Oh guffaw. The time has easily come where we are allowed to say "no" to several browser versions, or at least ignore them. Even Google has dropped support for IE6.
Supporting several browsers does not mean that a website has to look perfect in all those browsers. My sites will look good on the latest version of Chrome, IE, Opera, and Firefox.
Users of IE6/7/etc are already self-inflicting harm on their own web experience, why should we care to cater to them? They can have the website I display, but I'm not building the site for the past.
I don't care if previous browser users see the Best Of All Possible Websites, as long as they see something. And since I'm developing Canvas apps, I don't care if some of them see anything at all.
I imagine IE will reluctantly take the road of Chrome or FF and be more insistent about updates, especially outside of the corporate world. I also think that in the future the consensus will be that there isn't anything wrong with dropping support for aged browsers, and just displaying one "simple" site version to them.
I've never really understood the outward hostility Web developers display towards their clients, audience, customers, etc. Your job is to deliver the best experience you can for people viewing Web pages. If given all the information at your disposal, the costs don't outweigh the pros for your audience, that's one thing. But not doing it because it's hard or you just don't feel like it is a bit childish (please note I'm using "you" to mean the prototypical Web developer here -- not you as in simonsarris).
We all have to do things we don't like in our jobs, that's just part of it being a job. I can even accept a certain amount of healthy advocacy. Encourage people to upgrade if you'd like. But outright refusal to do your best because your customer doesn't run the browser you wish they did is just a very odd tactic to take.
>Users of IE6/7/etc are already self-inflicting harm on their own web experience
Don't assume users have a choice. Even if they do, don't assume they understand the choice.
>why should we care to cater to them?
If you want to ignore a % of your users, that's fine. Some of your competitors wont. That's your choice. Just realize you can be losing potential users/customers and that lesson about updating their browsers will be lost on the customers that went elsewhere.
If you're in a position where you can totally ignore IE8 users, that's fine with me; but that's not where most developers are at.
And I agree; the more time goes by, the more I want to provide a super simple version of each site to oldIE, like throwing the Universal IE6 Stylesheet to all of them.
> Users of IE6/7/etc are already self-inflicting harm on their own web experience
Why would these users self-inflict harm? Unless they're the victim of a enterprise IT overlord, it's because they don't understand what they are doing. They probably don't even have a good mental model of what a browser is.
So when these users visit your web site with their old browsers, I doubt they think "Hey, this web site is rendering poorly because I have an outdated browser" they probably think "this web site is broken".
In the event you haven't received the memo: Google is one of Microsoft's largest competitive threats. By simultaneously attacking Microsoft's browser, Office Suite, and OS monopolies, they're pushing a large wedge into Microsoft's core competitive advantage (mostly installed userbase and inertia).
As others have noted, while browser share may not show much IE6 usage, it's large organizations (and their large bill payment capacities) which account for most of the legacy usage. A key point to keep in mind when trying to grok why "market share" (as a percentage of user-agent pageviews) need not translate directly into "our target user base". If IE6 pays the bills, then you'll continue to support it.
This said as no particular fan of Microsoft. Or, increasingly, of Google.
> IE6 has been a source of pain for… I'd say four years.
We're in late 2011 right? That puts Paul's "IE6 being a pain" in late 2007, right after the original iPhone was released.
By that time, Firefox 2 was a year old, Firebug was 18 months old, and Safari 3 (the first version with acceptable Javascript support) had just been released, making Drosera (which would morph into the Webkit Developer Tools the next year) available.
Hell, by late 2007 IE7 was a year old already. And a significant reason why the IE project was restarted (and IE7 produced) is developers getting fed up with IE6, its bugs, its antiquated tools and its lack of progress, and Firefox had been getting more and more traction since its 1.0 release in late 2004.
IE6 has been a pain for at least 6 years now. 2005 was Firefox 1.5, the announce for the IE project restart and the grand opening of On Having Layout [0], the tail end of the long, slow and painful discovery of IE6's innumerable rendering bugs, DOM and javascript limitations (anybody else remembers Drip and Joel Webber's "DHTML leaks like a sieve"? That's January 2005), painfully slow runtime & al.
