Haters of IE6 rejoice

[whiskeylover]

Just got this email from google.


Dear Google Apps admin,​

In order to continue to improve our products and deliver more sophisticated features and performance, we are harnessing some of the latest improvements in web browser technology. This includes faster JavaScript processing and new standards like HTML5. As a result, over the course of 2010, we will be phasing out support for Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0 ​as well as other older browsers that are not supported by their own manufacturers.

We plan to begin phasing out support of these older browsers on the Google Docs suite and the Google Sites editor on March 1, 2010. After that point, certain functionality within these applications may have higher latency and may not work correctly in these older browsers. Later in 2010, we will start to phase out support for these browsers for Google Mail and Google Calendar.

Google Apps will continue to support Internet Explorer 7.0 and above, Firefox 3.0 and above, Google Chrome 4.0 and above, and Safari 3.0 and above.

Starting this week, users on these older browsers will see a message in Google Docs and the Google Sites editor explaining this change and asking them to upgrade their browser. We will also alert you again closer to March 1 to remind you of this change.

In 2009, the Google Apps team delivered more than 100 improvements to enhance your product experience. We are aiming to beat that in 2010 and continue to deliver the best and most innovative collaboration products for businesses.

Thank you for your continued support!

Sincerely,

The Google Apps team


Email preferences: You have received this mandatory email service announcement to update you about important changes to your Google Apps product or account.

Google Inc.
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043

[Viva]

That is most of the internet users.

[MasterNetra]

That is most of the internet users.

lol IE6 is evil to work with from a web design stand point as well...not that I ever plan to even consider IE6 in my designs.

[beastrace91]

All I have to say is: Bout flipping time.

IMO the reason so many still use IE6 is because of large companies who have IT that do not let their users choose their web browser of choice in the work place.

~Jeff

[Skripka]

IMO the reason so many still use IE6 is because of large companies who have IT that do not let their users choose their web browser of choice in the work place.

~Jeff

"Choice" has nothing to do with it corp IT policy. 3rd party random user softwares are security and support wildcards and often nightmares. It is relatively easy to give support/service when you know everything that is installed on a hoard of computers. It is a nightmare when you don't.

[beastrace91]

"Choice" has nothing to do with it corp IT policy. 3rd party random user softwares are security and support wildcards and often nightmares. It is relatively easy to give support/service when you know everything that is installed on a hoard of computers. It is a nightmare when you don't.

I'm aware of this (I work IT) - but that being said it is still the reason why IE6 still exists online for the most part...

~Jeff

[LightB]

Like IE8 solves everything. Oh wait, some gov't anal-ysts in the UK said IE8 was safe so it must be.

[samantha_]

Like IE8 solves everything. Oh wait, some gov't anal-ysts in the UK said IE8 was safe so it must be.

ya right...
http://www.wwpi.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8197:critical-zero-day-exploits-hit-internet-explorer-and-adobe-reader&catid=234:information-security&Itemid=2701198

[LightB]

ya right...
http://www.wwpi.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8197:critical-zero-day-exploits-hit-internet-explorer-and-adobe-reader&catid=234:information-security&Itemid=2701198


http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii39/dp021/Onoz.jpg

[HappinessNow]

Dear Google Apps admin,​

In order to continue to improve our products and deliver more sophisticated features and performance, we are harnessing some of the latest improvements in web browser technology. This includes faster JavaScript processing and new standards like HTML5. As a result, over the course of 2010, we will be phasing out support for Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0 as well as other older browsers that are not supported by their own manufacturers.

We plan to begin phasing out support of these older browsers on the Google Docs suite and the Google Sites editor on March 1, 2010. After that point, certain functionality within these applications may have higher latency and may not work correctly in these older browsers. Later in 2010, we will start to phase out support for these browsers for Google Mail and Google Calendar.

Google Apps will continue to support Internet Explorer 7.0 and above, Firefox 3.0 and above, Google Chrome 4.0 and above, and Safari 3.0 and above.

Starting this week, users on these older browsers will see a message in Google Docs and the Google Sites editor explaining this change and asking them to upgrade their browser. We will also alert you again closer to March 1 to remind you of this change.

In 2009, the Google Apps team delivered more than 100 improvements to enhance your product experience. We are aiming to beat that in 2010 and continue to deliver the best and most innovative collaboration products for businesses.

