Hacker News Reader

Comment by 3825 | Hacker News Reader

Sorry, I try to err on the side of caution as well but there is no way to do that in this case. Microsoft is clearly at fault. Adding someone to a "compatibility list" is a unilateral action Microsoft took.

If it works fine without being on compatibility mode, don't add it to your compatibility mode list.

View on HN

If it had worked fine, it would never have been added in the first place. We don't add sites arbitrarily to the list. It's based on actual compat testing. Also every site on the list can request to be removed so if Google had tested in IE11 and discovered all was great, it's very easy for them to contact us to remove them from the list.

What about the quote from the article:

> I'll tell you more guys. I've updated to windows 8.1 on my tablet a month ago through MSND subscription and Google search worked just fine. Looks like this problem appeared after public availability of Windows 8.1. So I believe it's something that Google or Microsoft should figure out.

How could they have tested as they were not on the list until, what appears to be, the public release?

Google's been on the list well before the public GA release of IE11 to ensure compatibility.

Does this mean microsoft never contacted anyone about compatibility list?

To score some cheap points against a competitor you made your own product inferior. Good Luck with that attitude.

Again you're full of assumptions.

We're very proactive in our compat outreach and we've had numerous conversations with sites like Google. Sites like Google are VERY aware of the CV list & the modes they're rendering in; it's not a surprise to them.

Don't assume we're doing something nefarious when it's not the case. We have nothing to gain (and a lot to lose) by breaking one of the top web properties, even if they're a competitor.

Here's a more plausible scenario. Google may have made a change to their SERPs which didn't work great in the docmode that IE11 is rendering it in. Nothing intentional, nothing nefarious on either company's part.

I think that's a more reasonable explanation than the concerns you're expressing.

You are not being consistent:

[1] If it had worked fine, it would never have been added in the first place. [2] Sites like Google are VERY aware of the CV list & the modes they're rendering in; it's not a surprise to them.

Those 2 together are suggesting Google knows problem all along and you have been working with them but they didn't fix the issue.

All I'm saying is that we go to great lengths to get companies OFF the CV list. If they're on it, it's for a reason. We can't update their code for them.

May I ask you to get rid of this CV list altogether? We don't live in the walled garden Aol envisioned. Don't you agree that everyone hitting the same browser should see the same UA string.

    Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko

If not, can you please elaborate on this:

> If you currently use the x-ua-compatible header to target a legacy document mode, it's possible your site won't reflect the best experience available with IE11. For more info, see modern.ie. ?

If a site is on the list and they declare "edge", will they see the real ua string? What can someone on the list do to get the real ua string?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com