IE6 is still more popular than Firefox, Design for it!

People are always asking if their website template is working in IE7 or Firefox, but they often seem to forget that visitors using Internet Explorer version 6 still comprise the same, if not more, internet traffic than visitors using Firefox. When you are designing your website, don't forget to check it in both IE6 and 7, as these are still the most popular browsers.

(note: These statements and stats are based on English-speaking sites with primarily North American traffic only).

I took a look at the averages on 3 of my websites with about 10,000 unique new visitors each month. These are vastly different niches, roughly 5,000 pages in size, and each targets different demographics. This is *not* specific to one niche or demographic.

IE (ALL):  69%
Firefox:   24%
Safari:     5%

All the rest combined (Opera, Konqueror, etc.):    Less than 3%

Breakdown of 69% IE:

IE7:      58%
IE6:      42%	(30% of total)

Code (markup):

As you can see, IE6 users still make up more traffic than Firefox users, yet still everyone is designing for Firefox.

I don't think these numbers are unique to my websites, but if you've got comparable new, unique traffic on your websites, let me know the numbers.

 

The aim should really be to produce Web pages that display and/or function as intended in all user-agents -- graphical Browsers, textual Browsers, PDAs, Screen Readers and Search engines:

Web Page Interoperability

James

 

Very good point, and you're absolutely right. I always espouse designing for complete cross-platform compatibility.

 

web designing should be done keeping all major browsers in mind. So neither for IE nor for firefox the website is for users who are going to visit using any browser. He/She should get what they are looking for.
Use manual comparison on different browsers and keep not just majority but almost 3 or more browsers in mind.
Firefox was less popular earlier and now it has almost 25% share, it might grow. Safari is coming up nicely from almost less than 1% to now above 2% share.

 

That is true; you should design for all browsers. I just wanted to point out that IE6 is far from dead.

 

I strongly disagree with designing for IE6. IE6 is extremely flawed and more and more websites are beginning to demand people update. For instance Panic wouldn't off been able to make their site like it is if they made it IE6 compatible.

If every web developer agreed to stop designing for IE6 then you would soon see those numbers drop to almost 0%. Sure a lot is due to places such as work or education who normally don't update their web browser. Still if they realised everyone was having issues due to the browser pretty sure they'd upgrade too.

It's been said however as soon as there is a stable version of IE8 that Microsoft will be asking all IE6 users to update their browser to at least IE7. From what people have said they did this when IE7 was released, making all I5(.5) users upgrade to IE6.

 

I am design for both.

 

Maybe what I'm doing is not right but I don't care about IE. If the design is good looking at firefox is ok,

 

Definitely not right, since few people use Fx compared to IE. And what about the Opera, Safari or Konqueror users? What your saying is only about 25%-40% of your users can actually see your sites properly.

 

As a rule, design for Firefox and your site will work in all major browsers - except IE. You'll probably find most of your design time will be used up by employing the various tricks and hacks to make it work in IE, mainly 6 but also 7 (don't bother with IE5.5 anymore).
You can't just say, If it works in Firefox than that's alright. It might be for you, but not the majority of web users who use IE.
It's part of making a site as usable for as many people as possible, which also includes accessibility rules and I still make sure a site works well on a 800x600 browser.

 

Or you could design for all browsers simultaneously. Firefox has just as many bugs as any other browser, and compared to WebKit (Safari), or even Opera's engine, it is just...meh. If I had to design for ONE browser and hope it'd get it all right on any other - it'd be Safari. Which is a mix of standards compliance, with some of IE's features, and it started with KHTML - so the best of most worlds. That being said, I use Opera

 

^couldn't agree more. How many times have either Opera, Safari, or get this, IE7, pointed out an error for me that FF completely covered up? Build for standards, test in all browsers, and realise that IE6 isn't really that hard or that many hacks to get into compliance.

So you're going to pay for all those schools, hospitals, libraries and companies to buy new versions of Windows too? Cause we didn't see a change in our stats after M$ did that upgrade-to-IE7 via Automatic Update in Februari. It seems that everyone who could upgrade, did. What we have left are those who are stuck on Windows 2000, ME, NT, or lower. They may be limited in what other browsers they can use as well, for the same reason.

Though that is my fantasy, driving out IE6 usage by breaking the web for IE6 and below : )

 

Every designer with a little common sence knows that he/she should design for all the major browsers, not the browser he/she likes the most.
After all, it's not that hard making your site work in IE6 (well, most sites).

 

This is the most intelligent way to design. If you validate your HTML code and design properly, you shouldn't have a hard time at all getting a site to work in IE6.

It is true that IE6 is a declining market share, so I'm not saying your site needs to look as good in IE6 as it does in IE7 or FF; just don't forget to make it functional in IE6.

Those of us who actually make money on our websites would never want to do anything to alienate 30% of our users.

 

^amen brother. The only reason anyone's disagreeing with you is because your title said "design for IE6" when I think you just meant "design while still keeping IE6 in mind" : )

 

Well there are different ways of understanding "designing for Firefox".

From a technical point of view, I create my design for Firefox, check it on both versions of IE, and after the conditionnal comments and stylesheets, make a last check for Safari.

This is for me the logical sequence, as I hope to be able to get rid off the conditionnal for IE 6 ... let's say in two or three years. Hence, it facilitates the future maintenance of the site.

Coding for IE and THEN adapting for Firefox, based on my experience, is more difficult.

If coding for Firefox means not checking in IE, then I agree, it's stupid.

Btw... what about Konqueror ?

 

Or... Oprah! I mean, Opera.

 

Yes, that would have been a better title. But then who would read it and argue with it?

 

Those small market browsers (Opera, Konqueror, etc.) account for such little traffic, it's almost not worth the effort. On that 10,000 visitor site only 65 people all month used Opera.

It's been my experience that if you use a browser so uncommon and so rarely used, you're going to be used to a few div's being out of alignment. Also, those users who are early adopters of uncommon browsers like Opera tend to be more technically proficient, and can understand a div tag being misaligned because of their browser.

But IE6 users tend to be other side of the coin - they often seem to be people who don't know how to upgrade their Windows 98 or 2000 computer so they are still using IE6. It's these kind of stupid people who more often tend to spend $ on impulse purchases on websites

 

Ah, grasshopper, that is where you go wrong. Since those are rather compliant browsers, test them not because they are popular, but because they will show you some mistakes sometimes that other browsers don't. I've never had to hack for Opera (although I did once just for fun), and the only real problem I've ever seen with Konq is the very popular image-replacement technique on menus... and I wonder if a simple z-index of something greater than 1 would have taken care of that (I should look into that...). They were the first ones to pass the acid II test, and continue to lead the pack. Bugs, yeah, they both have a few, but really nothing you'll likely ever hack for.

Now, I wouldn't go so far as to get some UNIX system running just to test Konq if you didn't already have one (I do, no work for me), but opera, it's free and runs nice and comes by default with a lot of the same web developer tools that FF needs as a plug-in. It also has, according to someone who doesn't use a mouse I know, a superiour keyboarding set-up.

I test in Opera daily and usually take a quick look in Konq when I think a page is pretty much finished, or to check out a problem some other browsers are having, just to help narrow down where it's coming from... don't dis teh oprah!

: )

In any case, they shouldn't really require any effort, esp if the site is doing well in Saffy and FF.