Control Group is looking for great product developers (and more).
iOS/Android, LAMP, JRuby+Rails+Sinatra, HTML5 & CSS, and lots of sensor-based & out of the home work. We help start-ups launch and develop really interesting projects for Fortune companies, VCs, JVs, and indy founders. We pair, we do TDD, we don't work late, and we don't have silos. Everybody loves UX and has a product-oriented mindset.
We need senior and junior folks: visual designers, UEDs, devops (especially AWS) folks, coders, product managers, and even some hardware designers/prototypers.
We're small (75 folks), 10 years old, privately owned, and based in NYC. The stuff I can't talk about is far more exciting than meets the eye.
toby.boudreaux at ControlGroup.com - I'm the CTO and the guy to talk to :)
Many sites don't really have anything worth printing. And if they did, few people use the print version unless your main version really is that awful. If you are already making badass mobile support (which includes A LOT of crummy old browsers on many many phones), you might as well save the effort of a print version.
What is the cost of serving them a plain jane experience, as you do with a printer or feed reader? If you can model your audience and quantify the impact (in other words, prove your theory) for your audience, why BLOCK THEM? Just give them the content, minus the design. Spend the same amount of time you spend on your print.css file.
Anything more restrictive than that is not about income, as you suggest - it's about dogma.
There is definitely some bombast there. I've been fed up with folks displacing their frustrations onto users instead of getting creative and practical with the issue.
I've been in this game a long, long time and I saw (and, admittedly, took part in) the "insult and block" approach with Netscape 4. Looking back, it was immature, cocky and lazy. I hate seeing people repeat the same childish mistakes. Instead, we can build an economic model to decide how to classify each user agent for each property we control and act accordingly. It's not emotional or dogmatic - just practical.
To paraphrase a reply to a comment on my site:
I think my approach helps bring innovation while continuing to support the people stuck on less modern user agents.
Reclassifying IE6 into the category of feed readers, screen readers, and printers is a perfectly viable solution.
Oppose that to the childish antics behind blocking content based on user agent.
In each case, you get to provide interesting experience design for modern user agents, but only by reclassifying IE6 for content support do you also retain (some portion of) the IE6 audience.
Is anyone really suggesting going back to the days of blocking on sniffed UA? I don't think so.
When people say "not supporting IE6" I think they mean no longer doing browser specific bug fixing - that's what I mean. Provided the majority of textual content is viewable I consider IE6 done (ditto links2 my only currently tested text browser). If text is not viewable (as in an MS site I visited recently with IE6!) then the client has to pay a little extra if they want to up the support.
Graceful degradation is surely the lowest level of support any designer will accept, no?
So I'm targeting XHTML1-trans and CSS2.1 with enhancements for JavaScript and CSS3 capabilities.
iOS/Android, LAMP, JRuby+Rails+Sinatra, HTML5 & CSS, and lots of sensor-based & out of the home work. We help start-ups launch and develop really interesting projects for Fortune companies, VCs, JVs, and indy founders. We pair, we do TDD, we don't work late, and we don't have silos. Everybody loves UX and has a product-oriented mindset.
We need senior and junior folks: visual designers, UEDs, devops (especially AWS) folks, coders, product managers, and even some hardware designers/prototypers.
We're small (75 folks), 10 years old, privately owned, and based in NYC. The stuff I can't talk about is far more exciting than meets the eye.
toby.boudreaux at ControlGroup.com - I'm the CTO and the guy to talk to :)