[HN Gopher] Bootstrap v5: drop Internet Explorer support
___________________________________________________________________
Bootstrap v5: drop Internet Explorer support
Author : zaiste
Score : 325 points
Date : 2020-04-07 10:37 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| maelito wrote:
| Don't forget the fact that some (how much ?) users visit websites
| with IE because it's the default browser on their entreprise
| setup, but admins have installed Firefox alongside for
| compatibility with modern websites.
|
| So dropping IE is almost a service for them.
|
| Source : french administration with thousands of employees.
| jgalt212 wrote:
| IE 11 legacy support is a dream compared to having to support IE
| 8 and lower back in the day. The JS engine on IE 9 was about 10X
| faster than the one on IE 8.
| alkonaut wrote:
| I remember thinking "Once IE6 is dead I'll never complain about
| browsers again". IE11 is still pretty fantastic compared to
| IE6.
| 0xff00ffee wrote:
| There are still companies in Europe I work with that use IE11.
|
| Since we switched from jQuery to Vue last year, we put a friendly
| reminder on each page saying IE11 is not supported (since its ES6
| support sucks), but the tickets still came in. Finally we
| installed a header on all B2B sites that pops a modal error
| saying please don't use IE11. The tickets stopped abruptly. I was
| expecting complaints, but the majority of them already have alt
| browsers installed, so instead of asking, in this case forcing
| them to use a different browser worked much better.
| e12e wrote:
| Won't this be great when Google and everyone else kills off the
| user agent header? 5 years from now, there'll be no
| forcing/detecting users with old ipads, chromebooks or phones.
| bepvte wrote:
| You should reread that article
| sjroot wrote:
| I despise the fact that IE11 is still used, but it's used by a
| quarter of our users at the large company I work at.
|
| We don't use Bootstrap, but hopefully this encourages the
| companies that _do_ use it to usher their users to something more
| modern and secure.
| H1Supreme wrote:
| Are those users forced to use it? Or is it by choice. I
| spearheaded an effort at my org to restrict access to IE on all
| PC's that didn't absolutely need it. Which, turned out to be
| nearly everyone.
|
| Unfortunately, lots of users (mostly older) still associate the
| internet with "Internet Explorer". Simply telling them to use
| Chrome or Firefox solved the issue in a lot of cases.
| Phylter wrote:
| What made the change for us is libraries dropping support and
| us having to upgrade those libraries to be in compliance with
| our security audits. It's a good thing and more libraries need
| to force the issue.
|
| We were almost forced to find another library or write our own
| but we were able to find articles where Microsoft had said
| publicly that they no longer consider IE11 a browser and it
| shouldn't be used. It saved our hides.
| uk_programmer wrote:
| I don't very much whether this will make much of a difference.
| Most devs very rarely ever upgrade the version of boostrap once
| it is in place, on intranet sites. One of the sites my friend
| supports is built in bootstrap 2.
|
| Typically if 25% of my users use IE11, I will just make sure it
| works with IE11. If I have to stay use an older version of the
| library I will just use that unless I can polyfill or patch the
| lib to work with older versions of IE.
|
| Then again I am kinda strange in the fact that if it should
| work in an old browser (and time permitting) I will normally
| make sure it works well enough that it is functional in that
| browser.
| jayflux wrote:
| > Most devs very rarely ever upgrade the version of boostrap
| once it is in place
|
| I think that's the point.
|
| Those who want IE 11 support will stick with 4, whilst those
| who want the latest can upgrade to 5.
| mekkkkkk wrote:
| Never underestimate an IT departments ability to not give a
| fuck. I once got a bug report from a colleague complaining
| about our website not working in Firefox. I couldn't reproduce
| it locally, so I got to her computer and realized that Firefox
| updates (?!) had been blocked. Everyone in that department was
| stuck on Firefox 12, when the current version was 60+. Turns
| out that not even evergreen browsers are safe from overzealous
| policies.
|
| And this was on a pretty big media company with a large digital
| footprint.
| thoraway1010 wrote:
| At least govt side sometimes the staff either don't know or
| don't have a budget so once something works they've learned
| to absolutely lock everything down has hard as they can so it
| can't be messed up. This is partly because vendors willing to
| deal with a govt procurement cycle often are selling total
| junk (for high prices).
| mleland wrote:
| I feel like the projects that rely on bootstrap are ones that
| have a larger IE audience.
|
| I hate supporting IE, but that has always been the appeal of
| bootstrap for me.
| czechdeveloper wrote:
| You can remain using older versions then.
|
| But they can't really stay relevant and keep supporting IE.
| JMTQp8lwXL wrote:
| Knowingly being locked into an older version of a technology
| is bad omen, e.g., security. Granted, it is bootstrap, and
| we're talking about IE 11. But some XSS issue might pop up
| that doesn't get patched in pre-Bootstrap v5.
|
| And with time, your product that's built on Bootstrap v4 (or
| earlier) is only going to continue decaying.
| tpetry wrote:
| Why? Their plan for bootstrap v5 at the moment is just some
| cleanup to fix mistakes they made and remove the jquery
| dependency. I dont see the reason for these goals to not
| support ie11.
|
| As much as i hate ie11 we have to still support it as its
| used in many businesses using our softwares
| thawaway1837 wrote:
| I think it makes sense to formally drop the IE dependency
| in versions sooner than when you're making changes that
| actually break IE.
|
| Besides, replacing jquery May indeed be why they chose to
| drop IE right now. One of the biggest selling points of
| jquery, and one of the biggest contributors to its
| heaviness, is cross browser support including IE.
|
| As one of the comments in the linked issue points out,
| dropping IE11 means they can also start using basic JS
| constructs, like Array.prototype.forEach.
| uk_programmer wrote:
| > As one of the comments in the linked issue points out,
| dropping IE11 means they can also start using basic JS
| constructs, like Array.prototype.forEach.
|
| Array.prototype.forEach is supported from IE9.
|
| https://developer.mozilla.org/en-
| US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe...
|
| EDIT: It is the nodelist api that isn't supported in IE.
| Not Array.prototype.forEach.
|
| Quite a lot of these basic JS constructs even if they are
| missing (most aren't in IE11) are very easily polyfilled.
|
| Personally I think it is fine that they drop support if
| they don't feel the need to support it. Bootstrap 4 isn't
| going to vanish.
| marcthe12 wrote:
| And if you can polyfill, that is good way to drop support
| for ie11. Personally instead of support ie11 out of the
| box, have have create custom build or expect them to do
| polyfilling themselves. This way they can optimize for
| the remaining browsers.
| strenholme wrote:
| I make sure my website is still 100% functional in IE11: Using
| only .jpg and .png (I don't use .gif on my website) for images;
| not using too much Javascript; using .woff instead of .woff2
| webfonts; text-shadow instead of text-stroke to give one font an
| outline look; etc.