Of course it makes sense that 2005 would have been such a sticking point: the web community had been playing around with CSS since ~2003 (CSS Zen Garden released that year) and was wrapping up the IE6 CSS bugs compendium (see above-mentioned On Having Layout, pretty much the culmination of the effort).
Late 2004 and (especially) 2005 it started to turn its attention from styling to behavior, which lead to the rebirth of Javascript and the creation of modern javascript: AJAX coined (and seminal article on the subject published)? February 2005. Opera Desktop free and ad-free? April 2005 QuirksBlog? December 2004. The killing of "DHTML"? 2005[1]. http://simonwillison.net/2005/Jan/5/swissMaps/http://www.mezzoblue.com/archives/2005/01/06/dhtml_05/index...., ... the javascript frameworks explosion was also 2004 (Dojo) through 2005 (Prototype, Mochikit) to 2006 (jQuery, YUI)
Actually, by late 2003 Phoenix (which is what Firefox used to be called back then) was already an impressive little browser (it was little back then) and IE6 was already horribly outdated and clumsy for those of us who grew a penchant for alternative browsers (the others being Opera and the Mozilla Suite).
The 72 browser versions thing is an exaggeration. For your websites, add this tag: <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=edge" /> - and you force IE to use that version's latest documents mode. So good point about IE's slow adoption, it really is annoying and holding back the web - but for your websites, you can easily force the document mode of your choice, avoiding the crappy emulated modes.
Absolutely. That line is critical to avoiding pain. Library authors don't have that option, unfortunately. :/
But even if we ignore the compat versions for now (and quirks mode (and almost-quirks mode)), we still end up with up to 10 IEs in play simultaneously.
"Edge" rendering on X browsers is still X different ways for all those stuck-in-time browsers to decide what "edge" meant at the time of their release or last update.
That meta tag is a good practice but not the ultimate solution.
You kids these days don't know how good you have it. Back in the day, when applications ran on the computer instead of in the browser, we would have killed to have only 76 different configurations to support. (And I'm not joking, though I am smiling ruefully.)
I don't support browsers. I support standards. I stopped performing hacky compatibility gymnastics long before Google made it cool to boast how you weren't supporting IE6 anymore, and my workflow and sanity has improved due to it.
To extend my point, I don't care if the user wants to use Firefox or Chrome or even IE. The rendering should be consistent across the board, and the browser should be about the user experience. Add ons, syncing, other such features.
Imagine if this applied to the world of televisions. If people didn't buy Sony TVs because they didn't display channels as well as Sharp or Panasonic. If you had to render your video with some hacky kludge so the colors displayed right on a Samsung and an LG. That would be insane.
This sounds terrible, but it seems to me that nobody will let it get that bad. It's infeasible to support 70+ browsers simultaneously; no dev shop can afford that. So they would either pick versions or choose some common set of features to support. If this meant that IE users got crappy experiences, despite developers' best efforts, people might finally start ditching IE. (A man can dream, can't he?)
But I think the IE team will find a way to prevent this.
IE6's entrenched position came from the fact that (a) it was the latest version of Internet Explorer for a _huge_ amount of time and (b) its status as the IE dead end for Win2k and below.
When IE7 came out, any company that still had any Win2k machines had to keep designing with IE6 in mind if they wanted their new apps to work on all their computers. (I'm making the assumption that if they were relying on IE previously, they couldn't just switch to Firefox or something).
Now, IE8 I think most people can accept is going to end up in IE6's current place. It's the IE dead end for XP, a hugely popular OS. But IE7? None of those companies that don't upgrade upgraded to IE7. Home users that upgrade will also have installed the IE8 upgrade. So you're left with what? Unpatched Vista installations. These are much rarer than unpatched XP installations simply because Vista had a shorter lifespan, and Windows Vista to 7 is sufficiently undramatic an upgrade for the types of people who would take years to go from XP to Vista.
So so far we have:
- IE6 will drag on as long as XP does.
