While I really like the idea of getting rid of IE 6, this is simply unethical. While the link may not tell the user anything that's incorrect, it is obviously intended to look like an official message by Microsoft. If this isn't illegal, it should be.
IE 6 Update
11–20 of 34 posts
Re: IE 6 Update
#12"IE6 is like an illness that won't go away" - so true. :)
Re: IE 6 Update
#13Anyone have a suggested script like this that isn't so phishy? Tinyarro.ws is absolutely worthless to IE6 users (since it doesn't support unicode in URLs) so we actually would want to encourage IE6 visitors to our homepage to upgrade.
It's easy enough to tell them ourselves, but if there's a common/classy alternative, we'd check it out.
Re: IE 6 Update
#14The simplest thing we can do against IE6 is: don't support it anymore. Build your sites like if IE6 does not exist and the problem will auto-fix in short time.
Re: IE 6 Update
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where did you get that number?
even if the number did come sliding out of his ass (not meaning any offense, I really don't know if you've sources or not), I think it's a good guess that there's a non-trivial demographic in that situation
Especially given that many corps. have intranet applications which require ie6.
And since Microsoft will not alienate them, they will continue on happily not upgrading.
Re: IE 6 Update
#16In my consulting work I see a lot of usage data from sites of all sizes, and there is a correlation between dial-up users and IE6 users.
I assume that dial-up users don't download Microsoft updates because of the download time and the frequency of updates. At this point, it's probably fair to say that IE6 users will only upgrade if they get broadband or replace their computer with one that has a better browser pre-installed. Since money is clearly a factor in both cases, I'm not holding my breath.
Color TV arrived around 1960, and it took 13 years to pass the 50% bar. (Source: http://is.gd/taGM) Clearly, there are some consumers who will only upgrade when something breaks -- probably because they just can't afford to do otherwise.
I actually feel for people who are still using IE6. For whatever reason, it's either impossible or impractical for these people to upgrade.
If you want to design a site that doesn't work with IE6 and you can afford to cut off 10%+ of the general population, just do it and explain (nicely) that the site requires a newer browser. They probably won't upgrade, but you've done your part. No need to resort to trickery.
Re: IE 6 Update
#17When do we get to start crusading against IE7?
Re: IE 6 Update
#18In my consulting work I see a lot of usage data from sites of all sizes, and there is a correlation between dial-up users and IE6 users. I assume that dial-up users don't download Microsoft updates because of the download time and the frequency of updates. At this point, it's probably fair to say that IE6 users will only upgrade if they get broadband or replace their computer with one that has a better browser pre-in…
In my experience, if you ask the people who use IE6 why they don't upgrade most of them will respond with something like "What's IE6? Oh you mean Internet Explorer. What's wrong with the one I have?" and then if you finally convince them they they should upgrade you have to explain to them how to do it, which for most people who are still using IE6 can be a big challenge.
My grandmother uses IE6. She says it works and doesn't want to bother with an upgrade. She doesn't care that you app doesn't render properly :)
Re: IE 6 Update
#19The simplest thing we can do against IE6 is: don't support it anymore. Build your sites like if IE6 does not exist and the problem will auto-fix in short time.
We, uh, we fixed the glitch. So he won't be receiving a paycheck anymore, so it'll just work itself out naturally.
We always like to avoid confrontation, whenever possible. Problem is solved from your end.
Re: IE 6 Update
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where did you get that number?
even if the number did come sliding out of his ass (not meaning any offense, I really don't know if you've sources or not), I think it's a good guess that there's a non-trivial demographic in that situation
Yeah, sure. I wasn't trying to discard that point. But I do think a number like that should be sourced. Otherwise, stick to something like "a lot" or "non-trivial demographic".