Jump to content

Message From YouTube About IE 6 Browser [Solved]


Monroe

Recommended Posts

cant help but question my own sanity when i spend 5 minutes verifying that things work in FF/IE8/Chrome

only to spend 10 minutes testing in IE6, 20 minutes locating and implementing the workaround when it

inevitability renders wrong in IE6, then another half hour getting the page to render the way it was in

FF/IE8/Chrome before the IE6 workaround code was added then another 8 hours trying to forget the pain in

the a** that is righting code that degrades well to a browser that was replaced 3 years ago that for

some reason people want to cling to even though there are far superior browsers out there

I'm also wondering why developers keep testing websites on IE6 (and why software makers tested their

prorgams on w98 so long for the same matter).

I'm positive that a website will look fine on IE6 even if never tested on this browser. But that's up to the user to adapt and update to the new technologies. Not the opposite because that's the only way technology evoluates.

As a matter of habit, one or two conditional comments can be added without spening hours testing the baby on a dozen of browsers.

One thing is to add a few lines of wellknown code for the most important stuffs (which will make it 99% compatible), another thing is to toroughly test the whole thing for days on every IE flavors.

thats a quote from the linked article not me -hench why i put it in quote tags (and thats not my handle either)

Sorry, I was too lazy to make two quotes encapsulated. Sorry too for mispelling your name.

---

most CSS is not about bells and whistles. It's basic style information

Yes and problems arise when you try to do bells and wisthles in css.

The problem is that web developers create webpage like they would create a software, with more code than content.

The web space is a simple content display medium by essence. There is no point in reinventing the wheel.

Utter nonsense. I've made interactive stuff, and none of it has been advertising.

I apreciate that but... keep that talk for yourself. On many websites the only interractive stuffs seem to be adds.

another site of mine, SeaMonkey.be, doesn't render properly on IE6 because it doesn't support the CSS min-height property. And that's a very basic design.

And... what "min-height" was used for? I visited your page and indeed it's very simple, so I'd bet that it would be still visitable on IE6 (eventhought it's not 100% the way you wanted it in the smallest details - but who give a ****, huh? ;) ) thought I didn't have the leasure to test it now on my IE6 PC yet.

Offtopic: You should do something about the mouseover menu (in dark blue) because it disapear if the mouse doesn't move directly on the menu. If the move cross an area outside the mouseover menu, the latter disapears. Took me 5 tries to succeed clicking on this menu.

Edited by Fredledingue
Link to comment
Share on other sites


I'm also wondering why developers keep testing websites on IE6

Because many users are still browsing with it. We don't want to alienate ~15% of our users.

I'm positive that a website will look fine on IE6 even if never tested on this browser.

In practice, this isn't always true.

Yes and problems arise when you try to do bells and wisthles in css.

Not just bells and whistles, as I pointed out.

On many websites the only interractive stuffs seem to be adds.

I don't think you're looking hard enough. There's a lot of interactivity, even on this very board.

And... what "min-height" was used for?

To make sure that my second column stretches to the bottom of the viewport, so the site appears as two columns instead of one column and a box with content (mostly only a problem with the main page. It just looks wrong otherwise.

The mouseover menu is pure CSS using the :hover pseudo-class intelligently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm also wondering why developers keep testing websites on IE6

Because many users are still browsing with it. We don't want to alienate ~15% of our users.

I'm positive that a website will look fine on IE6 even if never tested on this browser.

In practice, this isn't always true.

Yes and problems arise when you try to do bells and wisthles in css.

Not just bells and whistles, as I pointed out.

100% agree with this. I'm not a professional web designer, but I make part of work maintaining the website of the company I work for. And IE6 is my biggest headache. I don't use much active content, the problems mostly occur with CSS. The second headache are Opera and IE7, but there already were few errors. Other browsers are not trouble at all, especially my favorite - Firefox. So, as a web developer I wish IE6 to die. Though we still support it and I think will support it for a few more years. But as Win98 user, I wish long life to IE6 :) .

