# Web Developers - Is IE6 compatibility necesary?



## runner (2 Feb 2010)

I am using a newly developed site which works fine in all current browsers including IE7 and 8. However, its a bit ofline in IE6.
Is it necessary to get this sorted, do you think?
Are there sufficient IE6 browser users out there to worry about?
Appreciate your replies.


----------



## PaddyBloggit (2 Feb 2010)

I wouldn't be too worried about it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8488751.stm

A lot still use it but when google will withdraw support for it people will end up upgrading. If your site works in any fair way in ie6 put up with it for now as it is on the way out.

Chrome seems to be the up and coming Firefox ... so check how it looks with Chrome.

Stick your site url in here to see how it looks in the many browsers that live out there:

http://browsershots.org/

Put a statcounter on your site .... you can monitor what browsers people are using who visit your site ... you can tailor your site to suit the majority:

http://www.statcounter.com

(no connection with any link above)


----------



## runner (2 Feb 2010)

Paddy, thats brilliant!
Passes fine on all other browsers- wasnt aware of that testing site which is great.
I will see if it can be easily sorted, but probably ok to forget about it.
I can put code in the website for IE6 detection and issue an upgrade suggestion to users if they have the old version.


----------



## Locke (2 Feb 2010)

+1

Paddy,

To echo what runner said, that is brilliant. Wasn't aware of Browsershots but it's a great site to know about so thanks for posting!


----------



## dtlyn (2 Feb 2010)

I know several companies locked into IE6 and refuse to upgrade, taking the option to upgrade out of the users hands. If your target market is the casual office internet browser, this may be worth re-considering.


----------



## Complainer (2 Feb 2010)

If you use Google Analytics or any other web traffic monitor, it will tell you what browsers your visitors are using, so this information will help you to work out how siginficant this is.

The solution is not just as simple as 'give them a message to upgrade'. Many users in corporate environments do not have admin rights to their machines, so they are not able to upgrade. If the corporate policy is IE6, then you are excluding these people from using your site. Some people who use special software or disabled people using assistive technology may be tied to an old browser for cost reasons, and will not be able to upgrade.


----------



## jhegarty (2 Feb 2010)

For 2009 my site showed 72% of users on IE , 18% of those on IE.


It depends on what's on your site as a technology site would have very different figures.


----------



## runner (2 Feb 2010)

Thanks for all the comments and excellent suggestions.

The clients of this site are not corporate, and its mainly aimed at informing existing customers and providing them on-line access to the outstanding invoices and statements and safety certificates which they can view, download and print as well as brochure type information on the company products and services.
 Its the front page only thats being partially shifted down creating a chunk of blank space, which is just a bit ugly but its still fully operative. The rest of the site is fine once you go past front page.
Was just thinking of having IE6 detection, and saying 'for a better user experience etc.., try a more up o date browser such as X, Y Z etc' and leaving it as is?


----------



## galleyslave (2 Feb 2010)

A website should make accommodation for as many browsers as possible - including ie6. Ironically, its usually the other way around - wont work on anything but IE! its a pet hate of mine that so many sites do this. Ulster Bank is a prime example - on firefox under linux it says go get IE - tell firefox to identify itself as IE and lo, the site works fine... stupid devs... (rant over!)


----------



## AlbacoreA (16 Feb 2010)

galleyslave said:


> A website should make accommodation for as many browsers as possible ...


 
No theres a practical consideration. Depends on the budget, and the number of users with different browsers. Theres the 80/20 rule. No point spending 50% of effort on 5% of users. The only way you'll know if by tracking what browsers are hitting your site.


----------



## galleyslave (17 Feb 2010)

AlbacoreA said:


> No theres a practical consideration. Depends on the budget, and the number of users with different browsers. Theres the 80/20 rule. No point spending 50% of effort on 5% of users. The only way you'll know if by tracking what browsers are hitting your site.


I did say "as possible" but then again it IS possible to write cross platform code that works perfectly well on different browsers. It doesn't take that much extra effort to write code that degrades gracefully. I suspect a major part of the problem is inexperienced developers


----------



## AlbacoreA (17 Feb 2010)

For as many as possible you said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_web_browsers


----------



## galleyslave (17 Feb 2010)

AlbacoreA said:


> For as many as possible you said...
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_web_browsers



The vast majority of which are so rare as to be irrelevant. However, if the devs stick to standards, as the browsers ought to do also, then there ought to be few issues.


----------



## AlbacoreA (17 Feb 2010)

If your going based on rareness? IE6 probably has similar if not bigger user base than some of the other browsers like Chrome and Safari. Yet we're saying don't bother with it, but keep support of those other browsers.  Personally I find most things work in IE7/8 and Safari, but not in Chrome or Opera. I'm not a web developer, so I don't know why this, but theres certain isn't a "few " issues. Theres a lot on a daily basis. It soon gets old, having to switch to a different browser to use a specific site.


----------



## mathepac (17 Feb 2010)

galleyslave said:


> A website should make accommodation for as many browsers as possible - ...


I disagree. Websites should be written to comply with published standards, not to work with specific products. The original concept was to build web-sites that didn't need a specific OS, hardware or  closed, proprietary tools to work. Some browsers, for example iCab, give users a simple option to highlight non-standard  web-sites.


