IE6? Not on my internet!

So. Internet Explorer 6 is still polluting the internet with its presence. An amazing 4% of visitors to this website are still using IE6. What the fuck are you doing? Someone accused me of showing contempt for visitors. Look at the content on this website! It’s all technical stuff. I am contemptuous of anyone who visits using IE6! I am an elitist prick. I don’t really care if they go away and don’t come back.

IE6 is bad for the economy, wasting millions of person-hours hacking around its antique defectiveness. It’s bad for progress, with its lack of support for even basic features like transparency. It’s bad for stress, because every day people waste their time making stuff work in IE6 when they could be doing something interesting and satisfying instead. Heck, it’s probably bad for the environment, for all I know.

Well, persuasion hasn’t worked. Facebook, YouTube, and Norway haven’t gone far enough. Maybe it’s time for coercion. I’m thinking of something like a Low Emissions Zone for the web. First, we warn the polluters. Then, we deny them access: we make IE6 unusable on the web.

So here’s the plan. First, we put big, obnoxious, obvious banners on all our sites, telling visitors using IE6 of the forthcoming apocalypse. We name a date—September 1st, say—as the day of reckoning. We threaten catastrophe.

Then, when D-Day rolls around, we replace the obnoxious banner with something even more hostile: code to crash IE6.

The idea is to deny large swathes of the web to Internet Explorer 6. If enough people do it, IE6 will become unusable literally overnight. Upgrading to another browser will become a pressing need.

I’m not saying that you should do this at work: many commercial sites probably can’t realistically take part, and I don’t want to get anyone sacked. But that still leaves plenty of sites that aren’t subject to such stringent constraints. When people can’t get to all the interesting sites they’re used to browsing, they’ll be forced to take action. When the hairy-palmed masses can’t browse their porn, they’ll be motivated to do something about it. (Although if you are browsing porn on IE6, three-year-olds are already trading your credit card numbers in kindergarten. You idiot.)

I’ve heard all the objections to upgrades before:

  • Our intranet application only works in IE6—So use IE6 for your shitty intranet application. Install a real browser (Firefox, Opera, Chrome, Safari, whatever) for the internet.
  • Our IT people won’t let us use anything else—Looking out the window is boring. When management can’t waste their time surfing videos of ice-skating chimps, this will change pretty fast.
  • We’re using Windows 2000—Firefox.
  • What’s a browser?—Ask your grandson.

When it comes down to it, if people have to upgrade, they will. We don’t sell leaded petrol any more, either. But we have to make them have to upgrade.

Can we do it? As idealistic developers with chips on our shoulders, do we have the cojones? Can we face the opprobrium and kick IE6 overboard into the watery grave it so richly deserves?

Aux armes, amis !

2009-07-17 20:18 UTC. Comments: 39.

Comments

Skip to the comment form

  1. JP

    Wrote at 2009-07-17 20:50 UTC using Safari 525.9 on Mac OS X:

    Vive la revolucion!

  2. Phil 'ie6' Ricketts

    Wrote at 2009-07-17 20:54 UTC using Firefox 3.0.11 on Mac OS X:

    I’m so offended by your crass comments about my favourite ‘bus-pass’ browser, that I’m going to leave this comment and never come back. Ever.

  3. Phil 'ie6' Ricketts

    Wrote at 2009-07-17 20:56 UTC using Internet Explorer 6.0 on Windows XP:

    Well, maybe I’ll come back once or twice, I have so much to contribute to this post.

  4. Paul Battley

    Wrote at 2009-07-17 20:56 UTC using Internet Explorer 6.0 on Windows XP:

    Ah, come on, couldn’t you have spoofed your user agent?

  5. Paul Battley

    Wrote at 2009-07-17 20:57 UTC using Mozilla 1.9.1.1pre on Linux:

    Well, I see you’re on it ;-)

  6. Phil 'ie6' Ricketts

    Wrote at 2009-07-17 21:03 UTC using Internet Explorer 5.5 on Windows 98:

    Troll ;p

  7. Will Jessop

    Wrote at 2009-07-17 21:33 UTC using Safari 530.19 on Mac OS X:

    There’s a rails plugin that allows us to do just this: http://github.com/juliocesar/rack-noie/tree/master

  8. Louis

    Wrote at 2009-07-17 22:16 UTC using Internet Explorer 7.0 on Windows XP:

    LOL… 3 of the commenters on this post are using IE6 or lower! Gosh…

  9. Paul Battley

    Wrote at 2009-07-17 22:23 UTC using Netscape 4.8 on Windows XP:

    Or they just changed their user agent string!

  10. Kennedy

    Wrote at 2009-07-17 23:27 UTC using Firefox 3.5 on Windows XP:

    Where do I sign up?

  11. Daniel Hardy

    Wrote at 2009-07-18 11:47 UTC using Firefox 3.5.1 on Mac OS X:

    The revolution is coming. I’m in.

