Should I accept IE 5.0 (!) as a browser requirement for a project?

views:

963

answers:

+12 Q:

Should I accept IE 5.0 (!) as a browser requirement for a project?

Unbelievable as it sounds, I received a request for proposal for a project which has the Internet Explorer 5.0 and Firefox 2.0 as minimum browser requirements!

We tried to explain to the client all the issues regarding such requirements, but since it's a government project and public tender, we can't influence them. The requirements stay.

They also insist that the solution is "modern, web 2.0 enabled (?!), accessible, ...". I can't say much else, but it's basically a public web portal with community features and a CMS background.

The project is otherwise interesting and could be quite profitable, but this requirement seems as a never ending source of frustration and problems.

+9 A:

No.

alex tingle 2009-09-21 12:12:54

Hah. I wish it was that simple. But, money changes everything, even our principles. =/

EndangeredMassa 2009-09-21 12:15:34

Yes, that's right. +1

muerte 2009-09-21 12:16:23

Not helpful without further elaboration.

pbreitenbach 2009-09-23 04:21:22

+57 A:

You should tell them that you can keep the IE5 and FF2 compatibility, but those browsers will have a gracefully degraded experience. Up-to-date browsers will have the full "web 2.0" experience.

This will take more time and effort to ensure compatibility, but you would probably want to have it graceful degrade in the face of no JavaScript or RIA support anyway. Perhaps these can overlap, which would make it a little easier to accomplish.

EndangeredMassa 2009-09-21 12:13:33

+1 - Excellent answer.

Daniel May 2009-09-21 12:23:14

In addition I would ask for more time for the project to write code for outdated browsers.

Kamarey 2009-09-21 12:45:37

@Kamarey... why more time? Surely all web based software should gracefully degrade when the client doesn't fully support JavaScript or CSS. If I were the client I wouldn't be accepting a web2.0 system that couldn't degrade gracefully, why reward you for failing to build the site well enough in the first place. Besides, if you're doing server side validation of forms this should be easy.Build the vanilla functionality first, then layer on the AJAX and web 2.0 goodness. This way you always know the site works on older browsers.

2009-09-21 13:21:10

@DavidK so you found an easy, plain, graceful way to do both ajax form submission and element modification, and vanilla? What about insta-search?I'm not saying it's impossible, just that it's not easy to build and maintain.

Adriano Varoli Piazza 2009-09-21 13:48:21

When you read "gracefully degrade", think "still has readable text, along with a message saying they should upgrade their browser if they want more color than blue links."

Lee B 2009-09-21 14:11:47

@Adriano, yes... just start by designing a basic forms web site with everything operating as you would expect. A search box would take you to the search results page, etc. Then add the AJAX on top with the autopopulating search box jumping to the results. This way your graceful version is that it is still functional for all users, and your web 2.0 version has the full jazz that you would expect.Put it simply: Turn off JavaScript and CSS and make sure that functionally it all still works. That there is graceful degradation.

2009-09-21 14:34:57

@DavidK: I know what graceful degradation is, thank you. I just disagree with you on considering its development and maintenance 'easy'. Just by introducing duplication of behavior, you now have one new avenue for bugs.

Adriano Varoli Piazza 2009-09-21 15:00:41

+1. But use progressive enhancement ( http://www.alistapart.com/articles/understandingprogressiveenhancement , http://www.alistapart.com/articles/progressiveenhancementwithcss and http://www.alistapart.com/articles/progressiveenhancementwithjavascript ) instead of graceful degradation. Start with a plain HTML and minimal CSS site that works in all browsers, then add more advanced CSS and JavaScript on browsers that support more advanced features. That is a lot easier than starting with an advanced site and trying to make it work gracefully when advanced functionality isn't available.

Grant Wagner 2009-09-21 17:30:25

You can use progressive enhancement to achieve graceful degradation. It's not necessarily easy, but you should be doing it anyway.

EndangeredMassa 2009-09-21 17:37:38

+3 A:

That's scary. But that won't be the end of it.

You will also have to deal with accessibility, screen readers, semantic markup, color-blindness aware color schemes and those things that make a project ultimately dull and never ending.

If you can, fight against this particular requirement to the best of your abilities.

