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?"

73 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 mwvdlee · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I consider myself a technical user.

      On one of my systems I still use IE6 because (A) my employer requires us to use Sharepoint, and for some "inexplicable" reason Sharepoint only supports a JS HTML editor in IE browsers and (B) because IE7 and IE8 don't allow me to access briefcase folders while browsing the files in those folders at the same time, which I need to do on my laptop.

      I wouldn't have a problem with IE6 support ending, but no support != banning.

      OTOH, how interresting can a site be for a, if it treat browser versions like this. How much could one possibly learn from a zealot?

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    2. 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.

    3. Re:Why redirect them? by OverZealous.com · · Score: 3, Informative

      For basic websites, I highly recommend Universal IE6 CSS.

      I've decided that I will never design a website that supports IE6, but instead will only server up this rudimentary (if nice-looking) style sheet. As long as your website is standards-based, compliant, and content-oriented, this CSS file works great. You do, however, have to include some of those annoying <!-- [if lt IE 7]>...<![endif]--> tags.

      For web apps, which are more complex, then I use a browser sniff and redirect IE6 users away. I don't care how "bad" or "evil" it is. It's better, to me, for users to know why a page doesn't work, than see a partially loaded page or pile of garbage.

    4. Re:Why redirect them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I consider myself a developer.

      THERE IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE for not being able to support multiple browsers. if you're not supporting links, you're doing it wrong (seriously, how the hell are supposed to work blind's web readers if your site is a javascript meatball?)

      now: no need to fix your site every time to have it working with every browser out there.
      USE A CROSSPLATFORM LIBRARY

      http://dean.edwards.name/IE7/
      http://mochikit.com/about.html
      http://www.prototypejs.org/

    5. Re:Why redirect them? by Nitewing98 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I agree. If you apply standards that all browsers should support, you'll also be friendly to other browsers like Firefox, Safari, Konqueror, Opera, etc. There's no reason to have to build separate pages and do redirects (or detect browser in PHP and cough up different page code). The whole point of HTML is that it should render in any browser (which includes Lynx, too). As a Mac user, I'm glad to see the web lose its Microsoft-centric view of the world. Firefox (which owes it's history to Netscape) finally put a dent in Microsoft's armor so others could succeed too.

      --

      Nitewing '98

      Everything works...in theory.

    6. Re:Why redirect them? by netJackDaw · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If I had modpoints I would mod parent up. Indeed, do not spend energy on blocking, fail instead...

    7. Re:Why redirect them? by PietjeJantje · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Depends on the audience. For starters, for a webshop, you are absolutely right. They shouldn't even piss away 2% of their customers. If you are not selling, things are different. IMO you shouldn't be held hostage by and pay for those companies who keep using IE6 because they don't want to pay for an upgrade. It is a bit ridiculous that the world is paying zillions in development costs so these companies can avoid it. They are parasites.

    8. 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.

    9. Re:Why redirect them? by purpledinoz · · Score: 4, Funny

      Who still uses IE6? Google should just insult the IE6 users into upgrading: "You are using Internet Explorer 6. This indicates that you are a giant douche. If you no longer want to be a giant douche, please upgrade your browser."

    10. 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.
    11. Re:Why redirect them? by JamesP · · Score: 2, Insightful

      THERE IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE for not being able to support multiple browsers. if you're not supporting links, you're doing it wrong (seriously, how the hell are supposed to work blind's web readers if your site is a javascript meatball?)

      This is a great rationale, but 'supporting' often means 'layout' and IE6 screws bacis JS as well...

      now: no need to fix your site every time to have it working with every browser out there.
      USE A CROSSPLATFORM LIBRARY

      Erm, no... From my experience there are still issues btw browsers even using these kinds of libraries.

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    12. Re:Why redirect them? by Pieroxy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, this is why I did set up the Internet Explorer Awareness Initiative.

      IE6 is mandatory as it is still in use by more than 5% of our audience. But warning them gently is one option to try and push the users to upgrade !

    13. Re:Why redirect them? by TheLink · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > IMO you shouldn't be held hostage by and pay for those companies who keep using IE6 because they don't want to pay for an upgrade.
      > It is a bit ridiculous that the world is paying zillions in development costs so these companies can avoid it. They are parasites.

      Uh, how are they holding you hostage?

      If you are the one who wants their money or for some other reason want them to use your site and they use IE6, it seems strange to call them parasites.

      You don't care about them just drop support for IE6.

      If your boss cares about them but you don't that's not their problem.

