Stop IE6 campaign - A campaign devoted to wiping IE6 off the web(stopie6.org)
stopie6.org
Stop IE6 campaign - A campaign devoted to wiping IE6 off the web
http://www.stopie6.org/
15 comments
Yes. And then there are also less experienced people who never upgraded any program, don't know how to do it, or even don't understand the concept of "upgrading".
That's why cross-grading to Firefox or similar can be a good idea. They can always fall back to IE6 if they encounter a problem.
The other issue is that many corporates/educational simply don't support or let you install another browser.
The other issue is that many corporates/educational simply don't support or let you install another browser.
The other issue is that many corporates/educational simply don't support or let you install another browser.
This is the single biggest issue, methinks. Even at my company (> 100 people), the majority of non-technical employees do not have the ability to install software on their machines. Our IT department allows technical users to do whatever we need to do, with the caveat that we have to clean up our own messes.
That said, the base Windoze installation here includes IE7.
This is the single biggest issue, methinks. Even at my company (> 100 people), the majority of non-technical employees do not have the ability to install software on their machines. Our IT department allows technical users to do whatever we need to do, with the caveat that we have to clean up our own messes.
That said, the base Windoze installation here includes IE7.
[deleted]
Unfortunately, 25% of the users of my site use IE of some kind, and about half that is IE6. These are people who will either ignore me if I ask them to get a new browser or will never come back.
Look guys, there are reasons that people don't upgrade, some good some bad. The other day a friend's 386 died, and with it all these Lotus 123 documents, now, do I berate them for using obsolete software or attempt to get them back on their feet?
(And yes, it is annoying to support IE6 and I have burned development time doing so. Mostly its "kind of okay" though, since I haven't run into anything too serious.)
Look guys, there are reasons that people don't upgrade, some good some bad. The other day a friend's 386 died, and with it all these Lotus 123 documents, now, do I berate them for using obsolete software or attempt to get them back on their feet?
(And yes, it is annoying to support IE6 and I have burned development time doing so. Mostly its "kind of okay" though, since I haven't run into anything too serious.)
I was asked to provide a little support to a neighbour the other day - nothing serious but I did notice the Windows 98 machine was running some pretty old software. The owner made his case that the machine did everything he needed just how he liked it so he was going to keep his machine locked down and unchanged. Hard to argue against that as it is exactly the sort of line a great many corporates take - get it working then leave it alone.
Why bring this "Luddite" up? Well he is an active participant in a number of web communities plus does a fair bit of web shopping - he is certainly not the sort of user I would want to exclude from my sites. He will "upgrade" one day when his current PC dies but that could be a while yet.
Why bring this "Luddite" up? Well he is an active participant in a number of web communities plus does a fair bit of web shopping - he is certainly not the sort of user I would want to exclude from my sites. He will "upgrade" one day when his current PC dies but that could be a while yet.
Not so hard to argue: Because it is antisocial.
In the case of your neighbour with that careless attitude, there is a good chance his computer is part of a botnet or at least infected with some virus. Therefore a source of spam and even denial of service attacks.
I'm sure a lot of people felt the same a hundred years ago with old schoolers refusing to keep their horses away and just leaving manure all over the place. I'm sure car owners hated them the most. (Just to add a colourful simil.)
In the case of your neighbour with that careless attitude, there is a good chance his computer is part of a botnet or at least infected with some virus. Therefore a source of spam and even denial of service attacks.
I'm sure a lot of people felt the same a hundred years ago with old schoolers refusing to keep their horses away and just leaving manure all over the place. I'm sure car owners hated them the most. (Just to add a colourful simil.)
Well, often times, browser choice is out of your control.
Anyway, my view is that this kind of attacks the problem from the wrong end. (Ideally people would have up to date software because it just happened for them.) I think telling people their software is deficient just hurts the cause because it makes them angry at the web and not the browser.
(PS: I've worked at places standardized on Ubuntu Dapper. Its so old that getting Firefox 2 was a hack, and forget about Firefox 3... so the other end is similar, though perhaps not as deleterious to webmasters.)
Anyway, my view is that this kind of attacks the problem from the wrong end. (Ideally people would have up to date software because it just happened for them.) I think telling people their software is deficient just hurts the cause because it makes them angry at the web and not the browser.
(PS: I've worked at places standardized on Ubuntu Dapper. Its so old that getting Firefox 2 was a hack, and forget about Firefox 3... so the other end is similar, though perhaps not as deleterious to webmasters.)
That doesn't sound right. Windows 98 had no webservices running by default, so I would say it's actually a rather safe choice.
Drive-by Installs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drive-by_download
This is the wild frontier in computer security right now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drive-by_download
This is the wild frontier in computer security right now.
But how many of those will still run on 98? ;-)
They aim to old vulnerable versions in particular because the chances to infect are just higher. There are millions of unpatched Windows 98 online, specially in developing countries.
