should we still support IE5.0 ?

[valeria_vi]

We are totally redoing our web site and the eternal question of browser support came up. I am trying to push for IE5.5 and up NS6 and up (other older browsers will be directed to a pge asking them to download a web standards compliant browser). It seemed like the IT guy in the UK branch of our company agreed as well.

So I built a template as xhtml transitional, no tables at all, divs and styles – w3c validated. He replied back after quite some time saying that it doesn’t show up right on his boss’s computer. I asked what browser the boss has and it is IE5.0. The UK guy said he’ll “explore on this end” and let me know (meaning he’ll explore this end how we can modify the code), but he never did. I said that it is time for an upgrade. As far as I can remember, IE5.0 is from 1999 and we all know how web changed since then.

Now the UK marketing management is furious. As I found out this Friday, the entire UK office is still using 5.0 and “they have no problems viewing any other site” but mine. Their claim is that even though version 6 is available, not everybody has it.

I am trying to say that technology is moving forward and I wrote code that is web standards compliant, but not sure how convincing it is. My pages are also shorter because I don’t have the ridiculous amount of nested tables all over, so I say – they load quicker. From your experience, would you say that having standards compliant code saved you development time?

We don’t care about the UK users – they should not end up on our site to begin with (there’s always a “select your country” page that directs to appropriate web site), but we got to have our own sister company be able to view our site.

The biggest argument I can come up with for supporting IE5.0 is that Win2000 comes with it and many people have that OS. But is that enough?

What are your thoughts? Should I stop being “cool” with the web standards deal and support IE5.0? If we never stop supporting - peopel will never upgrade, but on the other hand we don't want to be turning the customers away.

[Webnauts]

If your web site is accessible, then you do not need to worry about older or newer browers.

[Paul_C]

Whether or not to support IE 5 is something I'm wrestling with right now as well (I'm even considering dropping 5.5.) Ultimately, though, it comes down to a cost/benefit analysis - is it worth it in your/your company's specific situation? In mine I'm afraid it will be (argh), but each case needs to be delt with on it's own.

If your web site is accessible, then you do not need to worry about older or newer browers.

I'm sorry but that is complete bull****. The aesthetics of a web page do matter and will play a major role in determining if people use the site (and most sites are there to be used.) You do need to worry about older and newer browsers because these browsers will render your page differently. This isn't always a bad thing (I've had some pleasant surprises with browser quirks before), but it does need to be taken into account in the design process.

Accessibility isn't everything.

[mydster]

I would... I know a lot of people on win 98 with IE 5.

[Webnauts]

I would... I know a lot of people on win 98 with IE 5. [img]images/smilies/smile.gif[/img]

I agree!

By the way can you give us the URL? Maybe we can help more!

[Icheb]

It depends on your site's audience which browsers you should support. If many users have a certain browser, support it. No one is going to upgrade their software just to look at one website, they will just vote with their mouse and go elsewhere.

[Travis]

I have said in another thread that I was considering not supporting IE5 because it didn't support my website and I would have to drop some features to make it work. Then I realized that I had already done that somewhat to make it work in IE6 and that one less feature wouldn't hurt much more. I would say that you should at least try to make the site usable in IE5, even if it looks a lot better in Moz. A quick way to do this is to use child selectors to override IE-only CSS. Ex:

#main {
    margin: 10px;
    margin-top: 0; <--IE messes up with a top margin
    }

body>#main {
    margin-top: 10px; <--give the setting back, IE won't see this
    }

[Webnauts]

I think you would be interested to have a look here:

http://www.sitenavigation.net/snguide.html

[valeria_vi]

the url is http://nimlok.com.new_site/final
it is in the development stage, but you'll see.
i only have 5.5 and 6 to test. don't even have 5.0 can anybody post ascreenshot?

[valeria_vi]

we manufacture and design trade show exhibits so we have to look good. looking acceptable is not an option for us because it will greatly scew the corporate image and the message.

[Webnauts]

Whether or not to support IE 5 is something I'm wrestling with right now as well (I'm even considering dropping 5.5.) Ultimately, though, it comes down to a cost/benefit analysis - is it worth it in your/your company's specific situation? In mine I'm afraid it will be (argh), but each case needs to be delt with on it's own.



I'm sorry but that is complete bull****. The aesthetics of a web page do matter and will play a major role in determining if people use the site (and most sites are there to be used.) You do need to worry about older and newer browsers because these browsers will render your page differently. This isn't always a bad thing (I've had some pleasant surprises with browser quirks before), but it does need to be taken into account in the design process.

Accessibility isn't everything.

Well it is my point of view if I am telling BULL***!!!
I am just maybe too concerned to have the highest possible number of audience.

Sorry for the BULL***, but I will not make any comments here in the future.

Good luck!

[redux]

ok, let's all calm down for a second...
my GBP0.02 on the issue: if you can live with a site that looks great in modern browsers but degrades gracefully (as opposed to completely falling apart in anything but the latest, standards-compliant versions), then you CAN use all the latest techniques and still cater for older versions. if it absolutely has to look 100% the same in each and every version of the browser, then stick with old, transitional, possibly table-based design and therefore support version 5 and below...

