I think for some context this is right. We have started reducing IE6
support in our public facing applications (i.e. we ensure you get
everywhere, but don't bother too much with getting the looks right). We
have even added IE6 warnings on some of the more JavaScript heavy sites
-- if you get there with IE6 you'll get a banner telling you that your
experience will be sub-par.
Other projects we have are explicitly for government agencies. Here in
Queensland they tend to be IE6 only. I know of at least one place where
the admins install Firefox if you ask nicely, but I somehow didn't get
the impression that is an officially sanctioned procedure.
So whatever we do for those guys has IE6 support as part of the official
feature requirements and the best thing we can do is
complain^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h make a point that it will increase
development costs and possibly reduce functionality and performance.
Unfortunately the people we deal with at the client usually don't have
any influence over core IT decisions like that, which means the only
thing they can do is pass the message on. Which all produces a very
negative mood, but it seems the best we can do.
Peter
On 20/05/10 03:48, CKoerner wrote:
Oh I don't think we should wait on those XP/IE6 companies as a
developer. But as a business its subjective. Cutting out 10% of your
clients isn't so bad, cutting out 60% is another matter.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java
Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
