putting ie6 out to pasture
Many things live on past their use-by date, but few have shown the zombie-like tenacity of IE6. It has remained animated, chewing on our brains long after it should have stopped twitching.
We've all felt the pain of building for IE6 alongside modern browsers. So, it's glorious to be able to say this - 2009 is the year we get rid of IE6. Say it with me, people!
We know it's the right decision. IE6 is obsolete, insecure and takes a disproportionate amount of developer time. It doesn't make any sense to support IE6 when times are tough and budgets are short.
No more waiting. I can feel it in the very bones of this industry - can't you?
It's not just funny slogans and therapeutic IE6 hate sites, either. We're talking about the reality of how we actually get this browser off our support lists.
why now?
IE6 is long overdue for the chop, but the release of IE8 was the last piece of the puzzle.
IE7 wasn't it - there were too many locked down corporate environments, too many intranets that only work in IE6. Too many corporate policies about running one version behind the latest, for reasons like stability and cost.
IE6 has hung on, retaining a truly astounding market share - even now it hangs on to roughly 18% depending on your source. Much as we hate building for it, we had to accept that people were using it.
But now, IE8 is out. That puts IE6 two entire versions behind; and companies with IE6-only services have had two years to prepare for the inevitable. Microsoft's recommendation is to upgrade:
Customers who have applications for Internet Explorer 6 should visit http://msdn.microsoft.com/iecompat for the latest guidance on migrating from Internet Explorer 6 to Internet Explorer 7 and Internet Explorer 8.
Internet Explorer 8 Business FAQ (PDF)
IE6 is just too old and outdated to be part of a responsible corporate operating environment. Similarly, home users with IE6 should upgrade to something more secure even if they don't care about the new features. There just aren't any good arguments for keeping IE6.
just how old is ie6, again?
IE6 was released in August 2001. Its competitors were Netscape 6 and Opera 6. Firefox and Safari weren't even out when IE6 was released.
IE6 is older than iPods, Canon dSLRs and BlackBerry smartphones (the Sony-Ericsson P800 was the hot smartphone at the time). It's older than MySpace and YouTube. Web 2.0 wasn't even a buzzword yet...
We are talking about a browser that simply wasn't designed for the modern web. IE sat stagnant for more than five years while other browsers improved standards compliance, speed, security and features.
The real kicker is that since Microsoft was shocked back into IE development, they have released two major versions of the product. They make no bones about whether IE6 should still be in use:
Internet Explorer 6 was designed for the Web as it was in 2001. In the last 8 years the Web has changed and evolved. ... Internet Explorer 8 provides the latest features to help users get work done more quickly, and browse the Web more safely and more reliably.
That's about as blunt as corporations get about their own product. Microsoft can't really push much harder - it's stuck with a long support plan for IE6 because it came bundled with several operating systems.
What this all means it that we should switch from "waiting for IE6 to go away" mode, to "giving it a push out the door" mode.
options for "not supporting" ie6
So what does it actually mean to "not support" IE6?
Unlike other decrepit browsers, IE6 is still clinging to a market share large enough that few sites can dismiss it outright. For some lucky sites the share is low enough to aggressively push it out, but for the rest of us we need some interim options.
In the world of graded browser support, IE6 still manages to be its own category.
So, here are some options:
- No change: continue full support. If you are stuck with this, make sure your timelines and maintenance budget are increased - the site owner needs to be aware of the costs.
- Reduced bugfixing: aim for full support, but when you hit an IE6 bug you fix it the simplest way. That usually means IE6 will look a bit different - a few px here and there - but you can save days of development time.
- Progressive enhancement: use advanced CSS and provide a premium experience for better browsers. So what if IE6 gets square corners instead of round ones, or loses a text shadow? It doesn't matter so long as the site is still functional in IE6.
- Soft push: keep supporting IE6, but show a low-key message on your site encouraging people to upgrade (or contact their IT department requesting an upgrade).
- Aggressive push: actively tell your users not to use IE6; stop serving stylesheets to IE6; etc. Some high-profile sites like Facebook are going down this path, but right now it's not a viable option for all sites.
