
“But The Client Wants IE 6 Support” - billpg
http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2011/11/03/%e2%80%9cbut-the-client-wants-ie-6-support%e2%80%9d/
======
TamDenholm
I'm a web developer, whenever a client asks me about IE6 support, i
enthusiastically tell them i'll happily support it. I then show them usage
statistics for IE6 and tell them IE6 support costs a flat fee of £10,000 and
let them think about it. No client has ever taken very long to decide its not
worth it and none have ever taken me up on it, although i'm sure 1 or 2 have
asked a different developer to make them an IE6 version, but thats fine with
me.

~~~
elektronaut
I haven't had a request for IE6 support in years, but if I got one I would say
something like:

"No, I will not do IE6 support for you. You've trusted me to solve your
problem in the best and most efficient way, and supporting IE6 would be a
waste of your money (and my time)."

~~~
idiopathic
Let me tell you about the UK National Health Service. 1 million employees,
they are literally saving people's lives every day, and all they are allowed
to use is IE6.

What your statement shows is not a understanding of how to solve the problem
for such a client, but a rather a complete lack of understanding. Check the
audience metrics, check the real problem being solved, and leave the
grandstanding aside.

And for the record, I hate IE (6 or otherwise) and never want to support it.
But I am not going let me personal dislike for a technology get in the way of
helping a client solve a really important problem.

~~~
lwat
I'm so glad I've never had a client like that here in Australia. Everyone
seems to be OK with the idea of running multiple browsers. We do have clients
that use IE6 but we've always managed to convince them to install Chrome or
Firefox on their desktops so they can use our software. Some users end up
using multiple browsers but that's ok.

I guess we're fortunate in the sense that our software is important enough and
expensive enough for top management to make IT allow a new browser just for
us.

At the UK NHS, who exactly is the CIO, who exactly is mandating IE6 and only
IE6? Can't that person be reasoned with? Overridden for the good of the NSH?
Fired even? Just saying 'oh they're only allowed IE6' is giving up too early.

~~~
idiopathic
Some historical background, which includes plenty of personal bias:

Governments, for all their posturing, love dealing with oligopolies, or even
better, monopolies. They feel safer in making purchases from them. So around
2002, the UK government decided IT was so important, it was going to be done
centrally for the whole NHS. They gave the job to Richard Granger, who then
proceeded to divide England into five regions, each of which would have one
vendor responsible for all software in the NHS for that region.

As part of that deal, they licensed MS Windows and Office. At that point, it
became more expensive to use open source software than Microsoft's software.
Then they standardised on IE6, and many vendors began using ActiveX.

When I ask departments to upgrade, they say they are going to do so, but first
they need every single vendor to have signed off that their software works in
the new browser. This will take a really long time.

Some will install a new browser for us, but this will actually result in a
worse outcome for the clinicians because they have to use IE6 for most of
their existing browsing, and then the other browser for us. They do not
understand the point or the difference, and new browsers mean a different user
interface, and they want to get on with treating patients rather than choosing
between browsers.

The epilogue is that the UK government's national program wasted 12 billion
pounds (about 20 billion US, ie the same amount the US government is also
identically wasting to subsidise electronic health record purchases). And
Richard Granger left the UK in disgrace.

He is now a consultant in... Australia :)

~~~
nitrogen
Would they be willing to use Chrome Frame? It seems like the ideal way to
target IE6-only customers without "installing" another browser. That way they
can use one browser for all their intranet apps.

------
simonsarris
Perhaps I am naive but this conversation seems easy to resolve with just a few
words. Can anyone tell me how a client would respond to this:

You can have a site with newer, nicer features, or you can have a site that
supports older browsers. If you want both then you are commissioning two
distinct websites. If you want usage statistics for old browsers I have them,
and if you want to be economical I can produce the second website for older
browsers at a reduced cost with reduced flair, after all only X% of people
would see that site and it would still look reasonable, just not amazing. What
would you like to do?

~~~
mattmanser
To me that's lying to them.

While supporting IE6 is onerous extra work, it's still work that can be done
and has little impact on the final product.

Take the other position, that 'Not supporting IE6 will mean I'll charge you
70% of my original quote, only x% of people use it in your target market' or
better add it as an extra in the quote in the first place as the article
suggests.

Then it's up to them, it's a risk assessment. But be up front in your quotes
with it, not an after the quote is won 'I don't know how to do it!'.

The article's incredibly OTT on how much adding IE6 support costs, but I
certainly would never go down the route of lying to a customer about it. If he
charges double it's probably because he hates doing it and fair game to him.

~~~
tomgallard
I think the article is realistic in terms of IE6 support costs if you're not
just building a simple website.

Trying to build a responsive, dynamic webapp, that is identical in IE6 to a
modern browser can easily add a lot of time. Just as an example, producing all
the graphics for rounded corners, rather than being able to do them in CSS.