|
| If I was building a node website which depended on a bunch of
| packages from developers who may or may not care about IE11, this
| would not be possible. But since I've done the entire design by
| hand with HTML and CSS for over a decade, I can keep it IE11
| compatible without issue. Also, everything works if Javascript is
| turned off, and there are reasonable (if not great) fallback
| fonts for users who disable webfonts.
| untog wrote:
| The second half of what you're saying is just standard web
| development practise. And as for the rest... everyone has to
| make a judgement call. Do you still support IE8? Presumably
| not. As the percentage of users with a browser drops the amount
| of development work required to support it means you drop it.
| For a lot of us the number of IE11 users (< 1%) means it simply
| isn't worth the time.
|
| (also, please let's cut it out with the "young developers"
| stuff. I've been around long enough to see lazy developers both
| young and old.)
| strenholme wrote:
| To answer your question: My site still works in IE8, but with
| minimal CSS. It works in IE7 and IE6 with, albeit without CSS
| (except for my online resume), so it gracefully degrades. I
| have been phasing out IE8 support through the 2010s; in 2012
| I went to a lot of effort to make everything look nice in IE8
| but phased out that work as I updated the site.
|
| It's also perfectly readable in browsers without CSS and
| Javascript, including Lynx. Dillo and Netsurf both have CSS
| implementations so broken, some versions of those browsers
| have rendering issues unless they disable CSS.
|
| It is possible to make a website which renders in Lynx, which
| is perfectly readable in IE6, which can be read in a browser
| without CSS or Javascript.
| [deleted]
| duhi88 wrote:
| I support the second half of your comment. All websites
| (webapps excluded) should strive for as little JS as possible.
| It isn't all that hard to support IE11 for most things, if you
| aren't doing anything super crazy with your design.
|
| The first half though...we have grateful degradation for this
| reason. There's no reason to serve larger woff fonts to all
| users when it is so easy to use it as a fallback, preferring
| woff2 when supported. There are a lot of simple ways to improve
| the experience and data consumption for modern devices without
| sacrificing functionality in IE11.
| strenholme wrote:
| In my experience, the fastest way to serve a web font stack
| is via base64-encoded web fonts in a single "font" CSS file;
| it's more raw bytes but fewer requests. To do it this way
| requires having all of the web fonts be in the same lowest
| common denominator format, which is .woff.
|
| I also add about 10k to the combined font stack file by
| adding hinting which is _only_ seen on 75dpi displays,
| because too many users are still using low resolution
| monitors.
|
| The main reason I use woff fonts and their approximately 120k
| size is because the days of "font-face: Verdana" giving
| (almost) everyone the same looking website are a thing of the
| past with Android smart phones everywhere.
| Nooshu wrote:
| I'd be very careful recommending this method for loading
| webfonts. By Base64 encoding your fonts into a CSS file you
| are adding 1000's of bytes into a browsers critical path
| (since CSS is render blocking). You are also removing the
| browser ability to choose the most optimum font it supports
| (i.e. one with better compression like WOFF2). Requests are
| cheap, especially when using HTTP/2 (which multiplexes over
| a single TCP connection).
|
| If you do use this method, I highly recommend testing both
| the standard loading method vs Base64 method on a low spec
| device (e.g. Moto G4 via WebPageTest) and seeing which
| performs best for your website.
|
| This method used to be used on GOV.UK until we removed it
| 18 months ago. I wrote about the change here if you are
| interested:
| https://technology.blog.gov.uk/2018/10/04/making-gov-uk-
| page...
| tenebrisalietum wrote:
| Microsoft (or a third party) needs to do this:
|
| I. Rename IE11 something like "MS ActiveX Runtime For LOB Network
| Apps" (AXR for short) or something like "MS ActiveX Player".
|
| II. Create an MMC console entitled "AXR Domain Manager" that
| identifies a list of domains that open in AXR instead of the
| default browser. This list is controllable via group policy and
| other MS management tools.
|
| III. Modify IE where if a website not in the aforementioned list
| is accessed, a popup saying "This site will be opened in your
| default browser" appears and the link opens up in the default
| browser.
|
| It would make it so much easier to explain to non-technical
| people that IE11 is really a legacy app engine at this point and
| shouldn't be used for modern website usage.
| acdha wrote:
| Isn't that basically what Enterprise Mode does?
|
| https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/deploy/emie-...
|
| > If you have specific websites and apps that have
| compatibility problems with Microsoft Edge, you can use the
| Enterprise Mode site list so that the websites open in Internet
| Explorer 11 automatically. Additionally, if you know that your
| intranet sites aren't going to work correctly with Microsoft
| Edge, you can set all intranet sites to automatically open
| using IE11 with the Send all intranet sites to IE group policy.
| amanzi wrote:
| Yes - that's exactly what it does!
| int_19h wrote:
| I think the point is to do the reverse - if somebody does run
| IE11 directly (rather than Edge), and tries to open a website
| that is not in the system-wide whitelist, it forces them to
| use Edge.
| lazyjones wrote:
| What are some good alternatives for developers who don't want to
| lose 2,39% (or whatever the current MSIE11 market share is) of
| their visitors/revenue?
|
| Bulma claims 90% compatibility with IE11 at least. Foundation 6
| seems to support IE9+.
| Solvitieg wrote:
| Your company is unable to upgrade their IE11-only software yet
| that same company is going to upgrade from Bootstrap 4 to 5
| immediately?
|
| Stay on Bootstrap 4. It will be supported until late 2021.
| StreamBright wrote:
| Market share != revenue share.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _Market share != revenue share._
|
| This can certainly be true.
|
| The amount of revenue my company generates from IE11 users is
| at least an order of magnitude more than its Chrome, Firefox,
| and Safari users combined.
| jfkebwjsbx wrote:
| Exactly. In fact, for some domains, supporting IE11 can mean
| losing money. There is the technical cost, but also the
| support cost which tends to be higher.
| purerandomness wrote:
| Just continue using the 4.x branch, it's perfectly fine and I
| think it's still going to receive maintenance for some time.
| tln wrote:
| Those ie11 users may be able to just fire up chrome etc when
| they need to. That is my recent experience at least
|
| We build an IE compatible marketing and sign up flow, so I may
| only be seeing the motivated users' behavior
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| > Those ie11 users may be able to just fire up chrome etc
| when they need to.
|
| They may. They may also just hit the back button. One of
| those actions requires much less inertia than the other.
| tln wrote:
| Absolutely! that's why I build IE11-compatible marketing
| pages and signup... once they are past the first step of
| the funnel, the back button isn't as tempting :)
|
| Right now its the same front end stack (Vue, BS4) for both
| sites, and re-build and re-test for IE11 infrequently, so
| we're not paying the cost constantly.
| jakearmitage wrote:
| Are there any frameworks like this that support IE10 or IE11?
