Is Internet Explorer 6/7 Support Required Now? 512
k33l0r writes "Following Google's announcement ending support for Internet Explorer 6, I find myself wondering whether we (Web developers) really need to continue providing support for IE6 and IE7. Especially when creating Web sites intended for technical audiences, wouldn't it be best to end support for obsoleted browsers? Would this not provide additional incentives to upgrade? Recently I and my colleagues had to decide whether it was worth our time to try to support anything before IE8, and in the end we decided to redirect any IE6/7 user-agent to a separate page explaining that the site is not accessible with IE 6 or 7. This was easy once we saw from our analytics that fewer than 5% of visitors to the site were using IE at all. Have you had to make a choice like this? If so, what was your decision and what was the reasoning behind it?"
Why redirect them? (Score:5, Insightful)
Depends on who you cater to (Score:5, Insightful)
Depends on your clients. If you're talking about a mostly technical crowd? No, probably don't need IE6. If you're talking about a site for corporate users, yea, you need IE6. There are many major companies out there still running IE6 on XP. It sucks, they should all switch to Firefox (Or Chrome, or Opera, or anything but IE), but unfortunately most don't have a choice in the matter. Oh and if you're trying to sell people something, then most likely yet again.
Of course it all depends on what your usage stats/analytic say. Personally, I've not supported IE6 for a long time, but then on most of my sites Firefox is more than 50% of the market.
Not needed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:95% Beats 5% (Score:3, Insightful)
your thinking is the typical fail thinking that persists here on /. that technology sets the agenda not the customer.
Re:Easy Answer (Score:3, Insightful)
How well does page support standards and is it designed that blind people can run it trough voice syntetisator or Lynx to read it with the "blind keyboard".
I would not like that any page is designed for specific browser at all. Was it FF, Opera, Safari, IE etc.
Re:Why redirect them? (Score:2, Insightful)
I consider myself a technical user.
On one of my systems I still use IE6 because (A) my employer requires us to use Sharepoint, and for some "inexplicable" reason Sharepoint only supports a JS HTML editor in IE browsers and (B) because IE7 and IE8 don't allow me to access briefcase folders while browsing the files in those folders at the same time, which I need to do on my laptop.
I wouldn't have a problem with IE6 support ending, but no support != banning.
OTOH, how interresting can a site be for a, if it treat browser versions like this. How much could one possibly learn from a zealot?
Re:sometimes users don't control their machines (Score:4, Insightful)
If "security was tight", IE would not be allowed at all.
Re:No more support (Score:3, Insightful)
I should have clarified. My sites are all now built for HTML5 and every attempt is made to stay standards-compliant.
While users with older browsers are redirected, the entire site (short of the few pages with directions) use those standards and are still visible selects the ``I know my browser was made in the 1800s but I still want to see your site'' link.
It's code and pages that I wrote one and just copy into new sites. *That's* what I wish more people would do. We could all gently urge those who either don't know or don't care and perhaps make the web a better place, one user at a time.
Re:Why redirect them? (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. This is why browser sniffing is bad. Just design it to be standards compliant, and let the browsers that can't follow the standards fail, hopefully gracefully. Blocking IE6 users completely is just pointless.
Re:Not needed (Score:5, Insightful)
And you'll tell your visitors to browse your site with the W3C Validator?
I'm sorry to inform you that most people that might browse your site exist in a realm called "reality", you should visit it some time.
Wish we could :-/ (Score:5, Insightful)
Get rid if IE6? Boy I wish we could. But we can't.
Our 4-man startup software company targets medium sized corporate customers (250-2500 seats) and they are still using lots of old computers with IE6. There are many reasons but a few of the most noticable ones are:
1.) a ton of old Line-of-Business applications still uses IE6 for presentation.
2.) a surprisingly large amount of corporate software uses embedded IE6 components in their GUI.
Most of these corporations have installed newer browsers on their machines (some of them even installed non-MS browsers) but IE6 is still there - under the surface - because critical business applications are still depending on it.
All those Line-of-Business applications are extremely hard to remove. They often solve critical business needs so nobody wants to throw them away. They work and "do the things they were built to do". And since they just work there is no budget to replace them with somerhing else. The people who created them have left the company years ago so nobody really knows exactly how and why they are implemented.
But everbody knows this about their old LOB apps: they neeed IE6, they still work as intended, nobody can tell how to make an alternate solution, and there is no budget to analyze or re-implement them (and why would anybody want to - right?).
I imagine this is quite common for many corporations around the world and not just in my region.