      --
    14. Re:Why redirect them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree. They should have never included the User Agent string in the protocol. It just leads to people serving different stuff to different browsers, of which insulting banners are a more innocent incarnation. But even those can suck, for various reasons. Before the Chromium-based browsers came out IE6 was the only thing that ran on my computer. Seeing an anti-IE6 banner under those circumstances, especially if the page renders just fine, translates directly into "I won't ever visit this site again." And then there are browser detection bugs. I still see anti-IE6 banners every now and then even though I am not using IE6 any more. And then you get even more fascist banners like "you're not using Firefox, you suck".
      Frankly, people should just code to the standards. And keep the page simple, because that tends to look better on all browsers. (The latter has nothing to do with browser bugs of course.)

    15. Re:Why redirect them? by Florian+Weimer · · Score: 2, Informative

      THERE IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE for not being able to support multiple browsers. if you're not supporting links, you're doing it wrong (seriously, how the hell are supposed to work blind's web readers if your site is a javascript meatball?)

      IE 6 has unique CSS layout issue, both bugs and less tolerant reactions to dodgy things in your CSS. There are some standard/recommended web design practices which tend to cause IE 6 rendering failures. And if you're unlikely, the failures are of such a kind that it makes part of the web site unusable. And even with templating and uniform page layout, such bugs tend to show only on specific pages, so you really need to do full tests with IE 6.

      Links support is easier in comparison, except that some text-mode browsers do not support <button> (but I think that was w3m).

      In the end, you need to listen what your users want. If the sporadic IE 6 layout issue is fine with them, don't test on IE 6.

    16. 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.

    17. Re:Why redirect them? by Gordonjcp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Updates to IE6 can be had for absolutely no charge, have been for half a decade now. IE7 from Microsoft, Firefox from the Mozilla Foundation.

      The software may be available at no cost, but upgrading to IE7 or Firefox could be an extremely expensive business. A lot of companies have web apps and intranet pages that do not render correctly in anything other than IE6. Who pays to update all of that?

    18. Re:Why redirect them? by Talderas · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have one user who is still on a Windows 2000 platform. Last I knew Win2000 didn't support IE7 (and I assume IE8 by extension). He's been bitching about "certain" websites not working properly, which I am about 99% certain is because a lot of websites just aren't bothering to support IE6. I told him to use Firefox, he bitched about that, I threw my hands up in disgust and left him to rot. Then he installed Firefox and bitched about Firefox not doing what IE does.

      Some people are beyond redemption.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    19. Re:Why redirect them? by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 2, Informative

      An upgrade from IE6 to IE7, IE8 or Firefox can be had from Microsoft / Mozilla Foundation

      I agree with you regarding Mozilla. However, there are those of us who refuse to ever give Microsoft another cent, who are still using Windows 2000 for our 'doze boxes. I never intend to use a legal or illegal copy of XP or any of the other drek they have published. I'm just waiting for them to die instead. So I cannot 'upgrade' from Internet Explorer 6. It would not be a free 'upgrade.'

      I use SeaMonkey on NetBSD mostly instead, of course, so the point is moot.

    20. Re:Why redirect them? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They drank the koolaid, and the piper's come a calling. Shortcuts inevitably wind up costing you sooner or later, and that's what web sites created solely for IE6 are.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    21. Re:Why redirect them? by SQLGuru · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You can always use a portable version of FF (http://portableapps.com/apps/internet/firefox_portable). No install rights required. And you can use the I/T sanctioned browser for sites that require IE6. Best of both worlds.

    22. Re:Why redirect them? by fractalus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If only it were that simple. Users (a) aren't always aware that they're using an outdated browser and (b) will therefore simply blame your site rather than their browser. Unless you tell them explicitly their browser is at fault, they will not know.

      --
      People are never as simple as their stereotypes. This applies equally to Christians, Muslims, and Emacs-lovers.
    23. Re:Why redirect them? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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
    24. Re:Why redirect them? by phoenix321 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is woefully out of touch with reality to
      - use IE6 on public Internet, ever. No matter how many proxy condoms you wear, you will be infected.

      - use a nine year old browser with so many serious flaws for mission critical purposes

      - not even think about free, better, safer, faster alternatives.

      That your customer has 25000 employees in 30 countries is impressive, but being large is no excuse for lagging NINE YEARS behind the outside world. Being a multi-billion dollar business should yield them enough resources to not stagnate.

      When you get too large to move anywhere at all, not even at a snails pace, you starve to death sooner or later. And 25.000 employees is a rather small international corporation, there are much larger ones and they can still move, although changing direction becomes pretty hard.