~~~
flomo
I've found that people don't really notice or care when IE shows them square
corners.

The thing about IE6/7 support is that it's a complete known quantity at this
point. The problems & workarounds are well documented. There's tons of
experienced HTML coders out there that know IE backwards and forwards. CSS
frameworks like OOCSS include built-in workarounds.

So if IE support doubles the cost, it must either be something very complex,
or a real nickle-and-dime project. (Either that or the webdev doesn't really
what they're doing.)

------
thibaut_barrere
> How many of us actually charge 30-100% extra for this work? I haven’t heard
> of many who do.

Actually I see the exact opposite around me: developers billing by the hour
and warning that IE 6 (or later) will generate extra work (and costs money).

Most people I know just have a look at their site stats and see what is worth
it.

~~~
Jacquass12321
Very much this, we informed the client that it was going to cost them more,
and we itemized time spent fixing IE6 specific bugs and layout issues so we
could offer them an idea of how much it was costing them. They needed this
kind of data in order to convince their internal IT to migrate most of their
user base off of IE6.

------
jswinghammer
I usually take a much different approach with this issue. I had to support IE
6 for years after anyone could reasonably have been asked to do that. I did it
because our customers used it a lot and asking them to upgrade wasn't in the
cards for us. We could have lost 30% of our business or just not do all the
cool things we wanted to do.

I realize it's not cool but we chose to just not do all those things. IE 6
does support a lot of what you need to do and once you figure that out it
becomes easier to make it work without having to go back and fix it later. I'm
pretty good at it now so I don't really complain if someone asks me to make
something work in IE 6. It's not a huge deal if you know what the issues are.

~~~
mattmanser
IE7 only came out 5 years ago, IE8 2 years ago.

Making sure IE6 was supported was still commonplace even last year.

You're not as unique a snowflake as you think you are, we've all been having
to do it. It's only becoming viable now to suggest otherwise.

~~~
redthrowaway
"You're not as unique a snowflake as you think you are"

That's unnecessary. The point, without the invective, please.

------
draegtun
Unfortunately IE6 is still very _popular_ in the corporate world of Europe.
I'm currently running an internal websurvey for a large car rental company and
looking at this weeks http logs shows that IE6 is still getting 61% :(

~~~
mattmanser
Large car rental companies are not exactly cutting edge on IT. They tend to
have a lot of small locations that's not exactly easy to start upgrading
because of the cost of sending people out to do it all.

My local branches look like they had their last refurb in the late 90s for
example.

One example does not a sample make.

~~~
tomgallard
It is not just car rental companies. Most of the UK's major banks use IE6
still.

This is because most of their intranet apps will only work in IE6, and they
have the size to demand that their supplies support IE6 too. Corporate IT
policy won't allow browsers apart from IE.

If only Microsoft allowed side-by-side installs of IE6 and a IE8 it might be a
bit more bearable (given that IE9 is not available on XP)

~~~
sampo
> This is because most of their intranet apps will only work in IE6

How did it ever happen that IE6 ended up in such a long lasting and dominating
position? Was it (I am just guessing here) the coincidence of tho things: (1)
IE6 just happened to be the most recent Microsoft browser around the time when
most of bigcorps initially build their inter/intranet apps, and (2) because
this was the first wave of building such things, the web coders did not bother
to think about a future when IE6 is no longer a modern browser?

~~~
awj
Well, part of it was that there weren't other browsers to worry about. At the
time there was no Chrome, no Safari (no one used Macs in a corporate
environment if there was), and no Firefox. All that you had was IE and
Netscape, and Netscape was on kind of shaky ground at that point.

Those two kind of fought with each other by introducing new features that made
web pages incompatible with the others. Also, even then corporations weren't
really keen on letting you use some other browser, so IE was the go-to since
it was already installed. Since the market was so slim, and seemed to be
increasingly vanishing, it seemed easier to justify going with IE's
extensions.

If Microsoft had kept updating IE and hadn't let it linger for years, we'd
probably still be in the situation where they're in control of the de-facto
standard. It's only because they sat with their thumb up their ass that things
like Firefox and Chrome were able to get footholds and start disrupting the
situation. Already being present and practically being named "The Internet"
are _really_ big adoption factors.

------
rhplus
The article mentioned "graceful degradation" but what is really described
should coming from the the other direction as "progressive enhancement". As
the author mentions, only enable each version of scripts and styles to
browsers that support them. For those that don't, the content remains.

Here's an old article that gets the message across in a client-friendly way:
[http://www.alistapart.com/articles/understandingprogressivee...](http://www.alistapart.com/articles/understandingprogressiveenhancement)

------
avb
Let me preface this with saying I long for the day IE6 is completely
irrelevant.

The fact is, when doing client work I have a responsibility to design the site
in a way that when their customer visits they get the information they need.
If the website is broken, for whatever reason, that looks badly on my client
and on me.

When I do a site I code and design for modern browsers. However, I make sure
even IE6 users can get the information they need or order products or whatever
the case is with the website.

True, the IE6 users are small in number, however in some cases they can make
up an older or important demographic to a client.

------
drKarl
It all depends on the kind of site you are building and the technologies
involved. On some sites it may be ok to deliver a "less beautiful" web but
with all the contents, in others it won't. Oftentimes nowadays you'll face a
complete rewrite.

In some recent projects I even worked hard to convince the client that it
wasn't worth supporting IE8. It's not only that it loads faster with modern
techniques (as CSS3 allows awesome effects that would need images/javascript
with CSS2), but some functionality built around HTML5 would need a COMPLETE
rewrite in Flash.

Of course that means that if they insist on supporting older browsers not only
that would mean a 30%-100% increase in price but new features the want
afterwards will be more expensive as well (because you're supporting two
different projects).

------
bmccormack
This seems like a relatively simple business proposition to a client. "X% of
users on the internet today use IE6. I will be happy to provide pixel perfect
support for Y dollars." Adjust Y up and down based on your ability and desire
to continue to support web applications that use IE6.

------
mendable
This article is great, but it works on the premise that IE6 support is a
purely rational discussion by two knowledgeable parties before a contract is
signed.

\--

In reality, you may develop a website, then the client is visiting their uncle
bob one weekend who has an old computer with IE6 lying around, client + uncle
bob open up the website to have a look, and it is "broken".

Client then sends you a hate mail about broken contracts.

You reply saying that you discussed IE6 lameness before you started the work.

Client says you were talking jargon, client didn't understand, and you need to
fix their website so it loads on their uncle bob's computer otherwise they are
suing you for not delivering a working website.

Good luck with that :)

