

I don't know how  to IE6 - crabideau5691
http://blog.colbyrabideau.com/post/8317497197/i-dont-know-how-to-ie6

======
mattdeboard
Why did you have the impression a B.S. in CompSci would teach you about legacy
browser support?

I dunno, the first few weeks of my internship I had to do the same thing. If
nothing else it was a great way to learn about what the company did by doing
low-level grunt work. However I'd really recommend that if this is all you'll
be doing for the duration of the internship, maybe look for something else.

Otherwise be thankful that you'll eventually have the flexibility to choose a
career path that doesn't require you to maintain compliance with IE6.

~~~
true_religion
I hate to make a "me too" like post, but as soon as I read his biography, I
thought "... wait we should stop supporting X browser because some kid doesn't
know how to support it too?".

Are we now just leveling the playing field so _experience_ is irrelevant, and
kids just out of college should be able to compete with those who have been
working the field for ages (ages which I might add included a time when IE6
was the dominant browser, and you ignored it at your own peril).

~~~
derleth
> we should stop supporting X browser because some kid doesn't know how to
> support it too?

No, we should look seriously at whether we _need_ to keep doing things the
cheap labor can't perform anymore.

Supporting IE6 is a Black Art, and keeping people who can perform Black Arts
reliably is expensive. I suppose the traditional comparison is to COBOL
codebases and greenscreen IBM development. If thinking about that convinces
you IE6 isn't the mainstream anymore, go for it. The point is that increasing
the number of different, and I mean _really_ different, browsers your team has
to know about is not free, as the cheap labor only knows the relatively tight
cluster of post-IE6 graphical browsers. The article's the evidence of that.

~~~
pjscott
_... and keeping people who can perform Black Arts reliably is expensive._

I have nothing to add ("me, too!"), but would like to point out that this
sounds like a line from a fantasy novel written by an economist. If such a
thing actually exists, I would love to hear of it.

~~~
neild
Harald, by David Friedman. (There are a number of notable David Friedmans.
This is the anarcho-capitalist-son-of-Milton-Friedman one.)

Harald is quite good, IMO, but there isn't a lot of overt economics so it may
not be what you're looking for.

~~~
gabebw
I really didn't think the GP would get an answer to that extremely specific
question. Thanks, and I'll be checking this out.

------
unreal37
You're 20. Working as an intern for a social networking company. I am sure
life seems ideal to you, working on only modern technologies and being able to
ignore things that are not perfect.

Outside of this sheltered life, you will have to be able to deal with people
asking you to do things you would rather not do. Might as well accept it,
instead of writing a blog post every time it happens.

~~~
JanezStupar
Feels good advocating conformism while reaping benefits of thousands of years
of nonconformist struggle?

~~~
cbs
>nonconformist struggle

The guy is whining about IE6. That's hardly a nonconformist position.

------
yaakov34
This is immaturely and badly argued. So it took a massive two days for an
intern to add IE6 support to a web app. This is actually a good argument for
keeping IE6 support for the several percent of users who still have it. I am
not saying there aren't good arguments for dropping IE6, but this just isn't
it.

Some of the supporting arguments are even worse - does he really expect a
course called "Legacy Browser Support 301" to be taught at his college? And
why would he need that course, seeing as how he managed fine all by himself?
He could now teach that course better than any of the profs, who probably
don't hack on IE6 conditional code.

There is also this refusal to look at things from a business perspective - he
is working for a company which earns revenue from that web app that he worked
on. If the revenue from IE6 users is greater than the value of 2 days of an
intern's work, which seems likely, then the right decision is to throw in IE6
support. Now, if you have a massive stable of web apps (like Google) and it
takes immense developer resources to support IE6 which will go away in a few
years anyway, that's a different story. Change the inputs and you change the
answer.

He seems like a good prog and a good guy, but he needs to mature some more.

~~~
michaelfeathers
This is off to the side of IE6, but I think we make a big mistake when we
calculate costs that way.

It isn't simply a question of whether immediate revenue is greater than 2 days
of an intern. The question is whether the projected revenue is greater than
the support costs of that feature over time and the opportunity cost, i.e. "we
can't do feature X easily because feature Y is in there." The fact that people
don't calculate costs that way in software development puts many organizations
in a pickle.

