HTML 5 & Internet Explorer 6 - IE6

[morestar]

So I read this article just now about IE6 and how there will be plenty of problems with HTML 5 code.

IE6 Must Die for the Web to Move On (http://mashable.com/2009/07/16/ie6-must-die/)

What's your take? As developers how to we promote more compatible browsers to our friends, family and co-workers (or the boss)?

I use all browsers for testing and FireFox for browsing AND upgraded to IE8.

Could the problem with the masses not upgrading be due to the fact that many upon many people don't even know they can update?

Anyways, I just wanted to post a link to the article because it seemed pretty interesting.

Have fun!

:-o

[lordspace]

there are sites that they have even a counter :D

[kgun]

Don't worry. IE 6 will become less and less important. IMO there are other more serious problems with I.E.

Microsoft invented the XMLHttpRequest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XMLHttpRequest) object (the heart in todays AJAX applications) in 1999. Other companies and W3C soon adopted the standard, but in good Microsoft tradition they used another IMO worse solution.

IE 8 and below is not even W3C DOM compliant (http://www.kjellbleivik.com/bt.htm).

There are some important links regarding FaceBook etc at the bottom of this AdSchoolWorld: Social Media Optimization (http://www.adschoolworld.com/smo/smo.htm) page.

We may ask: Is Microsoft's intention to monopolize (corner) the web and make their own standard?

There are other much more important questions / problems:

W3C abandons XHTML2, Increases Resources for HTML5 (http://www.webmasterworld.com/html/3945108.htm)

What about the Canvas tag (http://www.w3schools.com/tags/html5_canvas.asp) etc.

http://www.webproworld.com/web-programming-discussion-forum/61639-xml-family-technologies-will-revolutionize-web-linking-etc.html#post330575 ???

We are still striving with the bad HTML dialect of XML. It is too early to know the future.

http://www.webproworld.com/google-discussion-forum/63125-ignore-misunderstandings-have-produced-present-world-2.html#post339093 ?? when more and more new are introduced?

[morestar]

wow i tried the canvas tag: Tryit Editor v1.4 (http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tryit.asp?filename=tryhtml5_canvas)

I didn't even know we had a canvas tag in HTML - but note currently only FireFox, Chrome, and Opera supports the canvas - not IE6.

[wige]

The canvas tag is part of an unofficial specification, and not part of the current HTML specs. This is the reason Microsoft gives for not supporting it, claiming that all the CSS issues that were in IE6 and 7 were the result of adopting an unofficial version of the CSS standard that was different from the final version which the other browsers, released after IE6, had time to implement. They claim that they expect the canvas tag to undergo similar changes before becoming official, and want to wait to support it.

It should also be noted that Canvas is considered proprietary intellectual property of Apple, and Apple has sent Cease and Desist orders to browser authors implementing the tag, including the author of WebKit, the rendering engine for, of all things, the default Apple browser, Safari. Apple did rework the license terms to comply with W3C so that the tag can become royalty free. However, until the W3C makes Canvas part of an official specification, the element will still be considered proprietary and must be licensed by any browser which implements it.

[Luwana]

I have several clients still using IE 6 because they are either afraid to upgrade or don't know there was one available. I'm pretty sure you can't upgrade out of it until you install XP service pack 3 and before you can do that there is a big warning that comes up and says to back up your system incase there's a problem - that stops them in their tracks and they figure if it's not broke they're not going to break it.

[techmaniac]

I've stated numerous times that IE6 is worthless crapware and developers shouldn't continue to code for it. We must bring an end to the life of an outdated piece of junk that didn't support the standards at the time of release and is woefully amiss of current standards and practices.

Please join me in refusing to support IE6 and coding a message that the end is near.

Your message should read:

"You seem to be stuck in 2001, and can't find the way out. As we are now nearing 2010, I would suggest you upgrade to a relevant browser:"

Link to FF, Safari, Chrome (anything else but IE), then finish with:

As of 'date', we will no longer support Internet Explorer 6. Some features and items will not display properly and your experience on this site will be degraded. Sincerely, MGMT"

It is time to put the stake in the heart of this vampire. :twisted:

[advancedmerchant]

Creating sites on the bleeding edge of technology will leave users behind. If you want to be there, so be it. If you are looking for customers, you play to THEIR space.

