Related
This question already has answers here:
Closed 12 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Why is IE6 still a corporate favorite in some organizations?
As of July 2010, IE6 browser usage is still lingering at around 7%. (w3schools.com) It's well known that most installations of IE6 are coming from companies that have internal software systems that absolutely require the use of Internet Explorer 6 and have the browser installed on most if not all machines at said institution.
What is it exactly about these systems that they have to use this browser to run their software?
Some initial thoughts I had were:
Relying on IE6's implementation of CSS for proper page rendering.
Relying on IE6's implementation of Javascript that takes care of page logic.
Special .NET web controls specific to IE6.
IE6 extensions/plugins required for the web app to process properly.
Security restrictions imposed in IE6.
What are some cases you all have seen out in the wild?
Some internal web apps might rely on ActiveX, which only works in Internet Explorer (as far as I know). (So that would be an instance of item 4. on your list.)
It's not only that these programs were written specifically for IE6, but the cost of upgrading all their internal software when it "works" (heavy emphasis on the quotes) causes most upper management to invest money elsewhere, especially in today's economy.
Various theories:
As Paul states, legacy technologies like active X or MS's old version of JAVA run time
IE 6 had very broken CSS rendering, so anything written to 'only look right' in IE6 with CSS likely breaks badly in all the other browsers
Sloppy/lazy developers who wrote IE6 apps rather than Web Apps
Sloppy/lazy upper management o paid for IE6 apps rather than Web Apps
Apathy in internal IT departments preventing desktop upgrades
Apathy in upper management to keep front-line hardware actually up to date
Vendor has not certified/tested their software for the newer browsers.
Most resistance to upgrades I've seen has come from users who can't be taught new tricks, such as having to adjust to a control being in a different spot on a new version of the software.
The IT department can work its butt off testing/rolling out software all it wants, but if the users don't like it, the rollout will fail, no matter how much better/faster/cleaner/securer the new version is.
Governments (UK, Argentina, most LA) validating IE as their default browser (i mean, not a bylaw but the whole country) since IE6 and never upgraded for almost a decade? and, Windows XP is by far the most installed OS in the world, with ie6 sp1 as the primary browser.
ie6 will be here until 2014 for final users and for goverments, i would add 5 more (at least in LA).
will the world be here by then? who knows, make your work the easier you can. at any cost.
would your client plus$$ you for your ie6 version? mmm.
on the other hand, would you induce losses to a client because the visitors navigate the www with an obsolete software and you don't "support ie6 anymore"?
its an cyber-educational thing, people will realise one day (maybe prior 2014) that a browser is not a folder.
How can we distract our clients from using IE6. We know IE6 is not a good standard-compliant browsers; has many issues. How to satisfy clients so that they do not use IE6?
Thanks...
I'm currently in the process of building a new site for my company and I've been looking at http://code.google.com/p/ie6-upgrade-warning/.
Essentially it's a little javascript lib that checks to see if the user is running IE6 and if so it displays a nice little overlay on top of your site. The only problem I've got with it is that it completely blocks the user from using your site. I'd like to allow for them to use it anyways but I'd like them to know that their experience may not be as good as it could be. I'm sure it can be adapted though, you should never exclude people from using your site based on their user agent. That being said I think it's a good tradeoff that you try to get your users to upgrade and if they don't wan't to they can still use your site but they probably won't see all of the fancy pancy browser tricks that you can do with modern browsers.
(source: googlecode.com)
It sure looks nice anyway
Other resources include http://ie6update.com/ (not a fan though, you shouldn't trick users)
Update: Seems like someone made a bit more customizable version of this written in jQuery. See jreject.turnwheel.com
One of the reasons this problem exists is as follows.
Many IE6 user have no choice. They sit behind corporate firewalls with locked down machines and while on their home machines they will have the latest technology they are constrained by the workplace rules and policies.
So why do the corporates not upgrade from IE6 to 7 or 8? Well here is one reason. Workload.
As a sysop you need to upgrade 500 machines to the new browser.
In many cases these browsers run mission critical add-ins as ActiveX's etc so to do the upgrade you have to do all the testing and verification and then do a planned roll out upgrade, which will have problems, hiccups and glitches, a lot of work and late nights and unpaid overtime and a lot of flak from the users as you do this.
And what is the payback for this upgrade? Well the internal systems work on IE8 exactly as they worked on IE6, (well not always and you may need to rewrite that as well) but the users can now access the latest startup site that plugs into Facebook (but will be gone in 6 months) perfectly but it is not work related.
