This question already has answers here:
Closed 12 years ago.
Possible Duplicates:
IE6: To support or not to support.
Should we support IE6 anymore?
I'd hate to (HATE TO) admit it, but there are some people still using this browser. A client of mine is facing an issue where the "transparency" area of a png comes out a light grey - ONLY on IE6.
I know it's an unsupported browser, but some people STILL use it. I'd love to have a little discussion about whether or not I should choose to support it.
One point pro-support of IE6 is that often in large organisations, the update of systems is often unimportant to their IT department, so theres a large proportion of people working in these organisations that still use IE6. Schools are the same.
One point con-support of IE6 is that Microsoft no longer offer support for it, and it is considered a defunct browser, so why should I waste my time catering for it.
It is a little bit of a dilemma. I'd love to hear other peoples responses to this.
One point con-support of IE6 is that
Microsoft no longer offer support for
it, and it is considered a defunct
browser, so why should I waste my time
catering for it.
Because it's not Microsoft you're catering for, or people who consider it a defunct browser, it's people using the browser, aka your customers. By all means, don't take on customers who have a requirement that you support IE6 with websites you produce, that is your chocie. But if you're getting paid for it, I'd hardly call it "wasting my time" =)
For my own sites I do not bother with being pixel perfect and having identical functionality in IE6 but I do like to make sure that the site is accessible and functional at a basic level. That shouldn't be too hard and it'll probably be useful for web crawlers as well.
I don't see an alternative. In fact, I dare say it wasn't very professional of you to put a commercial site up that doesn't support IE6. Your site should work on all browsers - cross browser compatibly is part of our job.
In reply to the comments, here's what I mean when I say professional:
It is expected of you to know IE6 is going to be a problem before you start.
Target supported browsers must be part of the contract. Before working on the site you should ask who will be the target crowd and make that decision together. If you need to support IE6 your cost estimation should be higher.
It is expected of you to at least test the site or all browsers (yes, including IE6, knowing that it isn't quite dead yet - you don't have to like it though).
IE6 doesn't support PNGs, has weird box model (so don't use width+padding), etc etc... Every time I consider using a PNG, I take a note - this wouldn't work in all browsers. You are expected to know that or find it in the test you've made.
Full disclosure - the site doesn't look or behave exactly the same on all browsers? When you present the site, explain how and why, and how it will effect end users. This may sound silly, but if you don't have IE6 in your contract, your client may not be too savvy. Your client is going to find out eventually the site doesn't work on IE6 - most likely when the site breaks for of her friends or clients, making her look bad. That knowledge better come from you.
I agree, making web sites display correctly in IE6 is tiresome. Being a web developer for a multinational pharmaceutical company I would know, they are still required to use IE6.
But there's another point to this. If we, the web developers as a group, continous to cater for IE6 then the large organizations have no reason to upgrade. Are we then responsible for people using IE6?
At our firm we have decided not to support IE6 in the administration part of our CMS, but we do cater for IE6 to the public eye.
The client mentioned earlier runs an old version of our CMS and is so stuck there although we and the administrators are willing to upgrade. In other words: Stuck between a rock and a hard place.
It depends who you expect to use the website.
Some recent figures for use of IE6 in different places make interested reading.
If your client still uses IE6, then you are probably going to have to give in (or convince them of their evil ways). Otherwise it might be worth explaining the numbers involved and the additional cost to cater to them - if it takes x hours of your time, does your client really want to pay for that?
Count yourself lucky you're not trying to cater for the Chinese internet user-base...
I make the site work in IE6, but have a banner that comes down pleading with the user to upgrade to experience the awesomeness of this century.
Example page that shows the banner
My opinion is that the site has to be USABLE.
Eye-candy is good, and should be given to as many users as possible but, the question is: does the gray background of the image render the site impossible to use?
Supposing you have a substantial IE6 user base, are these users really complaining about that?
Or do you have 1 person out of the 100 that use IE6 complaining?
Now people say that the clients pay and you have to do what they say etc etc... Well, it's YOUR role to TEACH the client why IE6 should NOT be supported anymore.
Show them that:
1) the site WORKS (i.e. you can read content, submit forms etc), so the IE6 users will be able to use it
2) you can put some "hints" like "you have a crappy browser, don't complain if websites suck with that" (maybe in a slightly more polite way)
3) show them that even Internet giants dropped support for IE6. Why should you keep it? Do you really want to live in the past?
Depends on your user base and would need to be agreed with your client. For an intranet type application you may be able to avoid it. For public applications - government, banking websites, anything the public may rely on, you need to consider it still.
For more luxury type sites, e.g. 'brochure-ware' for a small business, you may be able to take a call on this, but again depends on your client's requirements - do they want to potentially turn away some business? If you can make it fail gracefully (i.e. still looks ok in IE6, but with less bells and whistles), then you have more chance of selling this.