Back to your original question - Until someone makes a compelling arguement, Joe Average just dosen't want to go through the time and effort to upgrade a browser. What does it gain them? The Internet looks just dandy right now, with the browser I have, (IE6), thank you very much. Don't flame me with security issues, Joe Average has the security software that came with his PC, and he pays for updates on his credit card annually... so that is all he thinks he needs (security wise).

There is always the powerful "if it ain't broke" arguement. How many have had problems after a Windows Update? How do you convince Joe Average to "take the chance"? Like upgrading the cams in your engine, it may be faster, more powerful, get better mileage, etc. but very very few people do it.

Learn to live with IE6, software inertia will keep it here for a long, long time.

[morestar]

Learn to live with IE6, software inertia will keep it here for a long, long time.

...well that would depend on your view of a 'long time' and now that IE8 has been released it's bound to change and probably quicker than we think.

[DesignComm]

I guess I've been out of it for too long.

HTML was supposed to die with version 4.01, when we made the switch to XHTML 1.0, and 2.0 was quickly bringing up the rear. The 7.0 browsers, particularly Netscape, were optimized for XHTML 1.0, and really would not render sites properly that were done with HTML. Is it me, or are we taking a huge step backward? How did we ever get back to HTML? Someone, please bring me up to speed.

The W3C originally intended for the Internet to be driven by XML, and it was only because of two browser developers, who shall remain nameless, but whom I'm sure most of you know about, tried to make the Internet proprietary, and hence quickly wrote their own versions of HTML in a race to quickly release each of their browsers first. As you old timers will recall, the early two browsers were deliberately engineered so that sites would only work in one or the other, so for Web designers it was a nightmare, because clients didn't want to have to pay to have two sites created-one built for each browser. Oops! I said the early two browsers didn't I? Now what were those browsers names, and who were the developers again? Hmm.

Well, back to the language thing. Had greed and self-interest not been an issue, we would not be having this conversation today. It would seem, however, that we're moving back to square one, again, because of the browser companies, and well, greed and self-interest. XHTML 1.0 pretty much took care of the problems with CSS and PNG's, etc.,

There has to be a standard that is put in place regarding a universal language for the Net, and all browser developers should be forced to comply. At this point in time, if we revisit the 7.0 browser technology in which the "big two" became compliant with what the W3C had put out there, i.e., XHTML 1.0, and abandon everything before that, we should be okay. The only problem is, that, yes, people are still running older systems with older browsers, many I think because of cost. That being said, we must look at the other part of the equation.

At this point in time, we are at a crossroads with Mac OS becoming more Windows-like, and vice versa. Essentially, we're moving toward a universal operating system which is both good and bad. With regard to the Web, it's an opportunity for Apple and Microsoft to work with their own technologies, as well as collaborating with the other browser and software developers to agree on a language standard from this point forward-not only for the Net, but also for all software in general.

People should not have to constantly pay for expensive upgrades because of propriety, and built-in obsolescence. With the kind of universal standard that the W3C has strived for from the beginning, there should not, nor have ever been, issues with backward compatibility, or conflicts with operating systems.

I put to all of you, that if all the key players get on the same page, now, and put greed and propriety aside, the problem with resolve itself. Once we have a universal standard that is enforced, as people begin to upgrade and catch up finally, there will not be any more compatibility issues, because we will have what's been lacking all along: consistency. What ever happened to that federal law about universal access anyway? Did some individuals forget about that? Oh that's right, there's that whole thing with money and politics, and who has the most powerful lobby. Silly me!

[hive.net.au]

The biggest problem here in Australia is our government departments, still mostly use IE6. The reasoning behind this is they don’t want to spend money upgrading their web apps to make sure there compatible with other browsers as they were made specifically for IE6. A client of mine is one of the largest Government Departments in Australia, they recently (March 2009) only moved to IE7 (any alternate browsers are not "supported" on the network). Another example; we are putting together a quote for a web app for another large Government Department. Guideline specify the App must support IE6 as that is still the browser of choice for that department and will be for sometime.

In Australia we are moving forward with our "National Broadband Network" (looking like it may be another disaster in Government IT, but we will wait and see) the idea behind the network is to create better infrastructure to foster growth in Digital Economies and Creativity. That’s not going to happen when some of the largest users of the Internet in Australia are still using IE6 still, this includes schools, health, and general government.

Thats my rant over.