| rado wrote:
| A progressively enhanced site should work fine in text mode on
| IE11.
| toastal wrote:
| Maybe for some CSS sure, but there's so much has happened in
| the realm of web APIs and JavaScript that certain things are
| nearly impossible.
| jmull wrote:
| Well, this is a mistake.
|
| Nobody likes to support IE11 but dropping support moves Bootstrap
| 5 from "just use Bootstrap" to "Bootstrap has tricky pitfalls".
| Before someone can use Bootstrap 5 they need to be sure and
| confident that they don't need IE11 and never will.
| brundolf wrote:
| IE11 was supplanted by Edge _years_ ago. Windows 10 ships with
| Edge preinstalled (it comes with both, but you 're not stuck
| with IE). Windows 7 and older are no longer supported by MS.
| The only in-between is Windows 8 which everyone hated so I
| doubt it has a huge market share, especially in enterprises
| which are the only ones who might be "stuck" with the browsers
| that come preinstalled on the OS.
| jmull wrote:
| That's fine, but irrelevant.
|
| IE11 lives on because many corporations run software that
| requires it.
|
| There's a network effect, because links don't open the a
| browser that's compatible with the destination, but in the
| same browser as the link. So the corp with one IE11 app wants
| to serve their intranet home page in IE11, and so they want
| everything to run in IE11.
|
| There are mitigations and migration paths, but that's all
| swimming up-stream -- it incurs risk, and costs time and
| money -- so it happens slowly and only in spots.
|
| To use Bootstrap 5 you have to answer this question: are
| corporations my customer, or could I ever pivot to a business
| strategy where corporations are my customer?
|
| If you don't care about money, then you can just answer no if
| you want, and you'll be fine.
|
| But the consumers you can reliably insist run modern browsers
| don't pay for websites (not directly), so if you are running
| a business you are either committed to an ad-driven model,
| physical goods model, with no b2b option, or you're going to
| keep IE11 in-play.
|
| I just don't think most people want to make a far-reaching
| commitment about the nature of their future business before
| they develop their first web page. (They do it all the time,
| but not on purpose!) A framework like bootstrap should free
| you from coming to grips with all that, but bootstrap 5
| pushes it into your face before you are probably ready for
| it.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| > To use Bootstrap 5 you have to answer this question: are
| corporations my customer, or could I ever pivot to a
| business strategy where corporations are my customer?
|
| > If you don't care about money, then you can just answer
| no if you want, and you'll be fine.
|
| You come off as weirdly bitter and hostile here.
|
| Obviously when you choose tech, you have to weigh the pros
| and cons. It's part of our job. Why is it not our job when
| picking the foundation framework for our web client?
|
| If you need IE11 support you can stay on Bootstrap 4 (we're
| still using Bootstrap 3!) or any of the other CSS
| frameworks. What's the problem?
|
| Also, most people aren't in a position where they might
| accidentally take on corporate business in the future,
| either. Seems like a weird niche position to hammer on. And
| if you were in that position yet you chose a framework
| that, what, only works in Firefox unstable nightly, then
| you made a bad call and maybe you'll learn from the
| decision. So what?
|
| Seems like weak reasoning for Bootstrap to never push the
| envelope when there is still Bootstrap 3 and 4 available.
| That's why they cut a new brand each time instead of just
| bumping semver on the same Bootstrap product. Every major
| version hop is basically a new framework.
| wstuartcl wrote:
| Are you really proposing that a new development today
| should choose to implement bootstrap 3? ...
| int_19h wrote:
| They're proposing that new development today that _needs
| IE11 support_ (most of them don 't) should use Bootstrap
| 4. What's unreasonable about that?
| marcthe12 wrote:
| Anothe comment mention that the Chromium edge will have IE
| mode so maybe we will have to convince IT use that
| gsnedders wrote:
| *does have, it's shipped now!
| brundolf wrote:
| My point is that they almost certainly have both IE and
| Edge installed. It's entirely possible to continue using IE
| for their legacy app and use Edge for everything else. In
| fact if their IT department cares at all about security, it
| should be _pushing_ them to do so.
| wstuartcl wrote:
| which may make sense for sites that have a 2% ie11 userbase
| (which may even be the case for bootstrap project sites as
| the user base hitting those sites are many technical users!),
| however sites in-the-wild have dramatically different user
| bases to support I manage many brands marketing sites for
| instance and we see low single digit % ie11 users all the way
| up to 40% userbases depending on the specific audiences for
| those sites.
|
| If the bootstrap team is looking at their (or even average)
| ie11 %'s to determine if they should drop support they are
| really making that decision blind. It would instantly take
| bootstrap from a viable framework on many sites to a deal
| breaker.
| x3haloed wrote:
| Unfortunately, the enterprise world is still making extensive
| use of IE11. Here is the browser breakdown on an enterprise
| application I work on:
| https://i.postimg.cc/cCbk34SR/Screenshot-20200407-083321.png
|
| As of now, Bootstrap 5 cannot be considered for use in any
| website with heavy use from enterprise users.
|
| Edit: though it is nice to see that Chromium Edge is already
| catching up to Spartan Edge!
| speedgoose wrote:
| It depends. At work we decided to not support IE11 for a
| product and all the users understand that they need to use
| something else than IE. So the breakdown is pretty much 0%
| for IE.
|
| It's another story if you are selling, but if the users
| must use your application, they will click on the other
| blue e icon.
| x3haloed wrote:
| Unless of course the "other" blue E icon is unavailable
| because they are on Windows 7 without administrative
| rights to install Chromium Edge, or Edge has been flat
| out disabled through group policy.
|
| https://i.postimg.cc/FzBj9Ttp/Screenshot-20200407-084447.
| png
| speedgoose wrote:
| Then it's unfortunate but we don't support such setup.
| They can pay if they want us to support IE11 though.
| vntok wrote:
| Well that's the point of the parent commenter though,
| right? How do you intend to support IE11 while using
| Bootstrap 5, even if the client offers to pay you?
| speedgoose wrote:
| If they really insist, they will be quoted a rewrite to
| another framework, plus more because we will hate to do
| that.
|
| In practice we find solutions, such as installing chrome
| or using mobile devices. I know it depends on the domain
| and the country, but companies with outdated desktop pc
| running only internet explorer are becoming rare. We
| prefer to refuse one of them than wasting time supporting
| outdated environments.
| some-guy wrote:
| Our enterprise app has similar numbers (20 million unique
| monthly user sessions). There's literally nothing we can do
| about it either--if a large number of Fortune 500 customers
| say we must support it, we have to keep supporting it,
| period.
|
| It has gotten to the point where IE11 in a VM is my main
| browser for testing and debugging.
| duhi88 wrote:
| Seems fine to me. There's still Bootstrap 1-4 to build
| outdated websites for outdated browsers with.
|
| We gotta move forward. The web can't be held hostage over
| decade old corporate contracts.