How much money do you earn from the customers who still use IE6?
How much resistance is there within those companies to upgrade from IE6?
How much money will it cost you to support IE6?
We are software developers. We make tools to make life easier for people ("users").
If a user of your software is using IE6, and you refuse to offer that user support until he/she upgrades to a newer web browser, are you making life easier or harder for them?
I'm actually not asking this question rhetorically, believe it or not. It may be that for you to support an older browser takes away too much of your time, keeping you from developing features that would be of greater benefit to the user.
My point is that you need to ask yourself what is best for the user, not whether catering to someone who's using an old version of a piece of software (who isn't?) is somehow beneath you.
I like this approach: http://morten.dk/blog/ie6-tax-now
Normally I would say that IE6 and IE7 is not supported by default, but the client can pay an extra price for supporting legacy browsers (the website will cost 30-50% more depending on the website requirements).
It might be also a good idea to get information from similar sites. One of our newest deployed site has 2-3% IE visitors (including all IE versions), and the IE6 and IE7 users are below 1%. So we decided not to support IE 6 and 7 at all (we don't test them), and we give full functional support for IE 8 (the site is usable, and looks OK, but it isn't as sexy as in a modern browser with a better CSS3 support, which means that there aren't any gradients or rounded elements). But this site is a little special case.
So I say that analyze what kind of people will visit your site, and make a decision based on that information.
I've never understood the idea that this is some sort of "ethical" issue.
If it's around a client then it's a commercial issue.
If your contract says that the site you've developed will support IE6.0 then yes, you should support it.
If it doesn't it's up to him to work out whether he wishes to pay you more to fix any issues that come up with it.
(If it's not specified then you need to make sure you specify it in your next contract otherwise you're open to requests to support anything your client fancies).
In terms of whether it's worth him supporting it, it will depend on his market. I previously worked for a travel firm whose core client base was people who were aged 40+ which 12 months ago was still registering 30 - 40% IE6.0 usage. In that instance IE6.0 support for their site is critical but obviously each site has a different user demographic and that will dictate your approach.
But an approach based on "principal" is unlikely to be the right way to go, you need to have specific commercial or technical issues which mean that the cost of supporting the browser is greater than the cost of not supporting it.
This is a great discussion. My customers are car dealers and while IE6 useage is declining, it is still 12.5% of my traffic. I have actually seen PC's running Win98 in these stores. Amazing!
We've segmented our catalog product into different interfaces for them to pick from. We're getting ready to launch a new one and we're close to making the decision that it will not support IE6. They can still choose one of the others that still do, and we will continue to support those but not enhance them.
So I can finally embrace sprites and transparencies and ... :)
You can't make a horse drink the water, but you can sure as hell lead him to it. What's the point of going forward in browser technology with advanced engines like Webkit and Gecko, if we still allow stupid, uninformed users to visit our websites in IE6 without any interruption?
Then all web standards are redundant and we can just go ahead and make browser-specific websites, which ultimately will become online applications. I would say, educate your user, after all, if you don't, who is going to do it?
We have made a conscious decision here at our design studio to alert IE6 browser-users that their browser is too old and that they should upgrade. We have not encountered any problems so far.
One should take into account that if you are hired to develop specific IE6 web applications, then you really don't have a choice in the matter, but if you are part of a design studio developing forward moving websites implementing new technologies or advanced Javascript, then I would say forget about IE6.
After all, the internet is full web developer handiwork and if we decide it's over, then the revolution will come.
// edit
If you want to make stuff a little easier for yourself, using CSS, start using BrowserDetect.js CSS browser detection. It's initialised using jQuery and simply adds a browser-specific class to your body tag on load.
In other words, if you're running Safari 5, your body tag will look like this:
<body class="browserSafari browserSafari5">
This enables you to create browser specific CSS styles without any hacking of sorts.
That was my last 2c.
I didn't see this point anywhere above, but I apologize if I missed it.
It's interesting that you say ethical, because I think moving standards for technology forward is one of those responsibilities that we have as consumers and as developers. Moving towards SVG and HTML5 and CSS3 is really good for the industry, because it means more efficiency and a better, faster web.
It may not be best for the client if their site doesn't support IE6, but if developers move on from outdated technologies en masse, it forces the last users of those technologies - in this case, businesses and schools and stegosauri with IE6 - to update their browsers, which is not a negative thing. It's OK to make decisions for the good of the industry as a whole, and we should more often.
It really depends who will be using your app! If your client is the UK gov, then yes, you had better develop for IE6 as it's the only browser in use (due to legacy systems that will ONLY work in IE6)
If on the other hand your client all use Safari, then no you don't have to bother.