[NJ]

IE6 Must Die for the Web to Move On (http://mashable.com/2009/07/16/ie6-must-die/)



I've had my own issues coding for IE6, but I thought you might like to know that the link you gave has crashed my IE6 2 times!

[NJ]

We may ask: Is Microsoft's intention to monopolize (corner) the web and make their own standard?




Great Post! However, I can't image that Microsoft would actually try to monopolize anything or make their own standard! In fact, we are probably just imaging that they have made .NET C++ unfriendly and C# friendly!

[Clint1]

Creating sites on the bleeding edge of technology will leave users behind. If you want to be there, so be it. If you are looking for customers, you play to THEIR space.

Back to your original question - Until someone makes a compelling arguement, Joe Average just dosen't want to go through the time and effort to upgrade a browser. What does it gain them? The Internet looks just dandy right now, with the browser I have, (IE6), thank you very much. Don't flame me with security issues, Joe Average has the security software that came with his PC, and he pays for updates on his credit card annually... so that is all he thinks he needs (security wise).

There is always the powerful "if it ain't broke" arguement. How many have had problems after a Windows Update? How do you convince Joe Average to "take the chance"? Like upgrading the cams in your engine, it may be faster, more powerful, get better mileage, etc. but very very few people do it.

Learn to live with IE6, software inertia will keep it here for a long, long time.
That sounds just like me. ;) BTW, go to YouTube.com in IE6, IE7 or FF 2.x and check out their kind of extortion. Wow, that's going to cost them loads of traffic. Good.

"We will be phasing out support for your browser soon.
Please upgrade to one of these more modern browsers."

And at the right they have icons for IE8, FF 3.5, and of course, Chrome.

[kgun]

That sounds just like me. ;) BTW, go to YouTube.com in IE6, IE7 or FF 2.x and check out their kind of extortion. Wow, that's going to cost them loads of traffic. Good.

Yes, and Opera is not good on Flash. That will cost them traffic unless it is soon fixed. The default installation of Flash in Opera may not function.

Yesterday my son using (and loving) Opera had to use FireFox, my second choice. (I use Opera when buying on line and logging into my bank accoun (http://www.webproworld.com/internet-security-discussion-forum/84600-browser-shopping-online.html#post438949)t). We had a discussion where he claimed that it is Adobes fault that Flash don't function properly in Opera. I said. You can not blame Adobe (unless it is security related). You have to blame the programmers at Opera.


... we are probably just imaging that they have made .NET C++ unfriendly and C# friendly!
I have always preferred and still prefer C++Builder. See the last link in my signature. That is a personal choice however.

Creating sites on the bleeding edge of technology will leave users behind. If you want to be there, so be it. If you are looking for customers, you play to THEIR space.
Good pint.



Back to your original question - Until someone makes a compelling arguement, Joe Average just dosen't want to go through the time and effort to upgrade a browser. What does it gain them? The Internet looks just dandy right now, with the browser I have, (IE6), thank you very much. Don't flame me with security issues, Joe Average has the security software that came with his PC, and he pays for updates on his credit card annually... so that is all he thinks he needs (security wise).
So you should not advice Joe Average on security issues? Note, you are on a professional forum. Advising your client on the most secure browser (whichever you as a professional mean that is) should be a great advice that your client will thank you for.


The canvas tag is part of an unofficial specification, and not part of the current HTML specs. This is the reason Microsoft gives for not supporting it, claiming that all the CSS issues that were in IE6 and 7 were the result of adopting an unofficial version of the CSS standard that was different from the final version which the other browsers, released after IE6, had time to implement. They claim that they expect the canvas tag to undergo similar changes before becoming official, and want to wait to support it.

It should also be noted that Canvas is considered proprietary intellectual property of Apple, and Apple has sent Cease and Desist orders to browser authors implementing the tag, including the author of WebKit, the rendering engine for, of all things, the default Apple browser, Safari. Apple did rework the license terms to comply with W3C so that the tag can become royalty free. However, until the W3C makes Canvas part of an official specification, the element will still be considered proprietary and must be licensed by any browser which implements it.
My bolding.

The Canvas is considered proprietary? Which canvas? The canvas element? C++ Builder 2009 has a canvas component (binary piece of code) that is dropped on a form when you build your applications. Is that, a side from C++ Builder being a great paid platform, proprietary too?

