Stop being a dick, support IE6
Somewhere down the line we forgot what it is all about; the user and the user experience. Rogue irresponsible industry leaders are telling us it is time to move on from Internet Explorer 6, IE6. When did we get in the business of telling users which browsers to use as opposed to building for the browsers they do use? We are in the business of creating usable, accessible and intuitive experiences for our users; we are not in the business of changing users, user agents and user behavior all in a pursuit for what we’ve deemed a “better” web.
IE6 is around, and thus important, for one reason and one reason only; because Windows Vista was a terrible and poorly adopted operating system. It doesn’t matter how bad IE6 is or even how old IE6 might be; all that matters is that it is still commonly used among the masses. Yes, IE6 is approaching being its seventh birthday – but here is the reality: you are a geek and most web users are not. You know what “Firefox” and “Opera” are, you care about advancements in browsing technology … you look for better software than what was installed by the manufacturer at purchase. The rest of the computing web surfing world is completely the opposite, and you have to remember, realize and live with this truth. Most web users are accustomed to using the software given to them at the time of purchase. The only real upgrades they perform, if any, are with the entire Operating System as a whole – and most users in today’s market just buy new machines at that point. Yes, I agree, IE6 should be a browser completely put down and removed from everyone’s machine. But remember, IE6 was a great step forward when it was first released (as it related to Internet Explorer) – but the reason it was massively adopted was because everyone on a Windows machine desperately wanted the revolutionary and innovative (as it relates to Microsoft) Windows XP operating system. The masses didn’t yearn for a new browser or even know that they needed one — they looked for a new everything: a new Word, a new Excel, a new Outlook, and yes a new Internet Explorer. This same thing happened when Windows 98 came to market, it was so highly desired that the upgrades were universal and with it came the death of the archaic software before it. IE5.2 for Mac for example was still a prominently used browser even after Microsoft publicly stopped supporting it; it wasn’t until Mac OS X did the browser completely die; because the manufacturer stopped shipping the browser with the OS and people desperately wanted the new and innovative operating system. IE5.2 didn’t die when it stopped being supported or because it was a terrible browser, it died when OS 9 died. There is a reason that IE6 launched just months before Windows XP hit the market, there is a reason why IE7 launched just before Windows Vista hit the market and hopefully IE8 will be out of beta before Windows 7 hits the market; but it may not matter much.
Remember, when the masses look at your website and see a broken or blocked experience – they don’t say “oh look, IE6 is breaking the site again”, they simple say, “oh look, this website is broken”. In the eyes of the masses, websites break not browsers. No message you prompt to them will change this mentality; you will not make a geek out of a non-geek: for most, a browser is simply a tool for the Internet, one not being any different than another.
IE6 got into everyone’s homes only when Windows XP was there first. IE6 would have died had Windows Vista been as massively adopted as Windows XP and Windows 98 were; unquestionable so … and then this debate wouldn’t even exist. So, yes, we all agree that IE6 should have been put to rest long ago; there was a plan and an OS to make that happen, but it failed and because of that failure, IE6 is still a prominent force and thus highly relevant. Everyone in the industry, even Microsoft, agrees that IE6 should not be on the market right now, but the plan to remove it failed and we have to adapt to that reality.
Okay, so lets say that less than 5% of our user base in on IE6 – best practice tells us to degrade or use progressive enhancement; all in an effort to accommodate all as best as possible. Many of these rogue industry leaders have gone from a best-practice mentality to completely irresponsible. What happened to “degrade, degrade, degrade” or “build for the lowest common denominator”? What happened to creating for the user experience? What sort of user experience tells me I can’t use your web application and that I need to download and install a new browser; especially when my I.T. department tells me we are not allowed? It is one thing to stop supporting a specific browser, but many are going as far as to blocking it all together. A broken experience is always better than no experience at all. We still go out of our way to accommodate users without Flash and JavaScript, that demographic is far less than 5% as well. Best practices tells us to accommodate (as best we can) for web accessibility and users with various forms of disability, which is also considerably less than 5% of our usage. Heck, most of us are creating printable and iPhone specific formats of our websites when the usage numbers are also less than 5% — but we do it not because of the numbers but because of web best practices. Because we believe in the user experience and truly creating a better web not just our vision of a “better” web. The IE6 experience doesn’t need to be pixel perfect; maybe a rounded corner becomes a straight corner or a drop-shadow disappears all together or a complicated three column grid now is a one column … where our visual display might not be the intended display but the site is usable and above-all-else accessible. I through the number “5%” around as a bit of an understated exaggeration, the reality is that IE6 still has 25% market share; that means one of four potential web users is an IE6 web user. For some comparison, Safari and Opera both have less than 3% of the market share.
IE6 is hard to accommodate for, it is a pain in the ass and makes my life as a web designer and front-end developer very difficult, often ridiculously frustrating. But it is the reality of the world we work in and we need to create and work within that reality. It is not our place to change that reality. We work on the web with websites and web applications; we do not create browser software and do not create operating systems; even if we do, we don’t do it for the two or three biggest players in the market, which ultimately control the masses and how they use the Internet. We can try to ban together as rebels and start a true rebellion and force users through censorship to change and perhaps even force governments and major corporations to change and perhaps through that all even force browser and operating system manufactures to change. It would be a powerful and amazing thing to accomplish, one that might even be realistically accomplishable. However, in that rebellion you will be destroying the user experience for thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of web users during your twelve or twenty-four month battle. Sure, you’ll eventually win, but it’ll be a short-lived victory as Windows 7 launches pre-installed with IE8. And yes, assuming the operating system doesn’t share the same fate of Windows ME and Windows Vista; the world will adopt, because it would have been over a decade since they had an opportunity to do so.
While the rest of the world unfortunately relies on what Microsoft gives them, for good or bad, we must be responsible in designing and developing for that experience. It is not our place to tell users to use or not use flash, to use or not use Javascript, to use or not use Firefox, to use or not use a particular screen reader, browser, operating system or device. We create usable, intuitive and accessible experiences for our users keeping in mind the power we have and the limitations we work within. Not everyone has control over what web browser they can use, not everyone feels as though there is anything wrong with using a deprecated browser or even cares or bothers to upgrade. We must remember that IE6 is here and here to stay simply because Windows Vista failed, and that it will remain until Windows XP is finally replaced in homes and offices around the world.
So I ask, please stop being a dick and support IE6.
- November 10th, 2008
- 112comments
- I am a proud member of the 9rules network
Well put; I usually go out of my way to make sure our sites work in IE6, even if that does mean having to cope without tabs for a short time!
Thanks Peter! IE6 is a pain, but it is do-able. Again, doesn’t have to be a great experience, but usable and accessible are not too much to ask for when it is 20% to 25% of potential web users asking for it.
Your graph says IE6 has 33% of the market, but your text says 25%. Which is correct?
Bill, the graph is just a sample graphic representative of typical mass market websites/applications. Every group has a different percentage, but right now most are tracking IE6 usage at between 21% and 26% of total market.
I highly suggest everyone looking at their own statistics rather than completely relying on the total population, as I agree that for many “these users dont matter”; a valid statement for personal websites for example.
