Linked by Kroc Camen on Thu 25th Feb 2010 10:18 UTC
Humor BBC News reports "Mark your diaries for 4 March because in Denver the funeral arrangements are well underway for the planned passing that day of Internet Explorer 6". There's a phobia of being buried alive but I think in this case, it's the living that are all too quick to be shoveling the dirt over as IE6 doesn't officially die until 2014 when Microsoft pull the life-support.
Thread beginning with comment 411127
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
So...
by deathshadow on Fri 26th Feb 2010 01:43 UTC
deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

Some jackasses who can't be bothered to put that extra 5% of effort into coding their pages in a deployable manner up and decide they're going to hold a funeral for IE - despite the fact it's still around 20% of web users many of whom have it forced upon them by their work - or who aren't the total technogeeks who constantly run updates.

Naturally this is newsworthy - NOT.

I swear, it's like people want to return us to 1998 with the "Best viewed in Netscape" vs. "Best viewed in IE" crap... Times best forgotten.

Yes, it sucks to still support it, but when it still provides more traffic than Safari, Opera, and Chrome provided, get off your lazy ass and support it!

There's a reason it's called work, and not happy happy fun-time.

Haslayout triggers, Zoomfix, inline-fix for margin-doubling, expressions for missing CSS 2.1 elements - END OF STORY. Maybe six to ten lines of CSS and you're DONE. No conditional comments needed, no agonizing over layout oddities, and MOST of it is still needed to work right in IE7 and even IE8...

All it can be explained as is laziness and ineptitude on the part of developers who have this attitude.

Reply Score: 2

RE: So...
by agildehaus on Fri 26th Feb 2010 02:01 in reply to "So..."
agildehaus Member since:
2005-06-29

I've run into people running IE5/Windows 2000. Am I expected to develop for them too because they're not upgrade-happy technogeeks?

And it's not just CSS. If you think it's just CSS hacks that need to be applied you're a laughably inexperienced web developer.

IE6 was released in August of 2001. That's nine years ago, an eternity by any measure. It's time to move on.

Edited 2010-02-26 02:05 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: So...
by larwilliams2 on Fri 26th Feb 2010 02:52 in reply to "RE: So..."
larwilliams2 Member since:
2009-12-02

I've run into people running IE5/Windows 2000. Am I expected to develop for them too because they're not upgrade-happy technogeeks?

And it's not just CSS. If you think it's just CSS hacks that need to be applied you're a laughably inexperienced web developer.

IE6 was released in August of 2001. That's nine years ago, an eternity by any measure. It's time to move on.

Most of the hacks ARE CSS-related. All the JavaScript related "hacks" are either to supplement IE's CSS support (example: Dean Edward's ie7-js) or simply for making AJAX (a useless technology) easier (like jQuery).

Edited 2010-02-26 03:03 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: So...
by nt_jerkface on Sat 27th Feb 2010 09:18 in reply to "So..."
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Yea that must be it. They must be slothful. It can't be that they don't like wasting their time with a legacy browser.

A web developer who works 40 hours a week can be far more productive if he doesn't have to target IE6. But according to you he must be lazy if he hates spending his time on IE6, even if he works 40 hours regardless.

I was working on an ASP AJAX web app last year and at some point it became apparent that getting the interface to look right in IE6 would take more tweaking than all the other browsers combined. It isn't just about CSS and PNG hacks. IE6 pukes all kinds of weird problems with AJAX.

Here's an example from the asp.net forums:
We have implemented an <asp:menu> control for site navigation, the menu has four main categories, and is at most 2 levels deep in some parts, there are in total around 40 menu items; we add/remove menu items dynamically depending on user permissions. Now the problem with IE6 is that if a user spends some time hovering over the menu items, the browser eventually crashes.

Response:
Sometimes a combination of valid JavaScript, Style Sheet, and DOM manipulation will crash IE6.

As for a fix, I'd recommend upgrading your web browser to IE7.


http://forums.asp.net/p/1149733/1872013.aspx

But you think not supporting IE6 makes you lazy? Maybe a website that doesn't support 200 languages has lazy developers as well. Or maybe they have limited resources and want to use them effectively, just like web developers who would like to make effective use of their time. IE6 wastes time by requiring extensive tweaking that is not required for other browsers. Some websites keep a separate IE6 site so they don’t have to bother with endless hacks. IE6 is not only the bane of web development productivity but a giant security risk as well. .

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: So...
by deathshadow on Sun 28th Feb 2010 02:35 in reply to "RE: So..."
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

Great example of what I meant by outdated, outmoded or just plain broken methodology used by people who can't take the time to understand what they are doing.

An ASP:menu instance, and you wonder why it breaks... Again, cutesy crap for what should be a simple non-scripted CSS menu for modern browsers with a .htc for IE6 - you don't even need to rewrite it anymore.

Unless of course you are using trident as your UI engine for a local crapplet - which is EXACTLY the type of crap that made many businesses unable to leave IE6 in the first place.

I'll admit - that's not lazy, that's outright ignorant. I'd have to see the actual page with problems, but I suspect the problem is the use of scripting and ASP bull for something that needs NEITHER.

Though it is amusing how obscure and ridiculous the 'problems' get as people try to defend their anti-IE6 viewpoint; since most always it's from trying to do something the hard way - and usually making MORE work for themselves in the name of making it 'easier'...

RIGHT.

Edited 2010-02-28 02:37 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2