- Jesper
Re:Yes and No (Score:5, Insightful)
My stats indicate more visitor use IE6 than Opera (all versions combined) or Safari (all versions combined).
If IE6 is dead, then so are both Opera and Safari.
The whole premise is faulty (Score:2, Insightful)
The stuff I really want on the web would work fine with Netscape Navigator 3.x and the correct plugins.
Do us all a favor and get rid of CSS, XHTML, and all the other alphabeet soup. Oh, and stop using target _blank. I've held out quite a while, but I think I'm finally going to install one of those script/tag-stripping proxies just so I can get rid of target _blank.
I wanna new window, I'll click right-click and chose "open in new window". That's what it's there for. Oh, and how's that back button compatability thing working out? No? Still not there? Wankers.
Oh, and "get off my lawn".
Re:Not needed (Score:3, Insightful)
And ship'em to gulags if they don't?
Re:Not needed (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. But it's still a good thing to code to the standard, because it's also real that a site is easier to maintain the less browser-spesific hacks it employs.
It also matters what kinda functionality is lost in older browsers. If the site don't work at all with IE6, and 10% of the visitors use that, then that's definitely bad. If (to take a random example) border-radius isn't supported by IE-6, so those 10% visiting with that browser, get square corners rather than rounded ones, that may well be acceptable. (especially since supporting round corners in ie-6 means using fugly badly-maintainable hacks)
Re:Why redirect them? (Score:2, Insightful)
THERE IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE for not being able to support multiple browsers. if you're not supporting links, you're doing it wrong (seriously, how the hell are supposed to work blind's web readers if your site is a javascript meatball?)
now: no need to fix your site every time to have it working with every browser out there.
USE A CROSSPLATFORM LIBRARY
http://dean.edwards.name/IE7/
http://mochikit.com/about.html
http://www.prototypejs.org/
Re:Why redirect them? (Score:1, Insightful)
You could just let IE6 "try its best". And use a big red notice bar at the top with a link explaining it.
...And start telling the customer that IE6 support costs extra. Or the other way: drop IE6 and save money!
Re:I'm posting this from IE6. HELP! (Score:3, Insightful)
Also in some kind of companies (high tech startups) the argument "Google did X" is often very powerful. Tell them that now you are using a technology that someone like Google does not consider usable anymore.
Re:Why redirect them? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why redirect them? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's fairly easy to put a top aligned red warning message that says "Please not: This site is not designed with support for Internet Explorer versions 6 and 7, and may contain errors when viewed."
Blocking people from viewing your page because they're using a browser you don't agree with really rubs people the wrong way. It shouldn't be your job to force someone to upgrade. More often than not, they will just not bother viewing your page and look elsewhere.
Re:Not needed (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, that and my personal opinion is that web sites should have less (X)HTML/CSS/Javascript masturbation. I don't care about the fancy outlook. Content is everything.
Re:Why redirect them? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's even worse than pointless. I'm typing this on IE8, but it identifies itself as 6 to appease some of the dreadful apps used on the intranet. So even though the browser should be perfectly capable of rendering the site, filtering based on browser version will lose yet another set of potential eyeballs.
Re:Why redirect them? (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't be ridiculous. Unless it is just a vanity site where you don't care about your users, you support any browser that is popular. This still includes ie6.
Re:Why redirect them? (Score:2, Insightful)
***Agreed. This is why browser sniffing is bad. Just design it to be standards compliant***
You reckon that the folks who design web sites are even aware that there are standards for HTML? I've never seen much sign of it.
Other than that, you are 100% correct and will continue to be 98% ignored, because doing things in the usual bizarre, gonzo fashion seems to be ever so much fun.
Unfortunately, I have no mod points today.
Well, actually, it wouldn't help if I did have mod points because Slashdot's mod point system is not compatible with Konqueror 3.5.9. I wonder why?
***
Markup Validation Service
Check the markup (HTML, XHTML, ) of Web documents
Jump To:
Validation Output
Errors found while checking this document as HTML 4.01 Strict!
Result: 64 Errors, 2 warning(s)
Address: http://slashdot.org/ [slashdot.org]
Encoding: iso-8859-1(detect automatically)
Doctype: HTML 4.01 StrictInline
Root Element: HTML
Re:Why redirect them? (Score:3, Insightful)
THERE IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE for not being able to support multiple browsers. if you're not supporting links, you're doing it wrong (seriously, how the hell are supposed to work blind's web readers if your site is a javascript meatball?)
