3 ms·

I like how ie6countdown.com renders perfectly fine on both IE6 and modern browsers. I don't like how inaccessible HTML5 and CSS3 techniques are to older browse

I like how ie6countdown.com renders perfectly fine on both IE6 and modern browsers. I don't like how inaccessible HTML5 and CSS3 techniques are to older browsers. It reminds me of having to upgrade flash. I like how we try to make sites accessible for the blind, regardless of their usage stats. I don't like how we seem to throw away 1% of our best possible conversion rates, by fully ignoring 1% of our audiance. I like how the web is maturing and growing. I don't like how plain and simple information-providing websites are turning into HTML5 applications, with 100k's of javascript, hashtags and other dynamics. I believe that in 20 years, sites that were build to render on IE6, will continue to render just fine. Sites that were build using experimental browser vendor-specific code, with AJAX and hashtags might need a special server to render. Is that progress? EDIT: seems to be some confusion about "Sites build for IE6". I ment "Sites that render on IE6/were build with IE6 in mind". To me that doesn't auto-translate to active-x, MS-filters, conditional rules, IE7.js and CSS hacks, but I can see how others can view that. Anyway, I am clearly playing with fire, by taking these views on IE6. I'll just let this be and not delete it. It wasn't a troll or a flame, but this topic is always a heated one, so best to just let it be.

ghshephard 15y ago
I'm okay with newer pages not being viewable by browsers more than 10 years old. Upgrading your browser every half decade or so seems eminently reasonably, if only to ensure you get all of the security patches that are no longer being backported to EOL browsers. Of course, with browsers like chrome, they are auto-updating all the time anyways - so it's not like you have much of a choice. What is more important to me is that older web sites continue to be browseable (to some degree, bit perfect rendering isn't essential) 20 years from now.
freehunter 15y ago
>I don't like how inaccessible HTML5 and CSS3 techniques are to older browsers. Because these technologies came into existence after these browsers were made. Such is progress. >I like how we try to make sites accessible for the blind This is a law, and being blind is rarely a choice. >sites that were build to render on IE6, will continue to render just fine Because they were built with two codebases, one for regular browsers, one for IE6. Double the work for that 1%. >experimental browser vendor-specific code Browser specific code? Yes, if that code doesn't become standard. But IE6 required a lot of browser-specific code. The hopes are that the browser specific code gets the recognition for its usefulness and becomes part of the still-in-progress standard. >Is that progress? Yes.
- blauwbilgorgel 15y ago
  >> Because these technologies came into existence after these browsers were made. Such is progress. An example: the "about page" for Google Music. You need to download the newest Chrome to view it. I don't call it progress if accessibility and backwards compatibility get the shaft. >>This is a law, and being blind is rarely a choice. Two things: I hope you make sites accessible for the blind, not because it is law, but simply because you want the blind to access your content. Put another way: If it wasn't for the law, we could forget about the blind too? Accessibility needs a law for front-end engineers to take note? Being on IE6 is rarely a choice too, especially in a corporate environment. >>Because they were built with two codebases, one for regular browsers, one for IE6. Double the work for that 1%. You don't need exceptions to make sites render on IE6. You only need exceptions if you start implementation in a modern browser, and make IE6 a minute after-thought. >> But IE6 required a lot of browser-specific code. Only if _you_ required hacks to make a design work. >>Is that progress? Yes. I don't think that was the progress that Tim Berners Lee had in mind. A progress where HTML documents from the HTML5 era become inaccessible to later generations. Disclaimer: I am able to build sites that render in IE6, without much hacks or troubles or extra work, but I don't like working around its quirks. I don't have a strong opinion on why and when IE6 should die, and I certainly don't want to play that judge with my clients websites. I want maximum accessibility, and that includes IE6 in my opinion.
  - Zirro 15y ago
    "I don't think that was the progress that Tim Berners Lee had in mind." I don't think he had IE6's non-standard quirks in mind, either. Had they not come up with their own standard, the concept of graceful degradation would certainly have been easier.
  - freehunter 15y ago
    >You don't need exceptions to make sites render on IE6. I disagree. IE6 doesn't support a lot of standards that other browsers supported, mainly due to not keeping up with changing standards. >If it wasn't for the law, we could forget about the blind too? Note that I said "being blind is rarely a choice", implying that we should code for the blind because they did not choose their limitations. If you're forced to use IE6 in a corporate environment, it's because the designer of a web app wrote it for IE6, not for "the internet Tim Berners Lee had in mind". No one is forcing you to use entertainment-based web apps at work, in fact your management might discourage it. >I don't think that was the progress that Tim Berners Lee had in mind. A progress where HTML documents from the HTML5 era become inaccessible to later generations. And you think that the designers of floppy disks intended for them to be thrown out when USB drives came into existence? THIS IS PROGRESS This is what progress does. Technology changes. Don't code for current technology, code for maintainability. If your code works on IE6 but is broken in newer browsers, your code is broken by design. There is a standard, and code that follows it will work in browsers that respect it. IE6 does neither. You honestly seem to be arguing that IE6 was a perfectly compatible browser and was the pinnacle of browser design. I think you'll find a lot of disagreement, even from Microsoft themselves. We know enough about security these days to know that not upgrading is a bad idea.
recursive 15y ago
You like sites designed for IE6, but don't like vendor-specific code? Does not compute.
- blauwbilgorgel 15y ago
  Perhaps because I didn't say nor mean both those things. Perhaps also because your parser mistranslates "sites designed for IE6" as "sites using MS-specific code".
- flomo 15y ago
  The burden of IE6 support is less anything vendor-specific and more that the CSS standards are implemented in a buggy fashion.
billybob 15y ago
You seem to be saying "simple sites are better and will continue to work longer." That may be true. Sites built for IE6 aren't necessarily that, though. They may be using ActiveX for "cool" functionality that stopped being cool years ago. In short: non-fancy may be better, in some ways, than fancy. Outdated fancy is surely not better than current fancy.