[valeria_vi]

i came home, uninstalled my ie and it restored to default, which is 5.00.3502.1000 on w2k.
looked at the site - shows up pretty much perfect (just padding screwed up in one insignifican place).

i don't think the uk guys are lying, but then ... may be they use a different os. dunno. i'm gonna start another thread asking people with 5.0 to take a look.

[JMulder]

I've always had a different point of view on these things (as a visitor of a website).

If you want to climb the mountain, get the right equipment. Because we're not going to flatten the mountain for you to climb it.

The problem is the users aren't well aware enough that if they upgrade or switch browser they will see better rendered websites. I am aware that this point of view is pretty hard to push through in a company environment, but it's worth a try.

Perhaps now is the time to start converting people. We all know Microsoft isn't planning to come with a new browser within the next 3 years so we need to start looking for alternatives. If companies rely on Microsoft's browsers only would that mean we would still be using IE5.0 3 years from now? That would be insane ..

It's always interesting to see that companies are willing to spend money on the latest technology for a coffee machine but not on their browsers. I agree, IE5 is too old and not good enough to be even considered as a reasonable browser capable of rendering websites well.

But then again, who am I? Just an amateur with a view

[valeria_vi]

JMulder,
you're the dream user of most (if not all) web designers! wished all users were like you! hehehe
i guess if every web site suddenly just stopped supporting old browsers like that, they woul dreally have no choice. but as long as the majority of the sites do, i'm afraid we might be turning the users away because then they will definitely say "i can view any other site but yours. why is it so special anyway?". that's why this thread is here.

[Icheb]

On the other hand, if every site is properly viewable in IE 5, why should the users upgrade their browsers?
Everything is working just fine for them.

[vgarcia]

On the other hand, if every site is properly viewable in IE 5, why should the users upgrade their browsers?
Everything is working just fine for them.

It's the same chicken-and-egg problem that plagued us all with Netscape 4. People won't upgrade their browser if every page they view works fine, but then developers have to bend over backwards to make their pages good-looking in those archaic browsers because people won't upgrade.

My view: I'll work around for IE5 now, but in the near future Windows 98 and 2000 will fall by the wayside to XP in terms of popularity, meaning that IE6 will be the baseline browser from that point on.

[JMulder]

JMulder,
you're the dream user of most (if not all) web designers! wished all users were like you! hehehe

Well, ok .. maybe I was cheating a bit and wrote a part of it from a designer's point of view.

It's a nice discussion and I was trying to convince my father to switch browser. All he could come up with (and I don't blame him) was: "But why should I switch if I don't see a noticable difference? Users don't want to learn new software. They want to stick to the old".

I guess he's right and I am not going to try convince him. If I wanted to convince him I would need to explain current and future technologies that could make his browsing experience more pleasant. Problem is, I can hardly come up with those other than that technologies would make the life of a designer easier.

It's driving me crazy and I really think Microsoft is indirectly slowing down the 'evolution' of the internet. Afterall, why implement something if the majority of users won't be able to see it anyway?

My view remains that I will work for standards. I will place a clear message that any mis-rendering done by your browser is the developer's fault and not mine. I design for a medium and not for tools.

[Webnauts]

Well, ok .. maybe I was cheating a bit and wrote a part of it from a designer's point of view. [img]images/smilies/wink.gif[/img]

It's a nice discussion and I was trying to convince my father to switch browser. All he could come up with (and I don't blame him) was: "But why should I switch if I don't see a noticable difference? Users don't want to learn new software. They want to stick to the old".

I guess he's right and I am not going to try convince him. If I wanted to convince him I would need to explain current and future technologies that could make his browsing experience more pleasant. Problem is, I can hardly come up with those other than that technologies would make the life of a designer easier.

It's driving me crazy and I really think Microsoft is indirectly slowing down the 'evolution' of the internet. Afterall, why implement something if the majority of users won't be able to see it anyway?

My view remains that I will work for standards. I will place a clear message that any mis-rendering done by your browser is the developer's fault and not mine. I design for a medium and not for tools.

GREAT!!!

[JMulder]

GREAT!!!

I'll take that as a good thing

[Icheb]

Yes, you are designing for a medium, but you also have to take the tools (the browsers) into consideration, which your visitors use to access this medium.

Let's say, just for the sake of argument, you have a site which main audience uses IE 5. You design this site using absolutely standards-compliant, up to date code which renders perfectly in your Opera 7 or whatever, but fails to display on IE 5.
You just lost over 50 % of your users. The loyal users will probably upgrade, but the rest will go to your competitors.
Some people won't even know how to upgrade their browsers, some people are happy they know how to access the internet at all and use whatever they have on their PCs.

So, either code for the medium and for the tools, or lose your main audience (please remember, we are still in that hypothetical scenario).