Maybe you are right - I don't have any numbers on that.
Anyway, most people I know which still run Windows 98 don't do it because they like the system, but because newer Windows versions don't run on their hardware.
Anyway, most people I know which still run Windows 98 don't do it because they like the system, but because newer Windows versions don't run on their hardware.
I have a similar story, but with a different outcome.. My mother was running windows 95 on a old PC, and she had some trouble. I looked at it, decided I needed to re-install, and told her that I wanted to put Ubuntu on it. There was a bit of worry if she'd be able to figure it out, and I told her yes, and also strongly suggested that when she asks for my help, she should be willing to accept my recommendations.
Voila, Ubuntu installed and a brief, "wow, I'm actually running linux now?", and she was happy. Firefox, Thunderbird and OpenOffice FTW.
Corporations with archaic IT operations procedures will be difficult, but the Windows 98-neighbours and mothers of the world need to start using Ubuntu.
Voila, Ubuntu installed and a brief, "wow, I'm actually running linux now?", and she was happy. Firefox, Thunderbird and OpenOffice FTW.
Corporations with archaic IT operations procedures will be difficult, but the Windows 98-neighbours and mothers of the world need to start using Ubuntu.
Completely agree. My mother is happy with Ubuntu too.
I fail to see how this sort of thing will make a difference. IE 6 may suck, but the people who choose it (mostly corporate IT departments) have very valid reasons. Their intranets and other such programs were designed for IE6. Upgrading would cost them money, since they'd likely have to de-hackify them, and there would be no benefit.
In fact, their hope is probably that their workers don't spend their days surfing the rest of the web, so why would they want to make that a more pleasant experience? It would make little or no sense for many of them to upgrade, and so they won't, no matter how many websites plead with them to.
In fact, their hope is probably that their workers don't spend their days surfing the rest of the web, so why would they want to make that a more pleasant experience? It would make little or no sense for many of them to upgrade, and so they won't, no matter how many websites plead with them to.
We don't support IE6 on our web app, just IE7, Firefox2/3, Safari 3 (and Chrome works fine). We didn't give up on IE6 lightly, but we use a lot of javascript and getting it to work correctly on IE6 would have taken a lot of time, that we decided to spend on making the app better for the more modern browsers. We realise we're losing some potential customers, but have to balance that against having a better product for the browsers we do support.
As we currently appeal to a mainly early-adopter crowd, then it's not a big deal for us: only a small proportion of our site visitors use IE6 (FF is the most popular). Hopefully once we go a but more mainstream, even the big corporations will have got round to upgrading!
As we currently appeal to a mainly early-adopter crowd, then it's not a big deal for us: only a small proportion of our site visitors use IE6 (FF is the most popular). Hopefully once we go a but more mainstream, even the big corporations will have got round to upgrading!
[deleted]
As much as I hate IE6, this goes against everything I believe in businesswise.
Willie Sutton robbed banks because "that's where the money is".
I support IE6 because that's where the users are.
Sometimes in business, the predator does what he has to do to eat and the prey whines about the state of the world. This is a perfect example. If you're not nimble and capable enough to meet your customers on their terms, maybe you are prey.
Willie Sutton robbed banks because "that's where the money is".
I support IE6 because that's where the users are.
Sometimes in business, the predator does what he has to do to eat and the prey whines about the state of the world. This is a perfect example. If you're not nimble and capable enough to meet your customers on their terms, maybe you are prey.
This is a prisoner's dilemma. Individually, it makes sense to support IE6, because "that's where the users are." Collectively, however, it exacts major costs in terms of support and user experience.
it exacts major costs in terms of support and user experience
Ah, then maybe the question should be, "How can we support IE6 without exacting major costs in terms of support and user experience?"
You may be surprised how good you really can get once you start thinking outside the quadrilateral.
Ah, then maybe the question should be, "How can we support IE6 without exacting major costs in terms of support and user experience?"
You may be surprised how good you really can get once you start thinking outside the quadrilateral.
Catering to the lowest type of anything in business is always a recipe for bad user experience.
Also, I seem to remember you telling me that you use a computer with a resolution of 800x600. If you also use IE6, then you are, in fact, the lowest technical user on the internet that companies try to support. And that slows progress and means you're part of the problem.
Also, I seem to remember you telling me that you use a computer with a resolution of 800x600. If you also use IE6, then you are, in fact, the lowest technical user on the internet that companies try to support. And that slows progress and means you're part of the problem.
always?
Here we go again, dcurtis. If I remember right, we never reached a resolution (oops) in that discussion and we probably won't now. (By the way, I did enjoy that conversation.)
Yes, I use 800 x 600. I can't see anything larger than that. Period. I already graduated to 19" monitors everywhere and I still need 800 x 600. And many of the 100 million or so people in my age group are in the same boat.