Thank you for your continued support!

Sincerely,

The Google Apps team


Email preferences: You have received this mandatory email service announcement to update you about important changes to your Google Apps product or account.

Google Inc.
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043email from Google

[Psumi]

yay... removal of old browsers.

[lotharmat]

About fscking time!!

[Tibuda]

don't let the past stop the future

[Psychodox]

teehee... makes me feels all fuzzy inside :D

[Queue29]

ya right...
http://www.wwpi.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8197:critical-zero-day-exploits-hit-internet-explorer-and-adobe-reader&catid=234:information-security&Itemid=2701198

You do realize that your beloved Firefox is currently the most insecure [modern] browser, behind Safari, Chrome, and even Internet Explorer?

http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/firefox-now-the-most-vulnerable-browser/

[Frak]

That is most of the internet users.
It's about 30%. Firefox matches it in marketshare.

[lisati]

If I decided to put Win98SE back on my old machine (which would be scary enough in itself for some of our contributors) I could easily be stuck with the copy of IE4 that the install disk puts on (even scarier!)

[saulgoode]

If I decided to put Win98SE back on my old machine (which would be scary enough in itself for some of our contributors) I could easily be stuck with the copy of IE4 that the install disk puts on (even scarier!)
There is a version of Opera that supports 98SE.

[Viva]

It's about 30%. Firefox matches it in marketshare.

I was talking about haters not users, almost everybody hates IE6:tongue:

For all its shortcomings, it has to be said that IE6 had a very simple and easy-to-use interface.

[murderslastcrow]

As long as Google plays it right, I think their dominance on the web can be a good thing, at least in this respect. They seem to be heading largely in the right direction, the direction everyone wants them to.

And of course, we will always have alternatives. :3 No one NEEDS Google, it's just very nice to have. It's about time IE 6 died.

[Sand & Mercury]

Like IE8 solves everything. Oh wait, some gov't anal-ysts in the UK said IE8 was safe so it must be.
It is if you're not an idiot.

If you're an idiot, no browser is safe.

[Old Marcus]

It is if you're not an idiot.

If you're an idiot, no browser is safe.

A minimum of 3 GCSE's at D or higher to get a job in a government department? We're ******.

[caravel]

You do realize that your beloved Firefox is currently the most insecure [modern] browser, behind Safari, Chrome, and even Internet Explorer?

http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/firefox-now-the-most-vulnerable-browser/

Try reading your own links properly before posting eh?


Cenzic’s analysis doesn’t make any distinction between security vulnerabilities that were corrected and vulnerabilities that have actually been exploited in the real world, which means that although Firefox had the most vulnerabilities reported, that doesn’t actually mean its the least secure browser…or that Opera is the most secure.

The difference between Firefox and IE/Opera/Safari is that one is open source and in a state of continuous debugging and patching whereas the latter is your typical, proprietary "only patch it if it gets out" approach. MS security flaws only get found out when an exploit is well, "exploited".

[LightB]

You do realize that your beloved Firefox is currently the most insecure [modern] browser, behind Safari, Chrome, and even Internet Explorer?

http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/firefox-now-the-most-vulnerable-browser/

Not if I put snake oil on it.

[lisati]

There is a version of Opera that supports 98SE.

I think I have an old version of Opera on CD somewhere, but I think I'll stick with Ubuntu on my old machine for now - I've got it set up as a backup machine for occasional use e.g. when my main machine is down.

[howlingmadhowie]

"Choice" has nothing to do with it corp IT policy. 3rd party random user softwares are security and support wildcards and often nightmares. It is relatively easy to give support/service when you know everything that is installed on a hoard of computers. It is a nightmare when you don't.

Well "choice" should have something to do with a corporate IT policy. If you treat your employees like people and let them choose (to some extent) the tools they use and let them structure their own work environment, not only will it reflect well on you as an employer but it will also mean that you are doing the morally right thing.

Obviously a balance has to be found between making life bearable for IT support (as if IT support loves dealing with IE6-related problems) and treating employees like human beings, but many seem to think the sole purpose of "a company" (which is made out of individuals, all of which have a civic duty to be morally nice people individually) is to make money with no regard to its behaviour.

