Slashdot Mirror


Is Internet Explorer 6/7 Support Required Now?

k33l0r writes "Following Google's announcement ending support for Internet Explorer 6, I find myself wondering whether we (Web developers) really need to continue providing support for IE6 and IE7. Especially when creating Web sites intended for technical audiences, wouldn't it be best to end support for obsoleted browsers? Would this not provide additional incentives to upgrade? Recently I and my colleagues had to decide whether it was worth our time to try to support anything before IE8, and in the end we decided to redirect any IE6/7 user-agent to a separate page explaining that the site is not accessible with IE 6 or 7. This was easy once we saw from our analytics that fewer than 5% of visitors to the site were using IE at all. Have you had to make a choice like this? If so, what was your decision and what was the reasoning behind it?"

18 of 512 comments (clear)

  1. Why redirect them? by arndawg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You could just let IE6 "try its best". And use a big red notice bar at the top with a link explaining it.

    1. Re:Why redirect them? by brentonboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Agreed. This is why browser sniffing is bad. Just design it to be standards compliant, and let the browsers that can't follow the standards fail, hopefully gracefully. Blocking IE6 users completely is just pointless.

    2. Re:Why redirect them? by flimflammer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's fairly easy to put a top aligned red warning message that says "Please not: This site is not designed with support for Internet Explorer versions 6 and 7, and may contain errors when viewed."

      Blocking people from viewing your page because they're using a browser you don't agree with really rubs people the wrong way. It shouldn't be your job to force someone to upgrade. More often than not, they will just not bother viewing your page and look elsewhere.

    3. Re:Why redirect them? by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's even worse than pointless. I'm typing this on IE8, but it identifies itself as 6 to appease some of the dreadful apps used on the intranet. So even though the browser should be perfectly capable of rendering the site, filtering based on browser version will lose yet another set of potential eyeballs.

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    4. Re:Why redirect them? by pstorry · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Who says that the problem is the organisations running IE6?

      Most of them would move off it to IE7 if they could. Really they would. It's not much more (or less) difficult than any other large application - test it, package it, drop it to machines. That's an established and controlled cycle.

      The problem is not that they don't want to. The problem is that the enterprise software segment has been very shortsighted.

      SAP, PeopleSoft, Seibel. ERP, Human Resources, CRM systems.

      Things that organisations put in which are strategic, in a way which deserves block capitals that I'm not quite willing to put it in. But trust me, these things are signed off at board level and cost a truckload of money, so there's a management investment in getting them working at all costs - otherwise they'd have to admit that they were wrong!

      And once in, they become very hard to remove. Stuff like PeopleSoft is often tied to processes like leave booking, expense claims and payroll, for example.

      Upgrading these systems is not a trivial task. It's one that, even if it's a simple and smooth process, has huge risks. Risks that run towards lost days of business, inability to produce corporate accounts, or handle staffing changes and expense claims. So these systems are upgraded at a glacial pace, with the process being rigorously controlled and methodically run.

      Guess which systems a company buys that would require IE6?

      I'm sure that they all have versions out now that support IE7 and higher. But the companies running these systems are often one or two versions behind, and have real incentives to avoid change. Incentives that don't even factor in the client web browser's name and version.

      And don't forget that these systems are not cheap. The upgrade software bill will be huge, before you even start any work. Another reason to delay, especially once management remembers how expensive and painful it was tweaking and customising these systems to match their organisation's workflows and requirements. Do that again? At huge cost? Barely two years after we last suffered through that? NO WAY!

      And so this is how it starts. You can then add the fact that developers then have a standard platform of just one browser, and you soon find any in-house development is tested on just one browser. Which compounds the problem.

      It started with enterprise software. It's continued by in-house developers. It has nothing to do with the merits of the client in any way.

      And good luck not dealing with such organisations. This, sadly, is the state of pretty much all large organisations...

      I'm not defending them, by the way. I'm just trying to help you understand why large organisations are stuck in this rut.

  2. Depends on who you cater to by ResQuad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Depends on your clients. If you're talking about a mostly technical crowd? No, probably don't need IE6. If you're talking about a site for corporate users, yea, you need IE6. There are many major companies out there still running IE6 on XP. It sucks, they should all switch to Firefox (Or Chrome, or Opera, or anything but IE), but unfortunately most don't have a choice in the matter. Oh and if you're trying to sell people something, then most likely yet again.

    Of course it all depends on what your usage stats/analytic say. Personally, I've not supported IE6 for a long time, but then on most of my sites Firefox is more than 50% of the market.

  3. Not needed by BhaKi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Actually, no browser should be explicitly/directly supported. Only standards need to be supported. The browsers and their makers should be forced to comply.