This is a great rationale, but 'supporting' often means 'layout' and IE6 screws bacis JS as well...
now: no need to fix your site every time to have it working with every browser out there.
USE A CROSSPLATFORM LIBRARY
Erm, no... From my experience there are still issues btw browsers even using these kinds of libraries.
Re:Hell no! (Score:3, Insightful)
Still supporting IE 6/7 is similar to acting like those EA managers, who would never dare to do something innovative, edgy, fresh or even slightly offending, to get a target group as big as possible...
How do you explain something like Mirror's Edge then?
Re:Why redirect them? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, this is why I did set up the Internet Explorer Awareness Initiative [pieroxy.net].
IE6 is mandatory as it is still in use by more than 5% of our audience. But warning them gently is one option to try and push the users to upgrade !
Re:Why redirect them? (Score:3, Insightful)
> It is a bit ridiculous that the world is paying zillions in development costs so these companies can avoid it. They are parasites.
Uh, how are they holding you hostage?
If you are the one who wants their money or for some other reason want them to use your site and they use IE6, it seems strange to call them parasites.
You don't care about them just drop support for IE6.
If your boss cares about them but you don't that's not their problem.
Re:sometimes users don't control their machines (Score:4, Insightful)
What's tight at these locations is compliance auditing more than security.
In many environments, these compliance requirements have the force of law, and it can be a long up-hill battles to change a poor, "hack" compliance regulation, such as "Use Internet Explorer 6 with these settings and patches", to an effective one (use a browser that supports the following security...).
Since the ostensible purpose of compliance is security, many people mix the two concepts.
Re:Why redirect them? (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree. They should have never included the User Agent string in the protocol. It just leads to people serving different stuff to different browsers, of which insulting banners are a more innocent incarnation. But even those can suck, for various reasons. Before the Chromium-based browsers came out IE6 was the only thing that ran on my computer. Seeing an anti-IE6 banner under those circumstances, especially if the page renders just fine, translates directly into "I won't ever visit this site again." And then there are browser detection bugs. I still see anti-IE6 banners every now and then even though I am not using IE6 any more. And then you get even more fascist banners like "you're not using Firefox, you suck".
Frankly, people should just code to the standards. And keep the page simple, because that tends to look better on all browsers. (The latter has nothing to do with browser bugs of course.)
Re:I'm posting this from IE6. HELP! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why redirect them? (Score:4, Insightful)
Who says that the problem is the organisations running IE6?
Most of them would move off it to IE7 if they could. Really they would. It's not much more (or less) difficult than any other large application - test it, package it, drop it to machines. That's an established and controlled cycle.
The problem is not that they don't want to. The problem is that the enterprise software segment has been very shortsighted.
SAP, PeopleSoft, Seibel. ERP, Human Resources, CRM systems.
Things that organisations put in which are strategic, in a way which deserves block capitals that I'm not quite willing to put it in. But trust me, these things are signed off at board level and cost a truckload of money, so there's a management investment in getting them working at all costs - otherwise they'd have to admit that they were wrong!
And once in, they become very hard to remove. Stuff like PeopleSoft is often tied to processes like leave booking, expense claims and payroll, for example.
Upgrading these systems is not a trivial task. It's one that, even if it's a simple and smooth process, has huge risks. Risks that run towards lost days of business, inability to produce corporate accounts, or handle staffing changes and expense claims. So these systems are upgraded at a glacial pace, with the process being rigorously controlled and methodically run.
Guess which systems a company buys that would require IE6?
I'm sure that they all have versions out now that support IE7 and higher. But the companies running these systems are often one or two versions behind, and have real incentives to avoid change. Incentives that don't even factor in the client web browser's name and version.
And don't forget that these systems are not cheap. The upgrade software bill will be huge, before you even start any work. Another reason to delay, especially once management remembers how expensive and painful it was tweaking and customising these systems to match their organisation's workflows and requirements. Do that again? At huge cost? Barely two years after we last suffered through that? NO WAY!
And so this is how it starts. You can then add the fact that developers then have a standard platform of just one browser, and you soon find any in-house development is tested on just one browser. Which compounds the problem.
It started with enterprise software. It's continued by in-house developers. It has nothing to do with the merits of the client in any way.
And good luck not dealing with such organisations. This, sadly, is the state of pretty much all large organisations...
I'm not defending them, by the way. I'm just trying to help you understand why large organisations are stuck in this rut.
