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?"
That's what it comes down to: corporations. There are still too many 10,000+ employee corporations out there that run Windows XP with the Flash 7 plug-in and IE6. You have to support that or there is no client.
My employer hasn't switched from IE6. Does anyone have tips on how to convince them to move to IE8? We have exactly zero software which requires IE6; in fact, some of our software doesn't work properly with it.
... as you've done. What percentage of those IE users are still running IE6/7? Then ask yourself, "Am I willing to lose X% of my visitors to save Y% of coding effort?"
For any typical website which depends on traffic for revenue, I'd say you'd have to be nuts to cut support for IE 6/7; thats about 35% of the visitors to your site. The fact that only 5% (and not 62%) of your visitors use IE at all, however, indicates that you're not running a typical site (or there's an error in your metrics collection).
I (attempt) to keep my websites standards compliant. If it works in your browser, great. If not, not my problem. I'm not jumping through hoops to help support companies actively ignoring agreed upon standards.
However, I'm also not financially dependent on my websites...
Remember: The only thing you can achieve by supporting those “browsers”, is to be an enabler. Basically the only reason those people still use IE, is because they can. And the only reason they still can, is because you still code for IE 6/7. And the only reason you do that, is because people still use them.
Do you see the circular logic here?
Someone has to break the cycle. And you can bet your ass that it won’t be the users. It’s your job. It’s mine. After all we’re the experts for a reason.
Don’t be an ass. Be nice. Don’t push them. Pull them. Coming from IE6 to a full-featured modern browser with HTML5-enabled sites, is freakn’ great! It’s like opening the box of your shiny new electronics device (or whatever you like) and playing with it all day long. Get that feeling across! And you will see them getting dragged in in the euphoria, switching in the blink of an eye.
People don’t change anything if they think they don’t have to. It’s called efficiency. But sometimes it’s bad. E.g. when there is a lack of information.
So if you think that they should switch, then just code close to the standards. If they want to use their site, it takes them five minutes to install a recent browser, and they know it for years.
Still supporting IE 6/7 is similar to acting like those EA managers, who would never dare to do something innovative, edgy, fresh or even slightly offending, to get a target group as big as possible... and then ending up with a shitty target group because the result of your work is bland, average, plastic-fantastic, non-innovative, boring shit that nobody hates but that also nobody loves.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
I’ll be an example to you:
I left my well-payed day-job because my boss (who was a very powerful player on the net) wouldn’t let go of IE6. (I had to write webapps for that piece of shit.)
I’m happy and would I have the choice, I’d do the exact same thing again. Just earlier. ^^
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
... as it is that of the browser vendors. As web developers, we NEVER should have coded to anything but the W3C standards. Browsers would have been forced to fall in line, and this fascinating banter would never have been necessary. While I have always tried to just code to the standards, I can understand the position other are in, with their PHBs squeezing them to do stupid things.
Though it'd never happen, I'd like to see W3C monitor all web content, and have the power to issue DNS deregistration notices to all non-compliant sites.
Dear Sir,
we have determined that you site, www.microsoft.com, is not compliant with the W3C 'xhtml1-transitional' standard it claims to implement. You are advised that you have 14 days in which to make the aforesaid site fully compliant. Failure to do so will result in the immediate suspension of your Domain Name registration, until such time your compliance is proven.
Have a pleasant day.
I've been on the other end of this: I got sent out to work with a Korean customer on-site. They wouldn't allow our machine to be connected to their LAN without installing some security software (name and shame: Waterwall).
The installation goes halfway through and fails obscurely. Three hours of debugging later they finally realise that I have IE8, but Waterwall only works on IE6 or IE7.
So I try to install IE7. I can't, because IE8 is installed. I try to uninstall IE8. I can't, because our sysadmin is, like, competent, and had set up the laptop with a DVD image with IE8 slipstreamed into it.
I eventually had to borrow an XP disk from the customer and reinstall Windows. Then I installed Microsoft Security Essentials and removed the virus that was on their XP disk.
The real joke? Waterwall blocks web access, enforces encryption on USB keys and recordable media, etc. (It's intended to stop 'information leakage'.) The internet? Wide open. ssh worked fine...
I (primarily) developed and currently support an international business site that gets 18% IE6 visitors. Cutting off IE6 visitors would make a tangible difference in the millions of dollars - the competiton is stiff and finding a nonfunctional website would cause the customer to go directly to someone else. IE6 support was basically an afterthought - I didn't go out of my way to support it but I made sure the site's still usable, even if it doesn't look quite right. I did have to make some changes to the code vs. not testing with IE6 at all, but I didn't have to do any dirty hacks, change the site's appearance or sacrifice any features in the process.
So let's say it took me 10% longer to make sure the site's still accessible with IE6, which cost the company somewhere between "peanuts" and "precisely dick" and didn't affect any other users. Would cutting off almost 1 in 5 users be a good business decision?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel