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.

There are certainly a lot of poor web designs out there. And, as you
say, many things are put in simply because the uneducated customer or
"designer" thinks it is cool.

The problem with IE6 (and IE7 to a lesser extent) is that it is so
non-compliant with standards that to make a site with anything other
than the most simplistic design, you need to have a copious amount of
code and design work that is _just_ for IE6. It is that broken.

-Pete

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