do it for two pages. Like I said, the site is almost done and works with IE11. So I know what I'm doing... the question is... should I bother.
Member 2896020 wrote:
Remember that if a page is just tooo slow on the common machine, anybody can fire up a browser on its phone and get the missing content.
That's a good point, but my target audience isn't technical. I can't assume they'll do that and it makes me look unprofessional, which I'm not.
Jeremy Falcon
-
Two things, my friend. 1. If they are using IE-something, it means this is a public machine nobody has cared to give maintenance, so it's always slow and people don't expect otherwise 2. Using polyfills was supposed to be an interim solution, since as it's author suggested "if you removed the polyfill script, your code would continue to work, without any changes required in spite of the polyfill being removed" which, of course, is impossible in modern context. So most normal polyfillers like core-js and CSS3 PIE use lots of convolution to make this work. With that in mind, the appropriate way to go is to avoid polyfills altogether and start creating more basic "shims", that will actually break the site if not found. Since nobody has the time to do those, I would suggest you use a "critical path" approach. Since you want your WEBSITE TO BE BROWSED BY EVERYONE, BUT NOT EVERYWHERE, just consider this. Target IE11 for essential pages that give an overview of your company and its services. Any deeper links are safe Chrome only, as they will be visited by the stakeholders on their own devices, including iOS and Android. Remember that if a page is just tooo slow on the common machine, anybody can fire up a browser on its phone and get the missing content.
Member 2896020 wrote:
If they are using IE-something, it means this is a public machine nobody has cared to give maintenance, so it's always slow and people don't expect otherwise
This is incorrect. A lot of folks continue to use IE, some for the simple reason it's the icon on their desktop. I know a few who use IE because it has (in their opinion) always worked best and they simply don't see a reason to change.
-
So, I'm about to release a new website. Over the past few years I've gotten used to using polyfills to handle older browsers like IE11 for public sites, but the more and more polyfills I tack on to a site for compatiablity the slower IE11 is running. Yes, it supports flexbox and also a basic CSS grid, so I can get IE11 to work-ish if I need to. My question is though, how many of y'all are still targeting IE11 for publicly accessible sites? I've made this site work in IE11, but still... The latest stats I've seen suggest IE is still used for approximately 6% of desktop traffic and about 3% of all web traffic (if you combine desktop and mobile). But is making your site bloated for 3% of people really worth it... I used to think so, but with WASM down the road, etc. I mean for real... it's time IE died. What do y'all think?
Jeremy Falcon
Read this, and I think it will answer your question... https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-security-chief-ie-is-not-a-browser-so-stop-using-it-as-your-default/
-
Read this, and I think it will answer your question... https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-security-chief-ie-is-not-a-browser-so-stop-using-it-as-your-default/
Yeah I saw something like that a while back. I reckon old habits are hard to break. Since the site is almost ready to go I'm just gonna roll with IE compatiblity right now. I mean it's done so why not. But this will be the last I do that for I promise. lol
Jeremy Falcon
-
So, I'm about to release a new website. Over the past few years I've gotten used to using polyfills to handle older browsers like IE11 for public sites, but the more and more polyfills I tack on to a site for compatiablity the slower IE11 is running. Yes, it supports flexbox and also a basic CSS grid, so I can get IE11 to work-ish if I need to. My question is though, how many of y'all are still targeting IE11 for publicly accessible sites? I've made this site work in IE11, but still... The latest stats I've seen suggest IE is still used for approximately 6% of desktop traffic and about 3% of all web traffic (if you combine desktop and mobile). But is making your site bloated for 3% of people really worth it... I used to think so, but with WASM down the road, etc. I mean for real... it's time IE died. What do y'all think?
Jeremy Falcon
I don't support it. but I've been playing with the idea to pop a message at the top of the page for any older IE users: "This site does not support the obsolete IE 11, please use a different browser for these pages to show correctly." I know of a few people who refuse to move on from classic IE, but targeting those 3% to keep them happy is just not worth it and adds way too much bulk to the project.
