4 ms·

I was just thinking about this one again, and here's a proposed solution: Create an anti IE6 Coalition. Here me out - you'd have one central website stating t

I was just thinking about this one again, and here's a proposed solution: Create an anti IE6 Coalition. Here me out - you'd have one central website stating the purpose and all. If you wanted to join the cause, all you would have to do is place a javscript tag on your website. If it detects IE6, a message appears at the top talking about how IE6 hurts innovation, wastes millions of dollars a year, etc. and links to IE8, FF3, and Chrome for quick and simple upgrades. If you got a good deal of bloggers to use/talk about the script, you'd be able to spread the message. The goal isn't the eradication of IE6 usage, just enough demolition of IE6 that people don't feel the need to design around it. Thoughts?

anamax 18y ago
I'd go elsewhere. There are almost always other options and the cost of going to another website is lower than the cost of changing browsers. Users don't care about your pain.
bmelton 18y ago
Javascript tag? Who's going to spend the 82 hours it takes to make write a piece of javascript that works on IE6? ;-)
- mechanical_fish 18y ago
  I don't really want to be one of those people who insists on derailing perfectly good jokes by taking them seriously. But in this case I have to tell you: The answer to your question is "John Resig and the rest of the jQuery team". In my experience JS is the least of my problems with IE6, because jQuery just works.
silentbicycle 18y ago
A large part of the problem is that while (nearly) everybody would benefit from IE6 fading away, there's a strong incentive for individual parties to still support it (especially if they're the only one): blocking IE6 means losing a relatively large amount of customers. It's a prisoner's dilemma-esque situation. IMHO, the best solution I've heard is to offer a discount for customers who are not using IE6, and politely but clearly note that the cost is greater because IE6 is so old and buggy that supporting it requires a lot of extra work, "but switching is easy...[links].". Testing the user agent string is probably enough -- people who know how to change their user agent will know how to install a new browser, but probably can't because of e.g. IT department policies).

anamax 18y ago

I'd go elsewhere. There are almost always other options and the cost of going to another website is lower than the cost of changing browsers. Users don't care about your pain.

bmelton 18y ago

Javascript tag? Who's going to spend the 82 hours it takes to make write a piece of javascript that works on IE6? ;-)

mechanical_fish 18y ago
I don't really want to be one of those people who insists on derailing perfectly good jokes by taking them seriously. But in this case I have to tell you: The answer to your question is "John Resig and the rest of the jQuery team". In my experience JS is the least of my problems with IE6, because jQuery just works.

silentbicycle 18y ago

A large part of the problem is that while (nearly) everybody would benefit from IE6 fading away, there's a strong incentive for individual parties to still support it (especially if they're the only one): blocking IE6 means losing a relatively large amount of customers. It's a prisoner's dilemma-esque situation. IMHO, the best solution I've heard is to offer a discount for customers who are not using IE6, and politely but clearly note that the cost is greater because IE6 is so old and buggy that supporting it requires a lot of extra work, "but switching is easy...[links].". Testing the user agent string is probably enough -- people who know how to change their user agent will know how to install a new browser, but probably can't because of e.g. IT department policies).