Uio.no (http://heim.ifi.uio.no/%7Ekristen/FORSKNINGSDOK_MAPPE/F_OO_start.html) (university of Oslo) and simula (http://www.simula.no/) should have made object oriented programming proprietary back in the mid 1960's. HTML DOM would then... (it is a joke).

[wige]

Yes, the canvas element as it is currently implemented is considered by Apple to be their intellectual property. Any rendering engine which uses it must pay royalties. This is part of what makes the future of the tag uncertain in the final HTML5 specification. The W3C strongly favors using open standards or technologies that are royalty free. To get canvas included in HTML5, Apple did agree to change the licensing to an open license - however, that open license will only go into effect if and when the W3C includes the tag as part of the official approved specification. Until then, if you want your browser to support the canvas element, you have to pay Apple.

On the patent disclosures list for HTML5, Apple lists 7 patents in all. Most appear to be related to the canvas tag. It is hard to be sure, however, since the specification has changed section numbers since the list was created.

[kgun]

Good to know. Thank you.

[morestar]

yes I have to say thank you too to all of you for your responses - it was much more than I expected and you provided a lot of information - especially wige...good information regarding HTML 5 in general and IE6.

[colin4255]

Many, many of my clients won't upgrade Internet Explorer because every other time they have upgraded windows, their version or to a new one, or upgraded explorer, or added another service pack - they have had hours of fun with stuff that simply doesn't work any more. Like most people who are fed up with Microsoft having its users do its development, over 90% of the people I do work for have had enough and are sticking with what they know and what works.

Its interesting that of the 40 or so of them who upgraded to Vista when it came out, only 9 of them are left using it - the rest have gone back to Windows XP - I think that says it all really. People just want to wake up in the morning and turn on their PC and have it work - they could really care less about all the amazing changes and upgrades and to so-called improved user experience - they just want a PC that works, which is why most of them are sticking with what they know does.

The rest, like many of the others who've posted here have already said - simply won't pay the real cost of the upgrade when they have a working browser now. Unlike most of us they are not that interested in computers, only that they function when they turn them on and that is not something Microsoft have a good track record with.

[kgun]

Its interesting that of the 40 or so of them who upgraded to Vista when it came out, only 9 of them are left using it - the rest have gone back to Windows XP - I think that says it all really. People just want to wake up in the morning and turn on their PC and have it work - they could really care less about all the amazing changes and upgrades and to so-called improved user experience - they just want a PC that works, which is why most of them are sticking with what they know does.

There is an alternative. Gradually upgrading. Give n persons a new computer at the same time that person can keep the old one. Vista has many nice features that I find valuable.

I have seen companies using old DOS programs that function not upgrading to Windows versions;).

[TechEvangelist]

I still develop sites using IE 6 because it is the most broken browser out there. My logic is that if a site works well in IE 6, it will likely work in any browser. I also test in Safari, FF and Chrome.

I am surprised when I see the number of sites that do not work in IE 6. Due the number of still active IE 6 users, it will take quite a while before IE 6 goes away.

CSS has been around for a long time now. It took 5 to 6 years before enough browsers were compatible enough to allow safe development of a pure CSS web site. We could possibly be dealing with the same issue with HTML5.

The best way to get the remaining users to upgrade IE is to get them to upgrade to Windows 7. But that is not likely to happen. The surveys that I've seen indicates that most businesses are not likely to upgrade due to bad experiences with Vista combined with the huge cost of upgrading. Most home users who refuse to upgrade will probably not do so until they buy a new PC.

It looks like HTML5 will remain an interesting concept, but an impractical tool, for many years.

[Clint1]

Many, many of my clients won't upgrade Internet Explorer because every other time they have upgraded windows, their version or to a new one, or upgraded explorer, or added another service pack - they have had hours of fun with stuff that simply doesn't work any more. Like most people who are fed up with Microsoft having its users do its development, over 90% of the people I do work for have had enough and are sticking with what they know and what works.

Its interesting that of the 40 or so of them who upgraded to Vista when it came out, only 9 of them are left using it - the rest have gone back to Windows XP - I think that says it all really. People just want to wake up in the morning and turn on their PC and have it work - they could really care less about all the amazing changes and upgrades and to so-called improved user experience - they just want a PC that works, which is why most of them are sticking with what they know does.
That's exactly some of the reasons I always say that. If it ain't broke don't fix it, and we all know that it takes years for M$ to get something "right", even though rarely is it ever actually "right", it's just less buggy.

