Today, August 27th, marks the day Internet Explorer 6 (IE6) first came out. It’s a seven year-old browser. This little factoid is part of a battle cry by M. David Auayan to stop developing websites for IE6 by March 2009. Enter the IE Death March.
Internet Explorer 6 will be SEVEN years old on August 27th. It came out a few weeks before the Twin Towers fell. It came out before the Nintendo GameCube. It came out before the first iPod.
It’s time to put a deadline on dropping IE6, and I say that time is now, and the deadline should be soon… say like, March 2009. That’s roughly a little more than 6 months. Feel free to join me. If your company is dropping support for IE6, let me know and I’ll gladly post it up.
There have been tons of initiatives to finally ditch one of the most loathed software on the planet. You may have noticed some of these around the Internet:
So many parties are restless about the state of web browsing, and rather than wait for Microsoft to get its act together, they take it upon themselves to do something about it. It doesn’t really stop with the viral websites. Every few months or so you’ll find a blog post that details how the author has had it with IE (IE6 usually) and that he has resolved to drop support for the browser completely.
One must ask: are any of them making a significant difference in the market share of IE? Or IE6, specifically?
According to statistics from several prominent web counters, Internet Explorer is still the dominant browser at around 76%. Although it’s slowly going down by a few percent every few months, that’s still a high number. Even on sites that advocate web standards like W3Schools show that around half of the site visitors are on IE, a quarter on IE6.
The biggest agent of change was probably Google, since it actually paid people to download Firefox. But now that’s gone, will the ball keep rolling? Is it time to look at other, more drastic strategies the way Mozilla did recently?
It seems we’re all feeling a little desperate these days. After all, it’s been seven years.
In an interesting development regarding web standards and the browser wars, Ars Technica reports that Mozilla is taking Internet Explorer’s problematic webpage rendering into its own hands starting with a plugin for HTML5’s canvas element.
IE’s shortcomings won’t hold back the Internet for much longer, however, because Mozilla plans to drag IE into the next generation of open web technologies without Microsoft’s help. One of the first steps towards achieving this goal is a new experimental plugin that adapts Mozilla’s implementation of the HTML5 Canvas element so that it can be used in Internet Explorer.
Vladimir Vukićević says it’s “a very direct way of getting 2D (and soon 3D) graphics into web pages, and removes many of the barriers between developers and graphics rendering.” Here’s a screenshot of how it works:
HTML5 Canvas on IE, by Vladimir Vukićević
Mozilla doesn’t stop there, though. It plans bring its “next-generation JavaScript engine directly into Microsoft’s web browser” through a project called ScreamingMonkey. The plugin strategy will also be employed here.
Mixed reactions
Reactions from the crowd range from amusement to confusion to outrage. On the one hand, this move from the makers of the record-making Firefox browser is commendable. It shows that in the midst of IE’s dominating market share and FF’s sheer drive to beat it, Mozilla still wants the Web to work, one way or the other. Even if it means having to “drag IE” itself. Indeed:
Is it a sad or happy day for Microsoft, when their competitors get bored with beating them, and instead try to improve the Microsoft products to make them competitive - for free?
And what does Microsoft have to say about this? Isn’t this an insult wrapped inside a well-meaning gesture since it is coming from a competitor? Anything that gets Microsoft’s attention to hurry things up in the web standards compliance department is okay by me.
Try Adobe
But it’s not just about the browser vendors but the users themselves. How many of them will take the time to install this not-so-popular plugin? Do they care enough to see the advantages? Ars Technica thus wonders if Adobe could have been the better messenger, since Flash is ultimately indispensable these days:
This is purely speculation, but If Adobe decided to ship Screaming Monkey and the Canvas functionality as part of the next major iteration of the Flash plugin, it would rapidly accelerate adoption and get it onto lots of computers.
Cross-browser nirvana? Not quite
News of this plugin suggests that it’s taking a so much effort to make IE play nice that even competing browsers have to step in. And we’re only talking about the HTML5 canvas element here, a far less common feature, or should we say issue, than things like the double-margin bug or pixel font sizes.
