>> You honestly seem to be arguing that IE6 was a perfectly compatible browser and was the pinnacle of browser design. I think you'll find a lot of disagreement, even from Microsoft themselves. We know enough about security these days to know that not upgrading is a bad idea.
If I honestly seem to be arguing that, I apologize. It also means this discussion is fruitless, because counterarguments are based on a perception that no one here holds. If anything I view IE6 as an accessibility issue.
> You don't need exceptions to make sites render on IE6.
>> I disagree.
Hackernews renders on IE6 and it doesn't need exceptions. You don't need exceptions to make sites render on IE6. You might need a work-around or two (for example: opting for padding, instead of margin). You can still both code to standards and have it render without exceptions on IE6.
>>implying that we should code for the blind because they did not choose their limitations.
I disagree. User choice or forced, disability or no: accessibility is for everyone. Wether people choose to turn off javascript or their browser forces them shouldn't make a difference. Choice is no pre-requisite for accessibility, unless you make that choice for your users.
>> THIS IS PROGRESS This is what progress does.
In your analogy, at least you still have access to the data on the floppies. And if our current progress destroys the initial ideas for progress from authorities like TBL, doesn't that give reason to pause and reconsider the way we are heading?
No offense to TBL, but the Internet is not what he designed anymore. It hasn't been for a long time. He created an idea, and others took that idea and ran with it. To your point, yes sites render in IE6. Hacker News also looks like shit and was poorly put together.
There's something to be said about backwards compatibility. It doesn't exist, it shouldn't exist, and clinging to it holds back progress. Well designed code should just work, full-stop. Look at the jumble that is Windows, or Linux. Mac OSX is highly regarded, it's fast, its stable, and it "just works" so they say. It also has no backwards compatibility to worry about. How many lines of code are in Windows or Linux solely to make antique software work because the designer used unportable code?[1]
Design your production sites to the standard and they will last forever, regardless of what browser you use. Design them for IE6 and they will forever be broken.
Regardless, neither you nor I can change the course of the Internet. All we can do it sit back, enjoy the ride, and write code that works.
If I honestly seem to be arguing that, I apologize. It also means this discussion is fruitless, because counterarguments are based on a perception that no one here holds. If anything I view IE6 as an accessibility issue.
> You don't need exceptions to make sites render on IE6. >> I disagree.
Hackernews renders on IE6 and it doesn't need exceptions. You don't need exceptions to make sites render on IE6. You might need a work-around or two (for example: opting for padding, instead of margin). You can still both code to standards and have it render without exceptions on IE6.
>>implying that we should code for the blind because they did not choose their limitations.
I disagree. User choice or forced, disability or no: accessibility is for everyone. Wether people choose to turn off javascript or their browser forces them shouldn't make a difference. Choice is no pre-requisite for accessibility, unless you make that choice for your users.
>> THIS IS PROGRESS This is what progress does.
In your analogy, at least you still have access to the data on the floppies. And if our current progress destroys the initial ideas for progress from authorities like TBL, doesn't that give reason to pause and reconsider the way we are heading?