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

Question

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.

Answer 1

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.

Answer 2

Try to point them to this page:

The product Lifecycle for IE5 is already over.

http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifesupsps/#Internet_Explorer

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

Answer 3

No.

Answer 4

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.

Answer 5

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.

Answer 6

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.

Answer 7

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.

Answer 8

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).

Answer 9

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.

Answer 10

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.

Answer 11

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.

Answer 12

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.

Answer 13

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.

Answer 14

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 :-)

Answer 15

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.