On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 06:53 -0500, Olin Lathrop wrote:
> Vitaliy wrote:
> > I agree with this in general, however the economics of the situation
> > are against it. Only about 4% of visitors still use IE6, and it would
> > cost more to make the site compatible with IE6 than it took to
> > develop it originally.
>=20
> I wasn't aware of this, but also don't understand why it's so.  If only 4=
%
> use IE6 and it would require special development, then I agree you should
> ignore it.  But IE6 does work on basic features, so this means you are
> trying to use something more advanced.  Do you really need it, or is it
> fluff?  Remember that when web designers think it's cool, that means it's
> annoying to users.

IE6 has ALOT of rendering bugs for even the simplest features of HTML.

Sites that "look right" on IE6 either got lucky, or had a branch of
development specifically targeting IE6. It was common to have to
basically write a web site twice, once for IE6 and again for all the
other browsers that were FAR more standards compliant. IE6 cost
companies alot of money in duplication of design efforts.

Yes, you can write a web page using the most simple form of HTML and it
will (probably) render properly in IE6 (come to think of it, even adding
simple images can have issues with IE6, so might not be able to have
those either), but trust me, you won't like the look of it very much.

TTYL

--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.