Mehh. It’s true, your right.
But do you allow no exception? For example the personal blog, design centric topics and meant for the design community a community that would have far less than 5% of it’s users rocking IE6?
I think blocking the user is a dick move, but providing a notice of “phased out support” should be deemed acceptable if the business and designer have taken the cons into consideration.
Blindly opposing IE6 on some sort of principle or for the “purity” of the web is BS. Any decision made based on discussion, research and agreement should be respected. As that website may have helped convert users. it may just show them the light or result in so many complaints the IT Director gives in. I by no means am advocating the “Let’s force them to switch” approach, but if more sites did that we as a community could make a massive dent.
So I guess I’m only half dick… or maybe 1/3.
@antoine butler,
I’d say it depends on who you are and what you are about. Do you practice web-best practices? Do you believe in an accessible web for all? Do you believe you should try and provide a pleasant experience for all users regardless of user, device or software handicaps?
This article is mostly written for those “best in breed”; those us that go out of our way to make the non-flash equivalent work or have the “skip to” links for screen readers we’ve never even used ourselves. Or for those who build for color blindness, printable or mobile version. Not because the stats said to or because we wanted to, but because it is the right thing to do.
Granted, my own personal site works well in IE6, but there are some minor issues, even with the Javascript on the homepage, but I try and make it as useful and accessible as possible and NEVER ignore IE6.
There is a difference between ignoring the browser and acknowledging it … you might not be able to fix everything and somethings may break; but don’t disregard the browser completely. At least acknowledge its existence and attempt to try to make this a “better web”.
Lovely venting, but if you’re venting why get down to the real root of the issues? Why do we still feel a need to be in the business of knowing what browser they use?
We’ve got a world with chrome, safari/PC, firefox, opera, ie5, 5.5 6, 7 & 8, iphone webkit, nokia webkit, opera mini, ie for mobile windows, blackberry browsers, screen readers, web spiders.
We’ve got visitors with monitors from dual 30″ LCDs to cell phones with 6 lines of text and browsers with a wide variety of methods of scaling content or pieces of content.
We’ve got useragents with plugin support, without plugin support, everyone loves ajax but some people run with javascript off [even conditionally with tools such as the noscript firefox extension]
As web builders we need to shake off the dusty cobwebs of thinking like we know what the lay of the land is *AT ALL* and build sites from the core that are flexible, functional using web standards and techniques such as progressive enhancement because if you get in the game of checking your current logs for what you need to “support” you’re probably gonna trip up and miss something and exclude some other fragment of your user base. And as important, you need to change your definition of “support” for a specific user agent from “looks exactly as my client/designer/boss dictated” to “functipnal”, where a user can achieve their intended results without roadblocks.
Go beyond trying to kill yourself making up for IE6’s lack of support for transparent PNGs or first child selectors or blocking anything that isn’t in your test matrix from getting past the homepage and instead put the best code you can out there and let people consume it as they may.
Oh, crap. I came here to start a flamewar, but that was a pretty good post. More good discussion here, from around this time last year: http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200711/keep_browser_lockout_a_thing_of_the_past/.
Can’t wait til Windows 7 puts us out of our misery; wonder which will come first–a standards-compliant (webkit-based?) IE or HTML 5…
I agree and disagree with you … I think many people thinking in this “best practice” mentality would say we should create beautiful code and all should be fine. But that just isn’t the reality we work in. There is no universal “mobile web”, there is no universal “screen reader”, there is no universal “screen size” — the more options we have the more variety we have in how what we create can be displayed. Some agents display as intended and others don’t; and the many that don’t do not because they don’t properly understand our semantic and beautiful code.
It is naive for you to say your code is better than the limitation the user views it on. As I mentioned, the user doesn’t acknowledge that IE6 is broke, they simply just see YOUR broken experience. Your statement only works in a world where the users understand the pros and cons of their agent of choice. Most the web surfing world doesn’t want to use “third party” software to see the web … they simply want to use the Microsoft browser given to them by the Microsoft operating system that came with their machine.
It is our responsibility to account for that experience and adapt accordingly. Even in today’s XHTML/CSS mark-up we are writing code that we know will become archaic in the next four to five years; especially as adoption to CSS advancements become more wide-spread.The nested table mess of yesterday is just going to be replaced with the laughable DIVites class infested mark-up of tomorrow. We are still not today working in a perfect web, we are accounting for elements left and right.
I don’t know how you can advocate to alienate users with disabilities or users with uncontrollable restrictions; that is just irresponsible … regardless of how pure your mark-up may be.
@Dan,
Wow, that was like a compliment; I will take it!!
I’m sorry, but where have i said anything that can be considered advocating delivering a “broken” experience to IE6 or any user agent?
I simply said we need to get our mindset shifted from thinking supporting a given user agent means it gets the same exact visuals and construction that a browser released 7-8 years later
. If we concentrate on delivering the functionality and worry less about pixel precision — If we focus on a user being able to accomplish what it they want to get accomplished and worry less about whether corners are rounded or opacity works just the same everywhere — then we can do a better job at supporting all users, including those stuck with IE6 [knowingly or unknowingly, due to corporate dictates or because they don’t need to care what their UA is], and do it in a way that doesn’t have us complaining about how much we hate XYZ or ABC adds so much more time and pain to a site build.
yeah your rant is at the wrong people.
Your rant should be against MS
Microsoft shows up each year when we talk about web standards
we all chastise microsoft about creating it’s own standards and ignoring the group.
Most browsers play the game fairly and hense you dotn even have to concern yourself with what browser they are using. opera, firefox, safari,chrome, it dont matter.. but IE does.. it is a pain.
and then there are the differences between the ie versions.
Nah the problem isnt that programmers dont make sites compatible with IE6, it’s that ms doesnt make browsers compatible with the web. IE is the only damn browser that makes people design things around it. Generally speaking that means a developer has to look at a site in both IE and any other browser of their choosing.
NAh the broken sites for IE6 are a shot across the bow of MS.. and sure you blame the browser, but programmers are telling MS, we arent going to jump through hoops anymore to make your stupid unsecured and lame browser to work..when everyone else follows the standards that your own freaken company agrees to and then ignores.
Nah want to rant.. rant at stupid MS and their stupid browser with it’s non standard features.
Yell at MS for changing IE7 sooo much that when i replace peoples ie6 they all cry
heck i cant stand ie7 i keep forgetting where the menu options are, where the heck do i open a new tab at.
I agree that Microsoft is ultimately the problem — that is sort of the point of the post. But Microsoft does have the control. Microsoft knows the problem and thus created IE7 and understands the problems there as well and thus we have IE8 (still in beta mode).
However, it isn’t the IE team it is Vista specifically. And that is what my post really focuses on. There was a plan to remove IE6 from the world; but that plan failed. Microsoft failed and thus we have the reality of working with IE6.
But as I said, I am not an OS developer or a Browser maker; I am a web designer and web developer. It is not my job to make better operating systems or better browsers; it is my job to make create web experiences within the realities of the world I work within. And that reality right now is IE6 (25% of the webs usage reality).