[NCLI]

You do realize that your beloved Firefox is currently the most insecure [modern] browser, behind Safari, Chrome, and even Internet Explorer?

http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/firefox-now-the-most-vulnerable-browser/

Most vulnerabilities discovered, and all fixed, at least according to Secunia, while 38% of the IE8 exploits tracked by Secunia are still unfixed, 24% percent of IE7 exploits are unfixed, and 18% of IE6 exploits. There's no pie chart for FF 3.6 because it's too new. Oh, and Chrome 4.0 has one(The only one discovered so far) unfixed exploit.

http://secunia.com/advisories/graph/?type=sol&period=all&prod=25800
http://secunia.com/advisories/graph/?type=sol&period=all&prod=21625
http://secunia.com/advisories/graph/?type=sol&period=all&prod=12366
http://secunia.com/advisories/graph/?type=sol&period=all&prod=11
http://secunia.com/advisories/graph/?type=sol&period=all&prod=28713

[whiskeylover]

Well "choice" should have something to do with a corporate IT policy. If you treat your employees like people and let them choose (to some extent) the tools they use and let them structure their own work environment, not only will it reflect well on you as an employer but it will also mean that you are doing the morally right thing.

Where do you work? Companies spent millions of dollars on software tools and apps. They don't want users downloading and installing crap off of the internet and using them as the tools of their choice.


Obviously a balance has to be found between making life bearable for IT support (as if IT support loves dealing with IE6-related problems) and treating employees like human beings, but many seem to think the sole purpose of "a company" (which is made out of individuals, all of which have a civic duty to be morally nice people individually) is to make money with no regard to its behaviour.

The job of a corporation IS to make money for its shareholders (or not, if the majority of shareholders choose so.) If I buy stocks in a company, its so that I can make some profits on them, not to see the company display high moral behavior.

[Entropy_Sam]

I've noticed this... at work, we're forced to use IE6, and I can't access Google Wave on it. It suggests that I either install a Chrome plugin for IE (can't due to user restrictions) or give up and use either Firefox, Safari or Chrome (in my case at work, same non-option of course). See the attached image.

Is this an oblique attack on M$' browser? Why don't Google require plugins for the other suggested browsers?

Allow me to rationalise that theory; if I was relatively computer-illiterate, I'd likely be running IE as the default browser on the default Vista/W7 operating system. Seeing a message like that would likely broaden my horizons somewhat. Other browsers exist, huh? Interesting...

Bear in mind they didn't have to mention Firefox and Safari. They could have just offered up links to the Chrome plugin and browser.

Incidentally, if anyone's looking for Wave invites, feel free to PM me as I've got loads spare.

[madnessjack]

Don't hate IE6, it did a damn fine job in when it came out. Yeah, 10 years on, it's a piece of carp, but are people surprised?

[caravel]

Don't hate IE6, it did a damn fine job in when it came out. Yeah, 10 years on, it's a piece of carp, but are people surprised?

No, I think you'll find it was a piece of crap from the start. It was proliferated through bundling - otherwise it would never have become so popular. There have always been better browsers from day one.

[madnessjack]

No, I think you'll find it was a piece of crap from the start. It was proliferated through bundling - otherwise it would never have become so popular. There have always been better browsers from day one.
It does/did the job with elegance and a minimal interface. The majority of Internet users DON'T CARE about web standards, speed in milliseconds, or elitism.

I have never heard a bs-free argument against the use of it.

[ikt]

I enjoy these: (warning contains swears)

http://www.thedonutproject.com/2009/05/22/overly-judgemental-ie6-splash-pages/

[NCLI]

I have never heard a bs-free argument against the use of it.

It makes it much harder to build websites which work for everyone.

Where's the BS in that?

[Frak]

It does/did the job with elegance and a minimal interface. The majority of Internet users DON'T CARE about web standards, speed in milliseconds, or elitism.

The majority of WEB DEVELOPERS DO CARE ABOUT WEB STANDARDS. Ever wonder why some websites look like **** in IE? It's because they don't follow the standard everybody is taught to use. Microsoft wants to use their own method to do things, like reinterpreting the box model (which they failed at).

IE is a piece of crap, period.

[whiskeylover]

The majority of WEB DEVELOPERS DO CARE ABOUT WEB STANDARDS.

Problem is you're paid to satisfy the CUSTOMER's needs, not YOURS.

[koshatnik]

I'm surprised anyone still uses IE fullstop.