Mozilla Labs, already releasing innovations that hint at the Web in the coming years, has launched the Concept Series. This is an initiative that pushes for the “development of the online experience” where everyone can contribute.
We’re hoping to lower the barrier to participation by providing a forum for surfacing, sharing, and collaborating on new ideas and concepts. Our goal is to bring even more people to the table and provoke thought, facilitate discussion, and inspire future design directions for Firefox, the Mozilla project, and the Web as a whole.
Concepts may take the form of Ideas, Mockups or Prototypes.
The Concept Series starts strong with several concept videos from Adaptive Path, Wei Zhou, and Aza Raskin.
Aurora Concept Video by Adaptive Path
Lifestream - Redesign history and bookmarking by Wei Zhou
Firefox Mobile Concept Video by Aza Raskin
Of the three, Aurora is clearly the most ambitious as it demonstrates with 4 videos how future web browsing will be completely intuitive and pervasive. Websites can share information with one another so that a user can extract relevant information. The Web will continue to act as information provider regardless of location or the real-world objects and situations he is dealing with.
Multitouch technology is also gaining traction as the ideal way to interface with the Web. Specially assigned gestures will become especially convenient on small mobile devices. Mimicking a 3-dimensional space is another popular concept which also addresses space constraints. And of course, aside from advances in software, hardware will also play a major role in the interactions onscreen.
What’s your idea for the future of the Internet? Contribute to the Mozilla Labs Concept Series and have your say. Remember, the best way to be prepared for the future is to make it ourselves!
By “normal people” I mean those who are mere computer users, not literates nor enthusiasts nor experts. Cabel shares a striking example: in Japan, advertisers instruct potential buyers to enter specific keywords into search engines instead of their company URLs.
Clearly, a sufficient amount of search engine optimization is necessary for this to work, especially for the really famous and common-name brands. But this behavior of accessing websites did not arise because these companies have told us to do so. Neither is it limited to this Asian country.
I am sure you have at least one friend or loved one who has not grasped the concept of URLs and remains highly dependent on Google for finding their way around the web. If you’ll take a closer look at their web browsers, you’ll see why it really isn’t their fault.
Google invades the browsers
Most of the weird behavior we observe from other people is because they have Google as their homepage or built into their browsers. (You can also change the word “Google” to your favorite search engine of choice.) This usually comes in three flavors:
- the Google homepage (whether it’s plain vanilla, a Firefox-Google hybrid, or iGoogle)
- the Google search engine add-on (a common feature in all modern browsers)
- the Google Toolbar
As a result, users now have several blank input bars staring back at them—the address bar, the browser search bar, the Google Toolbar search bar, and the Google homepage search bar. Guess which one they’ll choose?
With the icons and text that draw one’s attention toward the Google search bars, the address bar fades more and more into the background. And since non-techie people are usually afraid of “breaking the computer”, they stick to a method that works well, which is to keep using Google.
Ignore or eradicate?
We can’t blame Google for trying to be the #1 product in our virtual lives; we can only be wary. But it should share the responsibility of educating users of how to use the Internet (how silly does that sound?) with the browsers. Unfortunately neither parties seem to care because: (a) Google would much rather have users search for sites than visit them through URLs directly; and (b) the browsers are earning money precisely because Google is paying them to have their search bars built-in.
Now, learning how to use the interface that lets one use the Internet is only halfway of the journey; choosing to use Google to wade through the Web is not necessarily a bad practice, as Jakob Nielsen predicted that this would become commonplace. But he also believes URLs will have to go.
In the long term, it is not appropriate to require unique words to identify every single entity in the world. That’s not how human language works.
The very nature of URLs seems to be another major stumbling block. Ordinary people don’t understand the use of a “www” and a “.com”, or that the “@” symbol is used only in e-mail addresses. They don’t know how to share websites through URLs either—unless there’s a button with explicit instructions that tell them how.
