Should we still support older browsers?

[carbonize]

There is a problem which is the blight of web designers lives. The problem being people still using older browsers such as Netscape 4 and Opera 5.

So I ask you, my fellow web designers, should we worry about how are pages will look in older browsers or just be concerned with how it looks in the latest since the majority of visitors are upto date?

There is a side thought on this thread which is that since Microsoft have stopped work on Internet Explorer (allegedly) and the CSS level 2 support in IE6 is incredibly shoddy compared to the latest Mozilla and Opera engines, should we start to think of IE as a hinderance to our work? Check out http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/ in both IE6 and either Opera or Mozilla to see what I mean.

[Sualdam]

Whilst IE still has the penetration it does, it would be sheer madness to even think about not supporting it.

On the other hand, if its penetration ever fell to the same level as some of the older or more obscure browsers then it would make perfect sense to me to stop supporting it.

I expect many 'anti-Gates' buffs will argue that we should stop supporting all IE versions immediately ;)

[carbonize]

I'm not anti Gates but how many web pages have you come across that have looked terrible on a browser such as Mozilla because the coder only uses IE and seems unaware their are other browsers? IE is too forgiving when it comes to sloppy code. A good web designer should always check their work in several browsers. IE's popularity is not down to it being the best, nor the cheapest, nor it having the most features but down to the fact that it came supplied with the OS(Windows).

[Sualdam]

Now, now. You did ask ;) (<-- wink means I'm joking)

Anyway, I notice someone has forced the poll so it's 50:50 again. It wasn't you, was it? ;)

I didn't say YOU were anti-Gates, nor did I say you were anything else. I just participated in your poll and made it clear that it was MY opinion I was stating.

No comment was aimed at you.

I feel that anti-Gates sentiments colour opinions much of the time.

I also feel that targeting the lowest common denominator in most cases is a bad idea - but I know others disagree with me.

I know that sites can look bad on some browsers - but my view is based on the above. In my experience people who use obscure browsers often do so because they are vehemently anti-Gates and anti-MS.

Personally - and this is strictly a personal opinion (heck. I wish I didn't have to keep emphasising that) - I have better things to do with my time than worry about such a tiny minority of people.

Again, others don't feel that way. But I do. :)

[OSFan]

People are always going to use older, slower systems, or other operating systems, for whatever reason may be.

I personally prefer to use Linux on my desktop, with Konqueror or Mozilla Firebird as my browser. As you will probably know, most software developed for these systems appear to be contantly in beta development, and people stick to the older, stable versions. I think this problem exists with Windows, such as the fact people missed out a Netscape version cause it was full of bugs, so people was using X or Z, missing Y.

I do however use Windows more times than not, because of the software I have to use for some work. (Now if everyone would just convert to something other than Windows, I wouldn't have to worry about compatibility).

But in Windows, I prefer Mozilla Firebird because it renders fast, and accurate, and takes less resources and time to download.

This isn't because I am anti Bill Gates. But many are not willing to try new things, and while IE is built into their operating system, they will use it for the simple reasons its convenient. People don't want to spend hours downloading and trying different browsers, when in most cases they are not going to see any difference, there is however many cases where it's visible that IE has serious problems.

[SyrenSong]

Generally speaking, I think it's important to support as many browsers as possible. But I also believe there can be extenuating circumstances for providing support for some browsers but not others.

I believe that ecommerce websites should be built so that they support as many browsers as possible. After all, what's the point in losing sales, even if it's only 5 or 6 a day? A sale is a sale, and income is income. The site owner doesn't care what browser a buyer is using. All they want to know about is the bottom line.

However, when it comes to sites that specialize in certain markets, then you have to look at who the market is and what browser(s) they're likely to use. Higher-tech companies are more likely to appeal to visitors using the most recent browsers available, therefore you can ignore older browsers a bit more safely.

If you're going to try to deal with the U.S. Federal Government, get over the whole IE compatibility thing, 'cause there are plenty of government offices that have removed the ability to surf the web with IE. They've got Netscape installed on their machines. PERIOD! If the site doesn't work in Netscape, then those folks just can't see your website.

If you're designing a site for an intranet, then you've got to design it for whatever they're using internally. If it's IE, then fine. Design for that and have fun with all the joys that Bill added to his browser. If it's Netscape, you can use all their bells and whistles and ignore IE. If it's some other browser, like Mozilla or Opera, choose your added features and design specs accordingly.

However, if you're designing a site to reach the broadest possible market, then you also need to take into account browsers like Lynx and Jaws, and design for accessibility.


There's really no simple answer to a question like this. You can't simply look at a single factor to make a decision like that. You have to look at the market you're trying to reach and make your decision from that point forward.

After all, if you don't design your site for older browsers, there's always someone else out there who will. And that's where those visitors will go to spend their money.

Just my 2-cents.

[httpman]

Hello Carbonize

When I create a design, I try to test it in as many brower as I can. But there are so many browsers, platforms and OS !

I stopped checking with IE4 1 year ago, because I couldn't see anymore login in my stats (less than 1% of my visitors used it at that time, so it was time to stop !). Now I'm checking for IE5+ full compatibility, seems reasonable even if IE6 IS the browser today.

I also test within NS4, but I should stop. Now that the whole Netscape story is dead, Mozilla should be the way. Of course I test my websites with Mozilla also - Who could not afford to test with Mozilla ?

.. Opera.
Up to now, I have seen no relevant contact from my log files. Opera is not really used as far as I can see, and in my mind it was supposed to be an old "text only" browser. I have to update. Regarding your post and the emphasis you put on it, I will check their browser - but it seems that I have to pay for that ? !"@~@##!.

Indeed, the main issue I encountered is the Mac. Their versions are not relevant to us on PCs : IE5 on Mac is based on an IE4 core!. Well, I have some eMac here but testing so many browsers on so many platforms sometimes gets on my nerves (I was about to say : sometimes sucks me, but I'm not sure it's great english ?). And I do not really test SUN, but I experienced some issues a few months ago. Now solved.

A+

Jean-Pierre

[carbonize]

Opera is far from a text only browser and the reason you probably don't se it in your logs is that it sends a fake IE tag by default. Also you don't have to pay for Opera, you only pay to remove the ads.

One thing that I think you need to understand is that, when all's said and done, there are only three different rendering engines in PC browsers. They are Gecko (Mozilla and Netscape), Opera, and the built in windows engine (IE and many derivatives).

As for IE on the mac you are very right. I once saw my site on a mac and it doesn't seem to like applying body background-colour to tables.

I have said before in this forum that I test all my pages on Mozilla Firebird, Opera, and IE. I occasionally ask people to test it for me in NS4, Konqueror, and on a mac.

[eXaion]

I think that we should only support older browsers (and resolutions) only if there is a revelant number of visitors going to your site using them.

But always, there must be some sort of backward compatibility so that they could at least see some sort of information out of your site despite maybe some misplaced graphics.

If you always work with older browser or screen resolutions, web design techniques will never advance, it will hold the web designer from applying its full potential...

And then there's flash...

[alex_b]

I guess it's more about a cost-benefit analysis. How much it costs you to support a certain browser versus how much would you loose if you don't.

And another issue is what do you mean by 'supporting'. The page either won't display, won't display the way you intended, or it will be ok. I think it should display as you intended in the most popular browsers and it should be usable in the others.

We try to stick to the standards, so we test primarily on Mozilla. At milestones we check with IE and Opera. There was very few situations when we needed to change something.

I would love to see more people stop using IE, but I'm afraid it won't happen very soon. So we have to take whatever challenges Big Bill gives us.