Actually, even under Win98 I use IE only to download Opera or Firefox. Currently I'm using FF 2.0.0.20 and latest Opera, but I don't browse much under Win98. For everyday use I recommend latest Firefox with KernelEx or Opera.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, it is interesting that even Internet Explorer 5.01 is still supported:

(1) http://www.neowin.net/news/mai...ed-win-7-rc-affected

(2) http://www.microsoft.com/techn...lletin/ms09-034.mspx

Cheers, Roman

P.S. IE6 will be supported till 2014-APR-09: http://www.betanews.com/article/Microsoft-...2014/1250003327

Edited by modicr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, ok, maybe I didn't look deep enough...

But my point is that the risk of "alienating 15% of your users" is not that high if you drop IE6.

Of course I'm not talking as a professional.

The mouseover menu is pure CSS using the :hover pseudo-class intelligently.

Perhaps the mouseover menu should stretch a little bit more to the left to avoid the problem I described above. (using IE 7 or 8 when noticing this problem).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am annoyed by this as well. I wouldn't mind so much if it was just a little message somewhere, but I hate when some websites will just not attempt to parse the code to HTML if you have a browser it doesn't like. At home on my XP I use IE6 and I think I still have IE5.5 on my 98 PC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because many users are still browsing with it. We don't want to alienate ~15% of our users.

Thats roughly what our % is but I know our webstats for IE6 are unusually high because currently, all of our XP machines on the network usually have IE6 by default and can opt to install IE7+. but a few clicks in WSUS and I could fix that (deadline IE7) but i probably wont do that until right before the end of its lifecycle even though its tempting to do it now :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Technically all versions of IE on XP (including IE7 and IE8) will EOL in April 2014, and all of them are in extended support. IE is considered an OS component, and follows the OS lifecycle rather than have one of it's own since it is no longer serviced outside of the OS (no IE service packs, specifically). Meaning even IE8 on XP is in "extended support".

So, unless you've got some IE6-only app, drop the hammer on the IE6 users and bump 'em to IE8 to get decent web standards support - they're long past due for an upgrade ;).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another reason to keep IE6 around is that it is still the only browser to support true XML websites. I had one up at one time... Maybe I'll upload it real quick. I know it didn't work in Firefox or in IE7... XSLT support changed at some point for some reason.

PS: I uploaded my old XML tech demo, but it seems my web server doesn't support it properly. :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, IE6 doesn't support XHTML. Not properly served XHTML, at least.

He's not talking about XHTML with a application/xhtml+xml MIME type which no version of IE supports (although serving as text/html *is* valid now, see this, particularly section 3.2), but viewing a XML file directly, which has a XLST stylesheet linked, just like this example. But that does work perfectly fine in IE 7 and 8, and Firefox, and Chrome, and Safari and pretty much everything else. Besides, I've never seen a website built this way (beyond highly impractical, it's just meant to show a XML file in a easily human-readable way, NOT a replacement for HTML) Hardly a reason to keep IE6 (I can't actually think of a single valid reason)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct - IE's accept headers do not explicitly state support for application/xhtml+xml, therefore you shouldn't serve that to any version of IE and expect good results (as per the best practices guide linked). You should use application/xml or text/html and let the parser determine the renderer via the doctype.

Note that while IE6 (to an extent), and IE7/IE8 support rendering XHTML documents, it still doesn't accept the header application/xhtml+xml.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides, I've never seen a website built this way (beyond highly impractical, it's just meant to show a XML file in a easily human-readable way, NOT a replacement for HTML) Hardly a reason to keep IE6 (I can't actually think of a single valid reason)

You are right. I did it just for fun. Besides the MySQL (and PHPAdmin) running on my old test server, all webpages were XML, XSLT, CSS and SVG. That's right, no real pictures. I got it to work, but back then (like 2003 or 2004) it only worked in IE6.

Actually, Blizzard's official Starcraft II website uses a .XML for its default file type. I forget what the back-end of their files are, but it took me a long time to figure it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...