[thelist] [css-d] IE 6 news implications

[Will]

I just ended 5 years at an agency similar to the one Barry described and we did almost the exact same thing. 1.5x for ie6 (also varied in complexity) and 1.5 time-to-completion for front end work. We also did whatever we could to get access to their existing analytics to help them make a good decision. Just because employees of an org are tied to ie6 doesn't mean their customers are. For the last year or so, most clients are happy to have a degraded experience for ie6 in the case of public facing websites. 



On Dec 16, 2011, at 11:32 AM, "Simon MacDonald" <simonmacdonald at uk2.net> wrote:

> Nice one, Barney, I like that thinking. Puts it quite in perspective.
> I will use similar myself.
> 
> Simon
> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: thelist-bounces at lists.evolt.org [mailto:thelist-
>>> bounces at lists.evolt.org] On Behalf Of Barney Carroll
>>> Sent: 16 December 2011 6:51 PM
>>> To: thelist at lists.evolt.org
>>> Subject: Re: [thelist] [css-d] IE 6 news implications
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Sounds from your comments that some/many companies feel that IE6
>>> usage is so insignificant as to make accommodating it to be more costly
>>> than any benefit gotten from the accommodation.
>>>> 
>>>> Is that the feeling?
>>> 
>>> I work for a digital marketing agency that churns out a fairly large
>>> number of highly involved websites to support the campaigns of a few
>>> major brands in the UK.
>>> 
>>> Because most of our clients are major corporations, they often have
>>> direct experience of locked systems running legacy IE, and because
>>> we're in a competitive business with big names to please we pride
>>> ourselves in being very attentive to the clients' specific wants.
>>> 
>>> Having said that, what with a lot of people asking for whiz-bang
>>> bleeding edge front-end bells and whistles and complete cross-browser
>>> parity, we have recently made it a matter of policy to charge 1.5 times
>>> the front-end build if IE6 or 7 'total parity' is desired (in practice
>>> the figure is always different: some designs do just work with minimal
>>> code-forking, in which case we charge far less, while others are
>>> incredibly ambitious and precise, and can cost considerably more to
>>> perfect across browserland). Of course we build with platform-agnostic
>>> accessibility principles and enhance there forth, so we never have
>>> sites that are unusable or visually broken, but for things like, for
>>> example, GUIs with rotating semi-transparent imagery or somesuch,
>>> dedicated legacy IE support is a huge extra workload.
>>> 
>>> We've found that announcing that pricing plan up front with the
>>> workload explanation, along with our analytics data to indicate the
>>> vanishingly small proportion of these browsers' users as a demographic,
>>> makes legacy browser work a lot more sane: either the client realises
>>> that these users are a minority who do not expect flashy Internet
>>> experience and accept that they will have a sub-par experience, or they
>>> insist on a lot of hard work and pay accordingly.
>>> --
>>> 
>>> * * Please support the community that supports you.  * *
>>> http://evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
>>> 
>>> For unsubscribe and other options, including the Tip Harvester and
>>> archives of thelist go to: http://lists.evolt.org Workers of the Web,
>>> evolt !
>>> 
>>> 
>>> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
>>> signature database 6718 (20111216) __________
>>> 
>>> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>>> 
>>> http://www.eset.com
>>> 
> 
> 
> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
> database 6718 (20111216) __________
> 
> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
> 
> http://www.eset.com
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> * * Please support the community that supports you.  * *
> http://evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
> 
> For unsubscribe and other options, including the Tip Harvester
> and archives of thelist go to: http://lists.evolt.org
> Workers of the Web, evolt !