      I bet the 25.000 employee-corp
      - has put all them in a shared intranet,
      - put up an MS Exchange or similar groupware across all these departments across the globe
      - cobbled up an IT landscape of Franksteinian beauty just to have all clients, all servers, all machines in one domain, similar installations and under identical policies.
      - they have an IT-infrastructure department directly reporting to the CEO himself, which no dependent company can ever override for whatever reason.
      - they trust the client computer halfway across the globe more than any random notebook on dial-up in Nigeria, because they are considered INSIDE the organization.

      Different browsers in one machine don't prey on each other, they can coexist. A Firefox installation does not get an IE6 instance to be "unstable" just by sharing the same hard drive. "Stability" is just an excuse for "we don't want to do anything", which bites back when the technological gap between "yours" and "current outside world" becomes too large.

      Deploying updates in a timely fashion is the lifeblood of an IT department. Updating from Vista to Windows 7 is a fluid motion of medium risk. Updating from Windows 2000 to Windows 7 or Linux or whatever becomes a serious and risky undertaking.

      No one would use outdated trucks or CNC lathes or or ore smelters or whatever for nine years after they became deprecated just because of "stability".

      If "stability" is the reason for a company to stand still, it's time to update the resumes.

  2. Easy Answer by Tehrasha · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Wouldn't it be best to end support for obsoleted browsers?

    How well do your current pages support Lynx?
    Does that answer the question?

    And how much code is there that is IE6 specific that IE7/8 isnt compatible with?

    1. 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.

    2. Re:Easy Answer by Bert64 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Standards compliant pages support lynx pretty well, lynx will simply ignore things it doesn't support and render the alt-tags instead of images etc. So long as you chose sensible names for the alt tags the textual page content is perfectly viewable. I use lynx quite often and find it great for getting to information quickly on well designed sites, without being distracted by any of the fancy graphics.
      IE6 doesn't degrade gracefully, it doesn't ignore unsupported features like lynx does, it tries to render them and botches the job totally.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    3. Re:Easy Answer by cheesewire · · Score: 2, Informative

      How well do your current pages support Lynx? Does that answer the question?

      And how much code is there that is IE6 specific that IE7/8 isnt compatible with?

      It's not so much a case of code not being compatible with IE6, it's more that IE6 botches layout.

      You can create a perfectly accessible, standards compliant site (that looks just fine in Lynx), but in IE6 will have broken backgrounds, weirdly positioned bits, overlaps of boxes etc.—in short a site that looks terrible to the user. The developer, who would like users to perceive their site as looking nice, rather than a broken mess, then has to spend time (sometimes a lot of time) trying to pin down special site-specific IE6 fixes (that sometimes aren't standards compliant) to make IE display the site the same as all the other browsers manage to.

    4. Re:Easy Answer by sjames · · Score: 3, Informative

      Lynx isn't obsolete, it's last stable release was July 5th 2009. It is still in active development.

      IE6 has a zillion quirks in it such that the easiest approach is often to have one website for IE6 and another for everything else.

  3. 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.

    1. Re:Depends on who you cater to by josecanuc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I work with web applications that cater to technical academics (engineering professors and graduate students). One of my apps uses a relatively simple CSS layout that just happens to hide a big block of entry fields when viewed in IE6. I didn't think it would cause a problem, but it causes me to get so many emails from grad students in China who notice the problem.

      I thought I would take care of it by putting up a blocking notice for IE6 users that says something like "IE 6 is not supported, please use a different web browser such as IE 7, IE 8, Safari, Firefox, or Opera".

      But it just changed the question from the IE 6 users -> "The page says IE 6 isn't supported, what do I do?"

      When I helpfully explain by repeating the note in the warning, some do try another browser with success and report back, others say they cannot.

      Chinese Slashdotters: Is IE 6 mandated in some Universities?

    2. Re:Depends on who you cater to by denis-The-menace · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Setup a Citrix box (or equivalent) for running IE6 and use whatever transparent technology to make it seamless for the users of that ONE web app.

      You can then move on, free from the security issues still lurking in IE6. You are also free to upgrade to Windows 7 without using the Virtual XP feature which would double the number of windows PCs you'd need to patch.

      --
      Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
  4. No more support by Rizz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    All of my sites now use browser detection for Firefox 2.* and IE versions prior to 8 and sends the user to a page giving them download options. It'd be nice if more people did the same.

    1. 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.

    2. Re:No more support by socsoc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let's say I'm running a version of OSX that the best it can do is FF2 and now you are automatically sending me to a page telling me how I'm an idiot or how my IT staff should have bought me a new computer or why your website should cast judgment on policy decisions to stay on IE6 at a corporate level.