So unless there is a tangible business benefit many shops simply cannot se a reason, or justify the cost of a browser upgrade.
These locations will convert, when they go to Windows 7 perhaps or because the "application" they use internally is upgraded and needs the newer browser version. But at this point there is a justification for doing it.
N.B. I have recently worked in two jobs where IE6 compatibility was a must for this reason, large client bases, behind firewalls with lockdown, and i am not stating the above as a reason/excuse not to do it. The sooner the better.
Provided they have the proper permissions to do install software on their machines, use Chrome Frame. The speed boost, if nothing else, should be incentive alone.
"The customer is always right."
You can advise them otherwise, but if they want IE6 for whatever reason then it's up to them.
The best way is by educating them, make them aware of why you are blocking IE6. Do a comparison, case study, etc to convince them, try and put it in terms they may understand, try to convince them that using IE6 is a bad idea (whatever your reasons).
Its simple to implement a script to prevent IE Browsers from connecting to your site, however doing that may result in users being turned away. If this is a public site take into consideration the market share internet explorer has, unless your site is really incredible it is unlikely you will get a user to install a new browser.
To get around this in the past a simple splash page that informes them of the reasons not to use IE6, Example:
You are currently using internet explorer, while you may continue to browse this site using IE, please be aware that some functionality may not be available due to compliance standards within internet explorer, and due to this we do not support issues that arise when using Internet Explorer. We recommend using Google Chrome (Download here) or Mozilla Firefox (Download here).
If this is within a corprate environment you can always work with the IT department to ensure that alternate browsers are distributed. I recommend Google Chrome, simply beacuse of the ability to create "Application Windows" that eliminate problmem causing elements of the browser GUI (Back buttion etc...)
Having a site that elegantly degrades when the user's browser is IE6 is the best option. IE6 users should still be able to use your web site - if a particular feature requires a modern browser a user will be more likely to switch if they already find your site useful.
Another point: modern javascript libraries like jQuery makes it easier to code sites that are compatible with IE6. There's no need to turn away potential customers because of their web browser choice. If you're a web designer it's your job to make sure they have a good experience.
A lot of this comes down to the reasons you want them to stop using IE6. IE6/7 are a pain in the bum if you let them be. We're now taking a more aggressive approach to browser adoption when it comes to what you can/can't do.
For instance, when you visit our new sites in most browsers you'll get rounded corners, transparency, gradients etc. When you visit in IE6 you get a square, opaque, monotone website. Wherever you have PNGs you'll get a simple GIF (even if it looks pants).
Unfortunately IE6 is tied to many businesses for internal reasons (using apps etc) and you can't force them to upgrade but you can give them a subtle message.
make them understand that ie is not bad, its ie 6 thats bad .. if they wish to use ie they can surely use it but could use ie 7 ir even ie 8... make them see that how ie 7 and 8 provide some great features which are not there in ie 6..
also ie 8 is the only browser that follows strict css 2.1 methodology
plus there are many websites which previously were running in ie 6 (with no problem) are running under a warning message that some context may not be suported by ie 6 for eg. www.yahoo.com, so why to use it?
thanks
We had the same issue in one of our projects. I made a simple conditional check and displayed an additional div with links to download firefox, Chrome and IE-8.
Try facebook.com on IE-6. This was my inspiration for the additional div.
In line with Markus' post, it's simple enough to display a popup when the site loads with a warning. Ideally you won't show this every time they load a page of course, that will get old fast.
You have a good opportunity when working on a spec with your client, to tell them "it will cost $X more if we have to support older browsers including IE6 (don't just say IE6), and it will mean we can't easily add more advanced functionality... supporting older browsers will detract from the overall quality and increase time & cost.
A while ago there was a collective effort in Norway to get users away from IE6. Several of the largest sites in Norway participated, and the user got a kind warning on top of the site that recommended him to upgrade or switch browser for an improved browsing experience - if using IE6.
Check out what Wired said about it!
make a whitepaper
Two things:
Charge extra -- double or treble rates or more -- to support IE6. (even IE7 these days).
Point out that IE6 (and WinXP too) will be losing the last vestiges of support in the near future. If you think they're insecure now, just wait till that happens -- no more security fixes. If you're still developing for IE6 now, then you're clearly not going to be ready for the upgrade in time, so you will be hacked, and hacked badly. If your client is willing to accept that, then that's his problem, but you need to help him understand the gravity of the problem. He needs to be putting his upgrade plans in now, not getting more dev work done for the old systems.
