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?"
Easy Answer (Score:3, Interesting)
How well do your current pages support Lynx?
Does that answer the question?
And how much code is there that is IE6 specific that IE7/8 isnt compatible with?
No more support (Score:2, Interesting)
All of my sites now use browser detection for Firefox 2.* and IE versions prior to 8 and sends the user to a page giving them download options. It'd be nice if more people did the same.
Yes and No (Score:3, Interesting)
At my web development company we officially stopped testing our sites on IE6 last year. However, we do still test sites in IE6 when we know the client is specifically using that browser (so they don't complain). However, IE7 is still pretty common among XP users, so we still have to test all sites on IE7 and IE8.
Though as far as we're concerned, IE6 is dead.
Corporations. (Score:4, Interesting)
That's what it comes down to: corporations. There are still too many 10,000+ employee corporations out there that run Windows XP with the Flash 7 plug-in and IE6. You have to support that or there is no client.
I'm posting this from IE6. HELP! (Score:5, Interesting)
Measure it... (Score:4, Interesting)
... as you've done. What percentage of those IE users are still running IE6/7? Then ask yourself, "Am I willing to lose X% of my visitors to save Y% of coding effort?"
For any typical website which depends on traffic for revenue, I'd say you'd have to be nuts to cut support for IE 6/7; thats about 35% [wikipedia.org] of the visitors to your site. The fact that only 5% (and not 62%) of your visitors use IE at all, however, indicates that you're not running a typical site (or there's an error in your metrics collection).
Standards Compliant (Score:5, Interesting)
I (attempt) to keep my websites standards compliant. If it works in your browser, great. If not, not my problem. I'm not jumping through hoops to help support companies actively ignoring agreed upon standards.
However, I'm also not financially dependent on my websites...
Hell no! (Score:5, Interesting)
Remember: The only thing you can achieve by supporting those “browsers”, is to be an enabler. Basically the only reason those people still use IE, is because they can. And the only reason they still can, is because you still code for IE 6/7. And the only reason you do that, is because people still use them.
Do you see the circular logic here?
Someone has to break the cycle. And you can bet your ass that it won’t be the users. It’s your job. It’s mine. After all we’re the experts for a reason.
Don’t be an ass. Be nice. Don’t push them. Pull them. Coming from IE6 to a full-featured modern browser with HTML5-enabled sites, is freakn’ great! It’s like opening the box of your shiny new electronics device (or whatever you like) and playing with it all day long. Get that feeling across! And you will see them getting dragged in in the euphoria, switching in the blink of an eye.
People don’t change anything if they think they don’t have to. It’s called efficiency. But sometimes it’s bad. E.g. when there is a lack of information.
So if you think that they should switch, then just code close to the standards. If they want to use their site, it takes them five minutes to install a recent browser, and they know it for years.
Still supporting IE 6/7 is similar to acting like those EA managers, who would never dare to do something innovative, edgy, fresh or even slightly offending, to get a target group as big as possible... and then ending up with a shitty target group because the result of your work is bland, average, plastic-fantastic, non-innovative, boring shit that nobody hates but that also nobody loves.
Re:I'm posting this from IE6. HELP! (Score:4, Interesting)
I’ll be an example to you:
I left my well-payed day-job because my boss (who was a very powerful player on the net) wouldn’t let go of IE6. (I had to write webapps for that piece of shit.)
I’m happy and would I have the choice, I’d do the exact same thing again. Just earlier. ^^
Our visitors use it... (Score:2, Interesting)
Could the real geeks please stand up? (Score:2, Interesting)
What happened to the tried and tested option of ignoring the browsers you don't want to support; web1.0 was built on these sound principles. When we could not access the site due to the webmaster (remember them?) implementing the latest Netscape tag, we would assume it was our fault and upgrade.
I blame agile development practices for worrying about what the user can handle: pussies.
Re:Why redirect them? (Score:1, Interesting)
Yes, but you can let they know why it doesn't work with a big red message. Redirecting them away (effectively banning them) means you're assuming that you know better than your users. You probably do, but what gives you the right to make their upgrade decision for them? Show them why they're wrong, tell them why they should change, but don't force it on them.
An anecdote: I was late to this whole firefox party. I used ie5.0 for many, manny years. Way longer than any sane geek. Eventually I got firefox for websites that just plain didn't work in ie5, but I still used ie5 as my primary broswer. It wasn't until the majority of websites I went to became unusable due to ie5's degenerate CSS engine that I gave it up. (Slashdot is particularly hilarious in ie5 these days.)
The point is that any time I got to a website that had a blanket redirect based on my user-agent, I left that site, never to return. Nobody but nobody was going to *force* me to upgrade, and I suspect this is a common sentiment among old browser users.
The best way to get users of old, crappy browsers to upgrade is to make pages that don't work right (and let them know why they don't work right). But don't ban them. Banning them will only inspire most of them to give you the finger and keep using their browser of choice out of spite. It will *reduce* the likelyhood that they will upgrade, and will accomplish nothing but pissing them off.
Like several other people have already said--don't waste time supporting stuff you think is too old, just let the web standards death march leave them behind.
Re:Why redirect them? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Why redirect them? (Score:1, Interesting)
Bad idea. If GP is under a regime that mandates IE6, they are probably also under held to terms of use that state they are unable to install additional software. That's the situation I'm under (UK.gov).
