Save IE6
saveie6.com
saveie6.com
it's running a lot longer than it was meant to be. Just like IE6
I guess they just didn't remove the conflicting text in their footer.
"SaveIE6.com was put together as an April Fool’s joke by the uptime monitoring service Pingdom. Due to the tremendous interest it has received we have decided to keep this site up and running. Thanks everyone for the great feedback and for enjoying the irony!"
Perhaps it's because I'm British (we Brits can be a little particular about humour, especially irony), but I don't think a joke like that should explicitly identify itself as such.
Ideally, you'd be right. The problem is that so many people also don't think a joke should explicitly identify itself by being funny.
"Get the W3C standard changed to fit IE6" (listed as a goal of the site)
"Places Internet icon on desktop (blue e)" (listed as an IE6 feature)
"No need to install (it’s there already)" (another feature)
"Highly secure (has received lots of security updates)"
Tablerow, heh.
Please correct me if I got it wrong, but it seems HTML 5 is a bit similar -- ``let's make a list of features our sponsors support''. Only the sponsor base is wider.
Just seeing someone refer to IE6 as "tabbed", albeit single-tabbed, made me realize how far we've come.
Example of message: http://www.pinkbike.com/photo/6305769/
Imagine if many sites did this to spur the upgrade process. I'm really curious to see the results of this...will traffic plunge by 1.5% or will the usage of ie6 switch to other browsers. Note: no ie9 upgrade choice.
It's reasonable to expect that your users will stay, and the browser repartition will follow the same curves it did before.
Make a website (IE6 Compatible, of course) that explains in tedious detail all the reasons a corporation should upgrade. There are real security issues that they should care about. Put this in the form of a white paper, but you get to put a few ads for corporate IT stuff in the corner.
Have a prominent "mail this to my IT administrator" link, that people can click, which mails a link to the page to an email address provided by the user. Use a mailto: link, so the email comes from inside the network, as they're going to get a lot of these, and we don't want them blocking them.
In the footer, have a link to your "developer page" with the text, "Help us educate corporate IT to IE6 security risks". On that developer page, have some javascript that people can cut and paste into their websites that senses when a browser is IE6, and if so, puts up a warning box with a link to the white paper page.
Now you have a potentially viral spread. You have an easy way for developers to alert their users to their browsers vulnerabilities, and do it in a way that leads those users on a path that might actually actuate change, which is, alerting their IT people. When it gets to the IT people, you have made a strong technical case that they can use to go to their bosses and get things done.
Plus, you might get a few clicks from IT guys on your ads to pay for your server space.
O_o
Something tells me 2K names captured across an entire year will not convince MS to change course with their own http://ie6countdown.com/
Something tells me no ones trying to get anyone to change their minds.
This is just silly thing people can think of.
I think writing for a cross section of IE9, and the more modern browsers (FF,Chrome, Opera), and some specialized code for IE8 where necessary, is a big improvement.
While IE7 (or IE8 for that matter) is clearly very far from being perfect, it's massively superior to IE6. Not just "CSS differences". I mean IE7 fixed bugs like select elements being always on top or the URL fragment (the #hash part) being submitted to the HTTP server as part of the URL. These issues are major pains in the back. Supporting IE7 is an awful lot easier than supporting IE6.
For example, I consider not supporting SVG 10 years after standarization a major probleam. And only IE9 addressed that issue.
Aside from CSS differences they are largely equivalent.
I ended up spending about four hours coming up with a bunch of optimizations that made it perform acceptably in IE6. I suppose you could argue that optimized code is a good thing, but personally I would have rather have spend that time working on something else.