Why IE6Update is Right
It's 2009 and we're still debating IE6. To bear in mind how ridiculous this is, IE7 (many times better than IE6) was released in October 2006, almost 2.5 years ago. There have been many sites that provide tips or scripts on how to notify IE6 users to upgrade.
- Pushup
- I Dropped IE6
- IE6 Upgrade Warning
- Stop Living in the Past
- IE6 Update - getting a lot of attention now
And with people like Scott Hanselman, a Microsoft Evangelist, asking people to upgrade, you know there are good reasons to do it.
The creator of IE6 Update just tweeted about Frisk Design's blog post on why IE6 Update is wrong. Now it's my turn to say why it's SO right. Let's look at their claims.
- It's dishonest and claims authority where there is none
- It's misleading
- It's alarmist
- It's designed to help developers, not users
It's dishonest and claims authority where there is none
What's more dishonest, trying any way possible to make your user's browsing experience better or letting them wallow in a technology that's 7+ years old with 2 major release upgrades that are more secure, faster and safer? Yes, impersonating a system prompt might not be the nicest way to go about it, but if Microsoft, who's responsible for the monstrosity that is IE6 won't help, why not do what you think is RIGHT?
It's misleading
The semantics of view vs use vs operate, etc are too much for an argument like this. Frisk actually proves why the language is essentially right: Any well built site will still work in IE6, even if it looks or behaves differently than in a modern browser.
That's patently false because if a website behaves differently in a certain browser, then it doesn't behave correctly in that browser.
It's alarmist
It's alarming that corporate IT managers aren't upgrading their users or applications. It's alarming that Microsoft isn't forcing people to upgrade to a decent browser. Not everything can be nice and relaxing. And you need to understand, it's alarming to both designers and developers when the site renders incorrectly and it's alarming to the project manager when they see how many hours of developer time it took to fix the issues. I bet the money spent on fixing IE6 rendering issues is the most alarming of all.
It's designed to help developers, not users
Frisk explains his views on this in a blog post yesterday. Now, as a developer, read the paragraph Why do we want to be rid of IE6? and see if you can argue to yourself that IE6 should be supported. I think Frisk misses many points here. As a developer, my job is to introduce working features to make the site/product better for the user. The more time I have to devote to fixing bugs in IE6, the less time I get to work on implementing features. Does that actually help the user? Not at all. Remember, the developer is the expert. They're the ones that read about, work on, study and explore the web and her technologies every day. Users don't do that. It's a minimal investment in time to upgrade their browser. It's a maximal effort for a developer to fix the site to be compatible on older browsers.
If a client wants us to support IE6, we do. But there's a cost that goes along with it. We've found IE6 support can add 20-35% onto the front-end development time, and if that's a cost the client wants to bear, that's their decision. I think we all can't wait for the day when IE6 is gone and we don't have to argue about it anymore. Until then, flamewar ON!
PS: While I personally love IE6Update, I would never use it on a client's site unless they were cool with it, or if it were completely necessary. That being said, if you're reading this in IE6, please, please PLEASE upgrade if you can!
Post new comment