I don’t, and refuse to, support IE6. That being said, by using less hacky code you can be reasonably assured it will display ‘functionally’.
Try to load Microsoft or Msn.com in IE6 (p.s. I won’t be paying for your new glasses prescription). If microsoft doesn’t care, why as a developer would I waste time?
That leads me to where does the legacy support end though? IE5 just dropped off W3C browser stats page in August, does that mean we should be supporting that as well?
Yes IE6 is a disability :). We must break the cycle!
Joe, this post might be for you. If you have to ask the question “why should I care” then “user experience” isn’t top of mind for you.
Again, this isn’t about how you feel about IE6 or how you feel about Microsoft; heck, this isn’t about YOU at all. It is about the users and the user experience. We are not created one person websites for one user and that user being you. We are creating websites for the masses and one in four of those users are on IE6. As I mentioned in the first paragraph, when did we stop caring about the user and the user experience; when did best practices become less important?
Why do we have police officers? Shouldn’t everyone just follow the law and behave themselves? We have them because the reality of the world we live in is that people break the rules. We have to build for the optimal USER experience because every user’s experience is different because all of the devices and agents they use are different. That is the reality of the world we work in.
It is fine if YOU refuse to support IE6 — perhaps the sites you work on can further justify that. However, for those of us building for the masses, that would be an irresponsible approach.”Refuse” is a very strong and very personal choice of words.
‘m a little confused as to whom this diatribe is directed at. Is there some epidemic of sites coming out now that don’t support IE6?
Every company and individual in web dev I know (outside of very small specialty/niche stuff) supports IE6. They have to. You can’t ignore 25-35% of your users. Period.
Microsoft made their web page makers so that they would make the output incompatible tiwh other browsers. Part of the monopoly idea.
Firefox and Opera give a much better experience. They do not freeze on my Vista machine. Vista is constantly saying “Internet Explorer has stopped working. …looking for a solution”
I keep saying it … but this isn’t about you or about Microsoft. It is about the 25% of the world that doesn’t know better and can’t be convinced by you and a small group of rebellious websites. The 25% of the world that will keep using IE6 until their new computer comes with something else or their company gives them something else.
This is sure to be a very heated discussion considering the topic, but my problem with it starts right away. In fact, I didn’t bother reading past your first paragraph:
I have to stop you right there. If you’re anything like me (and I know you are, Martin), you love the internet. You love design. And obviously, you love design on the internet. But if you love your work so much, why would you think that making the web a “better place” isn’t your job? If not people like you and I, then who?
The average user doesn’t know why they shouldn’t use IE6. You can talk to them about the box model and alpha transparency all day long and they’ll look at you with a dumbfounded stare. At the same time, we can go around telling the average user that their browser sucks and they should switch without some push back.
What we can do is lead the way for other designers, developers, architects & craftsmen (and craftswomen) of the web by designing a usable base for older browsers and progressively enhance them for modern browsers using CSS and/or JavaScript.
It’s shouldn’t be Down with IE6! or Long Live IE6!, but instead “IE6 works alright, but look at the experience you’re missing out on by not using a more modern browser.” That’s the world I’d like to live in.
The 2nd paragraph of my comment should’ve been in quotes and was wrapped in a blockquote tag (which Martin apparently doesn’t style). Also, this statement:
Should’ve read “…we can’t go around telling the average user that their browser sucks…” instead of the can that I accidentally left in there.
Patrick,
My point is more about why IE6 is still relevant and how we go here; really putting the blame on the failure of Windows Vista and the huge success of Windows XP.
My other point is that we are not in the business of making operating systems or browsers; we are in the business of creating usable and accessible experiences for our users and our user agents.
I understand if you don’t want to read the entire post, but the second to last paragraph is directly applicable to your comment:
“. We can try to ban together as rebels and start a true rebellion and force users through censorship to change and perhaps even force governments and major corporations to change and perhaps through that all even force browser and operating system manufactures to change. It would be a powerful and amazing thing to accomplish, one that might even be realistically accomplishable. However, in that rebellion you will be destroying the user experience for thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of web users during your twelve or twenty-four month battle. Sure, you’ll eventually win, but it’ll be a short-lived victory as Windows 7 launches pre-installed with IE8. And yes, assuming the operating system doesn’t share the same fate of Windows ME and Windows Vista; the world will adopt, because it would have been over a decade since they had an opportunity to do so.“
Setting client sites aside, Slim Kiwi’s site (my firm) is missing a few nice touches in IE6, largely due to PNG support. We’ve left it at that, without going so far as to display a “you really should upgrade” message to users. It just is what it is: a lesser experience.
What’s telling is that, while Firefox and Safari account for a collective 79% of our site’s traffic to IE’s collective 17%, every single piece of traffic attributed to my biggest current client, a financial services firm, reports IE6.
That’s disappointing and frustrating. These guys are big, they spent a lot of time vetting me before the project, and whenever I encounter new folks on a conference call, I see a few new search referrals. They’ve been to my site. It’s not the individual user in their case that’s naively sticking to IE6; it’s stubborn IT policy. And there’s nothing I can do about that but make my site work for them.
Mark,
I am glad you bring that up, I touch on it slightly. Many users of IE6 are not their by choice at all. One of our, nclud, largest clients is one of the largest Public Relations firm in the world (no, not Ogilvy) and they are on IE6 for no other reason than as you put it, “stubborn IT policy”.
I suspect it is a bit more than that. That it is easier to roll out a new browser to all users with a new OS; and they’ve probably been waiting to do this since late 2005, just awaiting the final arrival of Windows VIsta. But when Vista was proven to not be a suitable upgrade option, they continue to wait and wait and wait.
And now with Windows 7 promised to be just a couple years away; I fear they may continue to wait. In a lot of peoples mind, there is a “if it isn’t broke, don’t fix it” mentality; I just can’t advocate breaking it for the sake of change. If I know how to keep it from breaking, it feels irresponsible to let it break — even if I like what might come of it breaking.
User experience is important to me. An IE6 user on my websites can still use the website, but I don’t specifically spend time coding for IE6 is what I’m saying.
My real concern is with organizations such as 37signals who just stop the support all together; ignore the user base regardless of their sizable population. Again, it doesn’t have to be pixel perfect, but usable and accessible — the key is to realize that IE6 is still relevant and important and watch for it and try and correct for it when possible.
I left my comments on the crossposted version of this story already so I’ll keep it short here.
I think the industry as a whole, and agencies in general need to do a better job of shifting everyones expectations and definitions of “support” from the same exact site to letting everyone visitor accomplish the tasks and goals of the site.
Hors are lost, heads explode, and rants posted on blogs over time lots trying to hack some old browser to do the same thing a browser released 7 or 8 years after it can do. And posts and rants and flamewars have erupted over those who have swung the pendulum the other way and blocked user agents completely [be it via the old wasp BUC or now sites like basecamp].
We need to learn how to be content with building sites that everyone can reach and use and if one person might not see rounded corners or get the “AJAX” experience, but still be able to get product specs, order a coffee maker or download a ringtone to their cellphone then we’ve accomplished our goals.
