|
Agree 1,000% on that. I don't have those stats yet though as this site is brand new. Since the site is done for the most part, I may just let it run for a year or two and find that number out and then drop support for it if need be.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
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, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
Dun 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
This is a more complex question that it may appear to be.
What is the projected user base? Desktop, mobile, or both? Where are customers located? Industrial nations? Mobile will be using a "modern" OS -- what desktop OS are in play?
Does your client have other commercial sites? If so, look at their stats for browser and OS. I found several stats sites that put IE as ~1.4% of the overall browser market, and ~5% for the desktop market. But that's overall -- these figures may not be accurate for YOUR market.
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.
My group made the decision to support the last 3 revs of the top 5 browsers + Edge. Costs are the driving factor, not only development time to support quirky browsers, but testing time to test that plethora of quirky browsers. We write current JavaScript and use Babble to transpile to support our planned user base, which also helps reduce dev & test costs.
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.]
That said, our site works on most modern browsers ... excepting IE (which is far from modern).
YMMV
|
|
|
|
|
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. 
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!
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Two things, my friend.
- 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
- 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
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
What (paid for, but preferably not enterprise level) antivirus suite do people recommend? I used and recommended AVG for many years until I ran into a major interaction between it and Thunderbird which resulted in recurrent scrambling of my in-box. I went round in circles with their support people for quite a while before giving up on it.
I currently use McAfee's Total Protection, which would be fine (my wife has no problems with it on her systems) if it did not increasingly frequently flag utility programs I have written (mostly in VB.Net) as viruses! Initially this was just a problem with its 'real-time scanning' component, which had to be disabled when I was actively developing and debugging the programs, and the 'in use' version excluded from these scans. However, it has now taken to quarantining one of my utilities (which has been unchanged for months) on every 'scheduled scan'. I have, of course followed McAfee's guidance for reporting false positives, but I have received no response whatsoever, and, as I have noted, the problem is getting worse.
Is there a more reliable product in the same general price range?
|
|
|
|
|
When it was time to renew McAfee, I just dropped it and now use Windows Defender. I read various reviews which said that it had improved to the point where paying for anti-virus software no longer made sense. However, I also run the premium version of Malwarebytes.
|
|
|
|
|
My employer uses McAfee, and my group takes turns having it screw up, badly enough desktop support has to uninstall/reinstall. While it could be (and probably is) our configuration, McAfee has a been a problem in other locales as well.
Like Greg, I'm using Windows Defender and Malwarebytes. My only issue with Malwarebytes is that if they have a feud with another company, that company's software gets flagged as PUP.
The biggest help I see from MalwareBytes is that it flags iffy web sites. Like others, I'm careful about what sites I hit; that said, mistakes can (and are) made so the warnings help.
Another thought is to read the "best anti-virus of the year" articles that pop up. Before settling on my current configuration, I would read several of the current articles when my current anti-virus license is running out. I read the pros and cons, and switched (or not) to what appears to be the best choice.
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly what I do as well. Have had no issues for years now! 
|
|
|
|
|
I have been using Windows Defender for a number of years and it seems quite reliable.
|
|
|
|
|
On my work Win10 I have only the built in Windows Security (and before that on Win7 the Windows Defender) - I can't remember the last time I had any problem with them... We also have a mail filter utilized by the mail provider...
At home - for increased security - I used Fedora
"The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary." Vidal Sassoon, 1928 - 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Every single antivirus program today is little more that a placebo.
I run a tech shop where people bring their wonky machines to be rehabbed from stints on the internet.
It matters not whether it's got <insert antivirus=""> on it or not. There is malware on the machine and it gets cleaned using tech tools.
In the face of this, I run NO antivirus on my windows 7 pet machine, and watch my S%^t.
I never have a bit of malware even though I wish it were that easy when my pc starts to get fussy. It's always something else.
One thing I've learned. You can take say, and attorney's office with with say 10 people in it "working" away on computers. The same two yahoos will be the consistent problem children, while the other 8 run for years and years without complaint.
To that end use the windows defender that came with windows 10 and just do your work. Go outside to play, there are sharks on the web around every corner and you and John McAfee are powerless to stem the tide.
|
|
|
|
|
Ron Anders wrote: I run NO antivirus on my windows 7 pet machine, and watch my S%^t.
I never have a bit of malware even though I wish it were that easy when my pc starts to get fussy. It's always something else.
Well - if you never look for them you won't find them. An excellent system.
Do you apply the same fine logic to fixing bugs in code?
These gentlemen seem like minded[^].
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: Well - if you never look for them you won't find them. An excellent system.
"The Donald principle"
|
|
|
|
|
Member 7989122 wrote: "The Donald principle"
It's all in 'the numbers' - keeping them down.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