| dna_polymerase wrote:
| Absolutely not. Those who still use IE11 have to have a hard
| deep look at their bullshit requirement. We can't keep support
| for insecure and obscure technology because someone somewhere
| might still use it. This type of bullshit makes it even harder
| to build safe & reliable software.
| x3haloed wrote:
| Unfortunately this is wishful thinking. See my reply to
| @brundolf in this chain.
| magicalist wrote:
| > _Nobody likes to support IE11 but dropping support moves
| Bootstrap 5 from "just use Bootstrap" to "Bootstrap has tricky
| pitfalls"._
|
| I mean, if you're writing for IE11 that's true of any library
| or framework you might consider, even the ones that "support"
| IE11.
|
| If you're still supporting IE11 I don't see why it's so weird
| to do so with Bootstrap 4.
| vinniejames wrote:
| This sounds like a terrible idea. Most of the reason to use a
| framework like Bootstrap is to avoid dealing with cross browser
| issues, looking at you IE
| lanius wrote:
| Small world, the committer is one of the main contributors to
| MPC-HC (RIP)
| darekkay wrote:
| Even StackOverflow dropped IE11 support recently [1], mainly to
| be able to use CSS custom properties in their Dark Theme
| implementation.
|
| [1] https://stackoverflow.blog/2020/03/31/building-dark-mode-
| on-...
| aesyondu wrote:
| It makes sense when we assume that StackOverflow's audience are
| those who know enough not to use IE11.
| soperj wrote:
| FINALLY!
| baccredited wrote:
| I have access to analytics for a big government site. 11% of all
| traffic in March 2020 was IE11.
| tzs wrote:
| I have access to order processing logs from a small site whose
| customers use Windows and who are generally not very technical.
|
| Of people who actually order: 36% Chrome
| 26% Edge 19% Firefox 19% IE11
| e12e wrote:
| No problem. If you drop support for ie11, those stats become:
|
| Of people who actually order: 44% Chrome
| 32% Edge 23% Firefox
|
| Unfortunately total orders will drop...
| websitescenes wrote:
| Good lord, looks like I'll have to wait a few years to use this
| update then. We have a decent amount of legacy browser users that
| need support. Wish that Bootstrap supported these still widely
| used browsers. Had the same problem with v4.
| dangus wrote:
| "Need" support, until you just force them to not need it.
|
| Like how YouTube basically killed off IE6:
| https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/4/18529381/google-youtube-in...
|
| As long as people don't have a reason to change, they won't. I
| say you drop support now and consider yourselves lucky that you
| can ditch your more difficult and problematic customers.
|
| I mean, of course, I know this isn't a realistic course of
| action for everyone. But I wish it was.
| joshuaissac wrote:
| It is usually the difficult and problematic enterprise
| customers using IE11 that also pay the most money. The choice
| between ditching customers and ditching a framework is not
| usually difficult.
| websitescenes wrote:
| Agreed, keeping your customers supported is #1 priority.
| This is a super hard lesson for many new engineers as they
| always want to use the latest and greatest bleeding edge
| tech. Unfortunately that want rarely aligns with the
| businesses needs.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Is it going to be completely broken / inoperable or just "not
| quite perfect"?
| Joeri wrote:
| I assume they'll want to use css variables, so probably it will
| be completely broken.
| Etheryte wrote:
| Reading through the changeset[1], this isn't a minor "some
| styles out of line" update, they're removing a number of
| polyfills that were there to only serve IE11 that affect many
| of their core components. Without testing it out, I would
| expect most components that use Javascript for functional
| enhancements to be broken. Most of the style changes are fairly
| minor and nothing you couldn't fix as you go, but the script
| changes are breaking changes.
|
| [1] https://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/pull/30377/files
| dstroot wrote:
| This is the right question to ask. The majority of Bootstrap
| should work fine.
| cfv wrote:
| As a provider, supporting old tech stacks sucks. They're clunky,
| have all kinds of warts and annoying workarounds for stuff that
| got improved in future versions.
|
| As a consumer, being told my light bulbs won't work with the new
| fixture is a great reason to no longer work with that provider.
|
| As a provider that knows this, I'd rather support the old tech
| stack right up to the point my ability to keep the lights on
| isn't at risk.
| wnevets wrote:
| I would love to drop IE11 support but its still generates way too
| much revenue. V5 won't be an option until that changes.
| eddywebs wrote:
| IE has become a tech debt that often corporations running an
| enterprise web app older than 10 years have to bear. I have
| clients who's web applications refuse to work on Chrome/Firefox
| and mandates the use of IE11 for proper functioning.
| KarlKemp wrote:
| Bootstrap needs a modern browser, but modern browsers don't need
| bootstrap.
|
| Seriously: 90% of the value of bootstrap was homogenizing
| browsers and making horizontal positioning easier. Both these
| issues have improved dramatically, with browsers converging and
| CSS Grid becoming available, respectively.
|
| At this time, bootstrap offers little more than a somewhat more
| opinionated set of margins and other defaults than what browsers
| ship with, plus some higher-level components.
| rchaud wrote:
| This has less to do with "modern browsers" and more with how
| the site was designed and the opportunity cost of switching.
|
| Why would the developers of a Bootstrap-based site that works
| fine overhaul it completely for CSS Grid, which has far less
| backwards compatibility? What would be the benefit?
|
| Bootstrap is more than just a layout grid, it's also a UI
| framework, so abandoning it would mess up things like tabs,
| accordions, modals, etc.
|
| Using Bootstrap isn't going to make your site less accessible
| or less secure.
|
| https://caniuse.com/#feat=flexbox
|
| https://caniuse.com/#feat=css-grid
| _ZeD_ wrote:
| > Using Bootstrap isn't going to make your site less
| accessible or less secure.
|
| the same could be said for jQuery, still less and less people
| are using it
| rchaud wrote:
| Using vanilla JS instead of jQuery doesn't require
| refactoring the site's layout and changing every page
| template. And even then, a decision like that wouldn't be
| made unless there were significant QoL improvements in
| terms of site speed or maintainability.
|
| That is why BS5 can afford to drop jQuery as a dependency.
| Developers working on highly performant apps where
| ops/second matters would already be using vanilla JS, and
| that's what BS5 is trying to support with this; jQuery
| doesn't play well with React/Vue after all.
|
| But devs that are working on CMS-style websites, which make
| up the majority of actual websites on the internet, can
| continue to use jQuery if they want to.
| KarlKemp wrote:
| I didn't mean to suggest that people should invest time to
| remove bootstrap. Only that Bootstrap offers far less now
| than it did in the past, and shouldn't be considered the
| default option when starting any new project.
|
| Among the downsides is its size, obviously. I also consider
| the html it encourages among the ugliest things since the
| invention of PHP. This is from the documentation:
| <button type="button" class="btn btn-dark">
|
| Classes such as "col-sm" are little better than style="...".
