?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Google phase out IE6 support (a bit)

« previous entry | next entry »
Jan. 30th, 2010 | 10:18 am

"Many other companies have already stopped supporting older browsers like Internet Explorer 6.0 as well as browsers that are not supported by their own manufacturers. We’re also going to begin phasing out our support, starting with Google Docs and Google Sites. As a result you may find that from March 1 key functionality within these products -- as well as new Docs and Sites features -- won’t work properly in older browsers."
Official Google Enterprise Blog: ​Modern browsers for modern applications

Good. I treat IE6 support as being basically a special use case these days; as standard I don't pay any attention to it, any more than I do Netscape 4.7x.

People occasionally say "well I can't install anything else, IT won't let me" which is equivalent in my ears to "well our computers are broken and IT won't fix them". Sorry to hear that; is this my fault? Maybe this sort of news will help somebody make up their minds to enter the correct decade. IE6 was launched in 2001 you know.
Tags:

Link | Leave a comment | Share

Comments {7}

get privacy for $5 via aussieintn

(no subject)

from: aussieintn
date: Jan. 30th, 2010 02:20 pm (UTC)
Link

What can IE7 do that IE6 can't do?

I still use IE6 to access work e-mail at home, but my main browser is Firefox.

Reply | Thread

fridgemagnet

(no subject)

from: fridgemagnet
date: Jan. 30th, 2010 04:15 pm (UTC)
Link

There are lots of display and scripting functions which IE6 doesn't have and everything else does, hence why google is not going to support it any more and lots of other sites which do clever things don't already. It would take some time to list them all and not make a lot of sense if you weren't a web designer or programmer, and I don't know them all by any means (I keep coming up against new ones).

What is further irritating for designers is that a lot of the stuff it claims to do, it at best does ideosyncratically, and at worst just wrongly, requiring all sorts of workarounds and special treatment. This is all very well if you're a big corporation but individuals with time constraints can't be dealing with this nonsense. If I wanted to support a fractious nine year old, I'd adopt.

Reply | Parent | Thread

fridgemagnet

(no subject)

from: fridgemagnet
date: Jan. 30th, 2010 04:17 pm (UTC)
Link

Oh, and it's full of security holes too, which even I can't blame Microsoft for not fixing, because they have with 7 and 8 (well, there are probably still some left).

The fact that the ministry of defence here insists that it has no plans to upgrade from 6 gives me slight concern.

Reply | Parent | Thread

Rabbi Mindbender

(no subject)

from: elijahdprophet
date: Jan. 30th, 2010 07:20 pm (UTC)
Link

A lot of IT reluctance to push upgrades through, at least in academia where I deal with it, is because a lot of third party applications that are web based don't upgrade when MS releases the specs for their new versions. It took a while for 7 to be able to be pushed to the campus here because we were waiting for web based tools (housing management, health records, etc...) to become compatible with the new IE.

Reply | Thread

fridgemagnet

(no subject)

from: fridgemagnet
date: Jan. 30th, 2010 07:29 pm (UTC)
Link

The thing is that no web application, ever, should work in IE6 but not in IE7. Or, for that matter, not in any other decent browser. If a web-based tool does not work outside of IE6 that means it's been written by useless cowboys - possibly, given the excuse by useless contract writers.

A lot of commissioning bodies specified that systems "work in IE6" rather than "conform to general web standards" at the time, and this is now biting them in the arse, because they were just simply stupid. There wasn't any excuse for that then: it's not a matter of hindsight, they were just idiots.

Reply | Parent | Thread

Rabbi Mindbender

(no subject)

from: elijahdprophet
date: Jan. 30th, 2010 10:55 pm (UTC)
Link

Oh I agree. If 10 years ago shit was being written to web standard, as opposed to a specific browser, there would be no issue. The fact remains that a lot of specific use systems in various industries require outdated software, it is not always due to IT laziness.

I still support Win95 machines because the makers of mass spectrometers don't feel the need to update their hardware/software requirements.

You want to hear ridiculous, the housing department at the university uses a web app that forces us to install a 5 year old version of the Java runtime environment, because the 3rd party who built it never upgraded it and coded it to look for a specific version number installed.

Reply | Parent | Thread

fridgemagnet

(no subject)

from: fridgemagnet
date: Jan. 31st, 2010 02:07 pm (UTC)
Link

Oh no, I didn't want to imply that it was a decision made by IT departments not to do it deliberately - it's just that everybody always says "oh IT won't do X / let me do Y".

Reply | Parent | Thread