&gt; It&#x27;s the 80&#x2F;20 rule for me. Think about the type of client (individual user&#x2F;corporation) that is still using &lt; IE 10. I&#x27;d wager that they&#x27;re well paying, yet difficult to deal with.<p>At an entity level, they may be difficult to deal with, but at the level of an individual in the organisation they know their company has problems.  These people move around, and personal relationships are really important long term.  This is my main motivating factor.<p>As long as the client pays (20% of revenue...) and there are no other risks, I&#x27;m happy to employ a front end developer who has probably has years of experience making IE6&#x2F;7 degrade somewhat gracefully.  If it were my own product, my own time, my own cost, absolutely not, but if sales were assured with this type of customer, sure.<p>This is a personal opinion.  No one client is the same.  I find it interesting to contrast  2 clients I work with who are in differing fields of the same space: (massive names in) financial services:  One does QA on only the latest stable version of major browsers (down to Opera, my personal favourite) browser on Windows and Mac; The other does QA on any browser or platform with 2% visitor share (measured by visitors to their website), and also accommodates customers who may be on something obscure but the customer demands it.  The former&#x27;s approach sounds pretty aggressive r.e. serving, or not serving, the customer, but the latter&#x27;s caused them to avoid abandoning a really backward platform for 5+ years for all customers. Swings and roundabouts.  Interesting how we take varying judgments.