What open source toolkit does fatwire compare to and are there some particular advantages to fatwire?
How hard is fatwire to export out of and move to a free alternative?
How stable is it as a platform to write java extensions on?
From a development persepective, FatWire can be unfriendly. Having worked on a number of sites using this application it can easy bloat, and become difficult to maintain.
From a user perspective there has been alot of effort in the UI and this has led to a highly functional tool.
From a client perspective all clients bar 1 (a large news agency) were happy with the end result. FatWire can slow when using complex logic to generate menus or breadcumbs for example or when you have a large amount of content. This is the main reason the one client was unhappy. The FatWire site regularily struggled under the load. It sometimes seen as a solution to all web needs.
As such FatWire succeeds in serving Static Content & Semi Dynamic content, but can flounder when forced to do fully dynamic sites (from my experience).
From the original press release:
FatWire Software announced the rollout
of FirstSite, which is a set of tools
and best practices that helps
companies using FatWire Content Server
get their first Web site or
application running quickly while
providing a foundation for future
expansion. FirstSite includes a
collection of standard templates and
site components that are common to
most sites, combined with
documentation, training, a rich
developer community, and best
practices methodology. FatWire and its
solution partners are using FirstSite
as the basis for developing
content-centric applications for
specific vertical markets. With only
minor, cosmetic alterations,
developers can use the code in
FirstSite to implement a first site,
while simultaneously learning how to
utilize Content Server's capabilities,
such as dynamic content delivery,
personalization, caching, and product
catalogs.
Firstsite is not a product, unless this has changed since 2004 (unfortunately I cannot look, since their developer site is down). Fatwire's Content Server does not compare to any Open Source CMS that I know. It's scope goes much further. I will answer your questions one by one:
Advantages - There are many (or nobody would buy it, and it is not cheap)
On the delivery side: scalability, fine-grained cache control, stateless servlet architecture, ....
On the back office side: virtually no limit to asset types, dynamic content attributes, find-grained security and access control, ...
On the development side: Intelligently architected API with good coding productivity, tag library, ...
Openness
You cannot easily expect to migrate content between any two CMS products, open source or not. While there are ways to extract contant from the database in XML and other forms, using product tools, or simply at the database level, I don't think that this can be an argument for or against using a particular CMS. Ever tried to migrate from Drupal to Joomla?
Stable
I worked on several Fatwire implementations from 2000 to 2004 (back then it was OpenMarket Content Server, then Divine Content Server). It was stable enough for the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the S&P sites, and I would expect stability not to be an issue today.
Fatwire is really unique concept from developer point of view. It builds everything on a very abstract, extremely flexible clever asset modeling framework which is stored in relational database.
Application logic is based on "templates" which actually are pieces of JSP code. This JSP code is not like conventional Java, but tags instead. It takes very long from a developer to learn these tags and Fatwire asset api. Expect even months before skilled develpers start to be productive.
Almost nothing useable samples ships along the product. There is advertized "FirstSite" but it is way too simple for the purpose this product is used normally (huge complex sites). So pretty much everything has to be built from scratch.
Cache control is advertized to be one powerful feature. Yes it is, but we had extremely long learning curve and it never worked exactly like one assumed.
Wysiwyg editing has been missed from this product even it is advertized. At least during 2009 it had serious conceptual problems which practically prevented using it in live environments. But it was cool feature for demos and marketing of course. Today it might be fixed.
As a summary and if I were a customer with limited budget, I'd select any open source alternative instead. Mostly because development costs with Fatwire are high due the uniqueness of the product, lack of good documentation and extremely long learing curve. Of course the product price tag is also thing to consider.
And to answer to questions: you have to start from scratch if you move from Fatwire 6.0 to any open source alternative. And it is stable to build Java extensions on.
Fatwire stores content in relation database and file system. Depending on what type of content (structured/unstructured), Fatwire can be evaluated.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 13 years ago.
Improve this question
... or
How can I convince my organization to ditch Internet Explorer 6?
Having to maintain Internet Explorer 6 compatibility when developing web applications is a nightmare - but until my client decides to ditch it as the official browser, I am stuck with it. I am trying to convince our system administrators to change. I've seen a long list of arguments against using Internet Explorer 6 in any environment, and I am trying to anticipate their arguments rebuttals.