[Psumi]

I'm surprised anyone still uses IE fullstop.

I'm not.

My grandma uses it because that's all she knows.

My friend in the UK uses it because he doesn't want to switch, "If it works, don't fix it."

etc.

[whiskeylover]

I'm surprised anyone still uses IE fullstop.

It shouldn't come as a surprise because there are a lot of proprietary web applications (like timecard, for example) built in-house by companies that will only work on a specific version of a browser. Usually, it shouldn't take a lot of man power to upgrade those apps. But big corporations require that any change to their infrastructure be first analyzed, approved, designed, coded, tested etc. And that requires a lot of money. Hence, companies are reluctant.

Disagree all you want. But I've been in these situations more than once.

[caravel]

Problem is you're paid to satisfy the CUSTOMER's needs, not YOURS.
Satisfying the customers' usually entails giving them web standards compliant software, not obsolete software that only runs properly on IE6.

[whiskeylover]

Satisfying the customers' usually entails giving them web standards compliant software, not obsolete software that only runs properly on IE6.

Okay, now substitute "needs" for "demands".

Also, next time you're asked by a client to develop a website, please try to argue with them over compliance and standards, and tell them why you cannot write software for a browser used by a majority of web users. That way other developers can be guaranteed a job that you get fired from.

I'm not saying IE6 is good. I do want it to vanish from the face of the earth. But the truth of the matter is that you can't force users/companies to get rid of it. Although the initiative by google may help a bit.

[madnessjack]

The majority of WEB DEVELOPERS DO CARE ABOUT WEB STANDARDS. Ever wonder why some websites look like **** in IE? It's because they don't follow the standard everybody is taught to use. Microsoft wants to use their own method to do things, like reinterpreting the box model (which they failed at).

IE is a piece of crap, period.
FYI IE6 re-reinterpreted the box model, and of-course MS want you to use their stuff, how's that a criticism?!?

majority of Internet users != majority of web developers

http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-CSS2-19980512/
Note "Recommendation"

Websites should be accessible enough to render in IE6. I use layered transparent PNGs in my websites, and all it took to get it working in IE6 was a single JavaScript file and the layout wasn't fragile enough to break.

[howlingmadhowie]

Problem is you're paid to satisfy the CUSTOMER's needs, not YOURS.

So being paid to do something that's bad for society makes it okay?

[howlingmadhowie]

Okay, now substitute "needs" for "demands".

Also, next time you're asked by a client to develop a website, please try to argue with them over compliance and standards, and tell them why you cannot write software for a browser used by a majority of web users. That way other developers can be guaranteed a job that you get fired from.

I'm not saying IE6 is good. I do want it to vanish from the face of the earth. But the truth of the matter is that you can't force users/companies to get rid of it. Although the initiative by google may help a bit.

It's a strawman argument.

Nobody's saying that there are no jobs for people who write applications for IE6. What a lot of people are saying is that writing publically accessible pages that only work under IE is bad for society. If you want to do that work, then you will be doing something that is bad for society.

[howlingmadhowie]

It does/did the job with elegance and a minimal interface. The majority of Internet users DON'T CARE about web standards, speed in milliseconds, or elitism.

I have never heard a bs-free argument against the use of it.

That's a tremendously weak argument. Until the late 80s nobody cared about the amount of CFCs in domestic fridge-freezers. Does that mean that there was no reason to cut back on them?

[whiskeylover]

So being paid to do something that's bad for society makes it okay?


The customer wanting his apps to run on IE6 is Bad For the Society. AHAHAHAHAAA.

*facepalms*

[tad1073]

I'm aware of this (I work IT) - but that being said it is still the reason why IE6 still exists online for the most part...

~Jeff

Why not just deploy Fx 3.6 across the board, set up roaming profiles etc.

[NCLI]

The customer wanting his apps to run on IE6 is Bad For the Society. AHAHAHAHAAA.

*facepalms*

Yes it is. It wastes both development time and server space, both of which could be used for better things.

[howlingmadhowie]

The customer wanting his apps to run on IE6 is Bad For the Society. AHAHAHAHAAA.

*facepalms*

Yes it is. It perpetuates broken standards and makes competition impossible.

[whiskeylover]

As I said, I want IE6 gone as much as the next guy. All I'm saying is "Good luck with that!"

