Supporting IE6

Webmonkey

So I've finished my website, works great in IE7/IE8/Firefox/Chrome/Safari etc etc. As a matter of fact it looks perfect in every browser except that horrible IE6 that was released like 9 or 10 years ago yet some people seem to be still using it.

It's just an information website and not any eCommerce thing or anything so I've decided I am not going to mess around hacking my CSS to get it to render correctly in IE6. The code/css is fully compliant to w3 standards so I believe I've done my bit. I'm worried however my client is going to come back complaining that users don't see the site render.

I did come across this however, IE6 Update: http://ie6update.com/ - I'm very tempted to include it!

So have any of you decided to move on and leave IE6 behind? - Because I have!

aidan_walsh

I dislike that approach because unfortunately there are some businesses that still use IE6 for valid reasons internally (using tools that are not updated to use later versions of browsers) and if a small company relies on those but doesn't have user permissions set correctly it is very easy for someone to screw up.

Goodshape

You could have a look at http://code.google.com/chrome/chromeframe/ maybe.

We still support IE6 to an extent but we try not to let it hold us back either. If some advanced feature isn't working in IE6 we'll (usually) either leave it out of the IE6 version or use "graceful degradation" to offer the same functionality with perhaps a little less style.

Webmonkey

aidan_walsh wrote: »

I dislike that approach because unfortunately there are some businesses that still use IE6 for valid reasons internally (using tools that are not updated to use later versions of browsers) and if a small company relies on those but doesn't have user permissions set correctly it is very easy for someone to screw up.

Yeah that is true. However I'd imagine no one will be viewing this site from a company. It's a club website. Doubt we will have any visitors at all really but most will be home users. Anyways I doubt I'll add it. Was funny concept all the same.

Goodshape wrote: »

You could have a look at http://code.google.com/chrome/chromeframe/ maybe.

We still support IE6 to an extent but we try not to let it hold us back either. If some advanced feature isn't working in IE6 we'll (usually) either leave it out of the IE6 version or use "graceful degradation" to offer the same functionality with perhaps a little less style.

That chrome frame is interesting. However, I'm not sure if I'll go that far.

I'll just see what they have to say. I'll have another look into IE6 later, but since there are a lot of floating divs etc for layout it's not going to be fun I'd say

Pixelcraft

I don't like that ie6 update message, it's dishonest, and as Aidan mentioned above some people have no choice. If you're not going to support your design in ie6 to a functional level, feed it a more basic stylesheet, all the functionality will be intact without any issues. It's a tough sell to clients though

Goodshape

Pixelcraft wrote: »

I don't like that ie6 update message, it's dishonest

I don't see how it's dishonest, really. The wording they have isn't great but you can change that (from 'updates required to view' to something like 'for best experience'). It's pretty unobtrusive.

We're actually in the middle of IE6 testing/fixes now for a site we're about to launch and are thinking of putting that message in. It's going to work alright on IE6 but the simple fact is, it's not been built with 10 year old browsers in mind.

Although in this case the site in question is more of an in-house project / product so there's no client as such that we need to explain ourselves to.


One thing we have started doing for more complex designs is separating out IE6 support in the initial contract. Allow the client to save some cash (and save ourselves a huge headache) by leaving it out.

Pixelcraft

Goodshape wrote: »

I don't see how it's dishonest, really. The wording they have isn't great but you can change that (from 'updates required to view' to something like 'for best experience'). It's pretty unobtrusive.

But it's styled as a system/ie message, which in itself is dishonest. While this particular message isn't harmful, it's still a dangerous route to go down imo.

Goodshape wrote: »

One thing we have started doing for more complex designs is separating out IE6 support in the initial contract. Allow the client to save some cash (and save ourselves a huge headache) by leaving it out.

Absolutely, sites shouldn't look the exact same across all browsers - if they do they're being held back, there's so many great features now to take advantage of.

TheWaterboy

Webmonkey wrote: »

So have any of you decided to move on and leave IE6 behind? - Because I have!

Unfortuntly as much as we want to leave IE6 behind we cant fully do so at the moment - there is still quite alot of big multinationals using IE6 and probably will do so until the end of this year at the earliest. Personally I think putting an update IE6 message isnt overly beneficial especially to these people as they simply arent allowed update.

Webmonkey

To be fair I wouldn't actually put that message in if it came to it. Just thought it was a bit funny that all.

As for it looking in IE6, it's almost there, just a bit of white space between divs! - From a functional point of view its good. It's just getting that last bit done is the annoying bit.