~~~
digamber_kamat
As long as the contract clearly mentions that you are not supporting IE6 I
wont mind client suing me.

~~~
gte910h
Make sure you have the prevailing party's legal costs as part of the bargain
in the eventuality of suit as well: Otherwise wining the lawsuit can be
Pyrrhic

------
jwallaceparker
We explicitly don't support IE on our heavy JavaScript web app.

Users get an alert saying, "Use Firefox or Chrome. If you want to use IE and
are upset that you can't, let us know."

Nobody has said anything about it.

I think so much depends on your audience. Our audience is writers using their
own computer. They're happy to use Firefox and Chrome.

I only see IE6 support as a problem for people on corporate machines who don't
control their own software.

------
jdavid
Who are these clients and why are you not firing them?

You run a business, they run a business, and everyone is trying to make money.
How much money do you think an IE6 user has? the browser is like a decade old.
It's why we target iPhone and not Android in the mobile world. ( because
iPhone users out spend android users. )

Tell your client the truth, tell them that you keep up to date on the latest
trends and if they want to use someone else let them, and then tell them
exactly what your work will do.

I would not even offer to support IE6 anymore. Maybe IE7. There are a few
reasons.

#1 you can't download IE6 legally any more

#2 you can't install it legally on linux or mac systems to test.

#3 IE7 in quirks mode does not work exactly the same as IE6.

#4 web development for legacy browsers is less about building things, and more
about working around problems. and i just don't find that fun.

It is your duty as a web professional to turn down this work. Microsoft does
not even support his browser anymore.

~~~
jdavid
when i was running the site <http://unity3d.com> less than 1% of our visitors
could not properly render an html5 doctype.

~~~
jiggy2011
Question is, what % of users have the unity plugin installed?

I think it's quite neat that unity let's you embed your game into a web page
but I often wonder how many users change their minds once posed with the
requirement of a plugin install since this is exactly the kind of thing that
IT savvy people advise their less technical friends not to do!

------
bo_Olean
_If we choose to make a website pixel-perfect in Internet Explorer 6 to 8,
then we are doing up to 100% more work._

Every clients/users should check this once : <http://www.ie6countdown.com>

~~~
JoshTriplett
As much as I like that site, I can't link people to it because as a Microsoft
site it just wants to move people to newer versions of IE, rather than to a
decent browser. (Any decent browser, really; I don't care which, just not IE.)

------
iamben
We tried to drop IE6 support for an ecommerce client recently. But looking at
analytics, IE6 customers are still doing 5 figures a month in revenue. The
client just can't risk the potential lack of conversion in a site with a
'graceful degradation'. The testing that's gone into making it convert as it
has must apply across all the major browsers from which they get traffic.

Shame, it's a complete pig to develop for.

edit: They must look and behave more or less the same. Personally I have no
qualms about the IE users not seeing rounded corners on some boxes. As long as
they're in the same place and the same colour, etc.

------
joshuacc
Previously submitted here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3192237>

What I find curious is that the de-duper apparently doesn't check for case
differences in the URL encoded characters.