Thanks for the comment Chris … I’ve got the comments from Newsvine pulling into this thread as well; so your original comment is above.
oh, so you do.. readingComprehension–
At what point though should developers stop fretting about IE6? Should this milestone be when IE8 is publically available? Should it be when its less than 5%? 2%? I’d be curious to see what others thought.
Personallly, I’ve given up on making my mockups look perfect on IE6. That’s not to say I disregard it altogether, but I’ve long passed the time when I’d detail out perfect drop shadows and get every element aligned perfectly. It is my belief that keeping a good layout structure is essential to making a positive experience with IE6 compatibility. My IE6 designs may be missing a drop shadow or a gradient background or not have that final gloss, but the experience is nearly the same as other browser. It is still easy to read and just as functional.
While I understand the efforts of 37Signals and others for trying to push away from IE6, there are many cases in which its not feasible or even possible to ignore it. We still have some clients with over 50% user base of IE6, mostly being small-biz corporate employees using three-five year old computers.
In all, if the audience for your client has a negligible IE6 user base, then skip it. But even today, don’t outright ignore it.
Thanks Martin for a good post.
I’d say you don’t stop supporting IE6 until users are off IE6; significantly speaking. I agree that users with physical disabilities are different than users with IE6. I typically wait till something is two releases old before I start to dismiss it; right now IE6 is just on release behind the current IE, IE7.
IE6 will be in our homes and our hearts, for good or bad, till it isn’t. Once the total market share of an archaic browser goes down to less than 5%, then it is time to start letting go. But remember, Opera and Safari users only comprise 3% each of total market share; so there is something to be said for that.
I’m running IE7 on XP as I type. One hardly needs to embrace Vista to move from the abortion that is IE6, and Microsoft itself will soon stop releasing security updates for it, just as they no longer do so for versions prior to IE6.
It isn’t about you or what you can do — it is about web users and what they do. They don’t upgrade browsers; they don’t see the faults in IE6. Users, the mass audience, don’t even care about “security updates”. That might change things for IT departments across the world, but not for the common Joe.
Yes, you can have IE7 on XP; many people do … but one in four people on the internet don’t.
This is why website analytics exist. If the majority of website visitors are using IE6, web developers should design a site so it works with IE6. It’s not that complicated.
The best solution? Become a good web designer and code your site simple enough so it works for all browsers, not just a select few. Then there’s nothing to complain about. Why does Amazon.com display the same on all browsers? Because it was coded correctly.
Sheil, I agree with you and what I think your definition of “good” is with respect to how we code. Good is not one size fits all, good is ensuring what you do works even if hacks, filters or conditional comments are necessary. Good is degrading, using progressive enhancement and ensuring a proper usable and accessible site for all to the best of your ability as it probably relates to a time/cost analysis.
I guess it depends on what you mean by “support”.
The way I look at it, any web site should be minimally functional on any and every browser. The user should be able to get to the content that they want to.
Now should a website look exactly the same, pixel for pixel, on every web browser? No.
I’ve been experimenting more and more with WebKit’s text shadows and WebKit’s and Gecko’s rounded corners. I am perfectly fine if a site has rounded corners as part of the design in Firefox and Safari, but reverts back to square corners in Internet Explorer. So yea, IE users may not get the full aesthetic experience, but they will still see the content of the site. I wouldn’t consider a site done this way broke in “IE6″ so much as designed down.
Adam,
I’d say it is less about defining “support” as it is about defining “usable” and “accessible”. And remember, keep the “user experience” top-of-mind; just because I can find and read the information, doesn’t mean you’ve necessarily done enough, but often times it means you’ve done just enough.
My big take-away that I want people to leave with is that you should not ignore IE6 as 37signals has. You just test against and decide what to fix and what not to fix; it could be you do NOTHING for IE6, but at least you tested for it and made a decision based on that test whether or not to fix the issue. If something takes less than 2 minutes to fix, why wouldn’t you fix it? Why wouldn’t you even give it the time of day to see it to know it can be fixed within 2 minutes?
Then they are irresponsible fools and deserve what they get. I have no patience for that argument at all. Using the Internet responsibly requires keeping up with security updates. Period.
AdipicAcid,
This what I meant in my article about us being “geeks” and us not being able to turn non-geeks into geeks. You can’t ask the average web users to care about “web security”; sure they should, but you can’t expect it of them and them turn them away because of it. Most computer users don’t hit the “install updates” button like we do; most don’t care and would rather not have whatever update it is than sit through the download process and have to restart.
Come on, we make websites … we make websites for people who use the internet. We don’t tell people how to access that internet, we build for how they access that internet. I don’t want to start a pissing match with you; just know I see your point and know what you mean. I share your sentiment. But it would be wrong of us to expect more out of the general public than we can.
Ok, fair enough. I guess I’ve just been reading different guys than you have. Usually when I have read that designers should stop “supporting” IE6, they didn’t mean that we should ignore it, but more that we don’t need to obsess over exact user experiences across all the major browsers.
Martin -
Thanks for writing about this issue. I think that the assumption that IE6 users are less important is wrong for two reasons. First, as you say, the goal should be to make sites as accessible as possible to all users. But it is also flat out wrong to assume that all IE6 users are less sophisticated or less technical. A lot of very sophisticated users are stuck with using IE6 in their government, corporate, or academic environments - so at least during their business hours, their browsing experience is not under their control. I don’t understand why sites, aside from some niche sites, would want to take the risk of not delivering a close-to-optimal experience to these viewers.
Victoria,
I think you said it best … I agree completely.
my reading comprehension was low this am..
I agree.. so many people would rather stick with ie6
but win7 so far is looking kinda cool, and light weight.
Why support IE6 when you have a choice to upgrade or switch browers?
Why drive a Studabaker when you can drive a Ferrari?
It’s not your choice. It’s the choice of your users and audience. And many of them don’t have a choice. Many people still use Windows 2000 at their office, while IE7 requires Windows XP at a minimum. Hell, maybe their office has Windows XP, but they need to support legacy hosted applications that still require IE6, and they are not allowed to run non-standard browsers like Firefox or Opera.
Whatever the reasons, if those statistics from the article are correct, something like 25% of web surfers are still relying on IE6. It’s not good business to ignore such a large percentage of the market.
I agree, it isn’t always your choice to be in IE6. Lets run with your analogy; why are we all not driving a Ferrari; there are a variety of metrics out of our control that keep us from driving one.
No, I don’t. I maintain infrastructure and networks mostly, and spend a lot of time cleaning up the messes that the people you want to coddle make with their antique, insecure software. By analogy, you would rail at the car makers for making it necessary to change the oil and do other routine maintenance, not at the fool who never takes his car to the mechanic.
A lot of thje “rest of the world” uses Linux based operating systems…
Why do people even HAVE websites? If they are trying to make money the people that do not update from IE6 likely do not spend money online any way.
Dr. Know,
Actually less than 4% of the world uses Linux based operating systems; that mean that over 96% of the world doesn’t use it … so I wouldn’t really say “a lot” with respect to Linux. But that doesn’t have anything to do with this post.