Chances are that your roadmap will move through these phases, for example a combination of reduced bugfixing and progressive enhancement is likely to fit a lot of mainstream sites.
arguments and questions
If you take this issue to your boss, or to your clients, it's not hard to anticipate a few questions coming up...
- Don't you support other older browsers?
- Not two entire versions behind and not when the browser in question can take as long to support as all the others put together.
- Don't we just have a percentage threshold for browser support? Don't we have to wait for IE6's share to drop to nothing?
- Browser support really isn't quite that simple. In any case IE6 has an artificially inflated share, despite being the worst browser on the market. It has to be pushed out.
- I can't just take your word that IE6 is bad...
- Ok... Microsoft evangelists recommend upgrading and Gartner strongly recommend you upgrade or switch if you're still on IE6. Does that help?
- Surely bugfixing isn't that big a deal?
- IE6 is so outdated "bugfixing" means "build and maintain a parallel code base". If we're going to that much effort, maybe we should invest in a purpose-built mobile site instead? Or free up some time for R&D? Or just simply drop IE6 and save some money?
- It's your job to build the website, just get on with it.
- It's also our job to advise the business when it's making an expensive and risky decision. It is bad for business to support this browser.
- Can't I simply expect you to build for it, like last time?
- Not any more. Now that we have to support IE8, IE6 is outside the reasonable boundaries of assumed support. IE6 support is now outside scope, unless you pay for it.
- Don't your estimates cover it?
- The market has now changed and estimates need to be revised accordingly.
- We only have IE6, since our intranet only works in IE6.
- That's a very risky dependency. However it should not dictate the support standard for your public website, which is frequented by people who don't use your intranet.
- As far as intranets go... IE7 has been out for more than two years; and Microsoft has released two entire rounds of "readiness kits" to help update IE6-only services. At this point, maybe you should consider using Virtual PC for your IE6-only application (it's free); and upgrade workstation browsers to something better.
- If you're really stuck with IE6, you can also roll out an additional browser on your system; giving users a modern, secure browser like Opera, Firefox, Chrome or Safari for general web use. You do not have to live with just one browser.
- But... IE6 looks different... DIFFERENT I TELL YOU!
- Unless you have a contractual obligation to make IE6 pixel-perfect, that really doesn't matter. Let the web be the web.
last thoughts
Most browsers don't need this kind of attention at the end of their lives. Most die out pretty fast when the new version comes out. IE6 is an aberration, an accident of history.
If Microsoft hadn't sat on IE6 for so long, perhaps we wouldn't have got so many web and application developers who started treating it like a stable release environment. Maybe if Microsoft had pushed IE7 a bit harder it would have taken more market share. Who knows.
The reality we have right now is that the industry is being held back by a crappy browser that even the vendor wants to see gone. Although we would normally keep supporting a browser to its natural death, IE6 has stubbornly refused to die.
The industry has to take control and say enough is enough. It's bad for innovation, it's bad for our sanity, it's bad for security, it's bad for everyone's bottom line. IE6 has to go. The time has come.
Say it again: 2009 is the year we get rid of IE6!
Amen brother.
I'm currently reprogramming and redesigning my own website and my plan is to totally ignore IE 6 and 7. For IE 6 I'm not going to load any stylesheets at all (though luck) and as for IE 7... I don't care. I'm not going to spoil my code with pointless widths, display inline's and conditional comments. I'm going to use some of CSS3 and HTML5 too.
IE 6, burn in browser hell!
Not too long ago I've written a little post on IE6 support. Sadly it is not we who decide whether to keep or stop supporting ie6. I'd love to get rid of it too, and I hope that 2009 will be the year it finally dies, but as long as people keep using ie6, we'll need to support it.
What about a sixth option, just ignore it and it will go away. In other words don't do anything to actively make the IE6.0 experience less satisfactory but leave users to fend for themselves. Providing websites are built using standards based code etc. they are unlikely to entirely break in IE6 anyway.
