Forum Moderators: open
i saw some stats the other day and got very disheartened when i realised that around 60% of 'all' browser usage is IE6. :(
it doesnt particularly bother me that i have to develop seperate style sheets for IE6, its just an annoyance that i have to keep tweaking it to make its 'features' work.
i think one thing that really irked me was that a particular massively global website that dealt with money didn't work in firefox. at all. (by that, none of it's functionality when logged in didn't work) the support guy on the end of the phone even said that it doesnt work in firefox. "Internet explorer only", excellent, use the worlds most insecure browser to deal with cards and money.
has anybody here stopped coding for IE 6?
...also, when can we drop coding for IE7?...;)
i think one thing that really irked me was that a particular massively global website that dealt with money didn't work in firefox. at all. (by that, none of it's functionality when logged in didn't work) the support guy on the end of the phone even said that it doesnt work in firefox. "Internet explorer only", excellent, use the worlds most insecure browser to deal with cards and money.
I had the same response from a large photo developing website - only supports IE. Yep, it irks me too, but I still use them! Even more irk-ing is that my online banking only supports IE!
has anybody here stopped coding for IE 6?
I've only just stopped developing for IE5 - although I still have a quick browse if I have time!
Another recent thread along the same lines:
[webmasterworld.com...]
I take it as a necessary annoyance, however, I simply, positively hate hacks and workarounds and somehow always seem to be able to get IE 6 to play along without alternate style sheets or hacks.
Modifying the last statement a little, if you consider adding "hasLayout:true" or "zoom:100%" a hack, well then, I'm wrong. I have been able to avoid using tricks like the holly hack, IF IE, or other proprietary abominations and benefits by error. Some of these layouts are relatively complex.
Sometimes it requires going back to square one and re-thinking an entire way to get to the same place without changing the design, but it can be done. Haven't found one that won't work so far.
I think that an optimistic view would be that you could consider dropping IE6 support in 2011 or 2012. So don't hold your breath. :)
I think that an optimistic view would be that you could consider dropping IE6 support in 2011 or 2012. So don't hold your breath. :)
isnt that when the mayans said the world will end?
:(
With Windows users now counting in at 1 billion, if, say, half of those machines retain IE6 with no upgrade to IE7, and as little as 5% are still in operation in six years, that will still be twenty five million users.
(And of course, with my luck, all twenty five million will still be logging on to a site that I manage!)
These browsers aren't just used in Asia but are used globally by people with a need to view both English-language and Asian sites. For example the one I have in mind has the ability to input Chinese-language domain names. So it may be sensible to support IE6 look-a-likes even after IE7 has been replaced.
Support is a relative term though. In theory you could just completely ignore IE6, and as long as you aren't doing something absolutely ridiculous, IE6 should still render all the CONTENT, it's just likely most of it would be in a bad position.
I have seen numerous pretty big sites which looks pretty bad using IE6, so it's certainly being done, although the big question is what are the side-effects of that?
[edited by: Xapti at 3:52 pm (utc) on Dec. 4, 2007]
Also you say you design to below IE 5... does that mean you design for Netscape Navigator 3, 2, 1, and such? You may or may not be aware of the pain to get that support, but also, realize by that point you are sacrificing hundreds of new web technologies. I assume you also cater to 800 baud modem connections, keeping your webpages under a few kilobytes?
There's a limit to everything, and those limits should go with the overwhelming majority, which is like 99% of all users using IE6 or better. It's just ridiculously unfortunate how many users are still using the joke disgrace of a browser which it is. Reminds of of the not only 1 term, but double terms the Bush administration served in, but that's off topic...
Something that would have been at least SOMEWHAT helpful, would be if the damn old browsers would at least degrade certain things gracefully, instead of STILL being buggy even when it doesn't support something. There's a limit to the incompetence of some browsers, and IE6 is really up there pushing my limit. As I mentioned previously, even a page which doesn't look IDENTICAL as with the standards compliant browsers, I'm considering just letting IE look different and mess up all it's minor things. The user will still be able to see all the content, it just won't look nice.
I understand the points of using tableless sites. Some of the things you mentioned are nothing more then hype,.. but I want get into that. The point here is,.. if we are to be web developers then this is a fact we must face. Cross browser, cross platform, cross resolution,.. you will agree it's part of the game and always has been. No point in whining about it now this late in the game. (not saying that you are whining) ,.. but this is just a silly topic,.. and not something people should be focused on. This is an issue we have been facing since day one,.. and it's not going away anytime soon.