[http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2011/11/03/%E2%80%9Cbut-
the-...](http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2011/11/03/%E2%80%9Cbut-the-client-
wants-ie-6-support%E2%80%9D/)

[http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2011/11/03/%e2%80%9cbut-
the-...](http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2011/11/03/%e2%80%9cbut-the-client-
wants-ie-6-support%e2%80%9d/)

------
pacomerh
I don't offer IE6 support, offering IE6 support keeps the browser alive, and
it has to be killed collectively.

I'm guessing that an example of a client that would ask for IE6 support would
be Car Mechanic shops that have CRT monitors and super old computers. And
probably a corporation that can't upgrade all people at once and their
secretaries don't know what a browser is.

------
libria
It's interesting that despite all the investment that Google is making in Plus
and their desire for a foothold in this market, they flat out refuse IE6:
<http://i.imgur.com/ONRK4.png>

~~~
mixmastamyk
Good for them. There is a trade off to be made, better/quicker features
delivered at the expense of supporting an obsolete browser.

------
moreorless
Isn't this just like about anything else? There are still plenty of people who
use VCR's. There is still good money to make for people who are willing to
support older technology. If you don't do it, someone else will.

~~~
shinratdr
Except we stopped making new standalone VCRs years ago, and new movies haven't
been published on tape for years as well.

The interesting part of the IE6 debacle isn't the fact that a legacy program
is sticking around longer than we had hoped, it's how ridiculously strong the
longevity of it is. Most likely IE6 marketshare will stay in the double digits
in many countries long after the world has completely forgotten about VCRs.

------
digamber_kamat
If any client demands IE6.0 support then I demand 100% more. the reason is not
just that involves near 100% more work but also the skills required to do that
job will be worthless in future.

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
That's not unreasonable but the key thing is to break that out in the quote.
They need to understand what that support is costing them to allow them to
make the choice as to how much they need it.

------
chacham15
Maybe I'm missing something, but recently there has been a lot of work in
graceful degradation. Such examples include Modernizr (based upon yep-nope)
which allow detection of features and asynchronous loading of polyfils for
missing functionality. Missing css3 support for IE6-8 comes in a 10 second fix
called CSS3PIE. To use it you add 1 css line to apply the htc to the necessary
classes (or all with the * selector) and there you have curved corners in
IE6-8 with no additional work.

------
mcantor
Somehow I had managed to completely miss the term "polyfill" until just now.

Handy!

------
gte910h
IE6 Support is currently handled here via a second, reduced functionality site
as a standard practice (and charge accordingly).

------
snorkel
IE6 support can be made reasonable for most apps as long the client
understands that the IE6 support will be usable, decent looking, but not 100%
the same look and experience as with more modern browsers. You just need to
explain to the client that they don't want to blow their budget wrestling with
nit picky white space inconsistencies.

------
docgnome
"Even if they don’t care about accessibility, my responsibility is to make the
website somewhat accessible." I'm unclear on who the legal requirements for
accessibility fall on exactly so I may not understand properly... but I'd
think this is a legal requirement to make your website accessible (at least in
the US under Section... 508?)

~~~
Isofarro
Section 508 only applies to US government organisations and
businesses/agencies providing services to those government organisations.

US legal requirements for public sites are probably covered in ADA (Americans
with Disabilities Act), under the provision of reasonable accommodations. So
far legal rulings are varied and vague, swinging one way then the other about
whether ADA applies to websites (despite a DOJ opinion that they do/should).

Some states have their own legislation, like California's Unruh Civil Rights
Act which was used against Amazon (Target settled and agreed to make their
website accessible).

------
j45
Fight opinion with facts.

Ask your customers if they got IE6 support as advice from someone.

Show how many people use it now and what that sliver of IE6 users now see with
gracefully deprecating css libraries.

------
njharman
"Do what the client needs, not what they want."

Great advice I got once.

~~~
Isofarro
In the context of IE6 what's best for the client is the one that best serves
their business objectives in regard to their customers. If their target market
contains a significant-enough element that uses IE6 then what's best for the
client is a website that supports those business objectives with that
customer.

------
Tloewald
Then use chrome frame ;-)

------
WayneDB
"We have a responsibility to ourselves and to the Web to follow the principle
of universality."

Not feeling that at all, so speak for yourself. If I want to target a specific
browser or device, I do it when it makes sense. Screw universality. The users
install what I tell them to or they don't get the privilege of using my site
or product. (Do you think Steve Jobs would disagree?)

~~~
SoftwareMaven
Given how much he trumpeted HTML5 and the nixing of Flash from its, yes, I
think he would disagree seriously.

People begged Apple for the ability to create real apps. The original plan was
to build HTML apps, but comparing a web app to a native app was no comparison
at all (and it still isn't; I hate almost all web view"apps").

