Web Developers - Is IE6 compatibility necesary?

R

runner

Registered User
Messages
1,094
I am using a newly developed site which works fine in all current browsers including IE7 and 8. However, its a bit ofline in IE6.
Is it necessary to get this sorted, do you think?
Are there sufficient IE6 browser users out there to worry about?
Appreciate your replies.
 
I wouldn't be too worried about it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8488751.stm

A lot still use it but when google will withdraw support for it people will end up upgrading. If your site works in any fair way in ie6 put up with it for now as it is on the way out.

Chrome seems to be the up and coming Firefox ... so check how it looks with Chrome.

Stick your site url in here to see how it looks in the many browsers that live out there:

http://browsershots.org/

Put a statcounter on your site .... you can monitor what browsers people are using who visit your site ... you can tailor your site to suit the majority:

http://www.statcounter.com

(no connection with any link above)
 
Paddy, thats brilliant!
Passes fine on all other browsers- wasnt aware of that testing site which is great.
I will see if it can be easily sorted, but probably ok to forget about it.
I can put code in the website for IE6 detection and issue an upgrade suggestion to users if they have the old version.
 
+1

Paddy,

To echo what runner said, that is brilliant. Wasn't aware of Browsershots but it's a great site to know about so thanks for posting!
 
I know several companies locked into IE6 and refuse to upgrade, taking the option to upgrade out of the users hands. If your target market is the casual office internet browser, this may be worth re-considering.
 
If you use Google Analytics or any other web traffic monitor, it will tell you what browsers your visitors are using, so this information will help you to work out how siginficant this is.

The solution is not just as simple as 'give them a message to upgrade'. Many users in corporate environments do not have admin rights to their machines, so they are not able to upgrade. If the corporate policy is IE6, then you are excluding these people from using your site. Some people who use special software or disabled people using assistive technology may be tied to an old browser for cost reasons, and will not be able to upgrade.
 
For 2009 my site showed 72% of users on IE , 18% of those on IE.


It depends on what's on your site as a technology site would have very different figures.
 
Thanks for all the comments and excellent suggestions.

The clients of this site are not corporate, and its mainly aimed at informing existing customers and providing them on-line access to the outstanding invoices and statements and safety certificates which they can view, download and print as well as brochure type information on the company products and services.
Its the front page only thats being partially shifted down creating a chunk of blank space, which is just a bit ugly but its still fully operative. The rest of the site is fine once you go past front page.
Was just thinking of having IE6 detection, and saying 'for a better user experience etc.., try a more up o date browser such as X, Y Z etc' and leaving it as is?
 
Last edited:
A website should make accommodation for as many browsers as possible - including ie6. Ironically, its usually the other way around - wont work on anything but IE! its a pet hate of mine that so many sites do this. Ulster Bank is a prime example - on firefox under linux it says go get IE - tell firefox to identify itself as IE and lo, the site works fine... stupid devs... (rant over!)
 
galleyslave said:
A website should make accommodation for as many browsers as possible ...
Click to expand...

No theres a practical consideration. Depends on the budget, and the number of users with different browsers. Theres the 80/20 rule. No point spending 50% of effort on 5% of users. The only way you'll know if by tracking what browsers are hitting your site.
 
AlbacoreA said:
No theres a practical consideration. Depends on the budget, and the number of users with different browsers. Theres the 80/20 rule. No point spending 50% of effort on 5% of users. The only way you'll know if by tracking what browsers are hitting your site.
Click to expand...
I did say "as possible" but then again it IS possible to write cross platform code that works perfectly well on different browsers. It doesn't take that much extra effort to write code that degrades gracefully. I suspect a major part of the problem is inexperienced developers
 
If your going based on rareness? IE6 probably has similar if not bigger user base than some of the other browsers like Chrome and Safari. Yet we're saying don't bother with it, but keep support of those other browsers. Personally I find most things work in IE7/8 and Safari, but not in Chrome or Opera. I'm not a web developer, so I don't know why this, but theres certain isn't a "few " issues. Theres a lot on a daily basis. It soon gets old, having to switch to a different browser to use a specific site.
 
galleyslave said:
A website should make accommodation for as many browsers as possible - ...
Click to expand...
I disagree. Websites should be written to comply with published standards, not to work with specific products. The original concept was to build web-sites that didn't need a specific OS, hardware or closed, proprietary tools to work. Some browsers, for example iCab, give users a simple option to highlight non-standard web-sites.
 
mathepac said:
I disagree. Websites should be written to comply with published standards, not to work with specific products. The original concept was to build web-sites that didn't need a specific OS, hardware or closed, proprietary tools to work. Some browsers, for example iCab, give users a simple option to highlight non-standard web-sites.
Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly agree re the standards, but realistically you can't exclude IE from the equation.
 
mathepac said:
I disagree. Websites should be written to comply with published standards, not to work with specific products. The original concept was to build web-sites that didn't need a specific OS, hardware or closed, proprietary tools to work. Some browsers, for example iCab, give users a simple option to highlight non-standard web-sites.
Click to expand...


That makes no sense to a business.

You can't turn away a large percentage of customers just to comply wtih theoretical standards.
 
Just be compatible with the main browsers .... use your website stats to see what most visitors are using, normally IE, Firefox, Opera, Chrome and one or two others.

By checking your stats you'll know what versions of IE are used most ... cater for the masses. Firefox updates automatically .... Windows Updater asks people to update to latest IE versions .... I'm plagued here to update to IE8.

Cater the best way you can ... but be realistic. I wouldn't exclude IE but I'd focus on the latest versions. As I posted above google will be withdrawing support for IE6 so its days are numbered. Focus on the latest versions. If it looks any way fair in IE6 accept it.
 
Thanks for the very useful comments on this IE6 issue.
In my particular instance, I developed with the latest Joomla 1.5 platform which I found excellent. It works to current web standards and when I processed the site through the recommended www.browsershots.org it worked fine in all 50 odd browsers with the exception of IE5 and 6. This I believe is because these do not work to agreed current web standards. Its fine in IE7,8 Chrome, Safari and Firefox etc.
It still leaves the problem of not catering for that sustantial subset of users who might still use IE6, but in this case Ive explained it to the client and he is not bothered.
I think its fine for web developeres who came through the IE6 generation to make their sites compatable, but its more difficult going back from current standards to legacy protocols. Im not a web developer anyway, just did it as a byproduct of other work.
 
The vast majoirity aren't using older browsers like IE5/6 because they want to, its because they've not bothered to upgrade it. Most will have no problem upgrading if required, if they really want the content.

IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top