So far, the only perceived advantages I can see in Internet Explorer 6 are:
Central management through group policies
Legacy application compatibility
Both of these are addressed by Internet Explorer 7 or later (AFAIK).
Are there any advantages that Internet Explorer 6 has that are not already addressed by Internet Explorer 7 or later?
Internet Explorer 6 has been around for ages, and the vast majority of websites and web applications work correctly with it.
In order to change to a different browser (which, BTW, will probably be Internet Explorer 7), you need to, first of all, do a cost benefit analysis to justify this decision to everyone's bosses.
A really high level summary:
Cost:
Test all web applications.
Check all third-party websites actually work in the new browser.
Check all other software, to see if there are any underlying issues with moving to a new browser.
Benefits:
Multi tabs?
Honestly, I can't see this happening, unless a corporation is doing a desktop refresh which happens periodically.
Why bother changing if IE does what it's supposed to do: browse the internet. The so-called benefits of newer browsers, which to us actually mean something, have little to no value in the minds of the people who run the corporate environments you describe.
In other words: ignorance and/or apathy
I wouldn't exactly call it a "favourite" among any organisations. In my mind, it's simply that large companies consider it a big effort to upgrade everyone to IE7 (or in fact IE8 now that it's recently been released). It's a benefit versus cost decision that many executives seem to think has the simple answer that it just doesn't matter to the business. This may even be the truth in many cases if there's no system set up for automatically upgrading the (possibly vast number of) computers on the network. Many people (including myself) would argue having even a moderately decent browser (i.e. IE7 onwards, Firefox, or Safari) is would be a worthwhile thing for any business. The fact that IE8 has just been released, which now makes IE6 outdated by two versions is certainly going to encourage companies to start upgrading. The problem here is that as long as there's a significant market share for IE6, the vast majority of web designers are going to keep on designing sites to be compatible with IE6, regardless of it's poorness as a browser. Finally, if you're really keen on getting everyone to upgrade from IE6, I ought to point you to the Stop living in the past website. Perhaps if you campaign strongly enough within your organisation, you may just convince the people who make the decisions to upgrade, though I wouldn't like to bet on it...
The switch from IE6 is a painful one, because they would have to apply it to every single computer in the company.
Depending on the number of exployees, that becomes a logistical nightmare.
Also, they will commonly use whatever browser comes with the default install of the OS they use for new computers.
Changing default programs introduces unknown risk, and the benefit of switching must outweigh that risk. Currently the hassle of attempting to upgrade every single computer probably outweighs the convenience of having a better browser, especially when most of the users will not take advantage of any of the new features.
Unless they find any strong business case or advantage I don't think a company will agree to spend time on upgrading. What is the use? Also Internet Explorer 6 is little faster than the new versions and business users (who don't care about the version as long as it does the job) may complain.
If you are a developer then you have the reason to have all/latest browsers installed.
I thought mine was the only one to use Internet Explorer 6 ;-)
We actually have a bunch of legacy applications on our intranet, some written in house, others that we quite a lot of money for, which don't work well on IE7 (or IE8, or Firefox, or Safari, or ...)
Yes, Mercury, I'm looking at you...
IE6 market share is rapidly dropping, so I'd expect that in a year or so authors of AJAX UI libraries will stop testing against IE6 (just like now they don't test against IE5.5). When that happens corporations will have no choice, but to adapt.
I'm getting ready to start work on a new web project for a fairly large corporation.
For all their users, something like 17,000 people, they are all stuck with IE6. They plan to have everyone transitioned to IE7 by the end of the year, however the IT department is starting to push this promise back.
What I've been asked to do is to give the project sponsor some more ammo push back on this. However, my charismatic politician button seems to be broken. I've only been unable to come up with simple phrases, such as "IE6 is teh suck" or "it will take me a million more hours to make it work in IE6 too" and all of this may be true but it doesn't really feel like a very mature statement to be making.
I guess what I'm looking for, is some kind of laymen's way of explaining that yes we can support IE6 but I'm going to need some hazard pay, and support that fact with some kind of hard evidence it does indeed take many more hours to make something look right and work in both IE6 and IE7.
We often have the need to persuade non technical users that IE6 is a very bad idea for any company to be still running and so have a document we are working on to educate home and corporate users here is a summary if it helps:
Why is IE 6 a problem?
Much less secure than other browsers
The internet has changed a lot since IE 6 was released and there are more threats to data security than ever before including phishing scams, script injection attacks, key logging viruses, identity theft and bot-nets (machines which have been taken over for criminal activity).
