Back on topic: I’m not dropping IE7 support and I don’t think I will at least for another year. After horrifying experiences with IE6 it’s still some relief to deal with IE7 even though it’s the weakest one of the popular browsers.
Fortunately, my experience has been that while IE’s were lacking most of css support many of their flaws can be fairly easily worked around with some non-standard MS stuff, conditional comments, javascript, etc. There are times when I curse Opera more - while their standards support is very high - when there is actually a problem with something it can be very difficult, if possible at all, to find a workaround, I feel like banging my head against the wall. The bad IE has more problems but a practical solution is almost always to be found - be it proprietry or not.
While I support IE7 I allow some minor cosmetic glitches which are not there in better browsers - if I’m not able to find an easy workaround that will not take hours of my precious time.
As to IE6 - I’ve completely dropped support for it and I don’t even bother checking my sites in it. I believe this browser should be dead and I put this belief to practice.
Wow already thinking about dropping IE7! We are struggling to drop IE6 at work so cannot see IE7 going any time soon.
Especially with all those people on Vista and XP not being able to upgrade to IE9 it means that a lot of people will be forever stuck on either IE7 or 8 for at least a decade.
I also love the idea of graceful degredation, progressive enhancement (whichever way you phrase it) but clients don’t. They have seen the design and want it to look and work like that in IE6.
But as others have said, the more you work on these browsers the easier it is. My IE stylesheets get smaller and smaller with each build I do.
They could always upgrade to Safari 3 or Chrome 1 or Firefox 1 or Opera 9 in order to work around the CSS that IE7 is missing - or even IE8.
IE8 only becomes an issue if you want to use XHTML instead of HTML but then all those other browsers are still alternatives there too.
Of course with graceful degradation those using IE7 will not know about all the features that they are missing out on unless they happen to see the same page when visiting someone who isn’t running such a primitive browser. Graceful degradation is unfortunately not available when using XHTML as IE8 and earlier just offer the page as a download because they don’t know how to display it at all.
With hardly any more people using IE7 than use IE6, if you have decided that the number of IE6 users is low enough to give a degraded page then almost certainly the IE7 users are low enough too - although between them they may still be a group too big to ignore. Since neither browser supports all of CSS 2.1 it might even be far easier to decide to stop supporting both at the same time. That way you don’t have to do it all again in a few years time for yet another non compliant browser. At least having IE8 as a minimum means that all of CSS 2.1 is available so there will not be another major browser CSS problem until enough browsers support enough of CSS 3 for those that don’t to start to be a problem.
Another possibility is that those developing sites might simply provide two quotes - eg. $1000 for CSS 2.1 compliant browsers and $2200 if they want to include IE6 and 7 as well.
Some of these things are certainly already happening on various sites at least with regard to IE6. Possibly those waiting to start that process when IE9 comes out will start excluding both IE6 and IE7.
They could always upgrade to Safari 3 or Chrome 1 or Firefox 1 or Opera 9 in order to work around the CSS that IE7 is missing - or even IE8.
They are not allowed. We have a lot of customers on locked down machines using IE6.
Also thinking about the typical user, many people are not aware of these alternative browsers, or are afraid to download then. My mother is a great example, she doesn’t know what a browser is, she just clicks the blue E to connect to the internet.
Of course with graceful degradation those using IE7 will not know about all the features that they are missing out on unless they happen to see the same page when visiting someone who isn’t running such a primitive browser.
The user won’t know the difference but the client will. They see a design and want their design to match what is in their browser (whatever that browser is). I like the idea of different pricing though but that involves educating the client, who in most cases doesn’t know or care for browser differences.
I like the idea of different pricing though but that involves educating the client, who in most cases doesn’t know or care for browser differences.
I think once a client has decided to demand a page look and act exactly the same in a browser as old as IE6 is, educating them is no longer their choice. They MUST know what kind of work is entailed for such an exercise.
The owner of a club who wants lights flashing 3 times a second should be informed by the companies making those lights as to why that’s a bad idea. From there, the client can still stick to their choice, but it will be an educated choice.
Assuming the user even has that level of control over their systems – see the people “stuck” on IE6 at work thanks to an inept IT department and/or a lack of hardware updates from IT.
See how FF and Opera have no 9x iterations after about four years ago or how Saffy and Chrome never did…
We like to badmouth the old stuff, but fact is most companies are unwilling – AND SHOULD REMAIN UNWILLING to spend money they don’t have to.
[ot]
We’ve got a real problem right now on buying new **** that we don’t NEED. (he says as he orders a GTX 560ti to replace his GTX260 SLI rig) and it’s slowly bankrupting the economy. Thankfully businesses are a hair smarter than say… congress forcing everyone to go out and buy new TV’s for no good reason or spend for stupid ‘converter’ boxes. Basically forcing HD down the public’s throat and flushing the economy down the toilet in the process – even funnier when they sold it in many circles as a way to promote economic growth. Same for new car incentives and all the other “force us into newer” idiocy.
“Oh it will help the economy making people spend money they don’t have (aka credit) for new versions of things they aleady own”… Uhm… Paying more for it in the process via credit, driving inflation. Peter Schiff is right and Obama is wrong, credit is not the lifeblood of the economy, it’s the cancer![/ot]
If nothing else, newer isn’t always better – see XHTML 1.1 or HTML 5…
All the stuff we bicker about here – standards compliance, ease of development – means little to nothing to Joe sixpack and Susie sunshine users. They’re just left asking the question “why should I have to get better hardware and upgrade when what I had was working just fine for me?”.
Something us technophiles often lose sight of. We are here to support the user/visitor and NOT the other way around.
I suspect that they will skip IE7 and go straight to IE8 when they eventually decide to make the switch, however that will be some time away as many of their internal apps need the rendering of IE6 otherwise many things break, so in effect they either have to part with cash or stick with IE6.
My bank is also sticking with IE6 for now… they spent too much money on some ginormous Java system that works with IE6… the same browser they look up accounts with and connect to other bank sites with and run account applications on. And my bank has lots of company.
Nice link, ajf.
I’m still supporting IE6 and 7 and won’t be dropping either anytime soon. That said, IE6 misses a lot of stuff on my pages that other browsers get. Small visual cues and things… function is still there.
Don’t worry, with HTML 5 they’re making a right fine mess of the specification turning it into a needlessly complex disaster – give it a few years and Gecko/Webkit will just be the new IE 6 once 5 is mainstream.
The U.S. population is about 4% of the planet. I don’t think they consider themselves insignificant.
Seriously, though, I try to give the equivalent of an HD picture for modern browsers, and others as good as they natively support. People with ten-year-old TVs don’t really expect to receive HD, do they?
An excellent example of “percent of what” in action too, since with ~85% penetration that’s ~14% of the internet users online – north america in it’s entirety being 23% of people online. As opposed to Asia where it’s 2/3rds the world population, but thanks to only 10% penetration it’s just 42% of users online.
All you have to do is pick the right number and context you want, and stats can say anything you like.
[ot]
No, though you have the poor and the elderly pissed at seeing letterbox or aspect distorted channels and being expected to buy hardware they don’t want and didn’t need just because some elitist technophiles and businesses with slumping profits managed to get Congress to ship even more of our worth overseas with the “forced” HD changeover. Who cares how bad it makes the economy tank in the long-term.[/ot]
No, though you have the poor and the elderly pissed at seeing letterbox or aspect distorted channels and being expected to buy hardware they don’t want and didn’t need just because some elitist technophiles and businesses with slumping profits managed to get Congress to ship even more of our worth overseas with the “forced” HD changeover.
Similarly, I fear the day when I cannot watch a movie anymore without the dreaded and hated 3-D[/ot]
