Message From YouTube About IE 6 Browser [Solved]

[BenoitRen]

Did you say "no real pictures" because IE6 doesn't support SVG rendering?

[PC_LOAD_LETTER]

LOL

Friends don't let friends use IE6

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/913...riends_use_IE6_

[Multibooter]

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/913...riends_use_IE6_

good article. "the situation is, it's surprisingly difficult to get enterprises to upgrade. Many companies have old software... " Microsoft may just have trouble selling their new products. I personally don't need new bells and whistles. The whole thing of a new browser being pushed reminds me of a conversation I had 30 years ago in a bar with an IBM salesman. "And then I had to sell this EDP guy a new computer, I needed a new Mercedes". Edited August 18, 2009 by Multibooter

[cluberti]

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/913...riends_use_IE6_

good article. "the situation is, it's surprisingly difficult to get enterprises to upgrade. Many companies have old software... " Microsoft may just have trouble selling their new products. I personally don't need new bells and whistles. The whole thing of a new browser being pushed reminds me of a conversation I had 30 years ago in a bar with an IBM salesman. "And then I had to sell this EDP guy a new computer, I needed a new Mercedes".

Part of the reason Microsoft supports it's "enterprise" products for 10+ years is so that businesses can count on using it for that long, at least under support, if they desire to. It actually sells software, but with the side effect of also having 10 year old tech out there that generally works fine. It's a driver of sales, and it's also sales' biggest enemy (itself). It's a catch-22, although you still bought a copy of Windows, so Microsoft got it's money. It just may not get more money from a lot of businesses (we'll see on Win7, although it does look like people want it in droves so far) for a good while yet.

[ripken204]

I think its stupid all these websites are killing off IE6 access,totally shows a laziness on thier part to keep the coding going for it.. (That seems to be the trend)

There's a very good reason for this trend. Do you know about web standards? They're standards agreed upon by a wide range of people from all around the world, specifying HTML, CSS, how a web page should be rendered, and other web technologies.

When you make a web page, you conform to these standards, and the web browser, in turn, renders your page according to these standards. The idea is that every web browser would show each web page in an almost identical way, instead of having to make separate web pages for each web browser, or, $DEITY forbid, make your web page for only one web browser.

Enter IE. As of IE5, IE implements several parts of the standard wrongly, most notably the box model. In IE6, they fixed the box model, and then stalled development for 5 years, which sucked, because it is lacking support for many parts of the CSS and DOM standards, and notable parts of the HTML standard. It also has a lot of rendering bugs.

In the meantime, other web browsers have released new versions like hotcakes, and vastly exceeded IE6's web standards support. So much so that these days when you make a new web page that separates content from style, it looks great in every web browser... except IE. A lot of work and many hacks are required just to make it look good in IE without breaking it for the others because of all the bugs in that thing.

Do you understand now why IE6 is such a pain in the behind for web developers?!

I HATE IE6, I am a web developer

[Tripredacus]

Did you say "no real pictures" because IE6 doesn't support SVG rendering?

Yes it only had SVG and DX transforms/trickery. In order to view the site you needed Adobe's SVG plugin v3 for IE.

[Multibooter]

It just may not get more money from a lot of businesses... for a good while yet.

It depends on the length of the recession, if it lasts 5 more years I could imagine the possibility of Chapter 11 for MS. This might give the next push to innovate, with companies not wanting to depend on the technology of a hypothetically troubled company. The current recession started with a big surprise, Bear Stearns, and might end with another big surprise, MS. And that might not be bad: with the decline of the near-monopolist IBM in the 80s a new cycle of economic expansion started, which ended with the dot-com bubble.

[Fredledingue]

Benoit Ren

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.

Why don't you use tables?

[CoffeeFiend]

Why don't you use tables?

We'll pretend you didn't even write this (nor "I'm positive that a website will look fine on IE6 even if never tested on this browser."). It's better this way.

Quick and lazy answer for those who would have said something like the above, while being serious. Welcome to 5+ years ago. What's next? Animated GIFs, hardcoded font tags everywhere, sprinkled with blink tags?

Yes, let's bring down web design and development to the absolute lowest common denominator (making it suck for everyone) because a handful of people don't want to ever upgrade, right.

[Tripredacus]

Oh no, the T word! DIVs are your friend! hee hee.

[Fredledingue]

The problem with using tables:

mixes presentational data in with your content.

...and...

keep the actual content of our pages separated from the way they are presented

This is a M.Y.T.H.!

Because the specificity of the web is that content is tied to the way it's presented and vice-versa, the presentation influences the meaning of the content, especialy for text.

You always need to know how the text looks like and where it is when you write it. And while typing it you always find words or phrases that should have another apearence or be placed somewhere else.

Saying I write the layout and I'll write the content later simply doesn't work.

A sub-myth is to believe that on a website all the pages can look the same and that all the content can be distributed and arranged the same way on every page wihtout intelligent thinking.

There are two ways, IMHO, to display areas of content on a webpage:

Fixed and square with tables and flexible and where you want with absolute positioning.

With absolute positioning, again IMHO, you can make cooler things but you are more likely to mess up than with tables. Not just about old IE but with human errors.

This depends wether you want to make a website fun or serious. Wether you want it to be dressed in a suit or in baggy rapper clothes.

Instead of nesting tables within tables and filling empty cells with spacer GIFs,

Ok, I don't even know what he wants to talk about here. Of course if you compare state-of-the-art css based websites with trashed out bloated old-school html and piled up tables (probably made with a WYSWYG editors), surely css layout will look cool.