ADDED: Seems that you can't. Then you just have to decide whether the money is right for that sort of work, because it will be anything but fun. If money is not good - look for other projects.

Developer Art 2009-09-21 12:13:34

We tried... but it's government and they can't (or won't) change a word from the tender... :(

muerte 2009-09-21 12:17:22

If you can't change the requirement then this question makes no sense to me.

0xA3 2009-09-21 12:21:35

The question was whether or not to accept the job at all.

pbreitenbach 2009-09-21 13:15:02

+43 A:

Try to point them to this page:

The product Lifecycle for IE5 is already over.

http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifesupsps/#Internet%5FExplorer

The product support from MS for these Versions of the browser has ended several years ago already. Tell them that you are unable to get any vendor support for this version anymore

Heiko Hatzfeld 2009-09-21 12:16:57

I like this tactic. +1

EndangeredMassa 2009-09-21 12:18:12

Or rather, state that support tickets raised might be unresolved for IE5, apart from a premium charge for such cases.

Vineet Reynolds 2009-09-21 12:21:31

Excellent! This is a good argument.

muerte 2009-09-21 12:47:48

If only it was that simple! We do a lot of work with Government departments here in the UK and the majority of them are on IE6 with no option to upgrade. Apparently upgrading the browser isn't cost effective as it requires a little man to go around and do it manually with a CD!

Katy 2009-09-21 13:37:07

I know its not that simple, but the "official support expiered" argument is the one that gets accepted more often then "resonable arguments" from a developer standpoint. I didnt say it will work allways, but its an additional bullet you can fire to remove that requirement

Heiko Hatzfeld 2009-09-21 14:43:35

Only tries to address one aspect of the question and poorly.

pbreitenbach 2009-09-23 04:20:39

Back to Stone Age! :)

Sri Kumar 2009-09-21 12:17:06

+2 A:

If you don't accept it there will be 25 others who will. My suggestion is to be up front with them that additional time will be required to adhere to their browser requirements. You might also try to have them prioritize requirements just in case you hit a wall and have to sacrifice functionality for compatibility (or vice-versa).

Mayo 2009-09-21 12:18:13

+3 A:

I have delivered projects for the NHS (UK) in the past which require IE5 support. The reason being many internal user (ie. those working for the organisation in question) are still on IE5 because they can't upgrade their browsers due to IT policy/installation restrictions.

It certainly makes things more difficult but provided you keep things simple and follow accessibility best practices (at least W3C validate your markup) you should be okay providing a degraded experience for IE5.

For example curved corners can be added using CSS3 and will degrade to square corners in older browsers. CSS3 is only supported in the very latest browsers.

Kris 2009-09-21 12:22:00

+1 A:

You should know that it is your side that is in charge of development and compatibility. Develop your vision, talk to them honestly about your issues with compatibility (if they have someone to listen, otherwise communicate this in some simpler way).

You are the ones who have the knowledge and tools to solve this problem, not them, so don't let them govern the minute details -- that can disrupt the whole project. Make sure you know why they have these requirements, and that you have a nicely degrading solution for all use cases. They will be understanding once you have addressed the real-world issues.

kaizer.se 2009-09-21 12:24:11

+3 A:

I would want to emphasise that support for some of the core parts of web 2.0 functionality requires the presence of the XmlHTTP ActiveX component, and that this means that the MSXML components must be installed on all clients which do not include it implicitly (as in... IE5 and some IE6).

Without this you do not have xmlhttp, and you do not have AJAX.

Sure there are workarounds... web 2.0 is possible in IE5, but these are ugly and involve using hidden frames and web pages instead of a decent response model and web services.

Basically, so long as you clearly communicate the degraded experience and why that experience is degraded (the dependency on external ActiveX components that are no longer readily available) then you should be fine.

Of course all of this comes down to one thing... how you make your websites. For if you code AJAX from the outset I bet you don't gracefully degrade.

2009-09-21 12:29:19

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think IE5 supports XmlHttpRequest object.

muerte 2009-09-21 12:38:18

Supports yes, but doesn't ship. Many MS products ship MSXML, but if you happen to have an old version of Office, don't have Exchange (Outlook Web Access), etc... then like I discovered recently with a client of mine, it's actually possible to find IE5 and IE6 installations that do not have XMLHTTP available.