----------



## galleyslave (17 Feb 2010)

mathepac said:


> I disagree. Websites should be written to comply with published standards, not to work with specific products. The original concept was to build web-sites that didn't need a specific OS, hardware or  closed, proprietary tools to work. Some browsers, for example iCab, give users a simple option to highlight non-standard  web-sites.



I wholeheartedly agree re the standards, but realistically you can't exclude IE from the equation.


----------



## jhegarty (17 Feb 2010)

mathepac said:


> I disagree. Websites should be written to comply with published standards, not to work with specific products. The original concept was to build web-sites that didn't need a specific OS, hardware or  closed, proprietary tools to work. Some browsers, for example iCab, give users a simple option to highlight non-standard  web-sites.




That makes no sense to a business.

You can't turn away a large percentage of customers just to comply wtih theoretical standards.


----------



## PaddyBloggit (17 Feb 2010)

Just be compatible with the main browsers .... use your website stats to see what most visitors are using, normally IE, Firefox, Opera, Chrome and one or two others.

By checking your stats you'll know what versions of IE are used most ... cater for the masses. Firefox updates automatically .... Windows Updater asks people to update to latest IE versions .... I'm plagued here to update to IE8.

Cater the best way you can ... but be realistic. I wouldn't exclude IE but I'd focus on the latest versions. As I posted above google will be withdrawing support for IE6 so its days are numbered. Focus on the latest versions. If it looks any way fair in IE6 accept it.


----------



## runner (17 Feb 2010)

Thanks for the very useful comments on this IE6 issue.
In my particular instance, I developed with the latest Joomla 1.5 platform which I found excellent. It works to current web standards and when I processed the site through the recommended www.browsershots.org it worked fine in all 50 odd browsers with the exception of IE5 and 6. This I believe is because these do not work to agreed current web standards. Its fine in IE7,8 Chrome, Safari and Firefox etc.
It still leaves the problem of not catering for that sustantial subset of users who might still use IE6, but in this case Ive explained it to the client and he is not bothered.
I think its fine for web developeres who came through the IE6 generation to make their sites compatable, but its more difficult going back from current standards to legacy protocols. Im not a web developer anyway, just did it as a byproduct of other work.


----------



## AlbacoreA (17 Feb 2010)

The vast majoirity aren't using older browsers like IE5/6 because they want to, its because they've not bothered to upgrade it. Most will have no problem upgrading if required, if they really want the content. 

IMO.


----------



## galleyslave (17 Feb 2010)

AlbacoreA said:


> The vast majoirity aren't using older browsers like IE5/6 because they want to, its because they've not bothered to upgrade it. Most will have no problem upgrading if required, if they really want the content.
> 
> IMO.


there's plenty who have no choice but to use IE6 as its their corporate stanard. Rewriting hundreds of badly written internal apps aint trivial!


----------



## AlbacoreA (17 Feb 2010)

Using 10yr old browser riddled with security issues might be more of a problem...


----------



## galleyslave (17 Feb 2010)

AlbacoreA said:


> Using 10yr old browser riddled with security issues might be more of a problem...


true enough in once sense, but when you're behind a firewall, with malware protection its less of an issue. Corporate inertia and undoing the mistakes of the past take time


----------



## sinbadsailor (17 Feb 2010)

galleyslave said:


> I wholeheartedly agree re the standards, but realistically you can't exclude IE from the equation.



And with the major browser developers like Microsoft, Mozilla and now Google with Chrome (will target HTML5 going forward to try kill Flash etc) actively contributing to various parts of fluctuating standards it gets even more tricky.

Stick to tried and tested ways of doing things, with clean and not too cutting edge CSS and you should be fine, even in IE6, which at this stage comes with a serious health warning, so to any companies staying put, you probably spend more time twigging the firewall against attacks that worrying about your employees browser version.


----------



## Complainer (17 Feb 2010)

AlbacoreA said:


> The vast majoirity aren't using older browsers like IE5/6 because they want to, its because they've not bothered to upgrade it. Most will have no problem upgrading if required, if they really want the content.
> 
> IMO.


There are many corporate users who do not have control (admin rights) over their own desktop, and are unable to upgrade to new versions or install other browsers. They are stuck with whatever version is current corporate policy, and the IT geeks aren't going to take on an upgrade project (and all the testing of corporate apps that goes with it) to accomodate one or two fancy websites.

The fancier you make it, the fewer people will see it.


----------



## PaddyBloggit (17 Feb 2010)

I personally love simple .... I hate the fancy flash based sites ... if anything they make me click elsewhere.


----------



## sinbadsailor (18 Feb 2010)

PaddyBloggit said:


> I personally love simple .... I hate the fancy flash based sites ... if anything they make me click elsewhere.



I totally agree. If you look at the top blogs/news sites etc, you see that well styled CSS and clean consistent and logical layout are the way forward. This is what HTML5 aims to give; standard markup for common usage structures, for example a <header> and <footer> tag.

Flash is on the way out I think. Apple hate it, and thus don't use it, so if the likes of the MacBook and new iPad are the future, then Flash's future is in doubt.
I personally think that its buggy and causes the majority of load issue with a site.


----------