| While accessibility seems to have improved over the last
| years, my intuition is this happened in spite of the idea of
| semantically meaningful HTML being abandoned and not because
| of it. I used to worry about this, but had to abandon that
| particular fight for the sake of my mental health at about
| the time someone decided to name one of these frameworks
| "semantical".
|
| But with CSS Grids and Flexbox, layout has become just as
| easy and actually more flexible than using Bootstrap. Why
| would you add code and become pigeonholed into one framework
| when you could archive the same using vanilla CSS?
| rchaud wrote:
| > Why would you add code and become pigeonholed into one
| framework when you could archive the same using vanilla
| CSS?
|
| It's open source and can be forked and modded to your
| heart's content. How is that being pigeonholed?
|
| Most developers don't work at companies where they roll
| their own UI components, and have QA and accessibility
| experts that can determine if their in-house accordions,
| modals, etc. are ARIA compliant.
|
| The business case for switching over has to go beyond "it's
| vanilla CSS", especially if time can be better spent
| improving the user experience or product features.
| robertoandred wrote:
| What's your main objection to that snippet?
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| This debate seems out of place given that it's been
| belabored since CSS frameworks became a thing.
|
| But consider how CSS files easily become append-only junk
| drawers. And you may have to scour arbitrary files just to
| see what CSS affects this one button on this one component
| on this one page. And even if you find the CSS that you
| think affects the html node, you have to open your browser
| and use inspect element to see if there's anything that
| cascades over it. Meanwhile, a simple class doesn't lie.
|
| And CSS doesn't even have native mixin reusability like
| `.form button { @mixin button } `.
|
| There are clearly trade-offs here. For example, it's a huge
| deal when modifying complex UI to see these classes inline
| and being able to change things in a single file without
| the indirection of a CSS file.
|
| You can get a chip on your shoulder about your arbitrary
| views on what is right and wrong, but people clearly find
| these non-semantic classes useful. I've worked at a company
| that had very purist views on how CSS should be written
| where there were almost no classes in the html, and it was
| very hard to make large UI changes without credentializing
| in multiple CSS files. There is no free win.
| mwcampbell wrote:
| > At this time, bootstrap offers little more than a somewhat
| more opinionated set of margins and other defaults than what
| browsers ship with
|
| Some of us need opinionated defaults like these in order to
| ship something that looks decent. Can you suggest an
| alternative set of opinionated defaults?
| 7777fps wrote:
| IE 11 is still supported by Microsoft because it is tied to
| Windows 10 support.
|
| If you're B2C you can probably ignore that and just not support
| it, but if you're B2B where you're selling not to users it's very
| hard to get away from supporting IE11.
|
| If your users never directly interact with you (for example you
| sell white-label software which gets resold) then you just can't
| control your end-user tech stack enough.
|
| If you're selling to partners who sell to companies who push out
| logins to their customers or user base then even if <1% of users
| use IE 11, that becomes 5% of companies having a user with it,
| which becomes 30% of the partners who are asking for IE11
| support.
|
| It's one thing to turn down 1% of users it's quite another to
| annoy 30% of your income stream.
|
| As long as bootstrap 4 is supported (and the legacy bootstrap 3
| support suggests it will be) then this doesn't have to be a
| problem of course, just one more thing to be aware of.
| gentleman11 wrote:
| I have been helping maintain and update an online fabric store.
| If anybody is going to be using ie11, it's old people with old
| computers buying fabric for things. I think it's still 7% of
| the larger market, no? I don't see how stores can just ignore
| 7% of users unfortunately
| wpietri wrote:
| It looks like 2-4% of usage:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers
|
| However, there's a big difference between 4% of _users_ and
| 4% of _market_. Not everybody out there is a customer, and
| not all customers buy equally. So the revenue falloff sill
| surely be smaller.
|
| Typical browser stats also don't account for what people do
| if something doesn't work. Having browser issues surely will
| cause some lost sales. But even the least tech-savvy of
| people will try something on another device, like their
| phone, or ask somebody to do it for them. Making the revenue
| impact even smaller.
| gsnedders wrote:
| Note that all the browser market share data shows a
| _distinct_ difference between weekday and weekend browser
| market share: IE has _way_ more market share during the
| week.
| phyzome wrote:
| Also consider:
|
| - For some websites (e.g. government) it is important not to
| "lose" even 1% of the potential userbase -- it's another type
| of accessibility
|
| - For some websites, IE 11 usage will be considerably more than
| 1% in the first place
| taf2 wrote:
| We're mostly a voice application so with WebRTC being a
| requirement to our application we've completely dropped support
| for IE11 and Edge (pre chromium)
|
| We've had to maintain support for Safari which has been very
| problematic since they initially released WebRTC support but
| not exactly bug free. That said it's a joy to develop for the
| web now without worrying about IE
| bluedino wrote:
| I had to support IE6 until 2012 because a certain company
| didn't upgrade their workstations...
| wtdo wrote:
| In 2015 I was writing a brand new web frontend for IE 5.5 on
| a mobile device with something like 240x360 screen dimensions
| (I forget the details now) for one of the most valuable
| companies in the world. We had complete control over the
| devices the users used (the company gave the users those
| devices). Admittedly, plans were in place to upgrade those
| devices, but it was still a fair bit out. I left before that
| happened.
| fiddlerwoaroof wrote:
| I work for a relatively large B2B company and we've managed to
| convince the business to drop support for IE11 and Edge (the
| EdgeHTML rendering engine version). It was just a matter of
| pointing out the development cost and using analytics to show
| that very few of our users uses either browser.
| duhi88 wrote:
| How did you have that conversation?
|
| The clients I work for are all still worried about losing
| business due to dropping IE11...so we don't.
|
| They have no analytics on which devices generate income, so
| it is hard to have that conversation. We know that IE11
| hovers around 3% for most of our sites, and I doubt that many
| of those hits come from legitimate users, let alone someone
| who is going to purchase something.
| wayoutthere wrote:
| My company has a few SaaS apps that really only work in Chrome.
| I would say Chrome is a more prevalent corporate browser than
| IE11 at this point.
|
| The biggest issue with IE11 from a corporate IT support
| perspective is that it is not cross-platform so it adds another
| platform to test and validate against. Most organizations have
| to support some level of Mac usage for software developers and
| executives, so it makes more sense to officially support only a
| single browser.
| MisterTea wrote:
| > IE 11 is still supported by Microsoft because it is tied to
| Windows 10 support.
|
| And slow to adopt banks who's check scanner software STILL
| depends on some ie11 feature. Edge support is coming "soon"
| which apparently includes the past 3 or 4 years.
| marcthe12 wrote:
| Personally I feel the correct solution for ie is to have stuff
| polyfilled and transcompiled by the user. So js libs, you also
| transcompile the libraries also and provide the polyfills.