Richard Morton
http://accessibleweb.eu/
Yes, 2009 is the year, but let's please wait until IE8 is fully released before pushing users too hard to upgrade. If their current logical upgrade path is IE7, I fear we'll be seeing "Putting IE7 out to pasture" blog posts in a couple years.
before writing my post, I was fixing an issue in IE6. As far as client/market demands we cannot say NO to IE6. However, I wish IE6 should die before the Niagara freezes.
I'm totally on board with dropping IE6 support. I think that most businesses will simply not stop using it until the web 'stops working' on it.
That is the best opening sentence ever!
Totally true = time to be buried IE6.
I have found a big problem to be the lazy IT departments of corporations. They all tend to use Windows 2000 because they know the problems later Windows versions have. Some have the old XP operating systems. All of which come shipped with evil Explorer 6. For the IT departments it is easier to install the operating system, maybe Office and call it good. As far as I am aware from my own experience, many people working in these environments don't care about what they are using - it's work and that's what is given. Getting IT support is hard anyway.
So maybe we need to not only kill IE6, but most of Microsoft's old stuff in general. It seems that Unix machines are making their way into our schools (Australia) and Mac is getting extremely popular. Fingers crossed hey as I am sick of clients ringing up saying that their website does not look like it did on my screen.
Thanks for the article - really great.
IE6 is dominant, I think we need to focus on users being aware of this and upgrade to a faster, more reliable browser. But large corporate infrastructures for example might have to get the IT technician to do some work. Lol.
Sadly, there are (and have been) countless posts and articles on this very subject, but they are all preaching to the converted. This is pointless.
The should be a massive petition by the web industry to Microsoft to put their foot down if fix this situation they have created.
They should send a serious letter to all businesses and corporations who are still running IE6 to tell them they are responsible for crippling the evolution of the web and make/help them get a move on.
@Niels Matthijs, ipog et al regarding having to wait for IE6 to fade away: for most browsers I'd agree, but with IE6 I think we need to give it an active shove.
@Jared Smith: How long do you think we should wait? IE8 is out and should be pushed in the next Windows Update round. Maybe if people have already been asked to upgrade they'll be more likely to say 'yes' when that question pops up.
@Richard Morton: If you stop fixing things without alerting users, aren't you concerned people will just think your page is broken?
@Joe, Ryan: I suspect a lot of IT departments actually wouldn't mind upgrading the browser to something newer. Often you find the upgrade is held back by some internal system that only works in IE6, which is a headache if the business refuses to fix the system. Microsoft are recommending the upgrade though - for both the browser and the old IE6-only systems :)
@Anon: What if that letter never comes, or businesses don't care when it does?
I think there are many organizations that will only upgrade IE6 when they upgrade their workstations to Vista/ Windows 7. As noted there are also a lot of applications that work only on IE6. Updating a nation wide health care system isn't simple and cheap for example. In contrast I've heard of examples where an organization has bought a new application but as it was built with new Ajax-heavy techniques it didn't run very smoothly in IE6. Hacks and patches had to be built to support IE6 better as the organizations could not upgrade due to other, legacy apps.
Although organizations with all sorts of applications might be the necromancers resurrecting the dying IE6 zombie again and again, I think that the biggest problem are the common users. I know this is a wrong thing to say as ordinary users (non IT/web savvy people) wouldn't care less about browsers and don't have the competence to make educated choices what browser to use and this is the problem!
People just don't care what browser they are using as long as it works reasonably well and they get the content they want. Of course this is overly generalized claim but there is a point in it. People's browsers will get updated when they buy new computers...
is there a browser (anything) newer than IE5.5 for Mac OS9?
We do tha killing'. You do the burying.
Bang bang.
Ben, mate, you've clearly never worked for government. Two years is like yesterday for a good-sized bureaucracy. I can tell you for a fact that the biggest organisation in this wide brown land has committed to keeping XP and IE6 for at least another couple of years. Management couldn't care less about IE but they're scared of Vista and anything else new.
Amen! IE6 is past. It's about time we told the users to move on, we can't expect them to commit the change by themselves.
