Useless DEVS in General

The policy at our company is that we support three versions back of IE and then the latest versions of Firefox, Chrome and Safari at the time of software release. Supporting this is a massively expensive task - especially from a QA perspective.

I can easily understand from a business perspective why you would want to lock users down to certain browsers. As long as it's documented and the user is made aware of those limitations, then I don't see a problem.
 
Polemus said:
I rate this thread would have had more meaning, and people would have stuck to the topic, if i did not mention the Developers's name.

For the sake of the thread, I wish I had not mentioned the DEV's name.
For the sake of the community, I am glad I did
Click to expand...

For the sake of the community? How has it helped anybody calling out Deloittes name on this?

This is a direct issue with the respective government department, and you or your wifes frustrations should be directed at them.

If Deloitte did not deliver as per what was requested, then that government department has something to complain about.
 
Ecco said:
For the sake of the community? How has it helped anybody calling out Deloittes name on this?

This is a direct issue with the respective government department, and you or your wifes frustrations should be directed at them.

If Deloitte did not deliver as per what was requested, then that government department has something to complain about.
Click to expand...

As an example I currently have an issue with SARS and efilling. I cannot open the PDF reports from Chrome. I have to use IE. I don't think I need to find out who the developer is and complain about their useless devs, this is an issue for SARS to resolve.
 
Ecco said:
As an example I currently have an issue with SARS and efilling. I cannot open the PDF reports from Chrome. I have to use IE. I don't think I need to find out who the developer is and complain about their useless devs, this is an issue for SARS to resolve.
Click to expand...

Your scenario is probably the closest to ours, so it makes it extremely valid, and yes, i agree, that SARS needs to resolve this. I also agree that the TETA should resolve this with the company they hired to develop the software.

It does not take from the fact, that developers and companies should be proud of their work, and should build scale-able long term solutions. I have an issue with the Developers and their reporting line / Advisors / Rule makers. Software should enrich your experience, not limit and expose you. This is the point i am trying to make.

Passing blame to the architect or the manager, does not make the software's pitfalls valid. Someone needs to stand up and challenge the rules.

If the day come, where contracts is lost, do not blame other people for the software you built. take ownership, and make sure you deliver.

The web application i am referring to has absolutely NO fancy functionality. It is a page (no header, no logos, no colors) merely labels and inputs listing downwards, with a button at the bottom. A page like that is easier to make Cross-Browser compatible, than it is to limit to a specific browser.
 
Last edited:
Polemus said:
Your scenario is probably the closest to ours, so it makes it extremely valid, and yes, i agree, that SARS needs to resolve this. I also agree that the TETA should resolve this with the company they hired to develop the software.

It does not take from the fact, that developers and companies should be proud of their work, and should build scale-able long term solutions. I have an issue with the Developers and their reporting line / Advisors / Rule makers. Software should enrich your experience, not limit and expose you. This is the point i am trying to make.

Passing blame to the architect or the manager, does not make the software's pitfalls valid. Someone needs to stand up and challenge the rules.

If the day come, where contracts is lost, do not blame other people for the software you built. take ownership, and make sure you deliver.

The referenced web application i am referring to has absolutely NO fancy functionality. It is a page (no header, no logos, no colors) merely labels and inputs listing downwards, with a button at the bottom. A page like that is easier to make Cross-Browser compatible, than it is to limit to a specific browser.
Click to expand...

All well and good, but we get back to the point that everything has to do with costs.
If you have to develop something it is usually under time constraints, the government company most likely said hey, you only have to develop for this browser (most likely IE10) which is an outdated browser that requires a lot of custom code for things that are built in in most other browsers. This would meant that the developer only has time to make the IE10 release, never mind that they are only paid for that.

All developers would love to make the most compatible application that works everywhere and on everything with all these super features for users, but at the end of the day one is limited by the time one has.

EDIT: Specific to your case with the buttons and stuff, what about the code behind the scenes? Most of that website is most likely server side code.
 
Ecco said:
As an example I currently have an issue with SARS and efilling. I cannot open the PDF reports from Chrome. I have to use IE. I don't think I need to find out who the developer is and complain about their useless devs, this is an issue for SARS to resolve.
Click to expand...

It's an Adobe vs Chrome issue.

Real PITA.

The work-around:
Install the latest Adobe Reader & set it as the default.
Open chrome://plugins
Disable the Chrome PDF Viewer

This will force all pdf's to download (rather than display in chrome) and can then be opened with Adobe Reader.


/derail
 
Last edited:
This whole discussion is pointless. The SETAs are government organisations and the contract to get the tender requires BEE level 1 accreditation.

polemus is your software dev firm BEE level 1 accredited? If not then even if you can do a 1000X better system at a 1/1000 of the cost then they would still get the contract over you.

Any software developed using cANCerous rules will result in CANCerous results.
 
Brandon said:
eish.
This maybe?
Otherwise it's windows in a VM I guess!
Click to expand...

I have windows machines as well. I just despise that in a mobile age we cant use any device we choose especially for doing something we dont want to.
 
Op I totally sympathise with you. I have had to upload documents into a Seta site before. And it only supported one outdated version of IE. Which meant more time and effort to get the documents uploaded which in turn meant taking longer for the company I worked with to get paid

Lol and to add to that i also read deloitte at the bottom of their site
 
There's a reason why they did this. All Windows machines ship with IE. Machines in government spaces are generally locked with policies so no software can be installed. Vendors and contractors are told to develop for IE as a default - if it works on anything else that's a bonus for which they care not.

Not great standard practice but for the idiots they give tenders to it narrows there compliance requirements as well as allows government to tie down their idiot staff.

Furthermore, if you saw how intricate and outdated the backend systems are you would understand why this is enforced. SAPS for instance has struggled to get a vendor to replace their current system for years and have blown over a trillion rand in the last 15-20 years in failed projects.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X