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 !