Sent by Dave M G on 26 April 2007 18:06
Holly,
Ultimately I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree. But you've
taken the time to state your case carefully, and I appreciate that. So
with respect, I will state mine.
First, lets be clear about terms. IE6 is a non-standards compliant
browser requiring multiple hacks to make it function to the level that
other browsers do as a matter of course:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_Internet_Explorer#Criticisms_regarding_support_of_open_standards
So although the word "suck" is a little flippant, it's not inaccurate.
"Broken" might be more diplomatic. I'll give you that maybe I could be
softer in my wording, and ultimately I may change it so as not to
diffuse any attention from the client's message. But it's just
semantics, as no one could argue the point from the position that IE6
works fine and deserves higher qualification. I'll refer to it as "non
working" hereafter.
Right now, I'm not too worried about people stumbling over that term,
because it's only in the CSS, where mainly it's just going to be web
designers or other coders who see it. And they already know all about IE6.
More importantly, I disagree on your comment that I'm being
shortsighted. Quite the opposite, I am looking to the future.
IE6 usage is dropping as people migrate to version 7, and FireFox
continues to make incremental gains into Microsoft's market share:
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
In November of 2003, when IE6 was at its peak of 70% market share, it
would have been much more foolhardy of me to choose a path such as I'm
choosing now. Arguing that almost three quarters of the market switch
browsers - and there was no clearly competitive option like FireFox then
- is whistling in the wind. But now it's not about switching browsers.
It's about a simple upgrade. For free. And now there is a completely
viable competitor. For free. The suggestion to change is much more
within reason now. I might be a little earlier than most, but I'm not
whistling in the wind.
IE6 is already less than 40%. If the current progress were linear we can
expect to see IE6 down to less than 10% by the end of this year.
Personally I think the change won't be linear, but whether we end up
there faster or slower, the destination is the same: the gradual phasing
out of IE6. (I'm sure we will eventually see a point where IE6 continue
to linger around 2 or 3 %, just as IE5 does.)
I don't believe more than a handful truly can not make a switch to a
working browser now, as I have seen IE7 running on very low spec
computers. Those who are in a particular situation where IE6 is
completely impossible know why they are in that situation and can deal
with it. Just as those still using IE5 do.
You ask, if I may paraphrase, why should anyone switch browsers at my,
or anyone else's, urging. Well, I don't assume anyone does what I say,
but in any case, I can only respond with my own question: why would I
support them in using non-working browsers? That phasing out from IE6 to
working browsers might be faster if there were more notices such as
mine. And then, wouldn't things be better for designers and
non-designers alike? (Okay, mainly for designers.)
Lastly, the wording of my error message is entirely accurate. IE6 is no
longer supported. By me. I don't see any reason why I need to hand hold
anyone to explain to them the subtleties of what that implies. After
all, when Microsoft prevents a non IE browser from accessing features,
like video on their MSN site, do they tell you it's because they've
simply made a choice to not support competing browsers?
I sort of expected that my stance on IE6 might raise eyebrows. But I
don't expect to start any revolutions or become a rabid advocate. And
despite how some of my comments may appear, I'm not on an anti-Microsoft
bender, as I'd be equally content of people moved to IE7.
I'm just settling on a path. A path I think is inline with general
trends. I've thought about it, and I believe the time is right to stop
putting development time into compensating for Microsoft's mistakes, and
focus more on those who can and will leave them behind. For the others,
I don't prevent them from seeing my site, I just warn them that it may
not work, and leave it to them to decide what they want to do about it.
I don't expect that others will follow my lead, I'm content to go it
alone. But I'll just leave this out there as an idea: If more designers
threw away their hacks and adopted a warning message instead (with
softer wording if they desire), then how fast would we see IE6 fade to
IE5 levels? And then how much easier would all of our work be without
those hacks to worry about anymore?
(Thank you to the CSS list for allowing me to state my opinions on the
direction of browsers, which I am hoping is acceptably on topic. I will
endeavor hereafter to focus on more technical concerns.)
--
Dave M G
Ubuntu 7.04 Feisty Fawn
Kernel 2.6.20-15-generic
Pentium D Dual Core Processor
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [EMAIL-REMOVED]]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
