Small style fixes to have the same visual result on IE8 and IE9 [ie-support]

[AntouanK]

• remove and which are not supported in IE8
• remove flex and use float instead
• remove border on the logo link
• fix footer and header links
• use hex color instead of rgba ( yes, not supported on IE8 )

Comparisons:
IE8 before

↓
IE8 after

IE9 before

↓
IE9 after

[snostorm]

Thanks for taking time to put together the PR @AntouanK :)

Honestly, not too concerned with IE8 myself. We (I?) have bigger ambitions for the site design and doubt IE8 -- or even IE9 -- will regularly be reviewed for quality.

That said, as soon as we implement a build process as per #22 we should be using auto-prefixer to catch things like the missing "ms" prefix for flexbox.

But, that's just my €0.02. I'll wait to let the rest of the WG chime in.

[therebelrobot]

Arrrg. We totally should have talked about scope in the meeting today. Which browsers will we support, which devices, etc. I never start a freelance project without defining all that... hangs head in shame

A short list we would need to decide coverage for would include

• Browsers
  • IE (6,7,8,9,10,11)
  • Spartan (when available)
  • Firefox (and how many versions back)
  • Opera (and how many versions back)
  • Chrome (I think this is a given, but also how many versions back)
• Platforms
  • iOS - (browsers, versions and which devices)
  • Android - (browsers, versions and which devices)
  • Windows
  • Mac
  • Linux

[AntouanK]

I get that supporting older IE it is not a priority. But it was a simple fix to make it look "decent" and not broken, so I made a PR.

[therebelrobot]

This PR in specific looks good, I say we merge it for now, but we do need to address long term what our scope with this site will be.

👍 for merge

[snostorm]

@AntouanK yup, I get it. I know overall the fix is a nice short term win (which - again - thanks for doing this PR), but I'm just concerned with how long the effort will last if merged.

Maintaining IEX support is going to have a cost to it over time. A cost that will grow as the complexity of the site increases.

[therebelrobot]

@snostorm, I opened an issue for coverage, let's move this discussion over there for now. If we decide later we won't support earlier versions, it doesn't hurt to revert the commits.

[snostorm]

I'm a 👎 on this as-is @therebelrobot. Again, it seems innocent, but removes cleaner (semantic) markup, our ability to have modern (alpha-based) CSS, etc.

Edit: I wrote "as-is" to indicate that some alternative changes might be able to be made to find a middle ground.

[therebelrobot]

Fair enough. I'll 👎 this merge then until we define scope better. @AntouanK , thank you so much for the contrib, but I think we need to define a few more items with scope before we start merging PRs like this. I'm going to close this for the time being. I'll loop you back into this discussion if we decide to support IE8.

[Fishrock123]

-1 to IE8 support. I'm not mucking around with that stuff now or ever.

[therebelrobot]

@Fishrock123 , @snostorm , let's move this discussion to #91 for more coverage info

[mikeal]

We will eventually want to support IE8 but I'm fine with punting on that support until we do the new build process, which I'm sure will effect stuff like this.

[AntouanK]

I personally hate supporting older IE crappy browsers but it's a fact that some people, especially on some countries, still use them.
So I think they should be able to at least see a "decent" version of a website.

What other plans do you have for this website? I thought it's only a simple page with links to download io.js, FAQ, readme etc. Nothing complex...

Anyway, I would definitely like to contribute if I can.

Thanks.

[therebelrobot]

We appreciate the support @AntouanK :) As we further finalize our build system this week, we'll have a better idea of how to handle volunteer support. Take a look through the issues currently open and with the tag [discuss], we have a couple different directions we may end up taking the site.