Although my theme has a decent fallback in IE8, I used some CSS3 (multiple backgrounds and background sizing) which work only on IE9+ and I specified in the description the proper compatibility (IE9+). I got a review saying:
ie8 compatibility is still required
Given the fact that I’ve seen themes on TF that are compatible with IE9+ just like my theme, I don’t understand how is this a soft rejection reason.
Please tell me, is IE8 compatibility mandatory or not ?
Yep – the theme should have IE8 fallbacks but not to look exactly the same as on modern browsers. So – if the theme it’s not screwed up in IE8 (in terms of layout) then it’s IE8+ supported.
Hi Savalina, exactly as pixelgrade said, theme must be at least usable in IE8. I was also soft rejected recently for this matter.
Just use conditional comments and create some IE8 specific css for fixing the issues. That is the easiest way. Good luck
Thanks pixelgrade. My theme has fallback, is not broken in IE8. For example where I used background-size, I put solid color instead of image for IE8 (as there is no equivalent). I guess I’ll re-check everything just to make sure and add IE8 in the description.
Thanks PhantasiaAeterna. I used Paul Irish’s conditional classes for fallbacks. But in the description I put the lowest fully compatible browser, it didn’t cross my mind to add IE8 just because it has a decent fallback.
P.S. I made some pretty big changes in my theme, if you have time I would appreciate your feedback. I seem to be stuck in an “almost there” loop. (Theme Demo)
I have checked your theme in IE and it looks ok so I don’t understand what the problem is.
Otherwise, it looks better but there is still room for improvements. For example top menu. It looks very plain and I don’t know why all menu items have a icon symbolising submenu (at least in my head), even only “Theme” has a submenu.
Work harder on your typography and spacings, still lacks a premium feel.
Thanks again. I found an issue with the additional color buttons (in the Elements & Grid page), added a filter: none; and that solved the problem. I guess the reviewer was referring to that.