    --
    The largest prime factor of my UID is 263267.
    1. Re:Not needed by mwvdlee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And you'll tell your visitors to browse your site with the W3C Validator?

      I'm sorry to inform you that most people that might browse your site exist in a realm called "reality", you should visit it some time.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    2. Re:Not needed by Eivind · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Agreed. But it's still a good thing to code to the standard, because it's also real that a site is easier to maintain the less browser-spesific hacks it employs.

      It also matters what kinda functionality is lost in older browsers. If the site don't work at all with IE6, and 10% of the visitors use that, then that's definitely bad. If (to take a random example) border-radius isn't supported by IE-6, so those 10% visiting with that browser, get square corners rather than rounded ones, that may well be acceptable. (especially since supporting round corners in ie-6 means using fugly badly-maintainable hacks)

    3. Re:Not needed by weicco · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, that and my personal opinion is that web sites should have less (X)HTML/CSS/Javascript masturbation. I don't care about the fancy outlook. Content is everything.

      --
      You don't know what you don't know.
  4. Re:Easy Answer by Fri13 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How well does page support standards and is it designed that blind people can run it trough voice syntetisator or Lynx to read it with the "blind keyboard".

    I would not like that any page is designed for specific browser at all. Was it FF, Opera, Safari, IE etc.

  5. Re:sometimes users don't control their machines by soundguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If "security was tight", IE would not be allowed at all.

    --
    Nothing worthwhile ever happens before noon
  6. Re:No more support by Rizz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I should have clarified. My sites are all now built for HTML5 and every attempt is made to stay standards-compliant.

    While users with older browsers are redirected, the entire site (short of the few pages with directions) use those standards and are still visible selects the ``I know my browser was made in the 1800s but I still want to see your site'' link.

    It's code and pages that I wrote one and just copy into new sites. *That's* what I wish more people would do. We could all gently urge those who either don't know or don't care and perhaps make the web a better place, one user at a time.

  7. Wish we could :-/ by SplatMan_DK · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Get rid if IE6? Boy I wish we could. But we can't.

    Our 4-man startup software company targets medium sized corporate customers (250-2500 seats) and they are still using lots of old computers with IE6. There are many reasons but a few of the most noticable ones are:

    1.) a ton of old Line-of-Business applications still uses IE6 for presentation.
    2.) a surprisingly large amount of corporate software uses embedded IE6 components in their GUI.

    Most of these corporations have installed newer browsers on their machines (some of them even installed non-MS browsers) but IE6 is still there - under the surface - because critical business applications are still depending on it.

    All those Line-of-Business applications are extremely hard to remove. They often solve critical business needs so nobody wants to throw them away. They work and "do the things they were built to do". And since they just work there is no budget to replace them with somerhing else. The people who created them have left the company years ago so nobody really knows exactly how and why they are implemented.

    But everbody knows this about their old LOB apps: they neeed IE6, they still work as intended, nobody can tell how to make an alternate solution, and there is no budget to analyze or re-implement them (and why would anybody want to - right?).

    I imagine this is quite common for many corporations around the world and not just in my region.

    - Jesper
       

    --
    My security clearance is so high I have to kill myself if I remember I have it...
  8. Re:Yes and No by mwvdlee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My stats indicate more visitor use IE6 than Opera (all versions combined) or Safari (all versions combined).

    If IE6 is dead, then so are both Opera and Safari.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  9. Re:sometimes users don't control their machines by QuestorTapes · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What's tight at these locations is compliance auditing more than security.

    In many environments, these compliance requirements have the force of law, and it can be a long up-hill battles to change a poor, "hack" compliance regulation, such as "Use Internet Explorer 6 with these settings and patches", to an effective one (use a browser that supports the following security...).

    Since the ostensible purpose of compliance is security, many people mix the two concepts.

  10. Re:I'm posting this from IE6. HELP! by oneandoneis2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When I worked at a job that not only used IE6, but used a heavily-locked-down IE6 that wouldn't even let me change the homepage.. I ran Portable Firefox from a USB drive and stopped caring.

    --
    So.. it has come to this
  11. Depends on Demographic by seangw · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As a web developer, I hate supporting IE6. It lacks so many things that make the web a better place today (poor CSS support, no PNGs -- yes there are fixes).

    I've found it depends on your target demographic. If you are looking at business people, IE6 is still in the ballgame. Offices are still lagging behind in their conversion to modern browsers. This is probably because the IT staff just doesn't care.

    In talking with user groups, I've heard people say (frequently) that they prefer Firefox or Chrome at home, but at work aren't allowed to install those browsers -- so they are forced to use IE6 during work hours.