5 ms·

This is a prisoner's dilemma. Individually, it makes sense to support IE6, because "that's where the users are." Collectively, however, it exacts major costs

by walterk 18y ago

This is a prisoner's dilemma. Individually, it makes sense to support IE6, because "that's where the users are." Collectively, however, it exacts major costs in terms of support and user experience.

edw519 18y ago
it exacts major costs in terms of support and user experience Ah, then maybe the question should be, "How can we support IE6 without exacting major costs in terms of support and user experience?" You may be surprised how good you really can get once you start thinking outside the quadrilateral.
- dcurtis 18y ago
  Catering to the lowest type of anything in business is always a recipe for bad user experience. Also, I seem to remember you telling me that you use a computer with a resolution of 800x600. If you also use IE6, then you are, in fact, the lowest technical user on the internet that companies try to support. And that slows progress and means you're part of the problem.
  - edw519 18y ago
    always? Here we go again, dcurtis. If I remember right, we never reached a resolution (oops) in that discussion and we probably won't now. (By the way, I did enjoy that conversation.) Yes, I use 800 x 600. I can't see anything larger than that. Period. I already graduated to 19" monitors everywhere and I still need 800 x 600. And many of the 100 million or so people in my age group are in the same boat. If I have to scroll horizontally, then I don't come back to that site. (Interestingly, I have never had that problem here at hn; maybe pg is on to something - delivering to his users the way they want to see it.) Over 90% of the people I work with are stuck in cubicles at work on IE, half of them on IE6. They can't change. Their administrators have them locked down. It's not their fault. You may choose to abandon these people (sometimes by subtly declaring that they're not part of your demographic); I don't. You may think that I slow progress and am "part of the problem". My customers say otherwise. AFAIC, their vote has priority over yours. That's the whole point.
    - dcurtis 18y ago
      I understand your problem and I empathize with you. But you are at the very, very low end of the experience curve. It makes sense for me, as a designer, to cater to the largest number of people possible, and to provide them the best experience I can. If I continue to cater to the outliers, like yourself, or like a friend of mine who runs a 3560x2056 screen, then I am doing a disservice to the largest segment of my market-- the average user. If IE 6 were to go extinct, I would be able to provide a better experience for a larger number of people. If no one used 800x600, I would be able to provide a better experience to a larger number of people. Therefore, I will try as hard as I can to make both of those things true. Even if it makes your experience slightly less enjoyable; there will be collateral damage.
      - edw519 18y ago
        cater to the outliers Yes, catering to outliers sounds like a compromise most wouldn't want to make. All I'm suggesting is that we use our smarts and cleverness to find a way to deliver to outliers without catering to them and without breaking the bank. Now, that would be a real paradigm shift. (Oooh, I can't believe I said that.)
        dcurtis 18y ago
        Ah, now I agree totally with that. And I've found that you can really easily make something that sort of works OK in IE6 most of the time if you follow all of these suggestions: http://anthonyshort.com.au/blog/comments/how-to-get-cross-browser-compatibility-everytime/ http://anthonyshort.com.au/blog/comments/how-to-get-cross-br...
        fauigerzigerk 18y ago
        That paradigm shift is already in full swing. It's called Flash & Silverlight. Do you like it?
        unalone 18y ago
        Flash and Silverlight break default browser functionality, they're very hard to make flexible past a certain point, they are slow, they require separate plugins, and they don't add anything in terms of usability. In fact, they very often detract from usability. That's not a good shift.
- walterk 18y ago
  It's not a question of how good you can get. (You do know what a prisoner's dilemma is, right?) It's a question of many developers having to devote man-hours to (1) learning how to support IE6 and (2) implementing that support for every new site design, of the money continually being spent to pay for that support, and of the inferior user experience to IE6 users. This is time and money effectively wasted, the aggregate cost of which exceeds the aggregate cost of IE6 users upgrading/switching browsers. The longer we have to support IE6, the greater the cost.
  - edw519 18y ago
    implementing that support for every new site design If that's what you're doing, then you do have a problem. How can you deliver content to IE6 users, irregardless of site, without "implementing that support for every new site design"? Find an elegant answer to this question and change the way you do business. (You do know what a tradeoff override is, right?)
    - walterk 18y ago
      Do you have a universal drop-in solution that you'd like to share? If so, then it renders the IE6 issue moot. If, on the other hand, you're expecting every developer to discover this solution themselves, then you're only proving my point.
  - bradgessler 18y ago
    I would argue that the cost of support and the inferior user experience have not exceeded the cost of IE6 users upgrading/switching browsers. If that were the case, this thread wouldn't exist. That said, I hate IE6 as much as the next guy...