Contradicting my opening post a bit but *maybe* I'll come back to it when I've a little more time but the point is, I'm annoyed that people and corporations are still stuck in the old ages but you cannot change that for a while.

bobbytables

I assure you if there was an actual IE6 retirement party I would happily bring the cake. However I agree with the other posters that the above approach could be considered a tad unethical.

I have friends who work for multi-national corporations and their day job leaves them bang in front of IE6 on XP Pro and they have no control. Time further compounds their understanding of cross browser compatibilities and inferior UX. There are workarounds in such cases that are technically possible, but could land them in trouble for breaching their usage agreement @ work if implemented. So that's a NO JOE!.

However if the opportunity cost of upgrading to > IE6 is less than staying put in the context of achieving some company/institution's goals, then that's going to be the factor with greatest impact.

The numbers tied to IE6 are thankfully dropping all the time. There are those users however that are still completely oblivious to browser concerns and have not been given any clear incentive to change what they have.

IMO there is going to have to be a time where web apps become so good/useful that people will do what they need to avail of them properly, even if that means upgrading/changing their browser. For years PC gamers planned costly PC/GPU upgrades in advance of attractive new game releases, yet this mindset, despite not costing a penny, has not lent itself to web applications thus far. Imagine if game developers today had to ensure that their games ran smoothly on a GeForce Ti 4200 with 128MB of RAM on board, because back when IE6 was released in 2002, that's the graphics card I was using.

aidan_walsh

I assure you if there was an actual IE6 retirement party I would happily bring the cake.

Heck, even Microsoft sent flowers to IE 6's funeral.

Some interesting browser usage stats here.
http://www.webdesignerdepot.com/2010/08/will-the-real-browser-stats-please-stand-up/

IE6 is huge in China. Still has significant usage elsewhere, too.

We still support it, and probably will for another 6-12 months. I find if makes us design/develop defensively, so sometimes we'll avoid a design feature so we don't have to deal with hacks to get it to work in IE6. It's not a nice way to have to operate.

kevteljeur

Might I humbly suggest a 'third way' (generally the first way packaged as the second way ): Javascript to 'fix' IE6. Every solution has it's best context, which is to say, dependent on audience, available technologies, required features, etc. On my personal blog, I can throw up a quirky message telling users to go and download a modern browser, because I control all the variables in the context, and it's my choice. If I lose viewers, I don't care.

On a commercial or public site, then it's much tougher. I think that Javascript can give you that way through, where you accept that you need to cater for IE 6, that you need certain features, and that you're not going to code up from IE 6 as your lowest common denominator. The price is that the IE 6 user will take a performance hit and require Javascript, but it is hidden from them. You've temporarily upgraded their browser. Dean Edwards' IE7 library is good for this, or JQuery (I'm a qualified fan of DDRoundies too). You can't discount the performance hit, where the user's machine has to play 'catch-up' in lieu of the browser (if that makes sense). That's not a negligible overhead on a complex site layout.

I had this exact problem just before Christmas with a very high-profile Irish site, which gets massive traffic but is required to be a) visually sophisticated, b) modular and using the highest coding standards, c) accessible and useable by everyone, including IE 6, without losing the fancy features required by a) and b). For my money, using Javascript to assist IE 6 across the line is acceptable. The user gets a decent experience and you don't lose time and money degrading the site design. The key is that with good mark-up, the site still functions without the Javascript, but 99.9% of the time they'll have Javascript switched on.

I was very excited about the Google Frame concept too, but as others have said here the sad fact is that many institutions everywhere are stuck on IE 6 and the user can't upgrade or even install plugins. Probably because of their IT Departments; either because they have custom software that only runs in IE 6, as ActiveX, or because they're waiting for the next OS upgrade.


In effect the web is being held back because of a handful of difficult people. If we took them out, assassinated them all at once, we could be free!


k

bobbytables

Unless users in general are given an incentive to upgrade/change they won't. Many are still completely unaware the core role their browser plays.

"That website is broken"

"I think my computer is acting up"

"God it looks better on your computer, ah those incompetent web designers must have fixed the website since I last looked at it on my computer".

...amongst many other rationales, none of them really paying attention to critical role of the browser itself. That is the problem, and I think it's that problem that needs to be more energetically addressed as opposed to which hack we should implement or how long we will have to wait before we can really start making leaps and bounds in terms of the presentation layer of app design/development.

Goodshape

kevteljeur wrote: »

Might I humbly suggest a 'third way' (generally the first way packaged as the second way ): Javascript to 'fix' IE6.

We do this for some things, rounded corers for instance, but I'm usually hesitant to add more work for ourselves and more overhead for the user -- particularly considering those users on IE6 are most likely on machines that have less resources to put towards rendering web pages. I've also not found a javascript fix that 'just works'. There's usually something that's broken or goes quirky following those fixes. I prefer graceful degradation if possible.

bobbytables wrote: »

Unless users in general are given an incentive to upgrade/change they won't. Many are still completely unaware the core role their browser plays.