------
beseku
This article makes me very angry because the guy is coming across as looking
for an excuse not to do the work. When I was building websites for IE 5 + 6
there was very little help out there - the bugs weren't documented and often
you would be finding something completely new. I remember discovering an issue
with HTML comments (!) after floating elements that seemed to not exist
anywhere in Google.

Nowadays there are a ton of resources documenting all of the bugs out there
because hundreds of people have already found and documented them. The site
<http://www.positioniseverything.net/> is a bible for developing through
browser bugs, everyone knows about conditional comments, (not used until IE7
came out) and using Javascript is considered acceptable for so many more
solutions or fixes. More importantly, there are a load of people who can offer
help via many mediums, (Stack Overflow?) who have been there and done that.

Just because you don't agree with a business decision, don't invent excuses
like this, you sound lazy.

Edit: In case I'm coming across as a grumpy old man, I started in the industry
when I left University, so six years ago. I'm 29, not exactly a dinosaur.

------
iuguy
First of all, welcome to the real world. While it may seem appropriate for
your job that supporting a vintage browser from the start of the millennium is
a bizarre concept, but for many people, particularly in business applications
it's still a requirement and is likely to remain one for a good few years yet.

As tempting as it would be to write a lawn-getting-off comment about some of
the garbage I've had to deal with in the past, let me just say that it doesn't
matter when you start, there's always legacy support needed. At the moment,
having IE6 as your legacy platform is a relative luxury compared to having to
support a mish-mash of 32 and 16-bit platforms. There is only one IE6. Count
your blessings.

------
TamDenholm
I gladly offer to support IE6 to my clients, but i tell them it costs £50,000
in order to do it. Of those clients that initially asked me to support it none
of them have taken up on the offer so far. :P

------
melling
2% of the US uses IE6. Explain that to your boss and ask if it's still
necessary to support it.

[Update] For Google Apps, Google no longer supports IE7. YouTube support for
IE6 was dropped a year ago, and they make a lot of ad money from YouTube now.

~~~
corin_
In terms of percentage that's pretty small, but that doesn't mean it isn't
important. If you estimate the number of US internet users to be ~240 million,
2% is 4.8 million people.

Sure, a small chunk of the pie, but still a large chunk of people. And, in a
hypothetical situation where your % of revenue generating visitors is exactly
the same as for the overall population, not many companies would want to lose
2% of their revenue, or profit.

~~~
mgkimsal
If it costs a large enough amount of money, they would. More precisely, they
_should_. Why stop at IE6? There's still a combined large number of users
using IE5 and IE5.5 and Lynx and NS4 and Amaya, etc.

In some cases, it may cost quite a large amount to continue to maintain and
patch sites to also support IE6, and that money needs to be deducted from the
'profit' had from IE6 users. And more to the point, that same money being
spent supporting those IE6 users _could_ be being spent on bolstering mobile
device work, newer browsers, assistive technologies, and what not.

The "well, we don't want to lose the profit from our users" has been thrown at
me in the past, with the charge that "well, techies just care about
gadgets/technology". No... in reality, many of us in the trenches (not all,
but many) end up being better positioned to see the real _business effects_ of
these decisions. I'd much rather be working for a company that was spending
its money wisely and being forward thinking rather than reactionary and
wasteful. That's not a tech issue - it's a business issue.

~~~
JoachimSchipper
Those browsers are not alike. If you follow standard advice - valid HTML,
progressive enhancement, unobstrusive Javascript (or fallbacks where needed) -
Lynx will render your snazzy 2011 page with the same fidelity as a 1995
Geocities page, and the result will be perfectly usable. IE6, though, will not
only ignore your CSS3 stuff, but also completely misinterpret the things it
does "understand".

------
kennu
I hate web articles that don't have a publish date. This one would seem like a
year and a half old.

~~~
bennysaurus
<http://blog.colbyrabideau.com/archive> \-- August 2011

Edit: OP is the poster of the blog also

~~~
esrauch
I was confused for a few seconds when I checked the date and saw that it was
currently July 2011.

~~~
AgentConundrum
It didn't even occur to me until you mentioned it. August is still six minutes
away here.

------
tedsuo
I'm happy we finally dropped IE 6 support at work, but I don't like the line
of reasoning in this article. Having to tackle unsavory but necessary problems
is what makes this a job; the ability to do so effectively is what makes you a
professional. Two days doing IE6 compliance is not a big deal.

~~~
wnoise
Saying it's necessary is begging the question.

