6th.replicant

Well-known member
Oct 26, 2007
292
0
18,890
Visit site
_60896332_ie7taxpopup.jpg


Kogan.com:

"The amount of work and effort involved in making our website look normal on IE7 equalled the combined time of designing for Chrome, Safari and Firefox." :rofl:

Full story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18440979
 

fr0g

New member
Jan 7, 2008
445
0
0
Visit site
scene said:
Saw it, love it :grin:

Only issue is that "7" on the end... ;)

Unfair.

I understand why they don't want to support ancient versions, but if we're going off % then they should add the tax to Safari and Opera with just over 6% between them. IE has still a very good share, and it will probably increase with Windows 8, as IE10 is much better.
 

scene

Well-known member
fr0g said:
scene said:
Saw it, love it :grin:

Only issue is that "7" on the end... ;)

Unfair.

I understand why they don't want to support ancient versions, but if we're going off % then they should add the tax to Safari and Opera with just over 6% between them. IE has still a very good share, and it will probably increase with Windows 8, as IE10 is much better.

Sorry, the 7 comment was meant in jest, and the wink was there to try to show I didn't really mean it in all seriousness...
 

6th.replicant

Well-known member
Oct 26, 2007
292
0
18,890
Visit site
fr0g said:
scene said:
Saw it, love it :grin:

Only issue is that "7" on the end... ;)

Unfair.

I understand why they don't want to support ancient versions, but if we're going off % then they should add the tax to Safari and Opera with just over 6% between them. IE has still a very good share, and it will probably increase with Windows 8, as IE10 is much better.

Of course, if a product is popular/sells well, then by default it must be a quality product - and its sales success is no reflection on the naivety of consumers...

images


images


images


images


images


etc...
 

fr0g

New member
Jan 7, 2008
445
0
0
Visit site
6th.replicant said:
fr0g said:
scene said:
Saw it, love it :grin:

Only issue is that "7" on the end... ;)

Unfair.

I understand why they don't want to support ancient versions, but if we're going off % then they should add the tax to Safari and Opera with just over 6% between them. IE has still a very good share, and it will probably increase with Windows 8, as IE10 is much better.

Of course, if a product is popular/sells well, then by default it must be a quality product - and its sales success is no reflection on the naivety of consumers...

images


images


images


images


images


etc...

Ah, a strawman. Well done.

We're talking about a company getting fed up of having to support minor browsers, not the merits or otherwise of them. Personally I use Chrome. It's fast and syncs with Chrome on my phone. I also use Firefox from time to time as it's colour managed properly.

But if I was writing a web site and didn't have much time, I would probably drop older versions of IE, Safari and Opera from any compatibility checks. Not because of quality, but because there numbers are so low.
 

The_Lhc

Well-known member
Oct 16, 2008
1,176
1
19,195
Visit site
fr0g said:
We're talking about a company getting fed up of having to support minor browsers, not the merits or otherwise of them.

Err, no, that WASN'T their point, it was the fact that IE7 doesn't work properly so takes a lot more effort to make it look right, the other browsers, regardless of their market share DO work properly, so don't require much effort to support. So in fact it IS the merits (or otherwise) of the individual browser that was the focus of their decision to charge extra.
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts