When oh when?

can i completely ditch IE6 and begin to use .png?

i hate .gifs man… i hate them!

Yes, of course you can. But anyone still using IE6 won’t get a good experience, but *#!$%! 'em, I say.

(I presume you know about fixes for IE, such as http://www.twinhelix.com/css/iepngfix/demo/ ?)

no i did not… thanks for the heads up! im gonna read this once i finish this thing im doing now.

yeah… i figure if someone is still using IE6 they aren’t too picky about how a page flows and they might not even notice something isn’t transparent.

The reason IE6 is still so popular (about 25% of surfers still use it) is because it is the last version that works before you have to validate your copy of Windows. Meaning that there are still a lot of “bootleg” copies of windows out there and they cannot validate it.



25%! man i thought it was lower than that!

check out:

according to them the United States is at 6%. worldwide it is at 13%.

they could be very wrong though.

Ive been using a nice fix for PNG’s in ie6. Its extremely simple and seems to work fine even with repeating images!
its called supersleight and is at the bottom of this page.

there are also a few other techniques on there…

Just checked and the chart I was referring to was from last June, sorry about that. Here is one from March which now shows IE6 at 18% (http://www.netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=2)

So things are getting better for all of us :slight_smile:

I think you are getting confused about the difference between PNG-8 and PNG-24 (with alpha channels and variable transparency), since even relics like IE 5.x supported PNG-8 transparency.

If you want to use PNG-8 over static GIF you could have been doing for several years and personally I’d recommend PNG-8 over GIF in nearly all cases.

You should use PNG (8 and 24 respectively). It’s the most sophisticated image format we can use for layout graphics.

I no longer go the extra mile for IE6, unless the site in question is a commercial project that has a significant IE6 visitor share. Sites with low IE6 shares get a functional site that works, but it won’t have the same aesthetics and I do believe that many IE6 users are used to that by now.

Browser stats can be different depending on who does the survey :). Obviously if a web developer based website does the survey (of people who visit it) then IE in general will be lower then normal (even if you calculate corporation people visiting it frmo work)

In short, no study can be outright conclusive, unless you get the stats of how many people use it from Microsoft themselves :wink:

i was talking about the monster that is .png 24 :lol:.

Normally I say, let it look ugly in IE6… however I had a page where some icons were pngs (with alpha trans) and the background for them was black in IE6 instead of grey. This made the icon unreadable yet still showed no alt text which meant functionality was broken… so I did the old “transparent.gif” with the png as a background image, so I could send one to IE6 and the other to the rest.

PNGs for some reason are considered to have a “colour profile” in my retarded Firefox even though I do NOT set one… this has been sending me back to .gif when I’d otherwise use .png : ( I have no profile to remove, yet FF does gamma “correction” anyway. ARG! FF DIE DIE DIE.

Safari does it too but I have not found a single instance of Safari actually making my page look bad, so it seems limited to FF.

[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]Hmm, Poes have you tried removing the following chunks for example: iCCP, sRGB and gAMA and cHRM or would that alter your PNG too much? It is likely your PNG images were ‘tagged’.

[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]pngcrush -rem gAMA -rem cHRM -rem iCCP -rem sRGB infile.png outfile.png

Fx colour correction can be controlled by setting the value of the: gfx.color_management.mode preferences [0,1,2]. Also your monitor drivers/profiles can alter things a little.[/SIZE][/FONT]

Hmm, Poes have you tried removing the following chunks for example: iCCP, sRGB and gAMA and cHRM or would that alter your PNG too much? It is likely your PNG images were ‘tagged’.

from all the research I’ve done, Gimp isn’t adding any of those things. That’s the problem. They claim that the default settings (and the only settings I have available without plugins) are no profile (which they call built-in sRGB). Gimp only recently got the ability to even do iccp. I cannot remove sRGB because that’s all there is, supposed == “none”, the rest I don’t know, haven’t found any settings for.

Ideally I should be able to create PNGs from scratch in one image editor and not have to open something else like imageMagick just to get one lousy browser to show it correctly.