Brian said that government was keeping XP. Ok, fine. But they can switch to IE7/8 anyways, rite? It's not that big of a deal I guess... :P
Great job, grats!
Oooohhh it's a good article, possibly one of the best I've read on the whole 'drop IE6' debate.
It kills me, it makes me want to stop being a web designer sometimes. Unfortunately I'm the only one our office who can now really do any IE debugging and we have some big clients who use IE6 - we just can't win. It has to be done.
I'm sorry to say but it's still not going away yet, but I am - I'm going to travelling around the world and live in a cave for years until I hear word of the death of IE6 - then I'll come out to a shining world of CSS3 and HTML5.
See you in 2020!
PREACH IT SISTA!!!!
IE6 was never meant to last as long as it did. MSFT was trying to be cheap because there was no competition for so long. Now that there is viable competition they've had no choice but to get rid of IE6 support. MSFT didn't count on all of the bad press they'd get as a result of IE6 lasting so long especially since it was the best browser around for quite awhile. Now IE6 will go down as a much worse browser than it would've had MSFT come out with a replacement sooner. Competition drives innovation.
Alas, for our site, which has a higher percentage of corporate users than average, IE6 users still comprise 31% of our traffic. That's way down from the 53% IE6 commanded in January 2008, but we've still got a while to go before we can stop supporting that browser entirely. (IE8, by the way, is way down at 1.2% for March) Nevertheless, you've made a strong argument for degrading IE6 support and we'll certainly be thinking hard about that now. Thanks!
IE6 may be bad, but not half as bad as IE7 is/was, relatively speaking, and it looks at the moment like IE8 is actually the worst of the three.
I have a little javascript window to recommend users to download new explorers with some options. May be, every web developer should provide links for other alternatives. Many users won't even bother to upgrade if they are not guided, be by ignorance or lack of interest. Good bye IE 6 !
What about security warning the US put out about it saying to upgrade due to a potential virus that could get into your system with IE6? US-CERT, was the agency and it was one hell of a warning. I think when your software makes it to the US-CERT you need to upgrade.
> Maybe if Microsoft had pushed IE7 a bit harder it would have taken more market share. Who knows.
You may say "who knows" but one of the main reasons there was not more pressure on companies to update to IE7 was that they didn't release it for Windows 2000 or NT. Upgrading a browser is a relatively simple and cheap procedure, upgrading your entire operating platform is not only more complicated but also involves spending money. If you, as a business, then also have to spend money to upgrade all your intranet applications at the same time this can start to be a very expensive undertaking. It's hardly surprising that it took so long for budget approval and upgrades.
If IE7 had been available as a free upgrade for NT and 2000 then we would have seen much faster adoption.
@Bircha: I don't think we have to wait for all users to buy new computers - after all a huge proportion of users manage to update plugins like Flash, particularly when they get a push from sites they want to use.
@Brian: Bureaucracy may be slow but its also risk-averse. IE6 is a big risk, as is having intranets dependent on uncontrolled and end-of-life software. Eventually they'll have to move - sure, they'll be slow (probably last), but it will happen.
@Redswish: Bill them extra and see how long they care about IE6 ;) Seriously though, track the time lost to IE6 and show your boss how much it cuts out of your bottom line. Even if you don't make the move across the board, you can start pushing more savvy clients to a better browser profile. Ditching IE6 certainly makes financial sense for new builds.
@Oscar: I've always been astounded that so many people are willing to ignore security warnings; but still it all helps the cause :)
@robertc: I do find it interesting that companies sticking with NT and w2k didn't just roll over to a better browser as their default. There'll be plenty of people who won't use the alternative, of course; but every user that switches is one more step in the right direction.
...
One common thread running here is a focus on what organisations have installed on their workstations. Ultimately that doesn't have to hold back a more reasonable browser support matrix for your public website. Yes, it is far easier to move your support matrix forward if everyone's on something newer, but it's not actually an absolute requirement. Also, there's nothing stopping an IE6 organisation going to a lower level like reduced bugfixing.