Again, I am not going to get into a pissing match with you either, but your comment seems very much personal and opinionated not backed by anything other than cynicism. But people have websites to share ideas, thoughts, photos, life … they have websites to get information and share information … there are hundreds of thousand of reasons why people have websites behind “making money”.
And, I am sorry, but you are wrong, the people that do not update from IE6 are what I call the “average joe” and they actually spend the most amount of money online. They are the ones that made Amazon.com a house-hold name and keep Zappos.com in business.
It’s about time that IE6 was dropped. It is so full of security holes that were fixed in IE7, and most people have upgraded their computers to XP, at least, so it’s time to let IE6 die it’s well deserved death.
Just like Firefox 1.5 is being allowed to die, just like Firefox 2 will be allowed to die, etc.
When something is so flawed as IE6 was, with the NUMEROUS ways to attack it and penetrate people’s systems…… it’s time to let it die.
I always love when someone leaves a comment and only reads the title. It is the article that answers your question. But thanks for sharing.
Well anyway good luck with the petition drive.
I just remembered my certified financial planner is stuck on Windows 2000.
I will ask him tomorrow if their business still uses IE6.
Thanks! Looking forward to what you find out.
I disagree that it is not our job or purpose to educate users on what is or isn’t going to provide them with the best experience. Speaking purely from a design perspective, I think as designers, what we create is an experience. If we are designing the experience for the user, I think it is up to us to communicate to the user what is going to provide them with an optimal experience. I think our responsibility as internet professionals is to inform the public that IE6 provides users, for the most part, a broken experience. Why should it be up to us to spend extra time degrading our work to fit within the deficiencies of that browser?
IE6 is outdated and the push to end support of it is to encourage users and corporations to upgrade so that they can have an optimal experience with all sites on the web.
I think Martin, you are saying because it exists we MUST recognize it, but i think we all really have the choice to make that decision for ourselves. Although I understand the postition to support it from a business perspective — my company still supports it, mainly because we have a lot of clients with mission critical websites and web applications, but personally and as a designer, I am with IE6 Death March on this one…
Thedel, thank you for the comment!
I don’t think we should accommodate IE6 simply because it exists, but because it is the web browser that 1 in 4 web users are on.
Think of a browser as a setting on a computer; for most of the world, that is how it is viewed. We don’t tell people what screen resolution to use or what brightness to set their screens at. Remember when we use to make fun of the designers that had the “this website is best viewed on 1024×768″ message on their sites?
I think it is my second to last paragraph that touches on your comment specifically. Yes, I agree we could rebel together and win the rebellion. But in that two year battle, you are just going to alienate 25% of the web … and in 2 years Windows 7 and IE8 will be here and ready for mass consumption.
The frustrating thing is that it’s an incredibly annoying problem and yet the solution is so easy. Installing a browser is a breeze, it’s not harder than installing Flash, hell almost everyone has it now…
I completely understand your point about the OS being the impediment to a more advanced browser adoption by more people. Why is the OS suppose to dictate which browser someone should use? If at first Microsoft didn’t include it and promoted it as “the Internet” and not just a tool to access it, maybe people would be much more savvy of this kind of stuff.
No one can tell you which browser is defacto… it’s like with anything really. If something you have doesn’t suit you, doesn’t perform well, etc. then you go to the store and purchase another! Perhaps people think websites are broken rather than their browser (they’d need to know it’s a browser and not “the Internet” to begin with though) and that’s completely understandable… but what if you can’t burn any DVDs with your current burner, with different brand and types of DVDs… is it all those DVDs that are broken or is it your burner?
Anyways, apart from all that, where I work here, we actually don’t support anything lower than IE 7 for our internal systems (we plugged everyone [100 employees] on Firefox mainly) and we’re on the verge of doing the same thing with our external websites. Obviously, we still make the experience “usable” for people with retarded browsers, but putting less time on IE really cuts on development costs.
I think some people have said it well in the above comments … a lot of this is about creating good code. If you code your website properly, then many of the issues are non-existent. If you build for all modern browsers including Firefox, Safari, Opera and IE7 then many of the issues are non-existent. Most of the time, what IE6 does differently is rather insignificant; the level of effort is either not necessary or little to none.
IE6 used to be a great browser to code for (compared to IE5.2), but the more our modern browsers evolve the more and more we have a distaste for the older ones such as IE6.
It is a tough battle, and if your stats show that 95% of your user base is not on IE6, then yes, you can probably ignore it all together.
Just pointing out a few fallacies or misleading things and setting the record straight in a few spots.
You claim IE6’s ubiquity came with XP and that the average user just does whatever the manufacturer (Microsoft) does automatically for them. Well, if this were true, we’d see more IE7 use than IE6 use among those users as the IE7 upgrade was automatic and one had to opt out of the upgrade to avoid it.
The simple truth is that the lion’s share of IE6 users are corporate users locked in by their IT departments. A home user can easily choose either an alternate browser or to run Windows updates to get IE7.
Your graph is clearly quite old. You show a significantly large audience of Safari 1.x users over Safari 2.x users. You show no Safari 3.x users. Safari 2 has been the baseline since OS X 10.4 (Tiger), released April 2005. Safari 3 is the default install for OS X 10.5 (Leopard) users and is also available to Windows users.
You state that IE for Mac (5.2.2) died with OS 9. This is untrue. Safari was not available at all when OS X was released, and then only as a beta as of OS X 10.2 in January 2003. It did not become the default shipping browser until OS X 10.3 in October 2003. And Explorer for Mac was still included by default as an alternate browser as part of the OS install up to but not including OS X 10.4 in April 2005.
Your points about supporting IE6 are overall valid, but you’re either using the wrong data or willingly bending the truth to support your arguments.
One final point, as others have pointed out … One should run stats on their own customers and not listen to the “overall” stats of the industry. And even then, stats should be used as a guideline, not gospel as to who your users are.
If for your own site, you find that IE6 customers are an insignificant audience to support (dollars they bring in vs. the cost to support them), then it is 100% okay to drop all support for them. The point is IE6 is a dying browser. It’s statistics will only go down, not up.
Final final point, I swear.
While it’s okay to deem a browser (IE6) unsupportable, browser lockout is almost always a bad idea (except when lockout is a less frustrating experience to the end user than the broken one they’d receive).
Good last remarks John — appreciate the comments!
I am really happy to see some good discussion around the topic.
I’m sorry, but I disagree. Programs are designed to run on the platform that is around when it was currently built, otherwise there would be no progression. It’s that way for all programs, try calling the makers of Fry Cry 2 and telling them that their game is broken. When you tell them you are running Windows 98, they will tell you to upgrade. Web applications are no different than other applications, they should have a minimim requirement to run the site, and if the user does not meet the minimum requirement, just like with other software, they can choose to upgrade (which is free and I can point them to the page to click), or they can not use the site. It sucks, but that’s the way it is, we would have no progression in other application areas like gaming without requiring the user to upgrade, and the insistance of supporting an archiac technology on the web is killing progression in the internet as well.