It is well documented that IE6 is less secure than modern browsers when surfing the internet:
“..the most compelling reason to upgrade is the improved security. The Internet of today is not the Internet of five years ago. There are dangers that simply didn't exist back in 2001, when Internet Explorer 6 was released to the world.”
Sandi Hardmeier, Microsoft MVP
“Older browsers are a swiss-cheese of security holes, allowing black-hats out there to take over computers, construct bot-nets, and even steal their victim’s identity, most of the time without their knowledge.”
www.joelevi.com
IE 6 poses a security risk to any computer that it is used on for web browsing.
Any responsible IT team will upgrade to IE7 or later on all machines within a corporate network. Many now install the Firefox browser in order to increase security further.
It is not standards compliant
IE 6 does not render web pages in the same way that most browsers do as it uses a proprietary engine which ignores many of the standards set by the W3C (the World Wide Web Consortium). This leads some web pages to be displayed incorrectly in IE 6 and some not to display at all.
This also means that while web developers have to support IE 6 much of their work is taken up by fixing pages rather than developing better content and features. In short IE 6 is holding back the web’s development for all users.
Slower
During the last 8 years of browser development as well as improved security browsers have been tuned for better performance on all fronts including download speed, rendering speed and JavaScript/AJAX performance which is a technology used on most major sites to give a better end user experience (sometimes know as Web 2.0 technology).
Memory Usage
Internet Explorer 7 actually uses less memory than IE6 and uses less overall resources on a machine. So upgrading can improve the performance of older computers.
Upgrading to Firefox or Chrome
Firefox
http://en-us.www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/firefox.html
Chrome
http://www.google.co.uk/chrome
Upgrading to IE 7 / 8
Home users
Internet Explorer 7 http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?displaylang=en&FamilyID=9ae91ebe-3385-447c-8a30-081805b2f90b
Internet Explorer 8
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=341C2AD5-8C3D-4347-8C03-08CDECD8852B&displaylang=en
Corporate Users
Internet Explorer 7 Resource Page
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-gb/ie/bb381619.aspx
Internet Explorer 7 Deployment Guide
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=e41d8800-d134-4356-a2e7-c01bee790908&DisplayLang=en
Internet Explorer 8 Resource Page
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/ie/bb219517.aspx
Internet Explorer 8 Deployment Guide
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc985339.aspx
Quite a difficult task to do, as there might be other reasons why they are using IE6 until this date (other, conflicting software which relies on IE6).
The first thing to do would be to identfy the problem that stops IT from doing the migration - if it's not lazyness.
Maybe it is easier to ask them whether they would consider an "alternative browser" to be installed (which wouldn't affect the IE6 installs). But most administrators don't like that idea, because Firefox doesn't share data/configs with Windows Servers, but trade-offs might be made in favor of money.
Should there be no real obstacle, you might show them a real-life example how an average day for an IE6 developer would look like.
Choose an UI-feature (combine all merits of IE6 to create one) that will work to cause the required issues for the next few steps.
Show them how everything looks fine in ALL Browsers.
Show them how it doesn't look fine at all in IE6.
Make it IE6 compatible.
Show them how every other browser now produces a different/unwanted result.
Fix it (with heavy workarounds) so that it now looks "ok" in most of the browsers.
Tell them that you will have to put this effort into ALL of your components/features and that they will have much higer production costs.
Make sure to point out, that this would even happen if you would just compare IE6 to IE7. They may not ever switch to Safari.
What I have gone with an been successful with is the following.
IE 6 is an application that is almost 8 years old, and as part of this doesn't support current technologies as easily as most others. Creating AJAX enabled rich UI's with IE6 is a very tedious task, and typically requires substantial, browser specific work to accomplish as it carries its own level of "Standards".
In addition to all of this there are security and performance implications.
On the whole topic of IE6, whenever you get to that point of moving IT out of the past, you could use this:
http://code.google.com/p/ie6-upgrade-warning/
http://www.stopie6.org/
make them read it
All the IE6 experts are out of work and enjoying their pension.
It's 8 years old and two versions behind the times. What are people afraid of?
I do work for an unnamed company with 160000 employees where IE6 is the only company approved browser. For me, to suggest they "just switch browsers" is futile, since I realize they have millions of dollars worth of applications now working with IE6, and that to port these apps would cost tens of thousands of dollars and many thousands more in fixing the ported versions. I typically add 5-10% to web development just to address IE6 issues, depending on the interface.