Thanks Rob, i already wondered about that attribute ;) Thanks that's an interesting information.
Am Montag, 30. Juni 2014 17:21:24 UTC+2 schrieb Rob Dodson: > > However i support your statement that we should look for 'cheap' fallbacks >> so old browsers degrade to something meaningful. E.g. take the simple 'no >> script' of HTML - if there are users no having javascript active for some >> reason i at least can tell them that the site won't offer its whole >> functionality (if any at all). > > > We do have an `unresolved` attribute which can be placed on any custom > element you use. You can style against this attribute (maybe displaying a > background image that says 'loading' or 'web component support required'). > When Polymer upgrades your element, it will remove this attribute. You can > read more about it here: > http://www.polymer-project.org/docs/polymer/styling.html#fouc-prevention > > > On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 8:00 AM, Joern Turner <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> That are astonishing and interesting statistics and i very well >> understand that you must be cautious which technologies you adapt. On the >> other hand - being an open source developer for more than 10 years - i very >> well understand Robs' argument. Especially if you try to move things >> forward it's hard to get everybody on the train without loosing a lot of >> speed and momentum. >> >> However i support your statement that we should look for 'cheap' >> fallbacks so old browsers degrade to something meaningful. E.g. take the >> simple 'no script' of HTML - if there are users no having javascript active >> for some reason i at least can tell them that the site won't offer its >> whole functionality (if any at all). This already makes a big difference as >> most users today have an alternative - they don't need necessarily connect >> with their aged smartphone browser but can go to their desktop. >> >> On the other hand i think developers today need to put some pressure on >> users to upgrade if they want to offer the latest and greatest. Backward >> compat can become a too big burden sometimes and hinder innovation. Maybe >> you should probably have a look into how much profit these 'minorities' >> actually bring. Wouldn't it be possible that you can raise your profits by >> offering a much better (and more fun) interface for all the others? >> >> Just my 2 cents, >> >> Joern >> >> Am Sonntag, 29. Juni 2014 16:15:43 UTC+2 schrieb [email protected]: >> >>> Thanks Rob and I understand that the Polymer is advancing the future of >>> the web. I am just wondering if the best way to reach the future faster is >>> not to find a somewhat elegant way to deal with the past (and that's what I >>> understand has worked best in the past to advance the web...) >>> >>> When HTML5 new input tags was introduced I thought it was great how >>> older browser would just treat these fields as text input. It really helped >>> adopt HTML5's new inputs. Couldn't there be a similar way to achieve this >>> with Polymer? >>> >>> We still get around over *15%* of our traffic coming from older >>> versions of major browsers, 2,5% from Opera and Opera Mini, and a little >>> under 1% from browsers that I don't know how they would behave (Opera Mini, >>> Opera, Ovi Browser, Blackberry, Maxthon, Amazon Silk, Dolfin, PS3, IE with >>> Google Frame,...). >>> >>> So despite my huge enthusiasm to discuss with my team adopting Polymer >>> for YouFoot, we can't just cross out 15% of our users and it will probably >>> take 3 years for this 15% to become less than 5%, and 5 years to become >>> less than 1%. >>> >>> It would have been particularly great to adopt it to create a more >>> consistant look across web and mobile devices, make interfaces more >>> beautiful, code leaner... >>> >>> --------------------------- >>> >>> *Internet Explorer:* >>> Speaking of IE which amount for 15% of our sessions: 33% of these are >>> from IE 9 or previous (almost half is from IE9 and and half from IE8, with >>> a small amount from IE7). Fun fact: we even have a few users connecting >>> from IE5 and IE4 apparently! >>> >>> *Firefox:* >>> For us Firefox represent 22% of browser usage. While you are right that >>> it's generally better, you'd be surprised to see we get 205 different >>> versions of Firefox. While 80% of it are from Firefox 30 and 29 we also >>> have almost 1% on version 12, 0,5% on version 11, etc... There might be 5% >>> of Firefox users on versions below version 10 (with version 3 and 4 being >>> pretty popular still). >>> >>> *Chrome* >>> Chrome sees the most usage with 48,8% but while 79% are using version >>> 35, the next version that is most used is version 1,5 with 2,4% of Chrome >>> users. There are more than 1000 different versions being used although 990 >>> versions probably amount to less than 2% >>> >>> *Safari:* >>> Safari is only 2,9% of our usage. Among that 7% are using Safari 5 or >>> older. >>> >> Follow Polymer on Google+: plus.google.com/107187849809354688692 >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Polymer" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected] <javascript:>. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/polymer-dev/fc229dc8-7f22-4c1a-8154-9b798517d2a5%40googlegroups.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/polymer-dev/fc229dc8-7f22-4c1a-8154-9b798517d2a5%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > Follow Polymer on Google+: plus.google.com/107187849809354688692 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Polymer" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/polymer-dev/337e9cac-8393-4b58-b91e-bf2ceb595793%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