[NCLI]

As I said, I want IE6 gone as much as the next guy. All I'm saying is "Good luck with that!"

That's not what you've been saying for the past three pages.

[whiskeylover]

That's not what you've been saying for the past three pages.

That is in ADDITION to what I said in the past 3 pages. Learn to read, dude.

[lisati]

Changing tack of the thread here a little bit: a month or two back I decided to visit one of my ISPs web pages. Firt problem: designed for Windows (activex or some such nonsense). Second problem: it refused to work with FF. Third problem: IE8 I wasn't supported, and a popup advised me to "upgrade" to IE6 or IE7. D'oh! No thanks! I found out the information I was after by other means, but a person who isn't particularly tech-savvy could easily end up completely baffled.

[madnessjack]

That's a tremendously weak argument. Until the late 80s nobody cared about the amount of CFCs in domestic fridge-freezers. Does that mean that there was no reason to cut back on them?
WHAT?

How do you conclude IE6 is bad for the environment?!

Give me a consumer argument against IE6, not fridges

@lisati (http://ubuntuforums.org/member.php?u=327635) that reminds me of the days web-pages looked crap in Fx and people genuinely didn't care

[howlingmadhowie]

Where do you work? Companies spent millions of dollars on software tools and apps. They don't want users downloading and installing crap off of the internet and using them as the tools of their choice.



The job of a corporation IS to make money for its shareholders (or not, if the majority of shareholders choose so.) If I buy stocks in a company, its so that I can make some profits on them, not to see the company display high moral behavior.

well that's where we are of vastly different views. i don't think somebody can waiver their moral obligation to society by acting in the name of a company.

has it never occured to you that some people buy shares in morally good companies to support them and show that they find the company morally good?

[howlingmadhowie]

WHAT?

How do you conclude IE6 is bad for the environment?!

Give me a consumer argument against IE6, not fridges

@lisati (http://ubuntuforums.org/member.php?u=327635) that reminds me of the days web-pages looked crap in Fx and people genuinely didn't care

so the only sort of argument you regard as non-bs is a consumer argument? does that mean that for you all arguments based on morality are bs? i'm just wondering.

i'd have thought that arguments against writing public webpages for ie6 are clear.

1/ by supporting ie6 you necessarily cannot use any of the advances used in html and css since 2001.
2/ instead you are forced to write pages which are probably broken in other browsers.
3/ this makes it difficult for people to view your pages perfectly unless they are using windows and have ie6 installed.
4/ this artificially supports a proprietary protocol (html and css according to ie6) instead of supporting a freely-implementable standard.

that the consumer does not tend to know any of this in no way reduces its relevance to the consumer.

[whiskeylover]

has it never occured to you that some people buy shares in morally good companies to support them and show that they find the company morally good?

No, never. It has never occurred to me. I buy shares to make a profit for a better future for my family (granted I haven't made many sane investments in the past.) But that is the goal of 99.99% of the investors. And to say that a company should ignore the stockholders wishes and try to take the moral high ground is not only stupid, but also illegal.

[Tibuda]

1/ by supporting ie6 you necessarily cannot use any of the advances used in html and css since 2001.
Have you heard of graceful degradation or progressive enhancement?

2/ instead you are forced to write pages which are probably broken in other browsers.
3/ this makes it difficult for people to view your pages perfectly unless they are using windows and have ie6 installed.
4/ this artificially supports a proprietary protocol (html and css according to ie6) instead of supporting a freely-implementable standard.
What? Unless you use Flash, you can make pages that work fine on any browser or system including IE6 and W3M. I do.

[Shpongle]

i don't think somebody can waiver their moral obligation to society by acting in the name of a company.

It happens all the time!

[forrestcupp]

Do people still actually care about IE6?

[Frak]

Do people still actually care about IE6?


WHAT?

How do you conclude IE6 is bad for the environment?!


No, never. It has never occurred to me. I buy shares to make a profit for a better future for my family (granted I haven't made many sane investments in the past.) But that is the goal of 99.99% of the investors. And to say that a company should ignore the stockholders wishes and try to take the moral high ground is not only stupid, but also illegal.

These people do.