Add to that the explosion of all the domain suffixes like .me, .travel, and even .xxx. Not to mention all the malicious parties that wish to take advantage of their ignorance—stealing and spoofing personal information through misspelled URLs, search keywords, and deceptive e-mails.
The question is, if normal people aren’t using URLs anymore, what system can be built to replace them? Will it work? Or is Google doing a fine job already?
The Opera Web Standards Curriculum is a comprehensive online course that teaches you standards-based web design. This includes not only coding in the web’s foundational languages, HTML, CSS, Javascript, but also design theory.
One of the authors, Chris Heilmann, describes it as “probably the most thorough and up-to-date web standards curriculum on the web”. He writes:
During the whole course the main focus is on usability, accessibility and writing maintainable code. We deliberately left out browser hacks and backward facing solutions and build on the ideas of progressive enhancement and unobtrusive JavaScript.
I must also point out that WSC is part of Opera Education, an initiative that pushes for web standards awareness and enthusiasm for the internet industry, specifically in schools and universities. I think it’s important for these two parties—browser software makers and educational institutions—to work together rather than apart in developing the Web. In this regard, Molly Holzschlag believes the course is an A+:
The impressive aspect of the curriculum as it is now is that it’s comprehensive, including foundational topics such as Internet and Web history and evolution. Educators understand that history provides context for real learning. Sadly, this is an area often not available in books and online tutorials because readers typically want to dive right in and learn a given technique.
It’s difficult to find a course that focuses solely on creating things through the internet. It’s almost always integrated with either graphic design (see MTV Engine Room) or computer science. Because of this, there is no focus on employing the best practices in creating beautiful, functional websites. And it will continue to be that way—all the way into the workplace—without those two entities joining forces.
This is why I continue to admire Opera. (Mozilla does, too.) It pushes projects that are interesting and beneficial to the web community. Here’s another example: Opera Dragonfly. Firefox’s FireBug wasn’t created by Mozilla (although Safari’s Debugger is a native feature).
And unlike other browser vendors out there, Opera shows it cares about web standards not by saying but by doing.
It is bound to happen, the Google Web Browser that is. For a company so focused on delivering online applications that compete with the old desktop variant, a reliable browser and the direct connection with the users it offers just sounds like the obvious choice.
So where is the Google Web Browser?
Some might say that Firefox is the closest to the Google Web Browser we’re getting, and that may be true, although a bit simplified. Sure, there’s a Google search toolbar installed per default, but the same goes for Safari, you know. Problem with the latter is that it sucks in Gmail, for instance, which isn’t acceptable since that’s probably the most used Google web application out there, right?
So why should Google do their own web browser? more
Microsoft has launched the Internet Explorer 8 Beta “for Developers and Designers”. I’m too busy to take it for a spin myself at the moment, so I’ll just settle for the online commentary for now.
A nice follow up to the rendering news earlier this week.
Have you tested it? How does your design work with it?
Good news! Microsoft have decided to make the standards compliant mode in Internet Explorer 8 the default setting! This means we won’t have to do IE specific tags to let the browser know that we want it to display in standards mode.
The what now? Default rendering modes? What? Ina Fried explains:
With IE8, Microsoft plans to have three rendering modes: the new standards-compliant mode, the IE7 rendering engine, as well as an option for displaying older Web sites. Because of the default shift, Web sites that want IE8 to use its IE7 engine will have to add a tag to their site’s code.
Word has it we’ll get an IE8 beta in a few months time. Maybe IE8 will be what finally kills IE6? Hardly.
Matt Harzewski of Webmaster-Source asks if Internet Explorer 5 is dead, and does a nice little bullet list of things that have happened since 1998 (which is funny since IE5 launched in 1999, which he also notes).
9 years is serious time for a web browser. There is no excuse for IE5 to exist anymore.
Luckily, it just about doesn’t. On my Swedish sites I’ve got 0% IE5 visitors, and on the international ones it’s below 0.15%.
In other words, IE5 is dead. Now please kill IE6. Thank you.