Now let's have a look at trashed out clumsy bloated css and we will see.

And believe me I have seen some specimens!

You can do smart things with tables and old html tags. Better yet: Using the best of css with the best of tables.

Why wanting to do things difficult when there are easy solution already? Why discarding old tags just because they are old?

For example I'v read that the new scholars don't like the <b> tag and prefer the <strong> tag.

This is INSANE!

Also insane is to replace the <b>, <u>, <s> and <i> tags with a css class when they apply on just a few word and no other attribute is applied.

And why dropping the <br> tag? I don't understand.

Reducing the ratio of code to content

This is the funniest thing I have ever read this month.

If you look at the source of most famous websites, there are ridiculous amount of garbage in the shape of javascript but also useless pictures, redudant menus, things absolutely useless to read, ads, etc compared to realy useful content.

Add to this a flash here and there, some rotating ad feed and the code for your tables are just 0.001% of all the garbage and spam eating into your bandwith and slowing down the download.

In the case of Benoit Ren website: SeaMonkey, I realy don't see the advantage of <div> over <table> especialy for someone who is still supposed to use W95.

I visited it on IE6 and yes it display the content half-properly: The yellow menu streches out of the blue column. Beside that everything is ok.

Finaly, one more point in favor of tables vs. separate style sheets: When you save the webpage as "html only" and all the "tables" are on a separate css file, good luck to read it later!

Edited August 23, 2009 by Fredledingue

[Sl@y3D for my n@me]

It sounds to me like you really don't like CSS for some reason. To be honest, I can't see a use for plain old HTML when CSS can do it smarter, faster (if you have multiple web pages) and just generally have a higher level of consistency across pages. If you keep all your CSS in a separate file, you can easily make changes to one file that will automatically change all of your HTML pages. That can be useful if you have a large amount of HTML files, but want to give them all a consistent style without using some PHP solution or whatever. Not being a web designer, I'm not hugely sure on the specifics, but one thing I do know is that just because IE6 has broken support for it, that doesn't mean it sucks.

And to be honest, I have never seen a modern, well put together, HTML-only page.

This thread went off-topic rather quickly, didn't it?

[CoffeeFiend]

This is a M.Y.T.H.!

Only because it flew WAY over your head. Tables for layouts change nothing to the context of words.

Either ways, it's quite a stretch to go from someone who admitted to knowing NOTHING about web design (by saying things "I'm positive that a website will look fine on IE6 even if never tested on this browser." which no one who's done any kind of web development would ever claim), to contradicting the vast majority of experts in the field by saying "it's a myth!"

Saying I write the layout and I'll write the content later simply doesn't work.

Says you. Except, it actually works great for most people.

A sub-myth is to believe that on a website all the pages can look the same and that all the content can be distributed and arranged the same way on every page wihtout intelligent thinking.

That's a myth? Who claimed you could do anything without thinking?

With absolute positioning, again IMHO, you can make cooler things but you are more likely to mess up than with tables.

CSS positioning works very reliably across the vast majority of browsers, providing the person who does the job has a clue.

This depends wether you want to make a website fun or serious. Wether you want it to be dressed in a suit or in baggy rapper clothes.

Except, it's really nothing like that. Misusing tables along with your general distrust towards modern techs like CSS makes sites crappy. It's like hobo style (tables) vs professional.

Now let's have a look at trashed out clumsy bloated css and we will see.

Wow, you meant some people can misuse techs (just like tables)? Color me surprised. A couple folks didn't use it as intended, therefore it must be universally bad. That was your point?

It just sounds like you're trying to fight progress and advances at large (from OS, to browser, to markup, to design and everything else). You thinking using <strong> over <b> is insane (despite being more semantic -- and deprecated in XHML 2, and not actually bolding text in HTML 5 and as stated "should be used as a last resort"), and not getting why using paragraphs isn't better than a billion <br> tags just goes to prove the point. Or perhaps you know better than all of the W3C members too?

Have you noticed it's been 10 years since there's been any cheese in your part of the maze?

[Fredledingue]

No, I love css. I just found some arguments here and on a website refered here above, a little bit fetchy, if not radicaly extreme.

My point is that the W3C shouldn't discard too quickely old html just because css is cool.

I also never said that css sucked, only that, if you want or if you are not careful you can make it sucks just as well as with html.

The quality of a code doesn't depends on the language, but on the programer. Just look at your intenet cache and you will see tons of bloated css files. Right now I have one weighting 54 Kb. I opened it: amazing! it's from Y!. I wonder how they can manage their website with such thing.

But it's only a portion beside bloated js files, unnamed files or with exotic extentions, flash files and orgies of gifs.

[Fredledingue]

You thinking using <strong> over <b> is insane (despite being more semantic -- and deprecated in XHML 2, and not actually bolding text in HTML 5 and as stated "should be used as a last resort"), and not getting why using paragraphs isn't better than a billion <br> tags just goes to prove the point. Or perhaps you know better than all of the W3C members too?

It seems yes!

Chosing <strong> instead of <b> as a standrad is insane for the very reason that it takes 5 characters to type more, 10 with the closing tag.

Sorry, but I don't like that.

And again I reiterate that "I'm positive that a website will look fine on IE6 even if never tested on this browser." And I'm right as demonstrated by BenoitRen's example above.

I do not distrust or hate css. Just this conversation is a bit overdone.

Edited August 23, 2009 by Fredledingue