I get a little annoyed when sites point-blank refuse to entertain IE6 because of zealotry. I use Firefox / Opera at home and provide Firefox as the default browser on any machines I build in my spare time. I'm not unaware of alternative browsers, just hamstrung by policies.
I'd go so far as to suggest that a fairly extensive proportion of users still restricted to IE6 are those in large corporates / government bodies where IE6 is "the standard" due to activex kludges or whatever. Whether a developer should support IE6 would therefore be predicated on whether such traffic forms part of your target market.
Re:Why redirect them? (Score:1, Interesting)
The moderation system is compatible with Konqueror 4.3.2.
(But you'll probably lose your +1 when I post something later in the thread.)
It's our fault, just as much... (Score:3, Interesting)
Though it'd never happen, I'd like to see W3C monitor all web content, and have the power to issue DNS deregistration notices to all non-compliant sites.
Dear Sir,
we have determined that you site, www.microsoft.com, is not compliant with the W3C 'xhtml1-transitional' standard it claims to implement. You are advised that you have 14 days in which to make the aforesaid site fully compliant. Failure to do so will result in the immediate suspension of your Domain Name registration, until such time your compliance is proven.
Have a pleasant day.
IE6/7 is too prevelant to disregard (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Depends on who you cater to (Score:2, Interesting)
I work with web applications that cater to technical academics (engineering professors and graduate students). One of my apps uses a relatively simple CSS layout that just happens to hide a big block of entry fields when viewed in IE6. I didn't think it would cause a problem, but it causes me to get so many emails from grad students in China who notice the problem.
I thought I would take care of it by putting up a blocking notice for IE6 users that says something like "IE 6 is not supported, please use a different web browser such as IE 7, IE 8, Safari, Firefox, or Opera".
But it just changed the question from the IE 6 users -> "The page says IE 6 isn't supported, what do I do?"
When I helpfully explain by repeating the note in the warning, some do try another browser with success and report back, others say they cannot.
Chinese Slashdotters: Is IE 6 mandated in some Universities?
Re:Why redirect them? (Score:3, Interesting)
I have one user who is still on a Windows 2000 platform. Last I knew Win2000 didn't support IE7 (and I assume IE8 by extension). He's been bitching about "certain" websites not working properly, which I am about 99% certain is because a lot of websites just aren't bothering to support IE6. I told him to use Firefox, he bitched about that, I threw my hands up in disgust and left him to rot. Then he installed Firefox and bitched about Firefox not doing what IE does.
Some people are beyond redemption.
Re:Wish we could :-/ (Score:4, Interesting)
I've been on the other end of this: I got sent out to work with a Korean customer on-site. They wouldn't allow our machine to be connected to their LAN without installing some security software (name and shame: Waterwall).
The installation goes halfway through and fails obscurely. Three hours of debugging later they finally realise that I have IE8, but Waterwall only works on IE6 or IE7.
So I try to install IE7. I can't, because IE8 is installed. I try to uninstall IE8. I can't, because our sysadmin is, like, competent, and had set up the laptop with a DVD image with IE8 slipstreamed into it.
I eventually had to borrow an XP disk from the customer and reinstall Windows. Then I installed Microsoft Security Essentials and removed the virus that was on their XP disk.
The real joke? Waterwall blocks web access, enforces encryption on USB keys and recordable media, etc. (It's intended to stop 'information leakage'.) The internet? Wide open. ssh worked fine...
Re:Why redirect them? (Score:3, Interesting)
If only it were that simple. Users (a) aren't always aware that they're using an outdated browser and (b) will therefore simply blame your site rather than their browser. Unless you tell them explicitly their browser is at fault, they will not know.
Re:Depends on who you cater to (Score:3, Interesting)
Setup a Citrix box (or equivalent) for running IE6 and use whatever transparent technology to make it seamless for the users of that ONE web app.
You can then move on, free from the security issues still lurking in IE6. You are also free to upgrade to Windows 7 without using the Virtual XP feature which would double the number of windows PCs you'd need to patch.
Re:IE has Automatic Updates (Score:2, Interesting)
And we're all eager to enable whatever DRM Microsoft deems to push onto our computers. In the form of 'updates.' Oh joy.
Yes, we're really eager for that, and it's good that the self styled experts at Slashdot agree that it's in our best interest to bend over and smile whenever Redmond chooses to install whatever they wish.
Re:Why redirect them? (Score:5, Interesting)
I (primarily) developed and currently support an international business site that gets 18% IE6 visitors. Cutting off IE6 visitors would make a tangible difference in the millions of dollars - the competiton is stiff and finding a nonfunctional website would cause the customer to go directly to someone else. IE6 support was basically an afterthought - I didn't go out of my way to support it but I made sure the site's still usable, even if it doesn't look quite right. I did have to make some changes to the code vs. not testing with IE6 at all, but I didn't have to do any dirty hacks, change the site's appearance or sacrifice any features in the process.
So let's say it took me 10% longer to make sure the site's still accessible with IE6, which cost the company somewhere between "peanuts" and "precisely dick" and didn't affect any other users. Would cutting off almost 1 in 5 users be a good business decision?
Re:Who's got the dough, though? (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually I only have Windows products, so anybody using Safari is either not a potential customer or using Safari on Windows.
Besides, from a commercial point of view, I really don't care how tech savvy my visitors are, I just want them to give me money :)
Since relatively many IE6 users are corporate users and many of my customers are corporate, chances are they are actually looking to buy (atleast much more likely than Safari users or, in fact, average users).