I agree Doc… Great points… I think this is the main point of the push to kill IE6… it impedes progress for so many users of the web. If we are to be advocates for usability and accessibility we must make users (and their employers) aware of IE6s shortcomings. Like i said many businesses will continue to code for IE6 simply because they have clients that depend on it for one reason or another but it is sort of like how government has mandated that all broadcasts must be digital by next year… TV owners are being forced to upgrade their technology or be left behind. I think what a large part of the design (and development) community is doing is being that knowledgeable body to say to the users this is outdated technology. There is no reason that a user can’t run IE6 for mission critical sites & application and an up to date browser for everything else on the web. It is a simple browser upgrade.
Comparing the upgrade from Windows 98 to the upgrade from IE6 isn’t really fair. Windows XP had many many more reasons for the average computer user to upgrade than IE7 had for the average computer user. You have to remember, for a sizable percentage of the web world, IE6 is a perfectly fine browser and all they see are a few sparatic broken website — you keep forgetting one of the fundamental points in my article, you are a geek and you know what is flawed about IE6; the average user sees broken websites where you see broken browsers. You can’t ask non-geeks to be geeks; your argument isn’t holding up; that is why now seven years into IE6, it is still one of the largest used browsers on the market, next to IE7 and Firefox. IE6 is one of the top three most popular browsers; in contrast, Safari and Opera are two of the least popular.
What you want and what is, that is the reality I am asking of you; the reality I am asking that you see. Yes, IE6 is terrible, but NO, the people on it see little wrong with it. People outside this geekdom don’t see a need to upgrade their browsers, it just isn’t a common task. And while Windows XP did many things well, it didn’t have a great way to allow users to upgrade that browswer. Yes, you and I know it is easy … most IE6 users don’t see it that way and again, they don’t see the need to do so.
You can’t say that group of users is wrong, dumb or ignorant — that is life. When we design and build systems (on and offline), we have to make them idiot proof, because that is sort of human nature. As designers (whether aesthetic or technical) we are tasked with making things intuitive.
Interesting. It’s hard not to applaud such efforts. ;) I think we are all on the same page in WANTING to not have to support IE6.
I know I’ll still be supporting it though, until userbase drops somewhere south of 5%. It keeps dropping month by month… we’ll get there.
Of course. Windows 98 has a marginal userbase (0.2% on W3C stats) and can reasonably be ignored by developers.
IE6 unfortunately, still has a significant userbase and cannot be ignored (yet).
There’s the way things should be, and there’s the way things are. I hate IE6 with a seething passion and want it dead as much as everyone else, but the reality is it’s NOT dead, and you can’t ignore 25-35% of your users for anything intended for a mainstream audience.
That being said, I’m all for specialty/targetted sites having minimum browser requirements.
Websites can, however, detect what browser a person is using. If a design doesn’t work in IE6, then a simple message at the top of the screen can inform the user that the site may not work correctly unless they “Click here to download Microsoft Internet Explorer 7.” And if they don’t know why they should bother, another link to a page with screenshots of how the site will look and function in IE7 can help nudge them into upgrading.
Yeah guys … 25% of the web using world are both dicks and morons — that is great.
Even if that is the case, do we not build for them? This will be my last comment related to these types of ignorant comments — I know I can’t win this battle if you are not going to be open minded to the idea that some people just don’t see an issue with IE6.
Browsers are not important to the average web users; it is just this insignificant tool that is their view port into the internet. That is why the majority of the world uses the default browser on their operating system; which is Internet Explorer on Microsoft Windows.
IE6 on Windows XP did a very poor job of alerting users that there is a new browser, that IE7 even exist. I have a Windows XP laptop with IE6; it has all of the default factory settings — this was done intentionally in 2006 for no other reason than to know when the “rest of the world” would be upgrading to IE7 — to this date there has been no update notification and the machine continues to run IE6 as if it were the latest and greatest of its kind. Don’t think that 25% of the web world just said, “oh, a badass awesome upgrade, sweet — but no thanks!”.
This is not, I repeat, NOT about whether people should or should not be upgrading their browsers — this is NOT about what we should be making people do or forcing them to or telling them what to do. This is NOT about “how to use the internet” or whether you are a moron or a dick. This is about building for web experiences based on the environment we know are users are within. We are not here to fight the federal goverment that runs on IE6 or the IT department of major corporations that force IE6 on all of their machines — this is about the governement employee that has no choice, about the employee of the corporation that has no choice — this is about the 78 year old grandma from Idaho that has no clue and just wants to log on to read emails and see pictures of her grandchildren. This is about the “non-tech savvy afraid of computer” user who just wants to turn it on and use it quickly and get off of it — who doesn’t want more than what the manufacturer gave them.
This article is about the user and the user experience. Not about your personal opinions or complains with Microsoft. If the whole world decided they wanted to watch TV outside in the rain, we could call them morons or dicks; we could explain how easy it is to just go inside during the rain — but we should be just creating umbrellas for TVs.
most of that 25% are on Enterprise desktops. Considering that fact, getting websites like Twitter and Facebook, etc to work on IE 6 is not too high of a priority. Business services companies need to worry about IE6… General ppublic sites do not.
Besides… by moving a long witht eh standards (considering 75% of the user base is not on IE 6) we can push those not enterprise users to IE7 and Firefox. if the web is broken for them, they will need to get a new tool to use.
Why should the percentage of web users in those categories be any different than the percentage in the general population? About that percentage of the voting public thinks George W. Bush is a good President, after all.
And because such a large mass of the population thought G. W. Bush is a good President, he was elected to office twice … the masses are what matter — if it were only 5%, Bush wouldn’t be in office and if it were only 5%, IE6 wouldn’t be as much of an issue; if at all.
I have been designing sites since about 1996. Does anyone else remember the tags we used to put up for those who had browsers that did not support frames? “You do not have a modern browser. For the full experience download one for free from IE or NN”
I do not have a problem doing that for that last 20 percent that have not upgraded. We need not design for the least common denominator or the market forces/decisions of one company. We have more power than we give ourselves credit for. We pushed browser adoption in the 90’s and standards in 00’s.
Additionally, target audience should be considered. I should have traffic info or target demographic info available to help in the process of deciding how much IE support should be there. I am sure that IE6 traffic is much less than 23% at digg.com and about 30% at aarp.org
Also consider that many of the 20% that is left out there are probably corporate machines that people can not upgrade themselves so if you are not designing a site for a corporate intranet the number get cut even smaller.
All to say that I will stop considering IE6 when it hits 15% - or less than a year from now - and it can’t come soon enough!
By definition 50% of the population is below average. 25% is way below average. Shall we only type our posts at a 6th grade or lower reading level?
There are more children classified gifted in India than all of American students combined. I guess that mean all of America including you and me by definition are below average by world standards too!
ESAD
Since when did “mass” mean “average” or 50%? It means a large segment of the population; and yes, I’d call 1 out of every 4 web users a large portion of the population.
Are you trying to imply that only 50% of the web users matter? I’d like to believe that most of us are trying to account for at least 85%. Again, this is about “best practices”; I really can’t stress that enough.
Best practice tells us to degrade, to build for the lowest common denominator. To build for those without Javascript and on a screen reader … to build for those without flash or on a mobile device or trying to print to a printer. IE6 for many people is a disability; it is an imparment to using the internet that they cannot control.