~~~
SoftwareMaven
But that is a business decision with engineering input, not the inverse.

~~~
wnoise
Sure. But assuming "necessary" is a problem even when put in that context.
It's trade-offs and cost-benefit analysis. The benefits are easily seen from
the business side. The costs may not be obvious. A couple of days for an
intern is just the start. There's the support over the entire product
lifetime, and that's going to get worse and worse as time goes on.

------
ansonparker
I look after an Australian e-commerce site. About 6.5% of our users are on IE6
(I assume they're mainly office-workers on shitty, out-dated PCs).

That is way too big a chunk of revenue to ignore in the name of ideals or
standards or what-have-you.

But please, feel free to redirect any IE6 visitors to your blog to whatever
the latest "IE6 is shit and you're an idiot" single serving site of the moment
is.

I agree that IE6 is a turd, but have never found making my designs work in IE6
too much of a hassle. There has always been a positive ROI beyond just
pleasing the spec-writers.

I think a lot of developers write overly complex, fragile mark-up with lots of
nested floats and the like. Keep it simple and you'll realise IE6 support is
generally just a few tweaks or at worst a conditional or two.

~~~
mestudent
I try to make my websites work in ie6 but with minimal work, I'll let IE6
users use it but it will be a degraded experience and most of my website for
normal people actually haven't seen such high IE6 usage as 6.5%.

~~~
wladimir
I think that's pretty much the best solution. For old browsers in general,
have a legacy HTML-only fallback site. This makes IE6 and Lynx users happy
alike :-) It doesn't need to be pretty but it needs to be functional enough to
do all the stuff your customers need to do.

------
bbwharris
I think it is beyond IE6 now. I am seeing more and more projects that are
"okay" with a degraded version of the site on a non-modern browser.

Web developers cringe at shadows, and "non-boxy" effects, because we know the
hoops we need to jump through to get there. However, if the project is okay
with a "degraded" version of the site, then you can use CSS3 and save time.

I think the mindset of "support" has to change. Sure, have your site work on
older browsers, but the good stuff happens when you see it on a modern
browser. Users who use shitty browsers, are used to sites looking shitty.

------
carbonica
What Computer Science program would leave you buried in CSS for 2.5 years? If
he meant he spent 2.5 years working with CSS on the side, why didn't he ever
think "maybe I should learn legacy support"?

~~~
oliciv
Because it's harder and not as cool as working on new stuff

------
kingsley_20
As product manager, one of the best things I've done for my teams is to fight
to leave IE6 out of the spec whenever possible. Sometimes they appreciate it,
and many times they don't know it, but I believe we've always shipped better
products because of it.

------
k33n
Pretty much nobody supports IE6 anymore. I know how to IE6, like most devs a
little older than the author. I just choose not to. Because I can.

~~~
ilikepi
> Pretty much nobody supports IE6 anymore.

That's just not true in my experience. We have two large corporate clients and
one state agency that each require some level of IE6 support. I have a hard
time believing these are the exception. I'd wager it's going to take a few
more years to reach that point.

~~~
lwat
We have thousands of corporate clients and we tell them all the same thing:
They can use any browser they like but it must be the latest / current
version. Some of them grumble a bit but we've not lost a client because of IE6
in years.

~~~
notJim
So all of your clients (who use IE) are using IE9? I find this hard to
believe, especially since many corporations are still running Windows XP,
which will never get IE9.

~~~
lwat
Obviously the 'latest version' in that case would be IE8.

------
veyron
<http://www.ie6countdown.com/> <\-- 10% of the world still uses IE6. I would
imagine most obsolescence conversations go like this:

"We should stop supporting IE6"

"What percentage of people use IE6?"

"10%"

"Hmm, 10% sounds like a lot of people ... let's support it!"

~~~
bmunro
10% of the population of the world use IE6, but that is heavily weighted by
countries such as China (34%) and South Korea (22%)

If your target audience is English-speaking or European countries, the
relevant proportion is 2% to 3% or less.

That's a pretty good level to start to consider whether supporting that small
percentage is actually making you more money than you would if you didn't
support their browser.

