<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Has developing for IE6 become a sign of quality?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.biggiantcrayon.com/post-has-developing-for-ie6-become-a-sign-of-quality/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.biggiantcrayon.com/post-has-developing-for-ie6-become-a-sign-of-quality/</link>
	<description>A Network of smaller Companies and Freelance Professionals.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Oct 2010 10:02:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: Wulf</title>
		<link>http://www.biggiantcrayon.com/post-has-developing-for-ie6-become-a-sign-of-quality/comment-page-1/#comment-133</link>
		<dc:creator>Wulf</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Sep 2009 11:40:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.biggiantcrayon.com/bgc/?p=186#comment-133</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t view it so much as a sign of quality, so much as a sign of &quot;it works in every browser people STILL use&quot;. I wish that IE6 wasn&#039;t as popular as it is, or as common as it is, but it&#039;s still around.

Pay a visit to colleges over here, their intranet relies upon IE6 to work, so they can&#039;t upgrade. The same is, lamentably, true in a lot of corporate places too. Heck, I even know of people that don&#039;t want to upgrade past IE6 because they don&#039;t understand tabbed browsing. And they still expected the same functionality in their browsers that I was getting in Firefox.

Yes, sometimes I do end up with IE6 specific stylesheets, but the same is true with IE7. It&#039;s the way things are, and probably the way things will be until such times as Internet Explorer is either gone, or works in a similar fashion to Firefox, Chrome and every other Standards Compliant browser out there.

So whilst I acknowledge that IE6 is there, and is a royal pain in my butt, and I work to make things look pretty in the archaic browser, I also don&#039;t go above and beyond to do so. What a final site looks like in IE6 is highly unlikely to be what the site looks like in a more modern browser. If it does, then sweet. But I&#039;m content so long as nothing breaks horrifically.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t view it so much as a sign of quality, so much as a sign of &#8220;it works in every browser people STILL use&#8221;. I wish that IE6 wasn&#8217;t as popular as it is, or as common as it is, but it&#8217;s still around.</p>
<p>Pay a visit to colleges over here, their intranet relies upon IE6 to work, so they can&#8217;t upgrade. The same is, lamentably, true in a lot of corporate places too. Heck, I even know of people that don&#8217;t want to upgrade past IE6 because they don&#8217;t understand tabbed browsing. And they still expected the same functionality in their browsers that I was getting in Firefox.</p>
<p>Yes, sometimes I do end up with IE6 specific stylesheets, but the same is true with IE7. It&#8217;s the way things are, and probably the way things will be until such times as Internet Explorer is either gone, or works in a similar fashion to Firefox, Chrome and every other Standards Compliant browser out there.</p>
<p>So whilst I acknowledge that IE6 is there, and is a royal pain in my butt, and I work to make things look pretty in the archaic browser, I also don&#8217;t go above and beyond to do so. What a final site looks like in IE6 is highly unlikely to be what the site looks like in a more modern browser. If it does, then sweet. But I&#8217;m content so long as nothing breaks horrifically.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