If I have to scroll horizontally, then I don't come back to that site. (Interestingly, I have never had that problem here at hn; maybe pg is on to something - delivering to his users the way they want to see it.)
Over 90% of the people I work with are stuck in cubicles at work on IE, half of them on IE6. They can't change. Their administrators have them locked down. It's not their fault.
You may choose to abandon these people (sometimes by subtly declaring that they're not part of your demographic); I don't.
You may think that I slow progress and am "part of the problem". My customers say otherwise. AFAIC, their vote has priority over yours. That's the whole point.
Here we go again, dcurtis. If I remember right, we never reached a resolution (oops) in that discussion and we probably won't now. (By the way, I did enjoy that conversation.)
Yes, I use 800 x 600. I can't see anything larger than that. Period. I already graduated to 19" monitors everywhere and I still need 800 x 600. And many of the 100 million or so people in my age group are in the same boat.
If I have to scroll horizontally, then I don't come back to that site. (Interestingly, I have never had that problem here at hn; maybe pg is on to something - delivering to his users the way they want to see it.)
Over 90% of the people I work with are stuck in cubicles at work on IE, half of them on IE6. They can't change. Their administrators have them locked down. It's not their fault.
You may choose to abandon these people (sometimes by subtly declaring that they're not part of your demographic); I don't.
You may think that I slow progress and am "part of the problem". My customers say otherwise. AFAIC, their vote has priority over yours. That's the whole point.
I understand your problem and I empathize with you.
But you are at the very, very low end of the experience curve. It makes sense for me, as a designer, to cater to the largest number of people possible, and to provide them the best experience I can. If I continue to cater to the outliers, like yourself, or like a friend of mine who runs a 3560x2056 screen, then I am doing a disservice to the largest segment of my market-- the average user.
If IE 6 were to go extinct, I would be able to provide a better experience for a larger number of people. If no one used 800x600, I would be able to provide a better experience to a larger number of people. Therefore, I will try as hard as I can to make both of those things true. Even if it makes your experience slightly less enjoyable; there will be collateral damage.
But you are at the very, very low end of the experience curve. It makes sense for me, as a designer, to cater to the largest number of people possible, and to provide them the best experience I can. If I continue to cater to the outliers, like yourself, or like a friend of mine who runs a 3560x2056 screen, then I am doing a disservice to the largest segment of my market-- the average user.
If IE 6 were to go extinct, I would be able to provide a better experience for a larger number of people. If no one used 800x600, I would be able to provide a better experience to a larger number of people. Therefore, I will try as hard as I can to make both of those things true. Even if it makes your experience slightly less enjoyable; there will be collateral damage.
cater to the outliers
Yes, catering to outliers sounds like a compromise most wouldn't want to make.
All I'm suggesting is that we use our smarts and cleverness to find a way to deliver to outliers without catering to them and without breaking the bank. Now, that would be a real paradigm shift. (Oooh, I can't believe I said that.)
Yes, catering to outliers sounds like a compromise most wouldn't want to make.
All I'm suggesting is that we use our smarts and cleverness to find a way to deliver to outliers without catering to them and without breaking the bank. Now, that would be a real paradigm shift. (Oooh, I can't believe I said that.)
Ah, now I agree totally with that.
And I've found that you can really easily make something that sort of works OK in IE6 most of the time if you follow all of these suggestions: http://anthonyshort.com.au/blog/comments/how-to-get-cross-br...
And I've found that you can really easily make something that sort of works OK in IE6 most of the time if you follow all of these suggestions: http://anthonyshort.com.au/blog/comments/how-to-get-cross-br...
That paradigm shift is already in full swing. It's called Flash & Silverlight. Do you like it?
Flash and Silverlight break default browser functionality, they're very hard to make flexible past a certain point, they are slow, they require separate plugins, and they don't add anything in terms of usability. In fact, they very often detract from usability.
That's not a good shift.
That's not a good shift.
But that's exactly the result of not dumping old browsers. If developing for the browser drags productivity down as much as it does, mainstream developers will dump the browser, or - more realistically - reduce the browser to a plugin installation platform.
It is. You called it a paradigm shift, however, which it isn't.
I banned IE on my personal site a little while ago. It's so satisfying not having to worry about it.
I banned IE on my personal site a little while ago. It's so satisfying not having to worry about it.
[deleted]
It's not a question of how good you can get. (You do know what a prisoner's dilemma is, right?) It's a question of many developers having to devote man-hours to (1) learning how to support IE6 and (2) implementing that support for every new site design, of the money continually being spent to pay for that support, and of the inferior user experience to IE6 users. This is time and money effectively wasted, the aggregate cost of which exceeds the aggregate cost of IE6 users upgrading/switching browsers.
The longer we have to support IE6, the greater the cost.