~~~
w1ntermute
Does anyone know why Asia has such a high level of IE6 usage? I don't think it
has to do with the computers being old, because IE6 usage is relatively high
even in developed places like Japan, Hong Kong, and Singapore.

~~~
bmunro
A major reason in South Korea is that in the late 90s, the government mandated
the use of ActiveX for online banking. This was only recently repealed, and
the Korean government is now encouraging people to move on.

The government mandate encouraged many websites to also use ActiveX. South
Korea is probably the only country where ActiveX is still in use. Internet
Explorer has a browser share of 90-95% in Korea. IE6 is about 15-20% of this.

~~~
bmunro
And a further reason is that the Windows XP is still the most common operating
system in use.

People don't feel any need to upgrade, as everything works with their current
browser/OS.

I've used the internet at my Sister in law's (in Korea) - lightning fast
internet speeds, with a creaking slow operating system full of bloatware.

------
masaq
IE6 may be awful but if you're in a space with a high % of IE6 users you
support it.

This isn't a developer decision, it's a a business decision.

If you don't support it someone else will.

------
flamingbuffalo
"Now’s the time. Someone needs to start the ball rolling and just say no."

Lots of us say no to supporting IE6 whenever we can, the problem is the person
paying our salaries says we will.

But regardless of that, the sad truth is that developers aren't the ones
preventing a full scale cutoff of IE6, it's our users. If the people you are
making things for use IE6 then you have to support them.

~~~
nknight
Developers need to start keeping exceedingly careful track of exactly how much
time they spend fighting with IE6 so they can go to the person footing the
bill and say "this is how much money you've wasted on a completely obsolete
technology".

~~~
SoftwareMaven
"Wasted" is totally the wrong attitude. Knowing the support cost is important,
but whether it is a waste or a business investment can't be answered by
engineers who are programmed to follow the latest shiny thing.

If 60% of my users are on IE6, it is in no way a "waste" for me to spend the
money supporting it and calling it a waste highlights an engineers ignorance
of the business side of things.

------
wmeredith
>>In the final week of wrapping up my first legitimate project, my boss
dropped the bomb I was hoping to avoid. “Hey, Colby”, he said, “make sure it
works in IE6 and up.”

This is the problem. No foresight. A my agency IE 6 support is a very specific
line item in our proposals (if it's in there at all) and it adds 30% to the
cost of development.

------
joshfraser
I usually add IE6 support to my sites. I've done it enough that I know what to
avoid from the beginning. I can usually make it IE6-compliant without much
extra effort, if any. I sympathize with younger devs who don't have that
experience and know it must feel like pointless effort for such a small
percentage of people.

------
code_duck
I gave up on IE6 this year. Feels great.

Now, there's just IE7... and I get the feeling IE8 will feel like IE7 a few
years from now. Microsoft really needs to fix their release style for IE. That
is the #1 problem, not that the browsers are bad for their time.

------
mlreed328
I just worked on a 300K project for a company that makes 6mil/day (yes, you
read that right) to redo a single page on their website (albeit a functional
page). IE6 was a requirement.

A client with that kind of money dictates what is and is not supported and you
don't just get to "not know how to do it".

2% of the U.S. may use IE6... but 99% of the executives in this company used
it.

Not to mention that if an IE6 hack took 2 days you got of eeeaaasy...
seriously. It only took 2 days? You got of easy.

Yeah, it sucks. But there are cases where learning how to IE6 or otherwise can
be quite lucrative- and a condition for doing business.

------
kiplinger
The fact of the matter is, this kid will be dealing with legacy type issues
over the next 40-45 years of his career. 10 years from now, devs will be
grumbling about supporting some technology we view as common place and whiz-
bang today.

Yes, supporting IE6 is a pain in the ass (I have to do it due to my company's
huge Chinese user base). But I am watching it die a slow death.

The specific experience sucks, but in general it will help him prepare for
realities of web dev.

------
pawelwentpawel
"make it sure that it works on ie6" is the worst line you can hear at work.
especially if you're developing a web app. even global websites like fb don't
support ie6 anymore.

<http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_explorer.asp> \- IE6 has 2.6%, I
don't really see a point in spending hours optimizing stuff for it.

~~~
emp_
Linking w3schools for anything web is like linking FOX News for politics.
*edit: more info <http://w3fools.com/>

~~~
pawelwentpawel
Didn't know that. What would you suggest as a legit browser stats then?

~~~
smackfu
The problem is that their users are not a representative sampling of the
overall browser market since they heavily skew towards web developers. If you
are also making a site for web developers, then the w3schools numbers are
valid. Otherwise, no.