  12. Chris Scragg

    Wrote at 2009-07-18 16:35 UTC using Firefox 3.5.1 on Windows NT:

    It’s true there is no excuse to use such outdated software if you have free-rule over the machine. Not only is Phil Ricketts making progress harder he is also killing the enviroment, everybody knows IE6 is morbidly inefficient!

    KILL!

  13. Jay Adkisson

    Wrote at 2009-07-18 23:28 UTC using Chrome 3.0.194.3 on Linux:

    Ugh, totally agree.

    And screw Rails plugins, you just need a combo of the [if IE 6] tag and an html redirect. You could even have a php script do a random dictionary-seeded google search and redirect them to a random place on the internet! Oh noes!

    ...or just some nasty browser-crashing javascript, I guess.
    —Jay

    PS – html comments actually work down here in the comments! Don’t you sanitize these things?

  14. George Katsanos

    Wrote at 2009-07-19 11:54 UTC using Firefox 3.0.11 on Windows Vista:

    100% with you Paul.

  15. Strawp

    Wrote at 2009-07-19 22:30 UTC using Mozilla 1.9.1 on Linux:

    Oh hells yes.

    The IE6 users won’t get their act together if we keep handling them with kid gloves.

  16. Matias

    Wrote at 2009-07-20 00:14 UTC using Firefox 3.5 on Mac OS X:

    The good thing is that when all the IE6 users somehow update their browser, they will not get to update it to IE7, since IE8 already exists.

    If they don’t update their browser, and choose something else like FF, Safari, Opera or Chrome then that’s a much better conclusion now isn’t it :)

  17. Garann

    Wrote at 2009-07-22 18:54 UTC using Firefox 3.0.9 on Windows XP:

    Totally agree with the sentiment, but isn’t crashing the browser kind of.. dramatic? I’m in favor of the same tactic that got so many people to start using IE6 back in the day: redirect to a page informing them that they have to upgrade to view the site.

    On the other hand.. If you find something that’ll crash the browser and run the Chrome installer, I’m in.

  18. Ripsometime

    Wrote at 2009-07-22 19:01 UTC using Safari 528.16 on Mac OS X:

    Noo our sh*tty schools won’t allow anything other than ie6, ah well I suppose I can alleays use my iPod touch at school, lol in the preview it thinks I have a mac.

  19. Adam

    Wrote at 2009-07-23 16:29 UTC using Firefox 3.0.12 on Windows XP:

    Agreed.

    Someone should buy a domain solely to inform site administrators when this revolution occurs, and tell them to redirect ie6 browsers to a big red logo of site denial.

  20. Sheldon

    Wrote at 2009-07-31 20:14 UTC using Firefox 3.0.11 on Mac OS X:

    Maybe you should just stop worrying about whether your website works in IE6… I know I don’t give a shit.

    If web developers just stopped making it work, eventually people will wonder why websites look like shit on their computer and move to something else.

    Why should Microsoft’s garbage be OUR problem?

  21. Jess

    Wrote at 2009-08-04 10:34 UTC using Firefox 3.0.12 on Windows XP:

    A website should just be standards compliant, if it then fails with IE6, then that is microsoft’s problem.

    Alternatively, if the site generates a simpler set of content for mobile browsers and the like, just include IE6 in the browsers that get served it.

  22. Elin

    Wrote at 2009-08-04 21:38 UTC using Firefox 3.0.12 on Mac OS X:

    Norway hasn’t gone far enough…. ?
    You troll.

  23. Decrepit

    Wrote at 2009-08-07 09:59 UTC using Opera 9.63 on Windows XP:

    I am personally using Opera ver.9.xx, but I must say that IE7 (&IE8) are much more heavyweight….. Those two might be worth a try if you could get an “IE6 skin” for them. Familiarity is what folks crave. There is no need to change the look / feel, when the technical bit of a browser is updated in the code. What is wrang wiv olde IE6 ? If you have a good AV resident scanner, and a decent Firewall with anti-spy, and anti-phish, then “browser security” is irrelevant really, isn’t that the case ?

  24. Tim

    Wrote at 2009-08-11 08:00 UTC using Firefox 3.0.11 on Windows XP:

    .net magazine has a website (and an “article”), but they’re not advocating malicious code (yet):

    http://www.bringdownie6.com/

    In fact, they’re probably using it as an excuse to get their logo and url on other websites (yes, I know that’s cynical).

  25. Can Berkol

    Wrote at 2009-08-11 18:59 UTC using Firefox 3.5.2 on Windows Vista:

    I’m fanatically supporting your views :)

  26. David W. Snow

    Wrote at 2009-08-18 15:47 UTC using Firefox 3.5.2 on Windows XP:

    On my web site http://www.AgingSafely.com I too keep track of my visitors using Google Analytics. July 2009 still had the IE6,7,8 splits as 23%, 45%, 31%. See http://www.agingsafely.com/web_services/web_stats.aspx for details.