by walterk 18y ago

This is a prisoner's dilemma. Individually, it makes sense to support IE6, because "that's where the users are." Collectively, however, it exacts major costs in terms of support and user experience.

edw519 18y ago

it exacts major costs in terms of support and user experience Ah, then maybe the question should be, "How can we support IE6 without exacting major costs in terms of support and user experience?" You may be surprised how good you really can get once you start thinking outside the quadrilateral.

dcurtis 18y ago
Catering to the lowest type of anything in business is always a recipe for bad user experience. Also, I seem to remember you telling me that you use a computer with a resolution of 800x600. If you also use IE6, then you are, in fact, the lowest technical user on the internet that companies try to support. And that slows progress and means you're part of the problem.
- edw519 18y ago
  always? Here we go again, dcurtis. If I remember right, we never reached a resolution (oops) in that discussion and we probably won't now. (By the way, I did enjoy that conversation.) Yes, I use 800 x 600. I can't see anything larger than that. Period. I already graduated to 19" monitors everywhere and I still need 800 x 600. And many of the 100 million or so people in my age group are in the same boat. If I have to scroll horizontally, then I don't come back to that site. (Interestingly, I have never had that problem here at hn; maybe pg is on to something - delivering to his users the way they want to see it.) Over 90% of the people I work with are stuck in cubicles at work on IE, half of them on IE6. They can't change. Their administrators have them locked down. It's not their fault. You may choose to abandon these people (sometimes by subtly declaring that they're not part of your demographic); I don't. You may think that I slow progress and am "part of the problem". My customers say otherwise. AFAIC, their vote has priority over yours. That's the whole point.
  - dcurtis 18y ago
    I understand your problem and I empathize with you. But you are at the very, very low end of the experience curve. It makes sense for me, as a designer, to cater to the largest number of people possible, and to provide them the best experience I can. If I continue to cater to the outliers, like yourself, or like a friend of mine who runs a 3560x2056 screen, then I am doing a disservice to the largest segment of my market-- the average user. If IE 6 were to go extinct, I would be able to provide a better experience for a larger number of people. If no one used 800x600, I would be able to provide a better experience to a larger number of people. Therefore, I will try as hard as I can to make both of those things true. Even if it makes your experience slightly less enjoyable; there will be collateral damage.
    - edw519 18y ago
      cater to the outliers Yes, catering to outliers sounds like a compromise most wouldn't want to make. All I'm suggesting is that we use our smarts and cleverness to find a way to deliver to outliers without catering to them and without breaking the bank. Now, that would be a real paradigm shift. (Oooh, I can't believe I said that.)
      - dcurtis 18y ago
        Ah, now I agree totally with that. And I've found that you can really easily make something that sort of works OK in IE6 most of the time if you follow all of these suggestions: http://anthonyshort.com.au/blog/comments/how-to-get-cross-browser-compatibility-everytime/ http://anthonyshort.com.au/blog/comments/how-to-get-cross-br...
      - fauigerzigerk 18y ago
        That paradigm shift is already in full swing. It's called Flash & Silverlight. Do you like it?
        unalone 18y ago
        Flash and Silverlight break default browser functionality, they're very hard to make flexible past a certain point, they are slow, they require separate plugins, and they don't add anything in terms of usability. In fact, they very often detract from usability. That's not a good shift.
walterk 18y ago
It's not a question of how good you can get. (You do know what a prisoner's dilemma is, right?) It's a question of many developers having to devote man-hours to (1) learning how to support IE6 and (2) implementing that support for every new site design, of the money continually being spent to pay for that support, and of the inferior user experience to IE6 users. This is time and money effectively wasted, the aggregate cost of which exceeds the aggregate cost of IE6 users upgrading/switching browsers. The longer we have to support IE6, the greater the cost.
- edw519 18y ago
  implementing that support for every new site design If that's what you're doing, then you do have a problem. How can you deliver content to IE6 users, irregardless of site, without "implementing that support for every new site design"? Find an elegant answer to this question and change the way you do business. (You do know what a tradeoff override is, right?)
  - walterk 18y ago
    Do you have a universal drop-in solution that you'd like to share? If so, then it renders the IE6 issue moot. If, on the other hand, you're expecting every developer to discover this solution themselves, then you're only proving my point.
- bradgessler 18y ago
  I would argue that the cost of support and the inferior user experience have not exceeded the cost of IE6 users upgrading/switching browsers. If that were the case, this thread wouldn't exist. That said, I hate IE6 as much as the next guy...