- IE7 won't last particularly long. While it's popular now,
earlier Vista computers will be replaced in the close
future (2-3 years), causing it to lose market share to IE8.
- IE8 will have a long lifespan, although probably not as long as IE6.
IE9? IE9 has never been shipped by default with any version of Windows. That means anyone who installed it did decide to upgrade. These users will likely upgrade away, meaning in the future, IE9 will be even more of a non-issue than IE7.
IE10 will likely also go the way of IE7. While it will be installed by default on Windows 8, the amount of dramatic changes in W8 will scare off many of the companies that are slow to upgrade.
So in 5 years time, what versions of IE will realistically you need to support?
- IE6 (maybe - probably, hopefully, enterprise only at this stage)
- IE8
- IE10 (enterprise will never use it because Win8 is scary and different to them
so for home users only)
- IElatest-1 So IE13 or something?
- IElatest IE14 or something.
Needing to support IE6 and IE10 will likely be mutually exclusive, so that's 4 versions for sites targeted at home users and 5 for sites aimed at both enterprise and home users. Still ugly, but far from 72. And all those versions will be dead in the timescale that the article is using. Insofar as IE6 will ever die, anyway.
IE6 for home users will be dead at that point. Most of those old early XP computers will be "broken" and replaced, even if "broken" is just slow and annoying. Using XP in five years will be like using Win98/Win2k. Yes, people do use them. No, they aren't a large enough group for most to worry about. I even have a small amount of hits from Netscape 6. I haven't a clue what my page looked like for them, and don't care.
In theory, if even IE is aiming for at least yearly releases from now on, no future IE will end up in the position that IE6 is in, and that IE8 will find itself in, as upgrading your browser frequently becomes a fact of life. The compatibility modes will be much less important too, as the shorter lived the browser, the less likely that the compatibility mode for it will ever be used.
(Sidenote: Sorry for the kludgy lists. HN has no proper formatting for them, and they were causing horizontal scrollbars)
IE6 is down to 1.25% in North America. It's dead. Please stop supporting it so people really get the message.
IE7 is 5.25%. Probably slow moving corporations. Some of these guys won't upgrade to IE8/IE9 until they're forced to. So, let's stop supporting IE7 so they're forced to upgrade.
IE8 will be around for a couple of years.
IE9 is around 11.5%. Probably consumers who will gladly upgrade to IE10.
While you assessment of the browser situation some years from now, is far less depressing than the picture Paul Irish paints, you're ignoring his point that not only will we have to deal with different versions of IE, but on top of that, we need to regard all of the different render-modes/document-modes that will possibly be integrated in future IE versions, for the sake of compatibility.
It is by that line of reasoning, that Paul Irish makes the assumption that we'll be targeting some 72 different "browser versions" in 2020.
"Doctor, doctor it hurts when I have to support 10 versions of IE"... errr... "Then don't that!"
Only support the last two version. Warn people who come to your site that they are using an outdated and unsupported browser. Point them to Chrome, Firefox and Opera, which are all free.
But for Pete's sake, only warn them once. Every time I visit Hotwire with an unstable version of Firefox, it reminds me to upgrade my browser with an obnoxious pop-up.
Firefox 5 is < 10% and dropping.
Firefox 4 is < 5% and dropping.
Those are percentages of Firefox market share, not overall market share. So those correspond to somewhere around 2% and 1% of overall users respectively. Note that in November Firefox 6 will be in the position of Firefox 4 right now.
Also from the same post:
The uptake curve got steeper between 5 and 6, which means
more people are updating faster.
For Firefox it may take a few months since they don't do auto-updating like Chrome does, but almost everyone transitions to the latest version of Chrome in a matter of days.
Honestly, IE doesn't worry me anymore. Chrome does. Seems like every month there's new Chrome-only experiments, and Google provides Chrome-only extensions like offline Docs. Is it too much to ask for cross browsers sites?
FUD - you don't have to support every browser. And it's especially disingenuous to say that if you're developing websites/web applications you should care about, say, IE20 users running in IE 5 compatibility mode.
I think that this article puts a large amount of speculation that M$ will continue to operate the same way. While I dont think anyone wants to BET on them doing the right thing, the people upstairs do understand money, and they also understand two of their biggest competitors (Google and Apple) both put out better browsers than they have. IE9 showed that they at least understand the importance of the web browser, and I would hope they would continue along that path with 10.
Another thing is that web browsers are rapidly changing and evolving, I know Google is involved with a program now that allows C++ to run natively in the browser. In 2019, browsers could be COMPLETELY different than they are now. Backwards compatibility could become a forgotten term by that point, or browsers could operate totally different than they do now. I think a lot of what was written is true as far as the pain of past browsers, but speculating on the future is often a fool's errand.
IE isn't going to have advanced CSS3 support until version 10! However, Chrome, Safari, Firefox, Mobile Safari, and Android browser all support it already. It just seems that Microsoft is incapable of staying on the edge.
The important part on that page is: Working Draft. Microsoft has committed to supporting standards, as soon as they are standards. It's certainly arguable whether it's a good idea to implement draft standards that people write HTML for that then change under them.
Also, this kinda seems like cheating: "While only recently a W3C specification, this system has been in use for some time by Mozilla and Apple for interface purposes." So they codified something that Mozilla and Apple were already doing, then said that older versions of the browsers already supported the non-existent standard. Impressive.
The thought that occurs to me is that the adoption graph has a lot less to say about the suckage of supporting IE6, and a lot more about the suckage of being a Microsoft user.
Users of other browsers are on systems and/or workplaces which allow them to upgrade their browsers within reasonable time as new versions come out.
The MS-dedicated shops (and yes, I'm aware that most are large hidebound organizations, enterprises, and/or government entities) are stuck in their own labyrinths of fragile, massively interdependent, legacy systems.
This suggests to me that the modern vs. legacy browser war may actually be a proxy for ossified vs. agile organizations. There's still a great deal of power in the ossified side, but it will be interesting to see how comparative advantage plays out over the next 5-10 years (assuming the zombie apocalypse doesn't strike first).
IE is out of step with the other browsers and no longer has a majority market share.
So there's two options:
1. Innovate quickly and have access to amazing new browser features, but only cater to 60% or so of the market.
2. Support 100% of the market, but with considerable more effort (slowing you down).
Both approaches are legitimate. I prefer the first one, but the users who can't use my sites are going to want something equivalent for their outdated browser.
Briefly: facebook timeline is terrible. Even Chrome can hardly cope with all the javascript and reflowing as you load a profile page. There's no way in hell IE6 on XP will be able to cope with it -- the rendering engine, OR EVEN the cpu. Maybe that's the whole idea - Facebook could be Microsoft's best way of forcing people to abandon IE6 (and so XP). Semi-seriously, semi-approvingly I ask: Conspiracy?
IE 7 is less than 5% market share now, almost the same as IE 6. I don't see how this predicts a future with 72 versions of IE. And how is this any different than Firefox? I am running Firefox 4 on my office computer - can't upgrade because of IT policy.
You're wasting your time if you worry about legacy browser support. Period. For every legacy browser out there--a number which only grows in spurts when a browser becomes "legacy"--there are maybe a 1,000(,000) shiny new browsers being shipped daily. Which do you care about? A stagnant legacy count, or a growing demand of new, mostly compatible, mostly upgradable browsers?
When I first read that there are 76 browsers to support, I was thinking... Hmm, yeah this versioning thing is going out of hand. But it was Chrome + FF + Opera + Safari + 72 versions of IE. Seriously? Projecting all the way to IE20 (2022) with a compatibility mode between any two versions of IE?
Help me understand this, is the issue that IE users are not willing to upgrade to newer versions? or is it that Firefox/Chrome force users to upgrade while IE doesn't?
Why is the fast release cycle a problem for IE but not for Firefox and Chrome? why are the adoption charts different for IE than the rest?
The issue is mainly with the large companies, who primarily seem to be using IE. Due to their size, they can't auto-upgrade without incurring massive costs.