Users will not stop using IE6 if all websites still work perfectly with it as they then have no reason to change.
This is bit of a "deadlock" which can only be broken if applications stop supporting IE6
Make the users aware that they are using an unsafe and out-dated software, e.g. with something like:
This webpage will not work (well)
with IE6 because that browser is
insecure and no longer supported
Most of the time you can also convince the customer by explicitely stating how much it will cost to support and maintain the application for an unsupported browser. This will usually be a significant amout for any non-trivial website...
The question really is how much degradation do we make IE6 users tolerate? My feeling is: quite a bit. I'd much rather this minority took the pain instead of holding back everybody else. Since our sites are all (naturally) semantically marked up and pass accessibility guidelines, they will make sense and work just fine with styles and javascript disabled. So the simple answer is to give IE6 users the old Netscape 4 treatment and disable all CSS and js for them.
I would definately suggest customer to upgrade with following points.
Technically no updates are provided by Microsoft for IE6, if they do not upgrade their browser, they should be made aware of all security issues they have left open by not upgrading, such mild threats do work and its right as well. Plus you can certainly recommend firefox, as Microsoft never completely implemented html standard and in large organizations, standard, compliance and security these are always considered as big things and you can certainly point towards them and get your update done.
No.
I have a client that requires for his pages to work in Netscape Navigator because he uses it.
That doesn't mean that I should prepare all my pages for last historical version Netscape Navigator.
I'm scratching my head over this.
I have a moderately successful app which has a free "LITE" version in addition to the full one. This is a utility app, not a game with levels, and I'm having trouble figuring out what Apple will accept for the lite version. The reason this is now an issue is that I've brought both code bases together with different targets and my new improved lite version will be iPad compatible as well.
There are two fundamental differences in the versions. In the lite version, the data displayed is only displayed for the current day, whereas the full version allows users to choose any date. Additionally, one of the data screens shows 3 data points in detail, whereas the full version shows much more. The lite version is perfectly functional in its own right and has no greyed out features.
What I would like to do is use the spare space on the lite version data screen to explain that more data is available in the full version and offer a button to upgrade, however I can't figure out if Apple will classify this as "upselling" (well how else am I going to mention the full version?) and from reading the new app store review guidelines, I was disappointed to note that absolutely no further clarity seems forthcoming from Cupertino in this regard. All the examples I find from Apple are games with additional levels and this simply doesn't match a "utility" application.
Is there any recent advice on what is and what is not allowed? I'm aware of not having greyed out functionality and nagging the user - but does having an upgrade button on one of the tabs (in the case of the iPad in a popover) count as nagging? Am I allowed to mention the additional features in the premium version or does that count as upselling? If not, what can I actually say?
Clues welcomed!
Frankly speaking, there is no way to be 100% sure without submitting the app. There might be someone who have already tried this and get rejected. It's not very easy to be sure. But as a user personally I won't be happy to see the upgrade button in every page. Rather I would like to get the summery of full version in a different page. This might not be a better design to have an upgrade button in every page, though this is my personal opinion. Apple gives importance to be consistent with the convention, and the convention is to have different upgrade page, I think.
You can download a number of lite apps and check whether any one has done this kind of thing. The policy should be same for both game and utility. If after checking many you don't find a single one, then you should reconsider this. But yes, you can't be 100% sure.
The rules appear to be inconsistently applied.
I think it boils down to the perceived difference between "Ha! You don't get $feature unless you pay us!" and "By the way, we also offer $more_expensive_app with more features." The two are effectively the same thing, but they leave a different impression. Yes, it's a big grey area — I've seen apps across the spectrum (I don't recall any persistent nagging/mentions, but certainly "buy $full_app to get more levels").
"Other apps by $company" might be a good way to go, perhaps in an "about" tab or similar.
Reviewers are also far from consistent. Before Apple did any "private API" checks (they didn't seem to until mid-2009; apparently not even the frameworks you linked to which is dead easy), private API usage was determined by whether your app did anything in $list_of_suspicious_behaviour, which seemed to be applied inconsistently by different reviewers.
I've also used "$full_app" because that's the impression I got; I think part of the guidelines is that you're not supposed to give the impression that your app is not "full". I also hate crippleware (artificially limiting a feature, e.g. a navigation app limited to 8 waypoints and telling you to buy the full version if you want more, as opposed to simply not including a feature), but Apple doesn't seem to mind.
Apple allows ads in apps if they are presented in a reasonable manner.
Developers can choose which ad network to run, even from competitors such as admob.
There's nothing to say you can't be your own ad network.
Just make sure your ad for your products (which occasionally just so happens to be an ad for the full version of the same app) follows the same presentation rules as the ads for admob, iAd, etc. follow. Your own ad network may or may not be the campaign you choose to run during the review period.
This question is for those familiar with implementing the iphone in-app store functionality.