    This means that 23% not only are running IE6, but that they aren’t running Windows Update either. These folks won’t do a thing to their computer until they are forced to buy a new one. I simple banner, or crashing IE6 won’t cause them to update—it will force them to another site.

  27. CaptainZM

    Wrote at 2009-08-18 17:35 UTC using Firefox 3.5.2 on Windows XP:

    I only checked my site on Firefox and Chrome. Don’t care enough to make sure it works on IE.

  28. Bubba

    Wrote at 2009-08-18 23:51 UTC using Firefox 3.0.11 on Windows XP:

    Firefox!!!!
    Get into the future!

  29. Sonsum

    Wrote at 2009-08-19 04:52 UTC using Firefox 3.5.2 on Windows XP:

    Paul! You use IE6!

  30. old dude

    Wrote at 2009-08-19 15:04 UTC using Firefox 3.5.2 on Windows Vista:

    I saw a copy of IE4 for sale yesterday, should I use that instead?

  31. Yababa

    Wrote at 2009-08-20 11:54 UTC using Firefox 3.5.2 on Windows NT:

    Firefox & Chrome are the best way too go.
    Firefox is just as fast as any other decent browser, but the main attraction is all the addons – adblock plus anyone?
    Chrome looks and feels beautiful, not to mention it’s lightning fast.. though it doesn’t have Firefox’s addon support.

    (I’m using W7 not NT!!)

  32. This is my name OK?

    Wrote at 2009-08-24 22:32 UTC using Firefox 3.5.2 on Windows XP:

    This is superior. I will buy 10 of them.

  33. Indranil

    Wrote at 2009-09-07 09:23 UTC using Chrome 2.0.172.43 on Windows XP:

    Frustrating as it is to support IE 6, perhaps the users aren’t to blame. I think the bulk of IE 6 users are from accessing your site from corporate networks, where they have no admin privileges to install a proper browser. I don’t have any hard data to support this though.

  34. Kojul

    Wrote at 2009-09-27 18:34 UTC using Firefox 3.5.3 on Mac OS X:

    This is the best tirade against IE6 that I’ve ever seen. As for this Indranil person above me… maybe the reason corporate networks keep IE6 is because those people should be working instead of polluting the internet with their use of the most ungodly piece of software ever written (well, next to IE5.5).

  35. Federico

    Wrote at 2009-10-01 13:21 UTC using Firefox 3.5.3 on Mac OS X:

    Cheap and easy, it display a yellow bar warning, better if put on the very top of the page, though I haven’t tested it IE6 =P
    warningbar.png is a yellow background, from Firefox’s warning bar.

    /a href=”http://www.google.com/chrome” id=”ie6warning” target=”_blank”/
    Your browser is outdated and incompatible with many websites, including this one. Please update it with a newer version or switch to a better and safer one. Try Chrome //a/

    #ie6warning{
    color: black;
    text-align: left;
    background-color: #ffd520;
    background-image: url(warningbar.png);
    height: 26px;
    font: bold .7em/26px Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, sans-serif;
    text-indent: 13px;
    display: block;
    text-decoration: none;
    border-top: 1px solid black;
    }

  36. Federico

    Wrote at 2009-10-01 13:25 UTC using Firefox 3.5.3 on Mac OS X:

    I forgot to mention that the code needs to go in the LT IE7 conditional comments.

  37. Jono

    Wrote at 2009-10-19 15:30 UTC using Firefox 3.5.3 on Windows Vista:

    For those of us who cant put up giant obnoxious sign we need to put up one giant banner on the homepage that says we are going to stop supporting IE6. But instead if crashing IE6 just don’t code for it. The info will still be there, keep the banners for IE6 but if you stop coding for it the website will get stronger on all other browsers while it deteriorates on IE6. This will not be scaring visitors away from your website as in crashing the browser would, but convincing them to change.

  38. Flim Flam

    Wrote at 2009-11-08 07:58 UTC using Opera 10.00 on Windows XP:

    You are a complete and utter twatt, I will use a slate and pencil if I want/like. Go and boil your fascist head. The user will decide what to use and if your website then no longer works, then poo !

    So where is the transparency on this website anyway and the bells whisltles you speak of ? Utter Fanny Baws !

  39. Flim Flam

    Wrote at 2009-11-08 09:36 UTC using Opera 10.00 on Windows XP:

    You are correct, Kill IE6, grrr, thrash, bash, bish, bosh…. FOOBAR !!!!!

    You must force the unruly unwashed masses to bow down before their one true God. The almighty Linus Torvalds….. Banzai – for the Emperor !!!!!!

    I like all the bells whisltles that are here now.

    What ? * % ? .... eh ?

Leave a comment

Please read the comment guidelines before posting. Comments are Gravatar-enabled. Your email address will not be published.

To prove that you’re human, type human in the Bot check field.

Trying to post some program output or a long code sample? Please use a paste service and link to it instead.