The longer we have to support IE6, the greater the cost.
implementing that support for every new site design
If that's what you're doing, then you do have a problem.
How can you deliver content to IE6 users, irregardless of site, without "implementing that support for every new site design"?
Find an elegant answer to this question and change the way you do business. (You do know what a tradeoff override is, right?)
If that's what you're doing, then you do have a problem.
How can you deliver content to IE6 users, irregardless of site, without "implementing that support for every new site design"?
Find an elegant answer to this question and change the way you do business. (You do know what a tradeoff override is, right?)
Do you have a universal drop-in solution that you'd like to share? If so, then it renders the IE6 issue moot.
If, on the other hand, you're expecting every developer to discover this solution themselves, then you're only proving my point.
If, on the other hand, you're expecting every developer to discover this solution themselves, then you're only proving my point.
I would argue that the cost of support and the inferior user experience have not exceeded the cost of IE6 users upgrading/switching browsers. If that were the case, this thread wouldn't exist.
That said, I hate IE6 as much as the next guy...
That said, I hate IE6 as much as the next guy...
The question is whether users are using IE6 voluntarily or just accidentially or because they are forced to do so. Maybe they need a reason to upgrade and giving them that reason may actually help them in terms of security and productivity.
Also, the cost of developing for IE6 is being passed on to users, be it in the form of fewer features or loads annoying adverts. They may not know that and are therefore unable to make a deliberate decision.
Also, the cost of developing for IE6 is being passed on to users, be it in the form of fewer features or loads annoying adverts. They may not know that and are therefore unable to make a deliberate decision.
In http://www.stopie6.org/spread-t he-word ,
it would be better if you change src for img tags to absolute urls and not relative ones... that will make it easier for banners to appear on my/(anyone's else's) pages/blogs.
i.e. change ###img src="120_60.gif" alt="Stop IE6 campaign logo" width="120" height="60"###
to ###img src="http://www.stopie6.org /img/badges/120_60.gif" alt="Stop IE6 campaign logo" width="120" height="60"###
:)
i.e. change ###img src="120_60.gif" alt="Stop IE6 campaign logo" width="120" height="60"###
to ###img src="http://www.stopie6.org /img/badges/120_60.gif" alt="Stop IE6 campaign logo" width="120" height="60"###
:)
We just got a contract that will fund several months of development for our startup - maybe close to a year. The client uses IE6. You think I'm going to tell them they have to upgrade?
I humbly believe that evolution/capitalistic markets would wipe IE6 out for the haters, no banners necessary.
If IE6 actually succeeds on merit (which I agree with the crowd is very unlikely), then you know what? They earned it.
To that end, I say, let it try prove itself - if it can.
If IE6 actually succeeds on merit (which I agree with the crowd is very unlikely), then you know what? They earned it.
To that end, I say, let it try prove itself - if it can.
Well you can consider Streetread ( http://www.streetread.com ) a member. Try accessing the homepage w/ IE 6...
Big supporter of this..
Big supporter of this..
And how is a page like that any different to the hundreds of websites that used to display "sorry, your browser is incompatible" to Firefox/Opera users?
I thought we'd moved away from this blind alienation years ago.
I thought we'd moved away from this blind alienation years ago.
Using this thing in tolerant mode just displays a note for the user. I think it's perfectly reasonable to not test with IE6 and to display a warning to the effect of "Your browser is very old and known to be buggy. This website might not work right.".
And how is a page like that any different to the hundreds of websites that used to display "sorry, your browser is incompatible" to Firefox/Opera users?
That was a pessimistic approach --- those sites were assuming that the page wouldn't act properly in anything other than (say) IE --- whereas this script is optimistic, assuming it will work, except in this specific case (IE6).
That was a pessimistic approach --- those sites were assuming that the page wouldn't act properly in anything other than (say) IE --- whereas this script is optimistic, assuming it will work, except in this specific case (IE6).
Good point.
I'd (personally) still rather tentatively support IE6. I know for a fact that most of my work clients are running IE6 though, so I have little choice in the matter.
I'd (personally) still rather tentatively support IE6. I know for a fact that most of my work clients are running IE6 though, so I have little choice in the matter.
How long before IE6 dies of natural causes? Predictions?
That probably depends on your definition of dying. Usage will drop asymptotically I suppose.
fuzzy definition. But get to the point where it gets little or no support from most developers.
i'm just worried that once they find out there are other browsers it wont be long until they discover adblock. then it'll be bye, bye internet :)
I hate IE too. Its way too slow
People who run IE6 are like people who drive SUVs. They don't really care what anybody else has to put up with (gas prices, environmental impact, physical danger... or development costs, code quality, and spyware).
I don't use IE6, I don't like IE6, I even run an IE "hatelisting" - but the reality is that IE6 is not going anywhere any time soon.