Re:Why redirect them? (Score:3, Insightful)
Updates to IE6 can be had for absolutely no charge, have been for half a decade now. IE7 from Microsoft, Firefox from the Mozilla Foundation.
The software may be available at no cost, but upgrading to IE7 or Firefox could be an extremely expensive business. A lot of companies have web apps and intranet pages that do not render correctly in anything other than IE6. Who pays to update all of that?
Depends on Demographic (Score:4, Insightful)
As a web developer, I hate supporting IE6. It lacks so many things that make the web a better place today (poor CSS support, no PNGs -- yes there are fixes).
I've found it depends on your target demographic. If you are looking at business people, IE6 is still in the ballgame. Offices are still lagging behind in their conversion to modern browsers. This is probably because the IT staff just doesn't care.
In talking with user groups, I've heard people say (frequently) that they prefer Firefox or Chrome at home, but at work aren't allowed to install those browsers -- so they are forced to use IE6 during work hours.
Re:Why redirect them? (Score:3, Insightful)
They drank the koolaid, and the piper's come a calling. Shortcuts inevitably wind up costing you sooner or later, and that's what web sites created solely for IE6 are.
Re:Why redirect them? (Score:3, Insightful)
You can always use a portable version of FF (http://portableapps.com/apps/internet/firefox_portable). No install rights required. And you can use the I/T sanctioned browser for sites that require IE6. Best of both worlds.
Re:Not needed (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, Google Maps would be a bitch to use that way. I use a site frequently that displays a raft of photos to select from. These are categorized by some feature. Again, it would be a bitch to pop up forty-eight different pics in order to select the one I want.
Re:No more support (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's say I'm running a version of OSX that the best it can do is FF2 and now you are automatically sending me to a page telling me how I'm an idiot or how my IT staff should have bought me a new computer or why your website should cast judgment on policy decisions to stay on IE6 at a corporate level.
I don't care that there is a link to return, you obstructed my navigation of your website and I'll likely never return (especially with an insulting reference to the 1800s). Fine for your blog, not so hot for a business when you could have just put a div at the top of the page displaying a warning. *That's* what I wish more people would do. It's a gentle way. Redirecting isn't gentle, unless you're a cowboy and have warped views of gentle.
Re:I'm posting this from IE6. HELP! (Score:2, Insightful)
And when your employer finds out you have a netbook there, maybe you can hang out in the coffee shop and show it off to all your friends. While you peruse Monster and Dice looking for your next job.
Re:Wish we could :-/ (Score:1, Insightful)
but IE6 is still there - under the surface - because critical business applications are still depending on it.
That's fine, but there is no reason that they have to use an application ( IE6) to explore outside their intranet.
Re:Why redirect them? (Score:3, Insightful)
It is woefully out of touch with reality to
- use IE6 on public Internet, ever. No matter how many proxy condoms you wear, you will be infected.
- use a nine year old browser with so many serious flaws for mission critical purposes
- not even think about free, better, safer, faster alternatives.
That your customer has 25000 employees in 30 countries is impressive, but being large is no excuse for lagging NINE YEARS behind the outside world. Being a multi-billion dollar business should yield them enough resources to not stagnate.
When you get too large to move anywhere at all, not even at a snails pace, you starve to death sooner or later. And 25.000 employees is a rather small international corporation, there are much larger ones and they can still move, although changing direction becomes pretty hard.
I bet the 25.000 employee-corp
- has put all them in a shared intranet,
- put up an MS Exchange or similar groupware across all these departments across the globe
- cobbled up an IT landscape of Franksteinian beauty just to have all clients, all servers, all machines in one domain, similar installations and under identical policies.
- they have an IT-infrastructure department directly reporting to the CEO himself, which no dependent company can ever override for whatever reason.
- they trust the client computer halfway across the globe more than any random notebook on dial-up in Nigeria, because they are considered INSIDE the organization.
Different browsers in one machine don't prey on each other, they can coexist. A Firefox installation does not get an IE6 instance to be "unstable" just by sharing the same hard drive. "Stability" is just an excuse for "we don't want to do anything", which bites back when the technological gap between "yours" and "current outside world" becomes too large.
Deploying updates in a timely fashion is the lifeblood of an IT department. Updating from Vista to Windows 7 is a fluid motion of medium risk. Updating from Windows 2000 to Windows 7 or Linux or whatever becomes a serious and risky undertaking.
No one would use outdated trucks or CNC lathes or or ore smelters or whatever for nine years after they became deprecated just because of "stability".
If "stability" is the reason for a company to stand still, it's time to update the resumes.