For the average consumer, it's not really a problem.
[+] [-] simonsarris|14 years ago|reply
Oh guffaw. The time has easily come where we are allowed to say "no" to several browser versions, or at least ignore them. Even Google has dropped support for IE6.
Supporting several browsers does not mean that a website has to look perfect in all those browsers. My sites will look good on the latest version of Chrome, IE, Opera, and Firefox.
Users of IE6/7/etc are already self-inflicting harm on their own web experience, why should we care to cater to them? They can have the website I display, but I'm not building the site for the past.
I don't care if previous browser users see the Best Of All Possible Websites, as long as they see something. And since I'm developing Canvas apps, I don't care if some of them see anything at all.
I imagine IE will reluctantly take the road of Chrome or FF and be more insistent about updates, especially outside of the corporate world. I also think that in the future the consensus will be that there isn't anything wrong with dropping support for aged browsers, and just displaying one "simple" site version to them.
[+] [-] nirvdrum|14 years ago|reply
We all have to do things we don't like in our jobs, that's just part of it being a job. I can even accept a certain amount of healthy advocacy. Encourage people to upgrade if you'd like. But outright refusal to do your best because your customer doesn't run the browser you wish they did is just a very odd tactic to take.
[+] [-] jemka|14 years ago|reply
Don't assume users have a choice. Even if they do, don't assume they understand the choice.
>why should we care to cater to them?
If you want to ignore a % of your users, that's fine. Some of your competitors wont. That's your choice. Just realize you can be losing potential users/customers and that lesson about updating their browsers will be lost on the customers that went elsewhere.
[+] [-] paulirish|14 years ago|reply
If you're in a position where you can totally ignore IE8 users, that's fine with me; but that's not where most developers are at.
And I agree; the more time goes by, the more I want to provide a super simple version of each site to oldIE, like throwing the Universal IE6 Stylesheet to all of them.
[+] [-] techiferous|14 years ago|reply
Why would these users self-inflict harm? Unless they're the victim of a enterprise IT overlord, it's because they don't understand what they are doing. They probably don't even have a good mental model of what a browser is.
So when these users visit your web site with their old browsers, I doubt they think "Hey, this web site is rendering poorly because I have an outdated browser" they probably think "this web site is broken".
[+] [-] dredmorbius|14 years ago|reply
In the event you haven't received the memo: Google is one of Microsoft's largest competitive threats. By simultaneously attacking Microsoft's browser, Office Suite, and OS monopolies, they're pushing a large wedge into Microsoft's core competitive advantage (mostly installed userbase and inertia).
As others have noted, while browser share may not show much IE6 usage, it's large organizations (and their large bill payment capacities) which account for most of the legacy usage. A key point to keep in mind when trying to grok why "market share" (as a percentage of user-agent pageviews) need not translate directly into "our target user base". If IE6 pays the bills, then you'll continue to support it.
This said as no particular fan of Microsoft. Or, increasingly, of Google.
[+] [-] melling|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] masklinn|14 years ago|reply
We're in late 2011 right? That puts Paul's "IE6 being a pain" in late 2007, right after the original iPhone was released.
By that time, Firefox 2 was a year old, Firebug was 18 months old, and Safari 3 (the first version with acceptable Javascript support) had just been released, making Drosera (which would morph into the Webkit Developer Tools the next year) available.
Hell, by late 2007 IE7 was a year old already. And a significant reason why the IE project was restarted (and IE7 produced) is developers getting fed up with IE6, its bugs, its antiquated tools and its lack of progress, and Firefox had been getting more and more traction since its 1.0 release in late 2004.
IE6 has been a pain for at least 6 years now. 2005 was Firefox 1.5, the announce for the IE project restart and the grand opening of On Having Layout [0], the tail end of the long, slow and painful discovery of IE6's innumerable rendering bugs, DOM and javascript limitations (anybody else remembers Drip and Joel Webber's "DHTML leaks like a sieve"? That's January 2005), painfully slow runtime & al.