~~~
pawelwentpawel
That's a valid point. Are there any statistics available that you would
recommend?

------
lwhi
IE6 is a necessary evil in some circumstances. You're young - you need to be
flexible. Complaining won't help.

\--

Practical steps that could help:

Produce your standards compliant site. Then, to deal with IE quirks:

1\. Ensure you've used a resets CSS script - level the ground before you start
to build.

2\. Serve separate CSS files for IE6/7/8 using conditional comments, which
overrides any styling that requires IE specific workarounds.

3\. Learn a handful of workarounds to deal with problems you might encounter.

\--

If you follow these three points, IE really won't be so much of a headache.

\--

And remember: [1]

(Follow the principles of progressive enhancement: [2])

[1] <http://dowebsitesneedtolookexactlythesameineverybrowser.com/>

[2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_enhancement>

~~~
clintjhill
I realize you're trying to help. However.

Necessary evil is an "enabling" statement. In my opinion this doesn't help
circumstances but only prolongs it.

It's more evil than necessary and it's only necessary because we keep allowing
it to be.

~~~
lwhi
The majority of people involved in technology are thinking people. Some of
these people are part of large corporations which currently use IE6 because
the cost of updating legacy systems is overly prohibitive.

They don't use IE6 because they lack education or intelligence - they're using
it because the business case for leaving IE6 behind isn't as strong as the
business case for keeping it.

It's not impossible to produce a site which functions well with IE6. Some
sites won't need to consider it, but IMO particular types of site (ecommerce
for example) _must_ support it, because one single conversion can bring the
parent company a lot of money.

------
zachinglis
IE is the bane of my existence. It's got a lot easier over the last few years.
The original turn from table based design to CSS back in 2005 was hell. It was
guaranteed that half of your CSS would NOT work. It's a lot easier now but I
still find some really weird issues.

Nowadays I use mogotest.com to help me with it. It's a lot more handy than
booting up a VM.

------
ricardobeat
After a few years you find out it's not _that_ hard to support it. Prefer
padding instead of margins, be careful with floats, use _overflow:hidden_ to
clear blocks, add a sprinkle of _zoom:1_ , and it's done. It won't look
exactly the same, but don't sweat it - it just needs to work.

But thank god I usually don't need to do any of this anymore :)

------
morisy
This post was worth the vote just because of the fond memories hacking through
browser compatibility issues in the early 2000s. I'd literally cry sometimes,
but I suppose it taught valuable lessons about the cost of long-term support,
customer satisfaction, and the demands of building a shipping product vs. a
nice tech demo.

Part of life as being an employee is learning to deal with things like this.
Unfortunately, part of life being a boss/founder/owner is having to ignore all
the perfectly reasonable complaints and say do it anyways, because there are
business, political, or other reasons it has to be done.

That said, this special taste of hell used to be developing any site, repeated
for every browser, back before all these fancy CSS frameworks that did all the
hacks for you.

Given all that, I think the OP has the right approach: Sucking up and dealing
with it at work, and campaigning on his private site to move onwards and
upwards. Has my vote.

------
chaz
Colby needs to go back and challenge the requirement with his boss. Business
isn't entirely a top-down process -- if it's not a good idea, it's his duty as
an employee to express this. Lots of great ideas and insights come from the
most junior people. It's easy to come off as difficult when voicing dissent,
so it's important to be thoughtful and constructive.

In this case, it's easy -- just bring Microsoft's own data to the table.
According to <http://www.ie6countdown.com>, only 2% of the US uses IE6, and
it's clearly not 2% more work. In addition, big sites like Facebook and
YouTube have abandoned IE6 support. The company's needs will differ from the
averages, but it's a good starting point to start looking at the data.

------
earnubs
If IE6 is a problem for you I suggest you don't venture too far into the world
of mobile devices.

------
mikaelgramont
Nobody knows how to IE6, that's the point.

Welcome to the club.

------
jfaucett
Just speaking for me, but I was able to quit supporting IE6 around the time
Facebook dropped its support for it. If you have business clients, they want
the social and if social media doesn't care about outdated garbage they don't.
It saves me and the clients time and money. Reading this guys post did make me
smile though, I remember all to well my days in IE6 - good ol' png fix, ah how
I miss those shitty gray boxes around all my lovely images.