As for the "satisfy the customers" comment. I charge extra for IE. "Oh, you have horrible business" I have incredible business, in fact, I'm booked for the next four months. I tell them the straight truth: There are 3 other browsers, developed by large, reliable corporations, and theirs can display this better. I can write better features that are fully accessible better. They agree. Their end can save them money, or they can pony up the extra cash. The customers that I do get to switch to most are ones that are covered under Section 508 and DDA(UK). They say they want features X, Y, and Z. I say, I can do that for IE, but it will take Javascript, and not everything I do with Javascript will degrade well. They decide not to pony up the money at all. Many of them now have links on their pages for alternative browsers or encourage their users to install Chrome Frame. Those I do pro bono for never get IE treatment, I refuse to do it. Now, my websites look fine under the newer IE's, but IE6 looks bad. I'm not fixing it, and most of my clients are ok with that. Those who aren't either pony up the cash, or they find another web developer. Either way doesn't phase me, especially since they never argue with Google ending support for IE6 (http://lifehacker.com/5460043/google-apps-drops-support-for-ie6).

"Well, that means better business for those that do." You may be living under a rock, but there's a huge movement of developers refusing to support IE6 on the basis that it's just that old and crappy. We Don't Support IE! (http://www.wedontsupportie.com/)

[whiskeylover]

No, never. It has never occurred to me. I buy shares to make a profit for a better future for my family (granted I haven't made many sane investments in the past.) But that is the goal of 99.99% of the investors. And to say that a company should ignore the stockholders wishes and try to take the moral high ground is not only stupid, but also illegal.


These people do.

Good job taking my comments out of context. You're so clever.

[Frak]

You're so clever.

Agreed.

[howlingmadhowie]

No, never. It has never occurred to me. I buy shares to make a profit for a better future for my family (granted I haven't made many sane investments in the past.) But that is the goal of 99.99% of the investors. And to say that a company should ignore the stockholders wishes and try to take the moral high ground is not only stupid, but also illegal.

so you'd have no qualms buying shares in a morally totally corrupt company if you thought you could make a buck off it. and what's more, you presume to say that almost everybody (99.9%) is exactly like you. and then you continue by saying that if an employee of a company tries to stop moral bankruptcy in the company then they are being stupid and doing something illegal.

i don't think i have to add anything at this point.

[Regenweald]

I think it's a well timed stroke of genius to grab marketshare for Chrome. "Hello Google users, your current brwoser is no longer supported by Google, would you care to try our warm, friendly browser that is ?" Web devs get their standards compliant browser, Google gets one step closer to.... whatever their goal is :)

[Frak]

Google gets one step closer to....

http://imgur.com/W2Ck2.jpg

[madnessjack]

so the only sort of argument you regard as non-bs is a consumer argument? does that mean that for you all arguments based on morality are bs? i'm just wondering.
Yes. Most definitely.


1/ by supporting ie6 you necessarily cannot use any of the advances used in html and css since 2001.
Where's the intensive? You can argue till you're red in the face that advances in web browsing technology have become staggeringly outstanding, but it's just bs. Wow you can use a canvas tag. Wow you can use "free" video instead of one tied to a company. I can't see anyone giving a crap?


2/ instead you are forced to write pages which are probably broken in other browsers.
If your web-sites don't degrade well, you're not a good web-designer. Simple as.


3/ this makes it difficult for people to view your pages perfectly unless they are using windows and have ie6 installed.
Got any examples? This issue certainly doesn't affect me or anyone I know. I work with many applications built for IE6, and IE8's compatibility mode renders and works them 100% fine.


4/ this artificially supports a proprietary protocol (html and css according to ie6) instead of supporting a freely-implementable standard.
There are no *major* web-site crippling flaws in IE6's ability to render what it says it can. Damn right it's not perfect, but again, who cares it doesn't work OR isn't strict to an existing standard? This was especially the case for the time.


that the consumer does not tend to know any of this in no way reduces its relevance to the consumer.
Unless you can provide an incentive or a reason, it does.

[aklo]

I don't know what the fuss is about . One thing i do agree: time to phase out ie6...it is like so old and ancient.

I compare it to people still using win 95 this day...crazy.

[Skripka]

I don't know what the fuss is about . One thing i do agree: time to phase out ie6...it is like so old and ancient.

I compare it to people still using win 95 this day...crazy.

Watch it WipperSnapper. I know folks using Win98 and IE5 still.

"Ancient", indeed. :p

[Frak]

If your web-sites don't degrade well, you're not a good web-designer. Simple as.