I agree. Given control of a site (i.e. not client work) I have little problem showing users an (elegant) upgrade message and indeed I think it's important to make users aware of the need to do so.

pixelburp

kevteljeur wrote: »

Might I humbly suggest a 'third way' (generally the first way packaged as the second way ): Javascript to 'fix' IE6.

The problem I find with JavaScript (Jquery mostly) as a fix for one's IE6 woes is that ... well, there's a lot of bugs to fix. You can start off with the best of intentions to make your site accessible to all, but many hacks, fixes and exceptions later, to take care of those pesky IE6 layout and behaviour bugs you can end up with a bloated site that in the long run is hell to maintain. Particularly if future additions and updates to the clients' sites require that extra bit of time to see how IE6 responds - usually with a screaming fit.

We recently had discussions about IE6 support in our firm & generally it was agreed by all that although it wasn't a major time-sink to support it, a lot of aggravation & time was wasted either fixing IE6 issues (often with superfluous mark-up or scripting) or responding to clients' mistaken complaints that their website was "broken". We figured that in the future IE6 would be dropped from our list of supported browsers in specs & documentation (unless specifically requested for).

Because of that, I'd love to find a simple-to-understand article / breakdown, for clients, on why IE6 is bad m'kay. Just in case someone wondered why we won't support it. It can be hard sometimes to explain in layman's terms and in a non-technical way why IE6 is outdated and a bad tool; it can sometimes come across as us being stubborn, rather than having a sound, practical reason.

kevteljeur wrote: »

I was very excited about the Google Frame concept too, but as others have said here the sad fact is that many institutions everywhere are stuck on IE 6 and the user can't upgrade or even install plugins. Probably because of their IT Departments; either because they have custom software that only runs in IE 6, as ActiveX, or because they're waiting for the next OS upgrade.

My own experience seems to suggest it's not so much the IT department as those immediately above and beside them in the pecking order. Most IT dept. people are web nerds like ourselves and would love to see Chrome or Firefox used across their offices; but to do so means potentially convincing a lot of people to allow the time, money & inconvenience to many employees for minimal benefit. There's nought whinier than an office drone put out for an hour while IT upgrade their machines. And what? I have to learn how to use another interweb browser?? I'm mailing HR about this! :rolleyes:

kevteljeur

Goodshape wrote: »

We do this for some things, rounded corers for instance, but I'm usually hesitant to add more work for ourselves and more overhead for the user -- particularly considering those users on IE6 are most likely on machines that have less resources to put towards rendering web pages. I've also not found a javascript fix that 'just works'. There's usually something that's broken or goes quirky following those fixes. I prefer graceful degradation if possible.

pixelburp wrote: »

The problem I find with JavaScript (Jquery mostly) as a fix for one's IE6 woes is that ... well, there's a lot of bugs to fix. You can start off with the best of intentions to make your site accessible to all, but many hacks, fixes and exceptions later, to take care of those pesky IE6 layout and behaviour bugs you can end up with a bloated site that in the long run is hell to maintain. Particularly if future additions and updates to the clients' sites require that extra bit of time to see how IE6 responds - usually with a screaming fit.

We recently had discussions about IE6 support in our firm & generally it was agreed by all that although it wasn't a major time-sink to support it, a lot of aggravation & time was wasted either fixing IE6 issues (often with superfluous mark-up or scripting) or responding to clients' mistaken complaints that their website was "broken". We figured that in the future IE6 would be dropped from our list of supported browsers in specs & documentation (unless specifically requested for).

I should have clarified, perhaps (because you are right, it is extra work for which you'll get no thanks and definitely no extra money); I consider it an option when the requirements and IE are going to come into conflict, and your options are limited and where it is a possibility to use it. In the ideal world we would leave IE behind but again that user who doesn't understand the failings of the browser they use will take it out on the site (and the brand/entity it represents) rather than Microsoft and IE 6.

Naturally, it does have shortcomings, but like all things, if the shortcomings are less than the shortcomings of the status quo or other solutions, it's a runner. Dean Edwards' IE7 library solves many problems, but the file is sizable, adds considerable overhead, and also fixes a few bugs one might actually rely on in IE 6 to over coming missing features. And when it does break something, it's a show-stopper. JQuery is better on that front and one might be using it already but fixing bugs with this is indeed time consuming due to using it for specific issues on specific items (fixing positioning and box model issues on specific layout items) which requires bespoke code.

It's a balance. Shame they didn't just go for the IE 9 'Support all the standards and do it well' approach from the outset


k