| chatmasta wrote:
| Doesn't Microsoft advise against using IE11 because of security
| reasons, except for critical internal applications that only
| support IE11? [0] It's mind blowing to me that companies
| continue to use an insecure browser, to the point of insisting
| on it.
|
| Why can't vendors refuse to support IE11 on the grounds that
| it's a security risk? If you reframe the problem to "IE11 is
| insecure," surely customers will adapt?
|
| [0] https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-security-chief-ie-
| is...
| jabroni_salad wrote:
| Developing for Chrome is not an unreasonable ask and many
| vendors are asking for it these days. Any new service should
| get minimal resistance.
|
| At my org we use Chrome or Edge as the default and define
| ie11-only sites in group policy. When you navigate, IE11 pops
| up automatically.
|
| As an aside a company I used to work for was so underwater on
| tech debt that instead of modernizing their site they
| repackaged IE9 as a citrix app that business partners had to
| run. People are willing to overlook a lot when the
| commissions are good and that was not the worst thing I have
| seen in the insurance space.
| mrkstu wrote:
| We recently transitioned to Chrome and use IE Tab on
| predefined sites. It's a good compromise of standardizing
| on a modern browser and still being able to access a couple
| straggler apps.
| gsnedders wrote:
| What's the motivation to use Chrome and IE Tab v. MS Edge
| (where the Chromium-based product supports IE Tab-like
| functionality natively)? Or just long enough ago before
| the Chromium-based Edge shipped?
| mrkstu wrote:
| Prior to Microsoft's change of engines, or at least
| around the same time. Plus it isn't like anyone _wanted_
| to use IE or Edge, so we would of likely gone the same
| path regardless.
| gsnedders wrote:
| It's not clear to be Chromium-based Edge is an any worse
| product than Chrome (and in many ways is going further
| down the anti-ad-tracking route than Chrome,
| unsurprisingly), but I expect the Trident integration in
| their IE Mode is better than IE Tab?
| wolco wrote:
| chrome or edge.. Did you forget to include firefox. It
| isn't an unreasonable ask to support firefox. Many vendors
| are asking for it these days.
| kube-system wrote:
| This stuff happens over time. It is a result of cascading
| dependencies.
|
| Companies have lots of pieces of software that they support
| for extended periods of time. Also, they typically avoid
| requiring users to use different browsers for different
| applications. The number of support calls goes up
| dramatically if you need users to use different browsers, and
| it causes usability headaches when linking from one system to
| another, because you can only have one default browser. If
| you bring a piece of enterprise software into any
| organization, they will want you to target the browser
| they're using.... so, targeting IE was written into the
| requirements well after it was a good idea, because legacy
| compatibility was required. That, of course, works until MS
| throws a wrench in the works and discontinues the browser.
|
| SaaS will change this somewhat, because the software is
| continually updated by the vendor. It's mainly on-prem and/or
| custom applications that cause this issue, because they don't
| get upgraded until big bucks are dished out.
| gsnedders wrote:
| > The number of support calls goes up dramatically if you
| need users to use different browsers, and it causes
| usability headaches when linking from one system to
| another, because you can only have one default browser.
|
| Which is precisely why Chromium-based Edge has an IE Mode
| that uses Trident for given sites so that those legacy
| systems can be filtered to use a different browser engine
| from within the same browser UX.
| kube-system wrote:
| Good to know -- I personally haven't dealt with this
| issue in the past few months (or years), but hopefully
| this will give some organizations a path forward.
|
| Between ~2010 and the January release of Edge this year,
| a lot of organizations were dealing with the scenario I
| outlined.
|
| Although as recently as this month, I've run into
| scenarios where Chromium-based Edge acts a bit
| differently than Chrome... so it's not a solid solution
| in all cases.
| sebazzz wrote:
| I had clients reject .NET Framework 4.8 due to security
| concerns.
| Kye wrote:
| COBOL is still in use 61 years later. Institutional inertia
| is very much in style. Vendors can't dictate terms to the
| people paying the bills.
| Finnucane wrote:
| Until they can't find vendors who will do the thing, I
| suppose. If every vendor says, I can't do that, they've got
| a problem.
| chatmasta wrote:
| They can if the software is good enough and the customer
| really wants it.
| [deleted]
| _ZeD_ wrote:
| not if the ones using the software are not the ones that
| pay
| chatmasta wrote:
| If you're losing a sale because your software doesn't
| work in IE11, maybe your software isn't actually all that
| good.
|
| I understand some companies insist on IE11, but companies
| insist on a lot of "requirements" that aren't actually
| necessary if you push back on them. When the rubber hits
| the road, if your software is truly the best/only option,
| they can find a way to use a secure browser to access it.
| Dangeranger wrote:
| If you are big enough, and people want to use your
| software enough, you can dictate what you will support no
| matter who is paying.[0]
|
| [0]
| https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/30/flash-
| you...
| reaperducer wrote:
| _They can if the software is good enough and the customer
| really wants it._
|
| "Killer app" only works in the consumer and small
| business spaces these days.
| wolco wrote:
| Not really. Slack pushed into enterprise quickly.
| reaperducer wrote:
| Nobody bought new computers to run Slack.
|
| "Killer app" came from Visicalc, which caused millions of
| accountants and businesspeople to buy Apple II machines.
| brundolf wrote:
| That's different. A web browser is an interface to the
| outside world which _executes arbitrary foreign code as a
| regular course of operation_. Any IT department that
| forcibly limits people to use the world 's least-secure
| browser in an effort to keep things secure is utterly
| failing in its job.
| drngdds wrote:
| Because unfortunately, competition exists. I work in fintech
| and we have two options:
|
| - Convince bajillion dollar investment banks to switch web
| browsers just to use our service
|
| - Accept a mild decrease in developer experience
| [deleted]
| munchbunny wrote:
| Personally I'm hopeful for the day when Edge becomes default. I
| believe it's still able to use the older engines for
| compatibility, but not having to code for Trident for default
| Windows users would be so nice!
| gsnedders wrote:
| (Chromium) Edge has an "IE Mode" where it uses Trident for
| specified sites. Very clearly the move here is to get
| enterprise clients using Edge internally, as it means they
| have a modern browser on the public web but can maintain
| compatibility with internal IE-only systems.
| m-p-3 wrote:
| It's a good migration path, where they'll eventually be
| able to fully deprecate Trident.
| gsnedders wrote:
| I expect Trident is a very long way from being killed, if
| it ever is. I expect it'll remain around for much the
| same reason as many of the old Windows APIs have.
| leifg wrote:
| Not to mention that if your software sends out emails with
| links to your application, chances are high that your client's
| email client (Outlook) will open the links in the default
| browser (which still might be IE).
|
| So even if you can convince them to use a different browser, be
| prepared to tell them how to configure the browser to be the
| default one.