      I don't care that there is a link to return, you obstructed my navigation of your website and I'll likely never return (especially with an insulting reference to the 1800s). Fine for your blog, not so hot for a business when you could have just put a div at the top of the page displaying a warning. *That's* what I wish more people would do. It's a gentle way. Redirecting isn't gentle, unless you're a cowboy and have warped views of gentle.

  5. 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 stimpleton · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The browsers and their makers should be forced to comply.

      And ship'em to gulags if they don't?

      --

      In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
    3. Re:Not needed by headLITE · · Score: 4, Funny

      Actually, that might work.

    4. 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)

    5. 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.
    6. Re:Not needed by Oligonicella · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Flippantly, how many buggy whips are in your collection?

      Seriously, Google Maps would be a bitch to use that way. I use a site frequently that displays a raft of photos to select from. These are categorized by some feature. Again, it would be a bitch to pop up forty-eight different pics in order to select the one I want.

  6. Yes and No by Kickboy12 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    At my web development company we officially stopped testing our sites on IE6 last year. However, we do still test sites in IE6 when we know the client is specifically using that browser (so they don't complain). However, IE7 is still pretty common among XP users, so we still have to test all sites on IE7 and IE8.

    Though as far as we're concerned, IE6 is dead.

    1. 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?
  7. IE6 outdated. by Tukz · · Score: 4, Informative

    We're a web company, making different kind of websites for different kind of people. Which means we make anything from small "Mr and Mrs Smith My Pink Pony" kind of sites, to web shops with 5k+ transactions per day.

    We recently (within the last year or so) put a note on our contracts, stating we don't support IE6 anymore, unless the customer is actually paying extra for making the appropiate changes. It was just too much a hassle to manage all the hacks and workarounds all the time.

    So basically, we state we only support the latest generation of browsers, included IE7 since the migration to IE8 isn't complete yet. A lot of people still on IE7.
    And IE7 isn't TOO bad, the work arounds is mainly CSS, the rest is worked out by MooTools, Prototype, etc.

    --
    - Don't do what I do, it's probably not healthy nor safe. -
    1. Re:IE6 outdated. by ElVee · · Score: 2, Informative

      I work for a passenger airline, and a big part of my job is making the migration from IE6 to IE8 happen smoothly. It's going slow as molasses, to be honest. With 50k+ workstations scattered all around the globe and many thousands of apps to test and remediate, the transition to IE8 isn't going to happen as fast as we, our suppliers and our customers want it to happen.

      Honestly, I'd love nothing more than to be free of that craptastic piece of shit browser, but the reality of keeping the planes in the air gets in the way. Plus, there's this annoying shortage of freely available money, so we can't just throw buckets of green at the problem like we used to. We have to pay for remediation as the budget allows.

      We've had a few vendors come to us and say "We're not going to support your browser anymore, we don't like coding for it". Our usual response is "We're not going to support giving you any more money, we don't like paying you for it". They grumble, whine and cry, but 9 times out of 10, they cave. Being able to say that we're a major customer is a big thing to some vendors. Some even point it out on their website. Partner airlines are often required to buy a given product just because we use it and it's compatible with our way of doing things. Losing us as a customer means they stand to lose all these other airlines as customers when we choose a replacement vendor.

      We've had a (very) few purists walk away from the money. As annoying as that is, I have to respect these few vendors that stick to their guns. Then again, replacement vendors willing to prostitute themselves by doing IE6 'hacking' are cheap and plentiful.

      --
      - Pithy comment goes here.
  8. sometimes users don't control their machines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I worked for a federal agency and just this past summer we were finally upgraded to IE 7 - a lot of places where security is tight the IT people can be overly cautious when upgrading software, meaning employees could be years behind. If your site is something I need to access (technical documentation, etc) I'd be pretty annoyed when it wasn't my fault I couldn't access it because I'm not allowed to update my own machine.

    1. 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
    2. 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.

  9. Corporations. by jedrek · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  10. Re:95% Beats 5% by timmarhy · · Score: 2, Insightful
    because your stats are pulled from your arse, a significant number of organisations still use ie 6/7. not only that but users don't exist so you can dictate their needs to them, you exist to provide a service.

    your thinking is the typical fail thinking that persists here on /. that technology sets the agenda not the customer.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
  11. I'm posting this from IE6. HELP! by mykos · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  12. Measure it... by dacut · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... 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).

  13. Standards Compliant by jadin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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...

  14. Obsolete? by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 2, Funny

    Come on. Some people still love IE6. Moreover, I believe IE5.5 is still used by some people.