Of course it makes sense that 2005 would have been such a sticking point: the web community had been playing around with CSS since ~2003 (CSS Zen Garden released that year) and was wrapping up the IE6 CSS bugs compendium (see above-mentioned On Having Layout, pretty much the culmination of the effort).
Late 2004 and (especially) 2005 it started to turn its attention from styling to behavior, which lead to the rebirth of Javascript and the creation of modern javascript: AJAX coined (and seminal article on the subject published)? February 2005. Opera Desktop free and ad-free? April 2005 QuirksBlog? December 2004. The killing of "DHTML"? 2005[1]. http://simonwillison.net/2005/Jan/5/swissMaps/ http://www.mezzoblue.com/archives/2005/01/06/dhtml_05/index...., ... the javascript frameworks explosion was also 2004 (Dojo) through 2005 (Prototype, Mochikit) to 2006 (jQuery, YUI)
[0] http://www.satzansatz.de/cssd/onhavinglayout.html
[1] http://adactio.com/journal/938
[+] [-] DrJokepu|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AshleysBrain|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paulirish|14 years ago|reply
But even if we ignore the compat versions for now (and quirks mode (and almost-quirks mode)), we still end up with up to 10 IEs in play simultaneously.
[+] [-] rocktronica|14 years ago|reply
"Edge" rendering on X browsers is still X different ways for all those stuck-in-time browsers to decide what "edge" meant at the time of their release or last update.
That meta tag is a good practice but not the ultimate solution.
[+] [-] wrs|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dredmorbius|14 years ago|reply
We had one computer. And one program that ran on it. And we liked it that way.
(OK, but we had a gazillion VMs so we could all run our one program on our one computer, except that we could never schedule any CPU time).
[+] [-] bittermang|14 years ago|reply
I don't support browsers. I support standards. I stopped performing hacky compatibility gymnastics long before Google made it cool to boast how you weren't supporting IE6 anymore, and my workflow and sanity has improved due to it.
[+] [-] bittermang|14 years ago|reply
Imagine if this applied to the world of televisions. If people didn't buy Sony TVs because they didn't display channels as well as Sharp or Panasonic. If you had to render your video with some hacky kludge so the colors displayed right on a Samsung and an LG. That would be insane.
[+] [-] billybob|14 years ago|reply
But I think the IE team will find a way to prevent this.
[+] [-] Macha|14 years ago|reply
When IE7 came out, any company that still had any Win2k machines had to keep designing with IE6 in mind if they wanted their new apps to work on all their computers. (I'm making the assumption that if they were relying on IE previously, they couldn't just switch to Firefox or something).
Now, IE8 I think most people can accept is going to end up in IE6's current place. It's the IE dead end for XP, a hugely popular OS. But IE7? None of those companies that don't upgrade upgraded to IE7. Home users that upgrade will also have installed the IE8 upgrade. So you're left with what? Unpatched Vista installations. These are much rarer than unpatched XP installations simply because Vista had a shorter lifespan, and Windows Vista to 7 is sufficiently undramatic an upgrade for the types of people who would take years to go from XP to Vista.
So so far we have:
IE9? IE9 has never been shipped by default with any version of Windows. That means anyone who installed it did decide to upgrade. These users will likely upgrade away, meaning in the future, IE9 will be even more of a non-issue than IE7.IE10 will likely also go the way of IE7. While it will be installed by default on Windows 8, the amount of dramatic changes in W8 will scare off many of the companies that are slow to upgrade.
So in 5 years time, what versions of IE will realistically you need to support?
Needing to support IE6 and IE10 will likely be mutually exclusive, so that's 4 versions for sites targeted at home users and 5 for sites aimed at both enterprise and home users. Still ugly, but far from 72. And all those versions will be dead in the timescale that the article is using. Insofar as IE6 will ever die, anyway.IE6 for home users will be dead at that point. Most of those old early XP computers will be "broken" and replaced, even if "broken" is just slow and annoying. Using XP in five years will be like using Win98/Win2k. Yes, people do use them. No, they aren't a large enough group for most to worry about. I even have a small amount of hits from Netscape 6. I haven't a clue what my page looked like for them, and don't care.
