The BBC just released their JavaScript library, Glow. They rolled their own because the major libraries don't adequately support older browsers.
I'm wondering if I should take the time to learn the library. Do other large institutions have similar laws and rules regulating them that prevent them from using the mainstream libraries such as jQuery?
Browser stats suggest it would be a waste of time. From my own relatively high-traffic public-facing website, older browsers (generation 1 firefox, netscape 5 or less, MSIE 5 or less) last month registered 40,000 hits out of 8.3 million, or 0.5%.
It also seems to me that any organization restricting you to some ancient browser might be the same ones that restrict you from browsing the BBC. None of the companies I deal with at work have restrictions for older browsers either, and we have a couple hundred clients ranging from small to fortune 500.
Thank goodness too - I can't imagine trying to make our application work for older browsers.
The license is one of the most important things when considering a library. If it's GPL, it's not going into a product that will be sold eventually. But JavaScript libraries, like jQuery, often have more liberal licenses--jQuery is both GPL and MIT, so you can pick the one you want. Just as important is browser compatibility. When it comes to presenting a website, you need to support the browsers of your customers. Without them, you can't make any money.
What I would like to know is: are they serious? jQuery, et al., support such a huge percentage of browsers. Forgetting those 7 people who still use IE5.5 or Safari 1.3 is a good thing. They aren't numerous enough to generate enough revenue to pay for supporting those old browsers.
The BBC's primary duty is not to make money, instead, it is to serve the license-payer. In order to reach the widest possible audience, they have to support those older browsers. There's a large number of people in this world who couldn't be bothered—or don't even know how—to upgrade their web browsers from IE 5.old or whatever they're using now. The BBC can't just say "well too bad for you" to these people, even though private broadcasters can.
(Disclaimer: I'm from the US so this is mostly conjecture based on what I've learned about the BBC from other sources, e.g. Wikipedia. Please correct me in the comments if I'm wrong, or downvote me mercilessly. Either works.)
Why don't we just all close our eyes to old browsers and look forward?
Seriously if we keep giving people room not to upgrade they shall never updgrade. This is becoming more of an ethical issue than is conventional. As a developer you should thihnk hardly about whether you are helping by allowing your users, little comfort to their misery in old browser, or by advising them to upgrade. In my opinion the former cost less. So save the "business and money from the masses" talk for later.
Even Microsoft ignored its own browser(IE6) when developing parts of its new product website.
Obviously the BBC here in the UK are very much like people who preach change but at the same time prevent people from changing.
Enough with this compatibility and money talk!. Upgrade to something neat or get lost!
PS. IE6 lost 20% of its audience to firefox last month!