My guess is PHP 4 will have its funeral when EE 2.0 is released. And we’ll see EngineHosting move to PHP 5 just before that happens.

GDmac - 21 September 2007 03:52 PM

  haha, ouch, yes, i can image the can the can of worms such a blog-post would open…
The transition to php5 is just beginning, but it will include ISP’s screaming, coders screaming,
and users screaming even harder…

Yes, I suppose that is one way of looking at it…

A l a n - 21 September 2007 04:03 PM

My guess is PHP 4 will have its funeral when EE 2.0 is released. And we’ll see EngineHosting move to PHP 5 just before that happens.

While we are suggesting crazy things…Or we are moving on from the PHP programming language because what we see as problems in how it is developed and delivered.

Seldom have I witnessed a more touching eugoogooly…

*sniffs*

Paul Burdick - 21 September 2007 07:51 PM

While we are suggesting crazy things…Or we are moving on from the PHP programming language because what we see as problems in how it is developed and delivered.

What an interesting idea…

And yet another funeral is ahead. Safari 2.x will go to sleep this autumn (with the rise of Leopard). This puts the door way open (finally) for using WYSIWYG editors in EE and better javascript/ajax performance and support. Of course it will take some time for Tiger to fade out.

Tee he he. . .

A visual for your weekly meditation.

Another hit for Internet Explorer 6….

Microsoft will remove the WGA check for Internet Explorer 7

Safari 2.x is no more
Happy surprise this week-end. Safari 3 not only in Leopard and as beta-download. It is now officially also in Tiger / MacOS X 10.4.11 (software update). This means a big step ahead in the funeral process. Not only leopard but tiger users (G3 to G4 macs) also get the new functionalities (TinyMCE, FCKeditor etc.) and some other nice goodies like contenteditable. When interested take a peek at webkit.org - Webkit3, 10 new things
(ps. Victor,  Google-analytics: of the 70% to 80% of internet explorer visitors, of them, there’s still only around 50% to 70% using MSIE7. (MSIE6 ~49%).

I was testing some new site xhtml/strict code through BrowserCam and it displayed the same in all browsers except of course IE. The weird part was it worked in IE-7 and IE-5.0 but not IE-5.5 & 6. Usually 5.0/5.5/6 display the same. Have never seen code work in 5.0 and not the others.
An IE funeral can’t come soon enough.

Ah yes, a fitting word. I had a little more to say on my blog post about IE6. More than just kidding around though…

I think we as developers and designers have a responsibility (as a whole) to help people along, and not allow them to lie in the wasteland that is IE6. That goes for any future browser, or standard. Have a look!

Based on browser usage statistics, if one were to not take into account IE6, you’d be abandoning an entire quarter of internet surfers, which sums up to having possibly 1 potential user of every 4 whom might encounter display or accessibility issues with your website.

I do agree that designers have an obligation to help smooth the process of browser transition, but I don’t think that should be emphasized or made a priority as long as their is still a large demographic of users using it. Rather, our jobs should be in catering to this audience than to leave them in the dark. One of the main objectives of a good design is to provide a good user experience, whether it be through visuals, content, or just even through accessibility. Granted, some of this sentiment doesn’t and probably shouldn’t represent websites that promote or encourage the use of cutting-edge technologies or motion graphics to enhance visual appearance and interaction. An example would be promotional websites for film or something like a new line of shoes from Nike, which either probably generates its dominant audience from other forms of mediums or doesn’t care much for compatibility because interactivity and motion-graphics may outweigh the importance for marketability sake.

Certainly I’d love for IE6 to be totally phased out, but that doesn’t mean we should forget about these users. That’s stupid business practice and part ignorance for certain.

The proper way of going about this is to just let it phase out over time.. Let the more ignorant designers or amateurs whom aren’t as aware of cross-browser compatibility or don’t practice it all do the job for you in making audiences suffer from IE6. You, as a professional on the other hand, shouldn’t let your clients suffer from a belief that they otherwise, may not share.

I don’t think Herudea’s (entertaining) blog post (Wordpress?!  ::hands Steve a Core EE license::) is saying to forcibly make your site foul in IE6, but rather to take advantage of the tools available to target those users and give them some much needed education and a helping hand.

In that analogy, the poor IE6 user is in quicksand instead of on the beach.  The quicksand isn’t deep enough to kill them, but they aren’t having fun at the beach.  You could give them a boogie board, build some sand castles next to them, and pop up an umbrella, and play into the delusion that they really are having a great time.  Instead of all of that smoke and mirrors effort, why not instead give them a rope, and a set of binoculars to show them what the real beach is like? :-D

I suppose you can mirror this with the four tiers of social responsibility practiced by organizations. There isn’t necessarily a wrong one, except for complete social obstruction, but I suppose there are valid reasons on how far or little you can go about with helping the transition. I personally try as best as I can to offer a pleasant experience that could mirror those of future browsers in legacy browsers, so long as there is an audience to help validate the time and resources I’d be putting into handling the beast that is IE6, or dear god - IE5. Thankfully the lateral is pretty much in the grave.

I really like Derek’s analogy. Good one. Now if every web designer/developer had a nice rope.

(I set up my blog over a year ago bud…didn’t know about EE then…sorry to disappoint…)