Many sites don't degrade well in IE6, period. It does not conform to many modern standards (thanks to it being ancient and Microsoft attempting to re-implement standards the way they saw fit, such as margin 0 auto, the MS implementation of inline that states that inline objects cannot have an explicit width or height, peekaboo bug, double float margin bug, click-through div, guillotine bug, line-height bug, disappearing list-background bug, extra-three-pixel bug, unscrollable content bug, duplicate indent bug, escaping floats bug, and the phantom box bug, etc.) All these, mainly due to Microsoft's reimplementation of the box model, partially due to IE6 being wretchedly old, but mostly due to the former.

Take it from someone with plenty of experience. Doing anything slightly complex will break in IE6, period. Many IE's are still nothing close to standards compliant, even though Microsoft likes to tout it as fully compliant.

That does not make them a bad designer, Microsoft just makes terrible browsers.

[Bungo Pony]

Do people still actually care about IE6?

Yes! There's an activist group on the net who are trying to save it:

http://www.saveie6.com/

[thatguruguy]

Why?

[chillicampari]

Yes! There's an activist group on the net who are trying to save it:

http://www.saveie6.com/

It's satire.

[Regenweald]

http://imgur.com/W2Ck2.jpg

Me and my sis laughed out loud. :P

[Bungo Pony]

It's satire.

You ruined the 'I hate Microsoft' poster making a fool of himself and going on a tyrade of why anybody would make a site like that :(

[madnessjack]

Take it from someone with plenty of experience. Doing anything slightly complex will break in IE6, period. Many IE's are still nothing close to standards compliant, even though Microsoft likes to tout it as fully compliant.
It doesn't NEED to be standards compliant, it needs to render web-pages. A complicated web-site should ALWAYS have an accessible alternative. Facebook has at least 3 alternative versions of which ALL work perfectly under IE6.

Also web-apps (like Google wave): IE6 was NEVER designed for that?!? Google is being evil in implying it should! Google Docs? Ofcourse it doesn't fsckin' work in IE6, does your new game work in your 10 year old game-console???!!??!


That does not make them a bad designer, Microsoft just makes terrible browsers.
No, it REALLY does. Look up semantic HTML. It isn't hard to strip complex CSS from your code to make your pages accessible. Microsoft knew their browser would be really popular and would still be in use in a future where it's way out-of-date, so they gave us conditional comments. That's called future proofing.

You're over-complicated web-site has a print style-sheet right? It has a mobile style-sheet right? Point IE6 at one of them. It really isn't hard.

[Keyper7]

Also web-apps (like Google wave): IE6 was NEVER designed for that?!? Google is being evil in implying it should!

They are not implying it should. It's the opposite: they are admitting it doesn't, so why bother?

As for the rest of your post, your concept of accessibility seems too broad.

There is a difference between "offer an alternative rendering, more adequate for screen readers" and "offer an alternative rendering because a certain stupid browser makes certain CSS commands do the exact opposite of what they are supposed to according to a publicly available standard".

The first is a noble goal worth working for. The second is a waste of time imposed by market share.

[madnessjack]

...and "offer an alternative rendering because a certain stupid browser makes certain CSS commands do the exact opposite of what they are supposed to according to a publicly available standard".
How about "offer an simple version for LEGACY browsers and mobile devices"?

Just out of interest, do you hate old people, too?

[Keyper7]

How about "offer an simple version for LEGACY browsers and mobile devices"?

If by "legacy" you mean "different", it's ok.

Unfortunately, in this case, "legacy" means "wrong".

This is comparable to simulating a bug in new versions of a software because people were used to working around it in previous versions. There is a limit on how much time you can keep doing that. The release of IE7 was more than three years ago, that's a lot of time in computer world.


Just out of interest, do you hate old people, too?

If an old man leashed out a racist insult at me with the excuse that back in his day such an insult was acceptable, I'd tell him that we are not back in his day anymore.

IE6's non-standard implementations might have been acceptable back when it was the most used browser, but people have choice now. More correct choice.

IE6 is not simply "an alternative". It's a wrong implementation of HTML, CSS and Javascript and it's time to let it go.

[madnessjack]

Unfortunately, in this case, "legacy" means "wrong".

[...]