2009-09-21 13:18:41

I see, tnx for the explanation

muerte 2009-09-21 13:39:35

+1 A:

I think getting a project running in IE5 is possible, it has XHR to enabled your web 2.0 Ajax, it has same accessibility aspects implemented as IE7, it has vector graphics and more.

Sergey Ilinsky 2009-09-21 12:32:10

+7 A:

Yes, you should accept this browser requirement, assuming that this is a time-and-materials contract. Getting a website to work with simple HTML and basic JavaScript is not an impossible task, and any client that requires IE 5.0 compatibility has no clue what "web 2.0 enabled" means, anyway (I'm not even sure I know, exactly). Just use sharp-looking, snazzy graphics - there are even simple tricks you can employ to make rounded corners (which is probably what 95% of humanity thinks web 2.0 is). And if you want AJAX-type functionality, you can use showModalDialog(...).

I would have a lot of fun with this project. I'll take it if you won't.

MusiGenesis 2009-09-21 12:54:05

I like this because it points out that the definition for web 2.0 is not universally known. Some people think it means draggable boxes and expanding lists while others think it is the enhanced social aspect of interacting with others. I'd be scared of a bulleted requirement stating "must be web 2.0". :)

Mayo 2009-09-21 13:09:08

@Mayo: I wouldn't be scared of that requirement. In my head, "must be web 2.0" translates to "cha-ching!"

MusiGenesis 2009-09-21 13:11:13

@Mayo: and when you deliver the website, you can tell the client you went ahead and made it web 3.0, for forwards-compatibility.

MusiGenesis 2009-09-21 13:13:14

LOL Musi, great point! :)

muerte 2009-09-21 13:19:04

+2 A:

Is this IE5 for mac, windows or unix? They all have very different behavior, so you'll need to make sure exactly which platform they're talking about. For example, the mac version is based on a different rendering engine than the windows/unix versions, so it has very different CSS support.

I agree with the rest: go for graded browser support. Use yahoo's graded browser support method, where A-grade (modern) browsers get full support, and C-grade browsers, like IE5, get core feature support, but nothing else (no scripting, no styling). A well-executed C-grade front-end can be quite usable and compatible with pretty much anything that renders HTML.

Joeri Sebrechts 2009-09-21 13:07:29

The project is otherwise interesting and could be quite profitable, but this requirement seems as a never ending source of frustration and problems.

It's technically possible - Microsoft got AJAX working in OWA on IE5 - so take the money or don't. Stop whining about having to work for a living.

wefwfwefwe 2009-09-21 13:21:13

Restates the question and complains about questioner whining.

pbreitenbach 2009-09-21 14:47:21

I stand by my point. The client has made their requirements clear and are willing to pay well for it. If you don't want to work with IE5 then just don't take the job.

wefwfwefwe 2009-09-21 15:23:55

That's fine, all I'm doing here is asking for opinions which will help me in my decision whether to bite the bullet or not. I don't see how this is whining...

muerte 2009-09-21 19:22:47

+1 A:

Depending on what they mean by "Web 2.0 enabled", I'd take the project. The main thing you lose is Ajax and some/most/all CSS. But that will actually make the project much easier and you'll be able to focus on core functionality rather than little UI hacks. Many of the biggest, most successful web sites are fairly "low tech" such as Craigslist, Google (search), Ebay, PayPal, Etrade, Amazon, Wikipedia, IMDB, Walmart, Evite.

pbreitenbach 2009-09-21 13:28:59

+1 A:

You should accept and go for a progressive enhancement approach. Make a site which works and looks ok without any css and javascript. Then start styling and adding dynamic things.

If the user has an old browser (even I.E3 or netscape) your site is accessible, which is what government agency want. But better browser will mean a better experience.

Arkh 2009-09-21 13:30:07

+1 A:

I agree with EndangeredMassa. Accept so prehistoric broswer only if they could lack some functionallity.

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/07/14/youtube-will-be-next-to-kiss-ie6-support-goodbye/ maybee if you post them previous link, they will hurry to upgrade :-)

Horák Jan 2009-09-21 14:42:04

ansaurus

tags:

views:

answers:

Should I accept IE 5.0 (!) as a browser requirement for a project?

related questions