I know that my local K-12 school district is standardized on IE6. Due to proliferation of viruses, the school computers are locked down. School budget cuts have left the IT department with a skeleton crew of less than 8 support people to maintain computers in 23 schools.
There's no chance in the near future (1 year to 18 months) that the school district will upgrade to IE7 or IE8.
That means 20,000+ IE6 users not being able to access sites from companies whose website staff have decided not to support IE6.
Lots more stories like my school district. I don't have an answer, but know that students, teachers, and counselors in our school district are already missing out on content and news from websites who have taken a "no more IE6 support" stance.
"Maybe if Microsoft had pushed IE7 a bit harder it would have taken more market share."
Maybe if IE7 wasn't absolute user-hating bloatware, this would have happened naturally. People don't want a more secure browser that runs more slowly. Because of this aspect of human behavior, IE7 was, in a sense, less secure: it encouraged users to not update their browser, because the user experience declined.
Unless IE8 is a miracle of engineering, (and we know it isn't when you look at it next to TraceMonkey or WebKit), then it is time to drop support for IE6, IE7, IE8, and every IEx for the foreseeable future. Move towards exclusive support of FF, Chrome, Opera and Safari, maybe Konqueror and a handful of other indie browsers, and give users a hard boot to do likewise.
I know this isn't possible for my site but out of protest for years of IE nightmare my own site will have the following:
(body)
(!--[if !IE 6])(!--)
Site content
(!--(![endif]--)
(/body)
... obviouly with correct characters, thanks for the conditional exclude comments microsoft - lol
oops that is to say "I know this isn't possible for most sites"
@Deborah: Unfortunately being stuck with IE6 was about the worst result from the browser security point of view. I feel for your admins, they have a huge job ahead. I suspect your users would be best off if people offered a 'bare bones' version of their content, rather than just letting it break. You may find some sites will simply stop serving stylesheets at all, which would look very plain but actually not be such a bad result in some ways.
@Thomas B: Heh, few sites could get away with that! Really I don't mind if the browser comes from Microsoft, so long as it's not too bad to develop for. It's not like Firefox has been without memory problems of its own - poor old FF2 had dreadful memory problems by the end... ;)
@Anon: I suspect a lot of people will use that trick to hide all CSS from IE - perhaps not the content as well, though!
Good post, I'm afraid I've been an IE basher for years but done very little to try and change things. I've made the same mistakes most of us have by accepting it doing more testing and hacks to get the damn thing to work while muttering under my breath... IE sucks.
Just recently I was working on a project for a local authority and was toying with the idea of dropping IE6 support. When I asked the client if this was feasible, firstly they didn't have a clue what browser they were using and upon further investigation the whole organisation was still on IE6. When I went to give the staff training on the system, we sat in a room full of shiny new machines (only weeks old) all of wich had had the standard treatment by the IT guys. i.e. network install of the standard accepted OS and security setup.
Having previously been involved in IT I can understand why it was important to do this but what I can't understand is why at the very least IE7 hasn't made it on to the "accepted" list. Surely a local authority can invest some time in hacking their old antiquated intranets or whatever systems are stopping them upgrading as this will be more cost effective than continuing to support such an antique.
I think I might start charging an IE6 compatibility fee. In other words, if a client wishes for their new site to be IE6 compatible, they can pay for it. How Microsoft is that!?
Yuck - IE6 is awful. I've spent countless hours getting the CSS on our website to work with CSS compliant browsers (Firefox, Safari, Opera) but then you have to do those annoying conditional IFs in the CSS for IE5, IE6 and IE7.
I was actually relieved to discover IE8 is CSS compliant.
About 25 per cent of users of our website are still on IE6 and this excludes our own staff, who are all on IE6.
I really can't believe that IE6 has existed for almost the entire millennium (makes it sound much more ancient when you phrase it that way).
Well since seeing that Microsoft has incorporated IE8 into a mainstream Windows Update package now i'd say yes. It's time to kill IE6 ourselves as web developers. Though I like the idea to charge for IE6 support.