IE6's non-standard implementations might have been acceptable back when it was the most used browser, but people have choice now. What IE6 is simply wrong and it's time to let it go.
No it doesn't, that's just BS

IE6 was widely accepted by the majority or it's users, and according to the current figures still is. If they wanted or needed to change, they would.

For people that use it, it does a good job for them. This isn't about right or wrong according to the W3C or about Microsoft's politics, it's about what the people want, and they don't want anything else. You can't force people to change for something they don't care about, it's just idiotic, and I've said before developers can't moan because it's easy to degrade a good web-site, and very little work.


... It's a wrong implementation of HTML, CSS and Javascript and it's time to let it go.
This is the part users don't care about. If I told the person sitting next to me right now to switch because of that, they'd laugh at me, or call security and get me put away.

[Skripka]

No it doesn't, that's just BS

IE6 was widely accepted by the majority or it's users, and according to the current figures still is. If they wanted or needed to change, they would.

For people that use it, it does a good job for them. This isn't about right or wrong according to the W3C or about Microsoft's politics, it's about what the people want, and they don't want anything else. You can't force people to change for something they don't care about, it's just idiotic, and I've said before developers can't moan because it's easy to degrade a good web-site, and very little work.


This is the part users don't care about. If I told the person sitting next to me right now to switch because of that, they'd laugh at me, or call security and get me put away.

Save IE4.

[Frak]

Save IE4.
I agree.

MadnessJack, your site looks TERRIBLE in IE4. You should lrn2bettercoding. It's what the users want, right? Make your site work in my ancient browser.

[Paqman]

If they wanted or needed to change, they would.

That would only be true if all those people were making an informed decision. Most aren't.

[madnessjack]

That would only be true if all those people were making an informed decision. Most aren't.
Who are you to say the aren't?

This is called elitism folks, get over yourselves

:P

EDIT: FYI my sites looks ace in IE4 thankyou

[Frak]

Who are you to say the aren't?

This is called elitism folks, get over yourselves

:P

EDIT: FYI my sites looks ace in IE4 thankyou
Nope, it isn't centered on the page. You must not know how to fall back on webstandards for old browsers.

Anyhow, we need more standardized, modern browsers to come forth before we can have any large steps in innovation. If everybody goes their own way, the people paving the streets will either 1) Take sides, or 2) Quit.

[joshdudeha]

I think it is a good idea that Google are doing this. Just like how some Microsoft sites only allow you to view them if you're using IE.

IE6 is slowly fading.

[Paqman]

Who are you to say the aren't?

This is called elitism folks, get over yourselves

:P


No elitism here. An awful lot of people genuinely don't give a monkey's about such things. They don't really care about the alternatives, and therefore aren't well informed about them. I'm not judging them for that, it's just a fact.

[Merk42]

No elitism here. An awful lot of people genuinely don't give a monkey's about such things. They don't really care about the alternatives, and therefore aren't well informed about them. I'm not judging them for that, it's just a fact.

I took it as how there can be many people who are informed and/or want change, but can't because the corporate IT policy where they work makes them use IE6.

Either way, a lot of being using IE6 and not because they made a conscious decision to do so.

[Kenny_Strawn]

Yes, and so is IE6 crippled: no tabbed browsing, zero-day, and an outdated UI.

[Tibuda]

Yes, and so is IE6 crippled: no tabbed browsing, zero-day, and an outdated UI.

off course it has an outdated UI. IE6 is from about ten years ago.

[The Real Dave]

"Choice" has nothing to do with it corp IT policy. 3rd party random user softwares are security and support wildcards and often nightmares. It is relatively easy to give support/service when you know everything that is installed on a hoard of computers. It is a nightmare when you don't.

I agree, but its easy to replace IE6 with another, more secure browser before you go imaging a load of PCs. Replacing it is a security measure in itself :)

[whiskeylover]

Just found this on CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/03/04/ie6.funeral/index.html?hpt=Sbin

"'Funeral' being held today for aging Web browser"

[sau99ms]

I'm aware of this (I work IT) - but that being said it is still the reason why IE6 still exists online for the most part...

~Jeff

I really wish my company would ditch IE6 on my work laptop. It's a bloody nightmare to work with so I put Chrome browser on for my personal browsing use and I'm just hoping they don't touch it when they do their 'upgrade' in May.....maybe I should uninstall and reinstall when I get my laptop back? Any thoughts?