The app I'm building has only built-in features that are unlocked when features are purchased. Further, any modifications or additions to store items will require an app update. Also, it is only in English so has no localized languages for the items.
If we take those assumptions, is it feasible to skip the step of retrieving the product info with SKProductsRequest and simply use hardcoded data within the app? While I may want to extend my app to greater complexity in the future, I'd like to know if this step to keep it simple would introduce some serious issues.
One issue might be, for instance, if we have to expect a few of the items to occasionally be unavailable due to issues on Apple's side and simply trying to purchase it and letting it fail would not be a permissible or workable option in that case (especially if it is uncommon).
Thanks.
I suspect that Apple would object if you used hard-coded prices in your app, although I can't say for certain that they'd reject you.
Bear in mind, however, that localization isn't just about languages. It also gives you localized prices. Currency values fluctuate, so we can reasonably expect the localized prices associated with a given tier to change from time to time. The possibility of getting money from users in Canada, UK, and other territories beyond the USA seems like ample justification for using SKProductsRequest, whether it's technically and contractually required or not.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm wondering, based on experience (and raw population data) which are the 5 "best" localizations for an application (iPhone app in this case). Note by localization I don't only mean language, but other customs such as date and currency formats, etc.
My guess list would be as follows
English
French
Spanish
German
Japanese
How does your list compare and why?
I think your list includes the ones that pay off best for the effort of translating. A bit googling shows they rank high on the list of languages with the most native speakers (see here and here) and are at the top of the languages of Internet users. Of course you would need to know iPhone usage in the countries, but it's obvious that the countries speaking those languages rank among the tech savviest countries.
French people are very well known to insist on the usage of their own language and take their culture very serious. So it's also important to have a perfect translation and maybe adapt things to their culture.
I think your list also reflects the top foreign languages teached in school. Most Scandinavians for example speak English fluently and are used to watch uninterpreted U.S. TV shows. I wouldn't translate the app for them unless there's a very good reason.
From experience the biggest markets for Localizing software are:
French
German
Spanish
Italian
Japanese
These countries generally have the most paying customers for software and is also in no particular order.
This list is generally referred to as FIGS+J
Adding East Asian languages can be a good idea:
Korean
Chinese Simplified
Chinese Traditional
Also don't forget about Russian.
There is a lot more to go on also, for example you should really have some basis for localizing your product, market research for instance. Your product might require to be internationalized, i.e. tailored to a specific country. This could be as simple as making sure the flag in your application is correct, or worse even changing content.
For example a tick to mean something is complete is pretty common everywhere but Japan when a circle means Ok.
It should go without saying that you can't even begin to decide unless you decide where you're going to distribute your app and what it will do. Once you determine that, it should be easy to decide.
Simplified and traditional chinese, to cover the markets in China, Hong Kong/Macau, and Taiwan. Although the iPhone is not officially offered in China, I'm sure Apple will reach an agreement with China Mobile or China Unicom sooner or later, opening up a potentially enormous market. Persuading people to pay is a different matter, but I can see that happening if they offer a chinese language service.
KT in Korea is also going to be officially offering the iPhone soon. There's another fairly affluent market, so Korean would be worth looking at.
Russian and Brazilian Portugese are also worth considering, as Russia and Brazil are BRIC countries etc.
And has been mentioned, English is a given, and the Japanese have now warmed to the iPhone also, despite earlier predictions.
From my own experience, I have had an unexpected and absurdly large number of sales from Italy. This is for an English word puzzle game. I have no idea why.
Updated after some spreadsheet magic:
675 sales in US
236 sales in Italy
42 sales in England
36 in Australia
1 in France
It all depends on your customers. Whom do you see as potential users of your application.
If you mean those most ready to pay, it's probably English, Japanese and German.
A good place to start might be to see if you can get some statistics on how the iPhone is selling in various countries. Japan is a wealthy nation, with a very tech savvy population, but if the iPhone isn't selling there it's probably not a good market. (That's just an example...I have no idea whatsoever how the iPhone is selling in Japan.)
Based solely on the most widely spoken languages,
Mandarin
Spanish
English
Arabic
Hindi
This sort of data could be useful if you haven't yet decided what countries you want to tailor your app for. This could easily backfire on you if you don't research those populations and make sure that people who speak those languages have adequate access to technology.
Brazil has a lot of internet and iPhone users. You might take that under consideration. From what i see on the streets here is that most people speak marginal english, but they (we brazilians, at least most of) will prefer a translated app.
Don't know about the other 4 languages but don't forget that the English which your other respondents place in their lists is the English spoken (and written) outside the US. If you only consider the language itself, pass this off as a joke, but when it comes to localisation (US Eng: localization) of date formats and other stuff, it probably bears more serious effort.