[nickseo]

Don't worry. IE 6 will become less and less important. IMO there are other more serious problems with I.E.

Microsoft invented the XMLHttpRequest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XMLHttpRequest) object (the heart in todays AJAX applications) in 1999. Other companies and W3C soon adopted the standard, but in good Microsoft tradition they used another IMO worse solution.

IE 8 and below is not even W3C DOM compliant (http://www.kjellbleivik.com/bt.htm).

There are some important links regarding FaceBook etc at the bottom of this AdSchoolWorld: Social Media Optimization (http://www.adschoolworld.com/smo/smo.htm) page.

We may ask: Is Microsoft's intention to monopolize (corner) the web and make their own standard?

There are other much more important questions / problems:

W3C abandons XHTML2, Increases Resources for HTML5 (http://www.webmasterworld.com/html/3945108.htm)

What about the Canvas tag (http://www.w3schools.com/tags/html5_canvas.asp) etc.

http://www.webproworld.com/web-programming-discussion-forum/61639-xml-family-technologies-will-revolutionize-web-linking-etc.html#post330575 ???

We are still striving with the bad HTML dialect of XML. It is too early to know the future.

http://www.webproworld.com/google-discussion-forum/63125-ignore-misunderstandings-have-produced-present-world-2.html#post339093 ?? when more and more new are introduced?

You bring up such a relevant point in this about microsofts monopalisation (note the s in there us crazy europeans) but microsoft has been the one setting the trends for years. the reason we have "file" at the top left on most programs is probably because microsoft put it there in word first. people get so used to having the same layouts and when new programs come out they still follow format of old ones so that we can instantly pick them up and use them. notice then with office 2007 how the layout changed to tabs, and i.e7 changed its layout (really infuriatingly as we all had to get used to a new homepage position). point being, that microsoft can and will change its programs to try and keep people from geting to comfortable with something to stay with them. we dont all have time to get used to using new browsers and try them all out, so if were used to ie, which comes standard on most computers, a lot of people wont even try learning the different layout of ff etc.

[johnWorks]

Because our clients are primarily in B2B enterprise software, we deal with this all the time building sites.

According to a recent Forrester Research study, 60% of companies still use IE6 as their default browser -- blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=17290

Looking at analytics for our clients, thankfully the IE6 share isn't this high, but still tends upwards of 10% out of all visitors -- so it's still something we need to be mindful of.

[langsor]

In my experience -- organizations adopt new technology slowly; government slower still; and individuals, when a friend or relative tells them how cool a new technology is.

I am still reminded how technologically unsophisticated the majority of people are. People are afraid of breaking their computer and incurring costly repairs, by installing software or updates on their own. If they have a friend or nephew or someone to do it for them, they are more likely to get it done.

Personally, my goal is to jump over Vista OS entirely and go from XP to 7, since my last computer purchase came with Vista and it took me some effort to get the XP drivers for the hardware and downgrade to XP. I did try it for a while, just long enough to convince me that maybe I was in the wrong profession and should go back to some other income source than computers.

Likewise, SP3 for XP gives you dire warnings, and getting around to backing everything up before doing an update isn't usually top of my priority list. I did, of course, eventually install SP3 but the average person is less likely to ever get around to it.

Anyway, just a few random thoughts.

Ciao

[earnest]

Well, Microsoft have a pretty imposing track record of opposing open standards as hard as they can.

I believe that IE6 resilience may be accounted for, apart from customer inertia, by the fact that it arrived implanted into the system.

But the don't fix something that is not broken logic is a powerful thing, and I can imagine how those who chose to upgrade to Vista ended up promising themselves not to touch anything again. Another thing is that the non-so-tech people may be completely unaware of the existence of the more convenient browsers - oh the sheer excitement of discovering Firefox or Opera.

However, phasing out IE6 seems like something that MS seem to be doing themselves - e.g. it won't be supported by the next version of SharePoint.

[deepsand]

The needs of organizations and individuals are quite different.

The former place a much greater emphasis on function over form than do the latter. Much of the changes implemented in both IE7 & 8, as well as alternative browsers, provide very little additional functional benefit to organizations, such that there is no compelling reason for them to invest time and/or monies in switching browsers.

Furthermore, there are an exceeding large number of on-line resources which are static in nature, and which will never be altered so as to either conform to newer standards or take advantage of new browser features. Thus, backward compatibility will for a very long time be necessarily required of at least some browsers.