On 17 November 2010 14:43, Phil Petree <phil.pet...@gmail.com> wrote: > I know there are exceptions to every rule... and I have been in your shoes > (supporting users on platforms that are no longer supported) and its a tough > walk. > > > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 9:13 AM, matt.asbury <matt.asb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I appreciate your standpoint Phil but as web developers we must >> support our users needs. Unfortunately our biggest customers are >> public sector workers with the major browser in their environment >> being IE6. Online figures tell half a story >> >> On Nov 17, 2:07 pm, Phil Petree <phil.pet...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > There comes a time in every products life cycle when you must choose >> > which >> > core products (e.g. browsers etc.) and platforms you will support. >> > >> > In the case of ie6, with less than 5% of all page views (and rapidly >> > declining), it is now a footnote so why support it at all? >> > >> > stats here:http://mashable.com/2010/06/01/ie6-below-5-percent/ >> > >> > This be-all-to-all strategy simply doesn't work. You can't possibly >> > support >> > all versions of all browsers without causing a horrible and >> > unpredictable >> > experience for users. >> > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 7:40 AM, Bertilo Wennergren >> > <berti...@gmail.com>wrote: >> > > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 09:01, petrob <petrob...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> > > > Why don't you put the evaluation part in a separate function within >> > > > the scope of handleVehiclesClick and call it with some delay (100ms) >> > > > to decide what and how many option elements to select? >> > >> > > That is of course a common solution to such problems, and I use it >> > > myself a lot, but I always have a nagging worry in the back of my >> > > head: Is that really a clean and safe method? I pick a delay time, >> > > e.g. 100ms, out of thin air and then test if it works ... for me, in >> > > my browsers, in my computer, today, here. But will that be so for >> > > every user everywhere? Perhaps those 100ms will not be enough for >> > > someone using an old computer with MSIE6, or on a computer with lots >> > > of malware that sucks all the resources, or for someone who is >> > > compiling the Linux kernel while browsing, or... So maybe 500ms, or >> > > 1000ms, or... How do we test? How do we make sure? >> > >> > > There must be a better way. Or not? >> > >> > > Nothing to do with Prototype or scriptaculous, I know, but still...
I've been in this exact situation. And the way I handled this was to say that the due to the limitations and capabilities of IE6, the more interactive features prevalent on modern websites were simply not economically viable to implement. Basically IE6 development costs at least twice as much as IE8, in terms of development time and hacking workarounds. AND there is no guarantee that once the code is running on IE6 that it will work on any other browser, not without even more development time (and therefore money). Tell them that by providing a standard/simple HTML page you are saving them considerable amounts of money in terms of development costs and support issues. So, sure, provide them with a normal, non-interactive site that fulfils the business requirement. Just don't add any bells and whistles. If you do this AND can provide a working site, you'll probably keep the contract AND be the first they'll talk to when/if they do upgrade. Regards, Richard. -- Richard Quadling Twitter : EE : Zend @RQuadling : e-e.com/M_248814.html : bit.ly/9O8vFY -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Prototype & script.aculo.us" group. To post to this group, send email to prototype-scriptacul...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to prototype-scriptaculous+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en.