Plus, Apple Macs moved to a 96 dpi resolution and, given identical CSS values, fonts now render the same (with very, very few exceptions) in all these browsers and platforms.
Much progress.
There's a difference between giving IE6 users an experience that's not quite as "full" versus an experience that looks and feels wrong.
How's this for a philosophy:
Aim at creating the best browsing experience FOR THE MANY, without blocking content FOR THE FEW.
As the stats for useragents change, and you can give more to the many - still, without blocking content FOR THE FEW - then do so.
> isnt that when the mayans said the world will end?
... :) ... <clears throat>
Depending on which Correlation Constant you believe is the "correct" value - the GMT (Goodman-Martinez-Thompson) value of 584,283, or the Thompson (aka Astronomical) value of 584,285 - the Maya calendar will "rollover" on either Friday, December 21, 2012 or Sunday, December 23, 2012, respectively. (Personally, I subscribe to the school of thought that the '283 value is correct, since this value correlates with the calendar still in use in the highlands of Guatemala.)
Cutting to the chase, the Maya date on 2012-12-21 (using the GMT) will be 13.0.0.0.0, which can be thought of as "January 1" in the Gregorian calendar. The calendar and the world will go on, it's just that on that date the world will be engulfed in a Great Deluge which will wipe out humanity and lead to the creation of the fifth "version" of the world. (The first three worlds have come and gone; we live in the fourth.)
Bottom line for webmasters? Given the speed with which Microsoft updates Internet Explorer, there will never be a "IE8." Build for 7, degrade nicely for 6... and buy a boat.
:)
When it comes to mac's DPI, that's virtually irrelevant. DPI is used for physical measurements, the best thing I can think of would be for things such as print preview, and scaled pictures of things (like bugs).
DPI only affects things measured with points/picas/cm/mm/inches, and for it to be accurate, the actual DPI value depends on the user's situation. Things like monitor size and resolution need to correspond to the DPI to get real measurements. For me, that's 120DPI.
On a side note, why the hell does windows operating system uses points for the GUI fonts everywhere? I have no idea.
"BTW I still us IE6,.. and I don't find it to be a ridiculus disgrace of a browser,.. I think thats more on the user,.. not the software. But hey just my opinon. "... What do you mean more on the user? that it's not the browser's fault, but that it's the users, and they're idiots?
IE has hundreds of bugs, has had brutal security holes since release, and does not have many useful features, easy add-ons, or easy customizations. Microsoft failed horribly for many years to correct the bugs (just decided to make new version, much later), and oftentimes took very long times to patch security flaws. Due to the design of their update scheme, many people aren't even getting the updates at all.
There is virtually nothing good about it compared to any other browser, just some people have gotten used to the crap because it's all they've tried.
[edited by: Xapti at 3:54 am (utc) on Dec. 8, 2007]
But in the html/browser field standards are recommended before the battle begins. Contenders then accuse competitors of not being "standard compliant". But in reality the main contender IE has created ipso-facto standards which (IMHO) the W3C should have recognized as the norm. The fact that IE may be considered buggy or insecure (which is debatable) has nothing to do with the central issue.
The IE box model makes more logical sense, and the use of fixed-size fonts gives the designer greater freedom. I suspect that the fact some other browsers allow all fonts to be resized no matter how specified is not due to any desire to do things "correctly", but because the designers have taken the easy way out.
If other technologies had allowed standards writers to get the upper hand we would probably still be listening to 8-track tapes and watching monochrome TV.
And Xapti, if you think it's "irrelevant" that fonts styled at, say, 12px, render differently at 72dpi as opposed to 96 dpi, I don't know what to tell you.
Sniff and branch and loop away, if you like.
The whole point of adopting standards is to take what were once VARIABLES (competing techniques employed by different browsers during the 4.X era) and making them CONSTANTS.
Constants cost a lot less to handle because they're, well..., they're constant! And that's the bottom line.
Hey, did you know that in the early years of the RailRoads, there was no standard for the distance between the tracks?
Cars built for one railway line wouldn't run on the tracks for another railway line.
Good thing they worked that one out, eh?
Anyway, IE6 will live on for many years to come.
As professionals, we just have to deal with it.