ghshephard 15y ago

I'm okay with newer pages not being viewable by browsers more than 10 years old. Upgrading your browser every half decade or so seems eminently reasonably, if only to ensure you get all of the security patches that are no longer being backported to EOL browsers. Of course, with browsers like chrome, they are auto-updating all the time anyways - so it's not like you have much of a choice. What is more important to me is that older web sites continue to be browseable (to some degree, bit perfect rendering isn't essential) 20 years from now.

freehunter 15y ago

>I don't like how inaccessible HTML5 and CSS3 techniques are to older browsers. Because these technologies came into existence after these browsers were made. Such is progress. >I like how we try to make sites accessible for the blind This is a law, and being blind is rarely a choice. >sites that were build to render on IE6, will continue to render just fine Because they were built with two codebases, one for regular browsers, one for IE6. Double the work for that 1%. >experimental browser vendor-specific code Browser specific code? Yes, if that code doesn't become standard. But IE6 required a lot of browser-specific code. The hopes are that the browser specific code gets the recognition for its usefulness and becomes part of the still-in-progress standard. >Is that progress? Yes.

blauwbilgorgel 15y ago
>> Because these technologies came into existence after these browsers were made. Such is progress. An example: the "about page" for Google Music. You need to download the newest Chrome to view it. I don't call it progress if accessibility and backwards compatibility get the shaft. >>This is a law, and being blind is rarely a choice. Two things: I hope you make sites accessible for the blind, not because it is law, but simply because you want the blind to access your content. Put another way: If it wasn't for the law, we could forget about the blind too? Accessibility needs a law for front-end engineers to take note? Being on IE6 is rarely a choice too, especially in a corporate environment. >>Because they were built with two codebases, one for regular browsers, one for IE6. Double the work for that 1%. You don't need exceptions to make sites render on IE6. You only need exceptions if you start implementation in a modern browser, and make IE6 a minute after-thought. >> But IE6 required a lot of browser-specific code. Only if _you_ required hacks to make a design work. >>Is that progress? Yes. I don't think that was the progress that Tim Berners Lee had in mind. A progress where HTML documents from the HTML5 era become inaccessible to later generations. Disclaimer: I am able to build sites that render in IE6, without much hacks or troubles or extra work, but I don't like working around its quirks. I don't have a strong opinion on why and when IE6 should die, and I certainly don't want to play that judge with my clients websites. I want maximum accessibility, and that includes IE6 in my opinion.
- Zirro 15y ago
  "I don't think that was the progress that Tim Berners Lee had in mind." I don't think he had IE6's non-standard quirks in mind, either. Had they not come up with their own standard, the concept of graceful degradation would certainly have been easier.
- freehunter 15y ago
  >You don't need exceptions to make sites render on IE6. I disagree. IE6 doesn't support a lot of standards that other browsers supported, mainly due to not keeping up with changing standards. >If it wasn't for the law, we could forget about the blind too? Note that I said "being blind is rarely a choice", implying that we should code for the blind because they did not choose their limitations. If you're forced to use IE6 in a corporate environment, it's because the designer of a web app wrote it for IE6, not for "the internet Tim Berners Lee had in mind". No one is forcing you to use entertainment-based web apps at work, in fact your management might discourage it. >I don't think that was the progress that Tim Berners Lee had in mind. A progress where HTML documents from the HTML5 era become inaccessible to later generations. And you think that the designers of floppy disks intended for them to be thrown out when USB drives came into existence? THIS IS PROGRESS This is what progress does. Technology changes. Don't code for current technology, code for maintainability. If your code works on IE6 but is broken in newer browsers, your code is broken by design. There is a standard, and code that follows it will work in browsers that respect it. IE6 does neither. You honestly seem to be arguing that IE6 was a perfectly compatible browser and was the pinnacle of browser design. I think you'll find a lot of disagreement, even from Microsoft themselves. We know enough about security these days to know that not upgrading is a bad idea.

recursive 15y ago

You like sites designed for IE6, but don't like vendor-specific code? Does not compute.

blauwbilgorgel 15y ago
Perhaps because I didn't say nor mean both those things. Perhaps also because your parser mistranslates "sites designed for IE6" as "sites using MS-specific code".
flomo 15y ago
The burden of IE6 support is less anything vendor-specific and more that the CSS standards are implemented in a buggy fashion.

billybob 15y ago

You seem to be saying "simple sites are better and will continue to work longer." That may be true. Sites built for IE6 aren't necessarily that, though. They may be using ActiveX for "cool" functionality that stopped being cool years ago. In short: non-fancy may be better, in some ways, than fancy. Outdated fancy is surely not better than current fancy.