| bcrosby95 wrote:
| That's interesting. Part of why we started supporting IE is
| because some of our most important users somehow ended up on
| our website in IE, despite not normally using IE. Wonder if
| this is the only reason why.
| ehutch79 wrote:
| I bet if you make a popup with instructions on switching
| the default browser when ie pops up, it'll go down
| wpietri wrote:
| Since it's open source, it sounds like companies who get 30% of
| their money from IE users should start giving enough back in
| time and money that Bootstrap does what they need. That, or
| look up parables on gift horses and little red hens.
| tln wrote:
| IME, the IE11 users have all been able to use another browser.
| We send them to version of our site that includes all the right
| polyfills and allows signups/browsing marketing but NOT using
| the main app.
|
| When users arrive on IE11 and need to use the app they are
| always able to fire up chrome/Firefox/edge.
|
| The only users with an old browser and won't/can't upgrade have
| had win7 + ancient Firefox.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _IME, the IE11 users have all been able to use another
| browser._
|
| Then your company must not have any customers in security-
| conscious industries like healthcare.
|
| Any well-run IT department doesn't just allow the company's
| employees to install and run any old browser they want
| because a web site told them to do so.
|
| I am forced to support IE11 because a very large number of
| doctors, hospitals, and other healthcare providers use it.
| These people cannot simply "fire up chrome/Firefox/edge."
| tln wrote:
| Yes, I'd have to ask those users to log in with their
| iPhone :)
|
| Seriously though, the IT-only-allowing-IE11 hasn't been a
| sales or support blocker in the last couple years, as it
| has been for me in previous companies 5+ years ago, but
| YMMV
|
| Every site like Stack Overflow or Google Docs that doesn't
| work with IE11 helps convince decision makers that maybe
| their IT department should actually get with the times
| propinquity wrote:
| If they are running Windows 10 they ought to be able to use
| Edge without installing anything.
| ehutch79 wrote:
| 'security conscious' and 'forced to use ie11' do not go
| together
| TheAceOfHearts wrote:
| It's not very security-conscious of them to continue using
| IE11. These healthcare companies are being incredibly
| irresponsible by continuing to use an insecure and outdated
| browser; even going against Microsoft's own recommendation
| in doing so, as I understand it. By supporting IE11 your
| company is helping to enable the healthcare industry to
| continue using insecure software.
|
| A well-run IT department should be able to provide its
| users with a modern and secure browser. Why does your
| definition of a well-run IT department include the
| requirement that software installations should be
| restricted, but not a requirement to avoid using insecure
| and outdated software?
|
| I believe one can make a compelling case that the continued
| use of IE11 within the healthcare industry is unethical, as
| it provides a known attack vector by which people's data
| can potentially be stolen. Stop giving them a pass on this.
| marcthe12 wrote:
| Not always. Some places use ActiveX or npapi. I know one
| place which the security system uses a java8 applet. The
| functionality has been remove from other browsers. I wish if
| MS provided a way on edge to run some webpages in IE. At
| least then we could isolate problematic webpages that use
| plugins while have rest run on edge.
| tln wrote:
| It does actually!
|
| https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/deployedge/edge-ie-mode
| wil421 wrote:
| Somehow the large FinTech company I work for dropped support
| for IE 11 and just asked employees to use Chrome. Even users
| still on Windows 7.
|
| We run a few customer portals and a customer facing ticketing
| system. Until now I've never been able to rid myself of IE 11.
| It's very nice. Small banks aren't so happy.
| zihotki wrote:
| It's just your large FinTech company probably doesn't have
| goverment contracts and/or huge enterprises as clients.
| acdha wrote:
| Or they've been successful in marketing this as a security
| requirement. That carries a lot of weight in .gov and
| anything involving finance, medical data, FERPA, etc. has a
| pretty solid argument for pushing secure clients since it's
| free and easy.
| nailer wrote:
| Friend is in one the top 3 law firms in the world. They
| have a corporate Chrome rollout, since at least one of
| their web apps requires a current browser.
| duxup wrote:
| I'm fortunate enough to be in the B2B where our customers are
| generally less tech inclined so we can actually say "You really
| shouldn't use IE, download this." and they actually do it. And
| our customers customer's are even less technically inclined,
| and they do it too.
|
| Some even come back with feedback "Hey this other stuff works
| now!"
|
| I like to think we're helping make the world a better place ;)
|
| Granted while the leverage is nice, supporting those customers
| can be a bear.
| rb808 wrote:
| > download this
|
| Holy Sh*t. That means a: users can install software and b:
| they listen to some vendor telling them to install stuff. I'm
| shocked either still happens.
| debaserab2 wrote:
| In my experience (looking at error log hit rates vs customer
| service inquires) the vast majority of people do not contact
| customer service when a website breaks and would never get
| that advice.
| websitescenes wrote:
| I have exactly the opposite experience with B2B. We're
| working with financial institutions and large dealers and
| what they use is typically white listed and controlled by an
| IT department. Typically, they can't just change and use
| whatever they want. You must be talking about small
| businesses?
| KaoruAoiShiho wrote:
| > I'm fortunate enough to be in the B2B where our customers
| are generally less tech inclined
| duxup wrote:
| Some are small.
|
| Having said that some are pretty well known large
| companies, but the business units that sort of operate on
| their own if only due to their archaic nature. The company
| has a policy, it just doesn't always apply to them.
|
| Logistics is a weird industry ;)
| websitescenes wrote:
| I always found logistics interesting. Moving stuff around
| efficiently seems to be a real art. Many opportunities to
| use data. We use a few different logistics companies and
| I kick around the idea of bringing it in house sometimes.
| duxup wrote:
| The catch seems to be managing all the different data
| that isn't comparable, but should be.
|
| Like every logistics organization does something some
| weird way (carrier, client, end customer, everyone's
| accounting...), they're sure it is the right way, and
| then the next one does it the "right way" another way and
| now nothing is a 1:1 ;)
|
| Lots of old / skewed / strange practices that requires a
| lot of unexpected maintenance / changes. It's easy to end
| up swimming in a lot of bad / not equivalent data.
| mstade wrote:
| Ditto, and what's worse is when those white lists conflict
| with other requirements, such as "must work on latest
| Chrome version" but there's no way to test that without
| making a production release, because on the internal
| networks you're only able to use the whitelisted version,
| which is usually months to a year behind, and even that's
| an exception made specifically for devs because otherwise
| you should really be using IE. When pointing this out the
| answer typically goes like "well, try your best I guess?"
|
| It's really something.
| house9-2 wrote:
| Would a product like browserstack help you test all the
| required versions?
|
| https://www.browserstack.com/
| brundolf wrote:
| Unless they're running an unsupported version of Windows,
| they almost certainly have Edge preinstalled; they don't
| have to go download Chrome.
| kube-system wrote:
| Windows 7 is supported through 2023 if you have enough
| cash.
