I spotted this at the bottom of an email newsletter telling me about the launch of Be’s new look website:
P.S. We’ve not designed this to work fantastically in IE6 because it’s really old and, well, we’re all about the future. So, if you’re on IE6 please upgrade to IE7 or IE8 or even Firefox. Sorry if you’re stuck with IE6.
Am I alone in thinking that’s just not good enough?
For one, statistics for June 09 show that nearly 15% of internet users are on IE6. IE7 users account for 19%, which is only 4 more than IE6. Point made right there.
For two, the rate of fall in IE6 use has been very slow and steady since the beginning of time suggesting it is a reliable and loved browser. On the other hand IE7 users have been happy to jump ship to IE8 (not something that happened when IE7 turned up). I was about to launch into statistics freefall but I got bored just thinking about it.
But the real point is that the ‘hey-ho’, jolly, pally tone of this PS suggests a lazy attitude to engagement on a persuasion and emotion level.
Be has not considered the needs of its entire user base. It’s admitted to this fact in a PS, with scant apology and no regard for facts and figures. It has potentially made 15% of its current and future customers feel like they use substandard services and have insisted they upgrade (which even though it’s free is a big ask).
So when I checked out this new look website on ‘even Firefox’ I was faced with an invalid certificate alert. But that’s a whole other story. One to do with trust.
A big thumbs down for and from the user.
PS. I can’t fault their internet provision though; fast and reliable for 2 years without interruption.
indicates required fields
Alex Hansford commented on 24 July 2009 at 3:29 pm
The “IE6 is bad” argument aside, i think the thing that surprises me is that because the site is so simple, it shouldn’t take too much effort to check against IE6 and fix all the layout issues - not doing so on a simple layout seems a bit lazy.
Personally I like it retro - so I’m surfing using Netscape 6 (released just before IE6).
I can’t believe how many developers have forgotten to test on it.
;o)
Kirsteen commented on 25 July 2009 at 8:37 am
Be are not alone youTube are also ending their support of IE6. http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2009/07/20/youtube-drop-ie6/
Perhaps you should spare a thought for the developer who have to support this outdated browser. This is an interesting read “In All Fairness … Internet Explorer Still Stinks” http://bit.ly/zjn42
Anne commented on 26 July 2009 at 3:02 pm
Here’s the problem … nowadays designing for IE6 requires extra time — billable time that is. Perhaps the designer worked this billable time into his price estimate to the client (who knows?) and the client declined due to cost considerations. Think about it.
Please think about the time it takes to plan, design and develop a web site - making a web site compatible with ancient browsers seems to me an added extra nowadays, which needs to be paid for by the client. If the designer did not build the cost into the proposal to begin with then this is a very valid issue to consider. So don’t cast stones before you know the full facts.
Frankie commented on 27 July 2009 at 10:42 am
As an ex-developer and project manager I am all too aware of the pain in the behind it is to develop for older browers. I also therefore know how lazy it is to, as Alex says, not do so on simple layout issues. A lot of the fixes for IE6 are known and pretty simple to implement, a good developer will have a lot of the code ready to hand.
I’ve no doubt, Anne, that Be took cost into consideration. IE7 and 8 have to be bug fixed too, it would have come under the ‘dealing with IE’s shortcomings’ column. The overriding point of my post is twofold.
1. I don’t think Be would have made this decision if, for the sake of argument, the population of Cornwall constituted 15% of their customer base and they had to put out an email like “Cornwall is, well, so far away… please move nearer to London… sorry you’re stuck in Cornwall”.
2. Having made that decision there are plenty more engaging ways to communicate it - a profuse apology would have been a nice start.
Kirsteen makes a good point about youtube but the type of engagement is very different. Youtube is a unique offering with a captive audience. Be is in competition with plenty of other internet providers for the attention and money of a limited audience happy to jump ship to something faster, cheaper, more polite.
AJ commented on 28 July 2009 at 3:29 pm
I agree with Frankie, it doesn’t take too much effort to fix IE6 if the mark-up you write from the onset is up to a certain standard. I have far more problems with IE8/IE7.
Charles commented on 29 July 2009 at 12:10 pm
I think anyone who is brave enough to drop IE6 is doing everyone a favor. The quicker we push IE6 and IE7 off the market the quicker we can start to enjoy HTML 5.