In theory, if even IE is aiming for at least yearly releases from now on, no future IE will end up in the position that IE6 is in, and that IE8 will find itself in, as upgrading your browser frequently becomes a fact of life. The compatibility modes will be much less important too, as the shorter lived the browser, the less likely that the compatibility mode for it will ever be used.
(Sidenote: Sorry for the kludgy lists. HN has no proper formatting for them, and they were causing horizontal scrollbars)
[+] [-] melling|14 years ago|reply
IE7 is 5.25%. Probably slow moving corporations. Some of these guys won't upgrade to IE8/IE9 until they're forced to. So, let's stop supporting IE7 so they're forced to upgrade.
IE8 will be around for a couple of years.
IE9 is around 11.5%. Probably consumers who will gladly upgrade to IE10.
http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser_version-eu-monthly-201008...
[+] [-] DandyDev|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] melling|14 years ago|reply
Only support the last two version. Warn people who come to your site that they are using an outdated and unsupported browser. Point them to Chrome, Firefox and Opera, which are all free.
Cut the Gordian Knot:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordian_Knot
[+] [-] paulirish|14 years ago|reply
I'd be happy to see it, and like I mention, prompting a IE7 user to upgrade to IE9 is currently just irresponsible.
[+] [-] steve-howard|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pavel_lishin|14 years ago|reply
You sure about that? Just because they're not officially supported doesn't mean a significant number of people won't still be using them.
[+] [-] bzbarsky|14 years ago|reply
Also from the same post:
[+] [-] melling|14 years ago|reply
http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser_version-ww-monthly-201009...
Mozilla has more of a problem getting people to upgrade but I think they will if simply nudged.
[+] [-] nextparadigms|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dendory|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] d2vid|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SurfScore|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pixelcloud|14 years ago|reply
http://caniuse.com/#search=flexbox
IE isn't going to have advanced CSS3 support until version 10! However, Chrome, Safari, Firefox, Mobile Safari, and Android browser all support it already. It just seems that Microsoft is incapable of staying on the edge.
[+] [-] smackfu|14 years ago|reply
Also, this kinda seems like cheating: "While only recently a W3C specification, this system has been in use for some time by Mozilla and Apple for interface purposes." So they codified something that Mozilla and Apple were already doing, then said that older versions of the browsers already supported the non-existent standard. Impressive.
[+] [-] dredmorbius|14 years ago|reply
Users of other browsers are on systems and/or workplaces which allow them to upgrade their browsers within reasonable time as new versions come out.
The MS-dedicated shops (and yes, I'm aware that most are large hidebound organizations, enterprises, and/or government entities) are stuck in their own labyrinths of fragile, massively interdependent, legacy systems.
This suggests to me that the modern vs. legacy browser war may actually be a proxy for ossified vs. agile organizations. There's still a great deal of power in the ossified side, but it will be interesting to see how comparative advantage plays out over the next 5-10 years (assuming the zombie apocalypse doesn't strike first).
[+] [-] jfoster|14 years ago|reply
So there's two options: 1. Innovate quickly and have access to amazing new browser features, but only cater to 60% or so of the market. 2. Support 100% of the market, but with considerable more effort (slowing you down).
Both approaches are legitimate. I prefer the first one, but the users who can't use my sites are going to want something equivalent for their outdated browser.
[+] [-] aj700|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] robryan|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andrewflnr|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unreal37|14 years ago|reply
IE 7 is less than 5% market share now, almost the same as IE 6. I don't see how this predicts a future with 72 versions of IE. And how is this any different than Firefox? I am running Firefox 4 on my office computer - can't upgrade because of IT policy.
[+] [-] NHQ|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] HardyLeung|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hussam|14 years ago|reply
Why is the fast release cycle a problem for IE but not for Firefox and Chrome? why are the adoption charts different for IE than the rest?
[+] [-] MortenK|14 years ago|reply
For the average consumer, it's not really a problem.
[+] [-] suivix|14 years ago|reply