If those people are in your intended audience, then yes, absolutely.
Should we stop building wheelchair ramps because only a tiny fraction of the populace uses them?
People in wheelchairs can not choose to walk up steps…. people with IE 6 can choose to move to IE 7.
Precisely BMS. We are not talking about an immutable handicap here.
If someone on the net is building with the expectation that corporate users will come to use their site (B2B companies, Webex, gotomeeting, etc) then they should build with IE6 in mind since most of their traffic will be IE6…. for the rest of the web, like YouTube, Facebook, etc, screw the corporate user, most companies have policies in place to block those site anyway.
I must disagree entirely… who is going to absorb the costs of supporting a user experience in a browser that is entirely flawed and broken and frankly a piece of crap.
Hacks, workarounds, bug tracking and troubleshooting, conditional statements, degrading CSS all take time to build out. Who is going to pay for that?
The customer. In the end the customer always loses out.
They need IE6 support, they cna get it at a higher price point or they don’t support it and hear about it from the people viewing their websites and having a really bad time.
Either way, this browser needs to go away so we can move on (as a community). IE6 is preventing the web user’s experience from going to the next level.
Microsoft could have prevented ALL of this by simplying updating their browser more then twice a decade.
Nick,
For the most part we are going to have to agree to disagree (which is totally cool) … my perspective is that the user experience is first and foremost important. And I agree with you that Microsoft is the blame, I put most of the blame on the fact the Windows Vista was such a poorly designed OS and its inability to get mass adoption is why IE7 never took off like IE6 did.
I should correct you in that IE6 came out in August 2006 and IE7 came in October 2006 — so it was only five years between major releases. We will probably see IE8 officially out of beta and in Windows 7 about five years from 2006 … coming out in late 2010 or early 2011.
I totally agree that IE6 sucks … but sometimes we just have to deal with reality, and the reality is that IE6 is still a dominant force. I build websites for users, not for you or for me or for some battle of standards.
Hi Martin - thanks for replying and sure we can agree to disagree :)
And you are correct.. 5 years apart from major release to major release - still a inexcusable amount of time in this business.
Browsers such as Firefox, Opera, and Safari reach out to their users with smaller updates over time and the net result is a better browser slowly - not a break neck major version release every couple years.
AdipicAcid, your post WAS about an immutable handicap (the lowest 25% of the populace by intelligence), and that’s what I was responding to.
Yes, people can choose to upgrade. And I wish they would as much as you guys (probably more). But they haven’t yet, and you can’t provide a broken experiece for 30% of your audience. Period.
I am curious what kind of websites you guys work on, that you think dropping IE6 is feasible. I was recently rebuilding the support section for a global electronics manufacturer, what would you have us tell them? “We’re not going to support IE6 with this, because that would take some extra effort on our part. All those bazillions of phone calls and emails you’re going to get from IE6 users who can’t use your site? Just tell them all to upgrade. You’re fine with that, right?”
Do you know how quickly they would fire us? And rightfully so.
I think if you paid attention to anything we said, since the enterprise is still sitting in IE 6 land and constitutes most of the IE 6 hits you see, then taking your target audience into account matters when wanting to make money off enterprise customers.
I have paid attention to everything you’ve said. You seem to have this odd opinion that the only market segment that has a significant number of IE6 users is enterprise corporations. If you have any actual data to back that up, please share it.
IE6, as the default browser for Windows XP, is EVERYWHERE, not just large corporations.
Please see my post in #17.1 for some actual statistics. ~30% IE6 usage *globally*, ~50% IE6 in corporations. So yes, more users in enterprise organizations tend to use IE6. That’s a vastly different statement from saying that only enterprise organizations use it in great numbers, which seems to be your position.
Your profile says you work in Healthcare IT? That’s a segment in particular where accessibility should be of paramount importance.
I have no problem with supporting IE6 when my customer base consists of a large segment of IE 6 users.
I think that most web 2.0 type sites should and general do dump IE 6 support because of the cost to their bottom line to go out of their way to support it and the fact that their user base is more tech savvy and uses IE7, FF, and webkit.
Go to a newspaper site, and you get IE6 support. Go to a B2B company site and you get IE6 support. Pop culture sites like /. and newsvine make use of much newer and cooler features of CSS and javascrip that IE6 just does not support. I bet if you asked the guys here they will tell you that their IE6 userbase is tiny.
Actually, slashdot has this interesting junk:
!–[if IE 7]>
!–[if lt IE 7]>
!–[if gte IE 8]>
I don’t know if this is commented out all the time, or just written that way since
I’m not IE.
Also, my site uses some rather advanced user interface work with Prototype and
Ext. Prototype takes care of making sure that everything works in all the browsers,
so we just don’t have problems with IE6. It is perfectly able to run the AJAX
interface that all the other browsers run.
Crap, I can’t get the stylesheet links to show up here on newsvine. Just look at their source.
That interesting junk is a collection of conditional comments and is the recommended way for targeting browsers (usually IE - in this case IE7, less than IE7 or IE8 and above).
Since newsvine probably gets half of its traffic from MSNBC.com these days, I bet newsvine gets a ton more IE6 traffic than you think.
Before the MSNBC influx I might’ve agreed. I wouldn’t be so sure about now though.
I run IE 6 at work and I can guarantee that the CSS is slightly off and the spell check notification pop-ups do not work, etc.
It is functional, but so are most sites in IE 6 with out explicitly fixing the slight problems.
As to the simulation stuff, such things are a waste of time and money if your audience is not going to be heavy IE 6 users.
Slashdot degrades gracefully from its recent upgrades, but they got that basically for free since degraded site is the previous version of the software. If someone were building a slashdot today, they probably would not focus on IE 6 as far as getting everything to work right.
Adam, It is sad and true, lower quality community and lower quality technology :-(
All the things in this article is very true. we need to make our site fully compatible to IE6
If someone releases an approved list of comprehensive IE6 CSS fixes, then I’ll be on board. Until such time?
http://code.google.com/p/ie7-js/
[…] as a web designer you should stop being a dick and support IE6 (the article was aptly titled “Stop Being a Dick, Support IE6″) The general idea is that no matter how crappy IE6 is, it still has a bigger market share (for […]
The only way for this to be solved (in my opinion) is if ALL web designers/developers STOPPED using IE hacks in their CSS. Sure, many people will be pissed, but when they keep wondering why all other sites (and not just certain ones) are looking like crap, THEN they will start to get that it’s the browsers fault. If we keep supporting that piece of crap like we are right now I don’t think we will ever break this cycle.
That being said, I didn’t make my techie website for stupid people, I made it for intelligent people.
-Andrew
[…] (article) […]
Come on guys! I know it’s about the user experience and all, but if you keep designing for IE6 you’re fomenting the “I don’t care about standards” mentality microsoft seems to have, and please don’t tell me about how IE8 will follow standards, because if it wasn’t for firefox and his popularity, microsoft would still be doing crappy-non-standards browsers.
Bring Down IE 6. http://www.bringdownie6.com/
I think the article does a good job of speaking for itself. It isn’t about Microsoft, it is about people. I design for people.