| starik36 wrote:
| Windows 8 and 8.1 are still supported pretty far into the
| future.
| brundolf wrote:
| I doubt many enterprises upgraded to those, though. Even
| regular consumers hated the interface upheaval, and
| enterprises are extra sensitive to those kinds of
| changes.
| thoraway1010 wrote:
| Same with govt agencies.
|
| They will whitelist super old known insecure java versions
| / windows versions etc that can NEVER change. I remember
| having to downgrade to windows 7 to access one VPN setup
| (yes - to get through the security firewalls you had to
| downgrade the entire stack to something the "security"
| firewall handled). I think this all was in part because
| they don't patch / update, so some stuff (flash / activeX
| etc) just doesn't work well on a modern machine
|
| Ironically, they also would let their key domains expire
| but thankfully folks just would call a helpdesk and get an
| IP address to use (but these domain endpoints were 100%
| being hit by downgraded / unpatched machines so if someone
| had purchased the domain it would have been bad news).
|
| For some places that were not inside an agency we had had
| to keep the "secure" machine separate from the actual
| network because it was the most vulnerable.
|
| Thankfully, the help desk was so overwhelmed with calls
| about this horribly fragile system that they would reset
| anyone's password over the phone, so user lockouts were
| easy to handle, call up, ask that so and so's password be
| reset to XXXX and done (virtually no authentication other
| than knowing what number to dial). This was critical
| because the passwords had to be changed every 30 days and
| were insanely complex - we had lockouts even though folks
| thought they'd written them down properly right next to the
| machine (cap / lower / number / letter confusion issues?).
|
| Meanwhile, my google account has proper two factor
| authentication, can be accessed from most any modern
| device, rate limits and screens login attempts in a smart
| way, and I haven't had to change my password in 15 years
| (so I could pick a hard one I don't use elsewhere).
|
| Fun times!
| rietta wrote:
| The govt agencies I work with officially use Google
| Chrome.
| gentleman11 wrote:
| That is sketchy. You would think the government cares
| more about privacy
| vijaybritto wrote:
| Can verify this to be 100% true. I think that you are
| even downplaying a bit . I worked for a consulting
| company in India and the client was a bank. They had
| specific ancient setups that worked only on windows 7 and
| nothing else. We couldn't even compile the java monolith
| sometimes because the maven dependencies didn't wanna
| fetch. It compiles for 1.5 hours. Junior devs like me
| could never go through that code or the setup. It was an
| absolute nightmare. It's one of the main reasons why I
| moved on to front-end as the feedback loop was
| instantaneous.
|
| Then we had to develop most of the times in a virtual
| desktop so the frame rates were like 10fps and getting
| animations right was notoriously hard. Now the backend
| seemed like a cake! I quickly moved out of there and I'm
| much happy about that decision!
| sodapopcan wrote:
| I work for a B2B that deals with very large customers and
| we do exactly as OP of this thread describes--We offer zero
| support for IE.
| daotoad wrote:
| Because many of our users access our systems using embedded
| browsers in EnterpriseTM Software, we have to support IE8.
|
| B2B can mean you're locked in to supporting things you
| otherwise wouldn't.
|
| IE8 support adds significant cost and effort, but because of
| our customer profiles, we _must_ maintain it. Our leadership
| understands the issues and is working to change the
| situation, but the inertia in this field can be astoundingly
| hard to overcome.
| leejoramo wrote:
| What is the the expected release date for Bootstrap 5.
|
| Being that it is still an early Alpha, this change may not have a
| significant impact for a while.
| drinchev wrote:
| I'm even not sure what an average experience on IE11 would be for
| any users.
|
| I push as much as I can to POs / stakeholders to just disable
| non-critical features on IE11 and just leave the basic
| functionality.
|
| I doubt anyone using IE11 likes that fact, so sounds good to give
| them just another reason to complain about their experience to
| their superiors. I will definitely never see "The product that
| just works on IE11" as a slogan, so being competitive in this
| won't be reasonable argument.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| Ha, my office's intranet is MS SharePoint, the menu is broken
| in Chrome. I sent them the CSS to fix it (unnecessary divs are
| added, you just need the right selector and you can
| display:none them all) ... worked fine in IE11, apparently
| that's justification for a WONTFIX (fixed it for myself with
| uBlock).
|
| Lots of emails come around saying use/don't use IE11 for this
| operation because half the time it doesn't work, and half the
| time the sites being linked aren't standards compliant.
|
| As an ex webdev it's hard not to be annoyed.
| Raed667 wrote:
| The only reason we still "support" IE11 in my company is that a
| "significant" number of our users visit us in their working-hours
| from IE11.
|
| During the weekend this kind of traffic drops significantly,
| which means to me that people using IE have to, and not choose
| to.
| fortyseven wrote:
| I wonder how many of these ancient legacy systems are content to
| stay on IE because everyone coddles them with support? Chicken
| and the egg kind of thing. Why invest the time and money to
| modernize if devs will bend over backwards to keep them on life
| support?
| wstuartcl wrote:
| It depends on your user base. Sometimes you must coddle because
| the users are still high on your active user reports and not
| supporting them is a choice between killing off that user base
| or keeping them.
|
| For instance if your business model is to sell to/support
| highly regulated industries or govt users you are effectively
| forced to support their current user base configs or lose that
| share of the market because the choice for them is deal with a
| huge change to their requirements and support (which move at a
| glacial rate) OR chose a different vendor for your provided
| service.
| sebazzz wrote:
| Especially because the ones to make that call may not know that
| their business apps support other web browsers. We sell some
| tools, which also work on IE11 but definitely on other web
| browsers. Do our clients know that? I wouldn't know, and
| wouldn't count on it.
| beart wrote:
| More likely it's because no one wants to pay to upgrade the
| hundreds of barely supported in-house apps their company has
| that only run on IE 11 in compatibility mode.
| karatestomp wrote:
| The people making the decision judge their personal risk to
| be higher if they initiate the change than if they stick with
| the status quo, even with the chance that it causes a major
| breach--they might not get blamed for that, anyway. Same as
| most business decisions.
| efdee wrote:
| Not sure. At least in my experience, the people demanding that
| their apps keep working on IE11 are not the people who care
| about what framework we use to build the apps.
| tcd wrote:
| It seems IE11 has become the new Python 2.7. I can only hope one
| day MS decides to pull the plug entirely, it can't run any new JS
| features and is clinging onto life.
|
| Eventually, the web will just break (for example, http/3), and IE
| will be forced to retire.
|
| We just need the "right" pieces to break before it can retire in
| peace.
| k__ wrote:
| Somehow Bootstrap became the jQuery of CSS for me.
|
| I used it excessively 6 years ago. Then the v4 took an eternity
| to release and I already switched to different solutions.
|
| I would have thought that people that are still using it are
| doing so because of legacy support.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-04-07 23:00 UTC)