Bin IE6 and we will be able ot enjoy fuller internet applications and richer designs. Obviously you should make things look ok in IE6, but you should not be wasting resources on building a design to IE6 specifications unless you are being paid more bunce.
Robert commented on 29 July 2009 at 3:03 pm
It’s the same argument with 800 x 600 screen resolution that a lot of people call ’stone age’. Websites like the BBC are using >1024 x 768 and forget that XP comes with 800 x 600 as default so a lot of non savvy users will stick with that. Also, a lot of new mini book users are using the smaller screen resolution due to the size of the screen!
Robert commented on 31 July 2009 at 10:21 am
Most of our target audience is schools, local authorities and government. Updates through roll-outs in some of these environments is incredibly slow and I’m talking months and years!!!!
After looking at our stats it shows:
IE8 2.66%, IE7 8.49%, IE6 51%, IE5 12%, Firefox 8.33%.
So, discount older browsers at your peril!
Frankie commented on 31 July 2009 at 11:45 am
I have sent an invitation to Be to respond to this post. Look at their kind reply:
I look forward to it.
Lee Chamberlain commented on 3 August 2009 at 11:23 am
I think the lag we are seeing with the use of IE6, as opposed to IE7/8, is very much down to the corporate IT lifecycle, which I think we will see unusally extended to reflect the internal investment impact of the recession causing IT Depts to cut their budgets.
Good design practices should address a lot of the IE6 issues, but beyond that the stance a business needs to take on IE6 surely depends on its customer base’s use of it. Its a more meaningful than generic statstics of the market share as a whole.
Although IE6 debate to one side, I find I have more issues with IE8 compatibility or lack of it.
Richard commented on 3 August 2009 at 12:27 pm
I am very close to a new website launch and as ever, IE6 seemed to slip through the testing crack.
Historically one of the biggest pains was trying to preview and test a site in IE6 with more recent versions installed. Virtual PC was about the only realsitic option available.
I have recently discovered a truly awesome application http://www.xenocode.com/Browsers/ which via Firefox enables full site testing of legacy browsers.
Alinna commented on 3 August 2009 at 4:51 pm
I could (and probably should) copy and paste the official stance on this, but that just never goes over well, so here goes my personal take on this:
We worked off a model of keeping our costs down and our timeline short, so we didn’t prioritise IE6 for launch. One basic reason for not supporting IE6 was very simple: most BE members don’t touch it. Less than 5% of BE members use IE6 so we didn’t feel that the way the site rendered on it needed to be a gating factor for launch. Of course, that’s not to say that we’re not going to look at it (as much as we don’t really want to) and address the slew of issues that we’ve already found.
Alinna commented on 3 August 2009 at 4:52 pm
I really should learn to sign my comments…
Alinna Chung
Product Manager @ BE
Frankie Pagnacco commented on 4 August 2009 at 12:33 pm
Thank you Alinna from BE for replying - not least because I am now in the lead with most commented blog post which means people in the office bow three times in my presence.
Your comment about BE’s proportion of IE6 users is one reflected by Robert, who has a completely different target audience, and by Lee Chamberlain in their comments showing that the variations in audience behaviours drive commercial decisions. It’s interesting to know BE’s stats on this and makes its decision more understandable.
But I’m still curious if, from a User Experience perspective, BE would consider a different take on how it communicates a message like this. This was the second point I was making in my post.
Alinna commented on 5 August 2009 at 11:46 am
I can’t really speak from the messaging perspective but the communication has certainly incited different reactions from different people. We’ve seen some members come back and tell us it’s brilliant and that IE6 deserves to die (i believe that was one of the first tweets we had about the new design) and others who share your concerns around how it comes across.
Congrats on your new found popularity — glad the BE relaunch has brought you that claim to fame. Big fan of webcredible so happy to contribute where I can.
James Melvin commented on 5 December 2009 at 12:48 am
It may be worth your while checking out MultiBrowser viewer (http://www.multibrowserviewer.com).
It allows you to test your website’s html in over 40 OS and Browser combinations and also has 16 standalone virtual browsers that run isolated from your computer
Frankie commented on 18 December 2009 at 10:39 am
In other respects Be’s service is impeccably astute and sprinkled with little emotive touches that bring a smile to the face: today is my birthday and not only does Be wish me a very happy day but I also have a free day of web surfing. Officially my first birthday present of 2009! Thank you Be.