IE 7 tax
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." 
Full story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18440979
Saw it, love it 
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.
Indeed, IE is a much better browser now, but I love Microsoft's 'compatibility mode', which really ought to be the default...
Saw it, love it
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...
Saw it, love it
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...
etc...
Ah, the Vanden Plas Allegro. I'd forgotten they even made that! 
Saw it, love it
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...
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.
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.
- Login to post comments
Saw it, love it
Only issue is that "7" on the end...
Hi Fi: Arcam A85, DV88 (CD only), Project Debut II, Sonos ZP90, AE Compact-1. AV: Arcam AVR250, DV79, Sony BDP-S760, Monitor Audio Silver 8i, RS-LCR, RXFX, Sonos ZP90, Pioneer KRP500A. 2nd AV: Pioneer SX-SWR2, Dell Zino HD, KEF KHT2005.2 eggs, Sonos ZP90. Cables: That Cable HDMI, Chord Crimsons, CAT6 backbone Sonos S5s in the bedrooms