------
eli
If having the site IE6 compatible brings in more revenue then whatever they
pay you for two days work, then it sounds like a pretty solid investment.

------
tripzilch
Why, when I was a young programmer we had to write the code in the snow with
our pee, and a compiler was just a word for the pilot of the hovering
dirigible that read the instructions and passed them to the ALU, which was
another fellow with an abacus. They would wrap the results around a rock, and
drop it on my house when the program would exit. We had to walk uphill...

------
Breefield
When I was a kid we had to develop websites without firebug/inspector, in IE6,
both ways.

Wait, I'm still a kid.

------
Sindrome
I agree most B2C sites need to take IE6 out of the game. Personally, I work
for a company that helps American old folks with their healthcare choices. 30%
of them still use IE6. You guys need to teach your grandparents to upgrade
their browsers so I can stop supporting IE6. D:

------
clintjhill
This debate is getting really thin. It seems we all live in a world where 5-6%
of users are on IE 6. Yet we give this percentage huge leverage in our
development efforts. Arguments that "clients are using it on sites/services
they pay for" are misguided. What everyone should be doing is developing
against forward looking APIs (HTML 5) and shimming to the non-compliant
browsers. And for IE 6 in particular we should develop UX that let's the user
know they are missing out, with instructions on how to update. It's not about
ignoring them or leaving them in the dark - it's about educating them on what
they are missing. Just the security aspects alone could prompt a user to
update.

For the corporations who still image the desktops and/or make IE 6 standard:
stop buying vendor products that require it. Easier said than done I know. But
if serious IT groups were serious about saving money and/or standards they'd
simply admit that IE 6 is costing them more than an update to their "standard
browser".

------
aufreak3
Although dropping IE6 support is a valid enough plea, "favour progress to
backward compatibility" would be the wrong professional lesson to learn for
him. The real question ought to be "do your customers require IE6 support and
will they be unhappy if you drop it?"

------
thomasjoulin
Me, I say that our apps can't work with IE (yes, IE, including 7 and 8),
without a plugin : Google Chrome Frame.

Both the words "plugins" (reminds him of Flash I guess) and "Google" seems
reassuring :p Might not work at every company ^^

------
shinji97
The only sites that should support IE6 are the download pages for the newer
browsers.

------
bitops
Buck up.

Supporting IE6 is a necessary rite of passage.

Don't wuss out.

------
aredington
Google doesn't support IE6 (even if it may work on some of their site without
directed effort). Your business makes less money than Google. Applying the
transitive property we find...

------
chris24
So Colby... does CSS still make you smile (as you say on
<http://colbyrabideau.com/>)? :)

~~~
retro212
Funny thing, his site looks broken in Firefox - top menu is out of the screen
and page has a horizontal scroll

------
oliciv
"School didn't teach me about the real world"

------
sircambridge
you were 8 years old then IE6 came out. that makes me weep. i remember when
ie6 was state of the art! king of the hill!

------
niels_olson
Even NMCI, the most bloated, antiquated, over-funded network on the planet
doesn't use IE6 anymore. Just quit it.

------
devth
Um, guys, no one supports IE6 anymore. The question is whether we should be
supporting IE7 (answer: no).

------
diggericon
IE what is that? I only know Chrome and Firefox.

------
NARKOZ
forget about compatibility when it comes to playing an audio file in html 5

------
aznmurcielago
Oh goodness how I despise Internet Explorer.

------
czzarr
try html5boilerplate

------
trezor
Interesting way to finish it off:

 _Now’s the time. Someone needs to start the ball rolling and just say no._

So really just about anyone but author, then?

~~~
TwistedWeasel
That's exactly what I was thinking. He's telling us to stand up and do
something he's not willing to do himself?

------
aznmurcielago
I think all websites should just ban together and direct IE users to a landing
page with download links of the other 3 "superior" browsers or if they must
use IE they can download Chrome Plus that lets you open IE tabs. Then on the
bottom of the landing page they have a choice of proceeding anyway, with
caution of course. If people just saw side-by-side comparisons of how CSS
renders in IE and the rest of the conforming browsers people would switch in a
heartbeat.