IE6 wastes time and bandwidth …
I understand the premise of what you’re saying Martin. It’s people that matter and we should cater to “The Weakest Link” … but the time has come where even Microsoft personnel will tell you that people “NEED TO” clean-up their hacks or in most cases remove them …
I work with full fledged web applications … AJAX/JavaScript enhanced sites. Getting the look and feel for smaller websites is very doable …
… want to use PNGs … sure go for it … need a little CSS tailoring … sure go for it …
However, let me ask you … ever dealt with users with corrupt javascript.dll files because their systems are out of date. Takes forever to find that out and quite frankly shouldn’t be my responsibility.
So although I understand your premise is people are using it, thus we need to support it … but you gotta look deeper … time has come to say “NO MORE” …
The support for a browser from 2001 goes well beyond simply “Making it Pretty” … it digs into multiple levels of development and even I.T. support …
… having a Web-Standards compliant browser should be allowed system requirement for those of us doing business on the web.
That’s not asking a lot!
I will say (and I should have been clear about this from the start) the basis for my rant was with respect to front-end development; primarily HTML and CSS (and the occasional JavasScript Library like jQuery).
From a back-end development perspective, I completely agree and my limited knowledge of the complexities there lead me to believe that it might be in the best interest to just abandon the support of the browser all together.
I have a much more “intelligent” write-up of my thoughts on IE6 on nclud, “The IE6 Strategy” http://nclud.com/sketchbook/ie6-strategy/
Hi Martin … thank you for sharing both articles …
… I definitely understand your premise of people first … give them what they “Want” …
… letting them know what they “Need” is always the challenge … so although I agree with what you’re saying … I’m definitely leaning toward “Taking IE6 Off of Life Support”
We can definitely disagree there … either way we’ll be fighting the same battle to get people to use Web Standards Compliant browsers.
Good luck with your methodology …
In general, as of this year, I will no longer be supporting IE6. But that doesn’t mean I will go out of my way to break sites for IE6 either. I just will no longer employ new special IE6 hacks, nor will I test sites in IE6. And if an IE6 hack I already coded gets in the way of creating a new feature or upgrading an existing feature, it will go.
My most visited public site is now at 10% IE6 users, and falling, according to the installed Mint analytics software that tests _real_ site visitors.
Here’s the deal. I totally understand the arguments made in this post. However, there is a flip side to those arguments: It can be rational to decide to potentially lose a portion of your audience by no longer caring about them having a good experience. It can be rational from the perspective of saving the time, money and stress from not doing the extra work of supporting them. “Killing off” a part of your site’s audience isn’t the end of the world for anybody. It is a pragmatic business decision.
Look at it this way: If someone can’t use your website the way people with a more contemporary browser can, are they are actually harmed by that? Won’t some of them just simply decide to look at other websites that continue to fully support IE6? Won’t a good majority of them ultimately come to the conclusion that they need to upgrade?
At some point, a web designer has to conclude: While I sympathize with the users stuck with IE6 (or too ignorant [not moronic] to upgrade), it is in the best interests of my development purposes AND the user experiences of the vast majority of users who come to my site, to move on.
Again, the worst that can happen from this rational decision is that I might lose some of my audience.
My position could easily be declared callous or selfish, I understand. But it is rational, and sometimes people have to be left behind (temporarily in most cases) in the cause of progress.
Yes, I’m a geek, but I disagree that this entirely separates me from my users, as I am a user too. I am a smart user (like many others who aren’t even techies) who realizes that sometimes I have to upgrade my software. And when I explain this to users, the vast majority of them are smart enough to understand what I’m saying. I rarely run into the dense person who asks “what’s a web browser and what do you mean by ‘upgrade’”?
Let’s use an analogy. Would it be responsible for drivers of old polluting cars that spew out black smoke to continue driving them, if the reason was that ‘the majority of the people still drive those cars’?
IE6 is infamous for its security holes and non-compliance to web standards. Wouldn’t it be irresponsible to continue supporting IE6 knowing that it is potentially dangerous to use for many online activities such as banking?
Non-compliance to web standards holds back the much needed progress of the young field of web development. Unlike other industries, web development and the general software industry is not mature. It needs to move forward, and as quickly as possible. Holding back progress of web standards (including accessibility standards for disabled people) and accepting security holes in a broken piece of software seems irresponsible.
In addition I want to add:
The arguments in favor of IE6 often fall back on ideological platitudes such as: Why should the users care about understanding what technology they use? It’s their choice. They are king.
Well, there are many many problems with that and I have already described some in my last post. If the user is really king and if we really care about them, then why support IE6 and as a consequence hold back development and proliferation of new accessibility standards and other standards that can increase their quality of life? In the mid to long run, it will hurt them not only web developers.
Let’s not encourage users to use broken software that could even potentially cause financial losses - yes, for the many of you who use IE6 for online banking or e-commerce activities.
The simple reality is that most people don’t care about what browser they use, and they don’t want to be bother by you telling them to change.
Most people don’t care how bad their car pollutes the environment; SUVs continue to increase in sales and the HUMMER isn’t going away anytime soon.
People just don’t care.
I care about usability for users. That is one of the main focuses in the profession that I have my BS for. However, while attending graduate school, I build Web sites as a freelancer to get through school. And when I go to one of my clients with a bill for the hours put into their Web site, they aren’t so understanding when I have to explain to them that it took me x amount of hours to find hacks to make their flash, dropdown menus, and ect.. work correctly in ie6. Which is more unethical, to satisfy usability issues for those who refuse to take the time to update their computers (no matter what OS in windows systems you are running, automatic updates will update your system to the newest browser), or is more unethical to charge your clients for hours you spend making it work for that 17% of users (according to w3c stats today) who like Martin stated Just Don’t Care. It is a little difficult to make that decision, so why not just let the client or owner of the site make the decision for you. If they want to pay you for your extra time, then create a site that will work in most browsers. If not, then make your site according to today’s browser capabilities. There is really no point in arguing about it amongst each other, none of us are dicks really. It is the users choice to upgrade, and as you can tell by the fall in the stats that this is occurring.
[…] Stop being a dick, support IE6 […]
Funny, our company develops sites for Microsoft and they don’t require support for IE6 anymore. I was told specifically not to was time or resources on providing IE6 support, just Ie7-8, Firefox 2-3.5, and Safari 2-4. This has been going on since the release of IE8. They obviously want IE6 to vanish as soon as possible. They seem to be genuinely embarassed by it.
[…] browsers, and devices in order to serve its audience. Martin Ringlein put it best in his post Stop being a dick, support IE6, “We are in the business of creating usable, accessible and intuitive experiences for our […]
I consult for an interactive ad agencies and based our findings, the only reason we actually support IE6 is because the companies we do work for have yet to upgrade. Most of the actual customer base is on FF or IE7 but IT departments in large corporations are apprehensive when it comes to upgrading and therefore, we build in supports for them. It’s now 2010 and I think its time Microsoft starts to phase out support for IE6 and finally force modernization.
[…] Stop being a dick, support IE6 […]