I don't use IE6, and haven't for a long time, so this is an assumption based on trying to get into the mindset of someone who 1) is still using IE6 and 2) has control over the update (ie, ignoring those in large corporates who can't update themselves).
If I'm using IE6, do I even know what a "browser" is? Let along an "outdated one"? And what, exactly, are the five colourful round things on the bottom of the page? Ah, wait, one of them says I need to be using the 'e' with the orange swoosh - quick check of my internet, and yes, I am using the 'e' with the swoosh. Problem solved.
So the message needs to be clearer, given the self-selecting audience it's targeting: Even "Your internet experience is slow and will attract more viruses. Upgrade your speed and protection for free." sounds nice, but also sounds like I'm the 1,000,000th visitor and I've won a free iPod.
Criticsm has been leveled that MSFT are pushing solely the upgrade to IE8, just delaying the problem. And I'd love to see more of the world using Firefox or Chrome. But if I am still using IE6 it's not because I understand my browser options, or even what a browser is. It's because it works, and it's familiar - pushing IE8 helps overcome the familiarity hurdle. And after all, it's used for "exploring" the "internet" - I already visit Google, I don't want to look at Operas or a Safari, and what the hell is a Mozilla?
Maybe "The Orange swoosh is better than the Blue swoosh. The latest version of Internet Explorer is now available at no cost." It's not a long term solution, but it is based in reality.
I'm now going to have a shower to cleanse me of my pro-Microsoft argument.
I'll go a step further: the person that uses IE6 really shouldn't be changing the software on their computer because a big shiny graphic on a website tells them to. Either you're wasting their time because they don't have the permissions from BigCorp to install stuff, or they don't know very much about computers and shouldn't be downloading malware because ad banners tell them they might get a virus or speed their computer up. Just because your motivations are more noble doesn't mean that using the same design antipatterns is a good idea.
The Microsoft banner is horrendous too. If you must (because your functionality doesn't work on IE6), give them a text link to the Microsoft upgrade page with a "You need to update your Internet Explorer for this site to work correctly. You can do this by going to the Microsoft free download page _here_. You can also find out more about the latest version by going to Microsoft.com and searching for Internet Explorer".
Other options (probably via browserchoice.eu) should be secondary. And I say this despite IE8 being a horrible browser I wouldn't use voluntarily.
I've showed some of these sites to a client as we have a Web app in the wild and I want to avoid the inevitable IE6 support calls. He is reluctant to use anything I've shown him so far since the language in the copy is always a little too pointed. He's afraid that users will get scared off, and he's probably right.
I think the default wording should use kid gloves, something like "To fully take advantage of this website, please upgrade your browser". Or maybe "This website uses advanced features that your browser does not support because it is out-of-date".
Of course, you may want intrusive (like if your site is horribly broken in IE6) or you may prefer not to direct users to a wordy explanation page, so this is a pretty good option.
Saying something is "old" is not a good enough reason to make people give it up.
Instead, tell them it's unsafe and insecure and it's free and super easy to use a newer browser. Then you've got something. Tell them them IE6 won't be deleted just in case they need to go back for some reason.
My car is over 10 years old, gets better mpg than many of today's cars and still has airbags. An argument that "it's old, better upgrade" wouldn't fly with me (unless somehow it was free and easy to upgrade, lol).
People understand the Moore's-law-kind-of-"old" better than you think, if you give them the right analogy.
"Remember what Playstation 1 games looked like? A few scant polygons and textures were all the hardware could manage. Your browser is as old as a PS1.† Websites have gotten better, stronger, faster, and more technologic since 2001, but you can't see any of that—because you're trying to view them in a browser built on the expectation that the most complicated thing the Internet had in store for it was shopping carts. Get a new browser, and see what the last 10 years of progress have let us create."
OR you could just not write IE6 hacks and the users would suffer a little and just catch on. The reason IE6 is still used is because IE6 hacks are still used.
And btw, I wouldn't use that banner for one reason: I don't promote IE download under no circumstances. IE8/9 may be hot now, but it will suck just as bad in a few years as IE6 now.
sadly there is IE on that list, even if is a new version, after some time it will become the new IE6, a buggy non standard browser, just ditch IE completely and save the internet.
No, that puts the burden of keeping IE up to scratch on Google, which is just bizarre situation to be in. Chrome Frame is a quick fix, but it can't last forever.
I'll bet £100 that IE will never be Standards Compliant. Microsoft have demonstrated over and over again that they have no interest in being even remotely Standards Compliant. It would be better for the Internet as a whole if IE simply ceased to exist.
No browser is standards compliant. That's impossible; the "standards", at least pre-HTML5, contain ambiguities and self-conflicts. It's all a matter of degree. And I can't agree with your assessment, Microsoft has shown interest in improving their standards support repeatedly. Each browser was closer to the mark than the last.
But still miles behind the competition. Their improvements have been tiny and often incomplete. The discrepancies are far too great to be passed off as "we just need a little time to catch up". Microsoft aren't a bit player here. I'll judge them by the same standards I judge myself or anybody else; IE is a sad excuse for a browser, and IE9 will be just as bad as the rest.
If I'm using IE6, do I even know what a "browser" is? Let along an "outdated one"? And what, exactly, are the five colourful round things on the bottom of the page? Ah, wait, one of them says I need to be using the 'e' with the orange swoosh - quick check of my internet, and yes, I am using the 'e' with the swoosh. Problem solved.
So the message needs to be clearer, given the self-selecting audience it's targeting: Even "Your internet experience is slow and will attract more viruses. Upgrade your speed and protection for free." sounds nice, but also sounds like I'm the 1,000,000th visitor and I've won a free iPod.
Criticsm has been leveled that MSFT are pushing solely the upgrade to IE8, just delaying the problem. And I'd love to see more of the world using Firefox or Chrome. But if I am still using IE6 it's not because I understand my browser options, or even what a browser is. It's because it works, and it's familiar - pushing IE8 helps overcome the familiarity hurdle. And after all, it's used for "exploring" the "internet" - I already visit Google, I don't want to look at Operas or a Safari, and what the hell is a Mozilla?
Maybe "The Orange swoosh is better than the Blue swoosh. The latest version of Internet Explorer is now available at no cost." It's not a long term solution, but it is based in reality.
I'm now going to have a shower to cleanse me of my pro-Microsoft argument.