    Well, that's my assumption based on the phrase "These versions include Internet Explorer 5.01 Service Pack 4 on Microsoft Windows 2000 Service 4" mentioned in http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisory/980088.mspx , but perhaps that's bad logic.

  15. 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...
    1. Re:Wish we could :-/ by david.given · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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...

  16. Hell no! by Hurricane78 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Hell no! by am+2k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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...

      How do you explain something like Mirror's Edge then?

  17. Re:I'm posting this from IE6. HELP! by Hurricane78 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
  18. Our visitors use it... by Fotograf · · Score: 2, Interesting

    our visitors still come 30% with IE6 so: decision is yours: do you want that that 1/3 of your possible customers cannot view the page properly

    --
    God's gift to chicks
  19. Could the real geeks please stand up? by redGiraffe · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What happened to the tried and tested option of ignoring the browsers you don't want to support; web1.0 was built on these sound principles. When we could not access the site due to the webmaster (remember them?) implementing the latest Netscape tag, we would assume it was our fault and upgrade.

    I blame agile development practices for worrying about what the user can handle: pussies.

  20. Microsoft phases out Netscape 4 support, so there by David+Gerard · · Score: 2, Funny

    Microsoft is phasing out support for Netscape 4, in retaliation for Google declaring Internet Explorer 6 a "pustulent syphilitic drunken crack whore with no mates. And bad breath. Who smells funny."

    Google has given up bothering to support IE6 on its sites, directing the doubtless hideously virus-infected users of the browser to download another browser. Any other browser. "Lynx will give you a vastly superior YouTube experience. Now it will, anyway."

    "The Mozilla Foundation has completely failed to fix problems in Netscape 4 that have been around for years," said Microsoft marketing marketer Jonathan Ness. "Furthermore, Firefox gets just as many hacks as Internet Explorer, and pay no attention to my lengthening nose."

    In December, Chinese hackers exploited a weak spot in IE6 that Microsoft had only known about since September. Following this, governments worldwide told people to get the hell off IE6, except Britain, which relies on IE6 to leak data when there are insufficient funds for USB sticks or train journeys for civil servants.

    Web designers around the world welcomed Google's move, but have not given up their Bill Gates dartboards just yet. "'That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die.' Steve Ballmer said that, you know."

    --
    http://rocknerd.co.uk
  21. Re:I'm posting this from IE6. HELP! by Yvanhoe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Make a list of the software that doesn't work properly with IE6. Try to evaluate the lost productivity. If hit by a virus that uses a flaw in IE6, count the time lost and put a $$$ figure on it. Then defend your case. Your employer is concerned chiefly about money. Make a case with monetary facts.

    Also in some kind of companies (high tech startups) the argument "Google did X" is often very powerful. Tell them that now you are using a technology that someone like Google does not consider usable anymore.

    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  22. It's our fault, just as much... by Bunzinator · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... 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.

  23. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  24. 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
  25. IE6/7 is too prevelant to disregard by coastal984 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I work in local government IT - our standard right now is IE7 - we won't push IE8 because several of our vendor web apps have issues with it. I know, not good, but it's what we've got and it won't change anytime soon. I can't imagine it's anything but the same in countless other localities and businesses. Thus, it'd be irresponsible as a web developer, if you value a broad audience, to disregard the older incarnations of IE. Go ahead and flame away with your "it's irresponsible to use IE 6/7 in your organization" - you gotta get over it and realize that's just the way it is, and decide whether you want to be inclusive of all audiences or want to tell potential viewers "my way or the highway".

  26. 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.

  27. Re:IE has Automatic Updates by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And we're all eager to enable whatever DRM Microsoft deems to push onto our computers. In the form of 'updates.' Oh joy.

    Yes, we're really eager for that, and it's good that the self styled experts at Slashdot agree that it's in our best interest to bend over and smile whenever Redmond chooses to install whatever they wish.

  28. Re:I'm posting this from IE6. HELP! by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And when your employer finds out you have a netbook there, maybe you can hang out in the coffee shop and show it off to all your friends. While you peruse Monster and Dice looking for your next job.

  29. Re:Who's got the dough, though? by mwvdlee · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Actually I only have Windows products, so anybody using Safari is either not a potential customer or using Safari on Windows.

    Besides, from a commercial point of view, I really don't care how tech savvy my visitors are, I just want them to give me money :)

    Since relatively many IE6 users are corporate users and many of my customers are corporate, chances are they are actually looking to buy (atleast much more likely than Safari users or, in fact, average users).

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?