Would be interesting for an update on this article given the recent high (negative) publicity that IE6 has had - Google dropping support, and the Dept of Health recommending an upgrade to IE7 as soon as possible.

Our IT department has standard testing procedures and timelines for software role outs however these are often driven by business needs as they should be.

This makes me wonder that if more websites did drop support for IE 6 or any out of date web browser for that matter it would make the business case for upgrading software internally stronger.

Lets face it no IT department is going to upgrade something that isn't broken without a very good reason. Maybe this is an area that needs to be addressed by the standards body laying out timelines for when support for certain tech should be dropped.

So rather then just layout HTML 5 their should be some agreed timelines along with that. So web browser's should support HTML 5 by X years and support will be dropped for HTML 4.5 by X. If developers on the whole did this it would then be factored into an organisations planning. Just an idea

I say write to web standards and sod MS. A long time ago developers should have stuck to standards given up on hacks and educated users that a site looked cr*p because MS weren't implementing said standards correctly.

Could you imagine an electrical industry that didn't work to standards. For a lot of industries they couldn't function without standards so why should the web be any different. Better stop before I go off on one.

Standardised desktops are important for corporate management of IT, but that standard has to enable the users to do their job, otherwise its utterly redundant.

Its bad enough having zip files on your own website that you can't download, because that file type is blocked from your internet access - building sites that can't be used in house sounds like a definite problem.

I'm not convinced hardware counts as a 'consumer durable' (if there still is such a thing?); but software certainly isn't. Upgrades and patches aren't just for the geeks wanting cutting-edge functionality. We demand people keep their virus protection updated, and that's before we think about Windows Update etc.

Of course, I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, to some extent. But I genuinely wonder if the 'inclusivity at all costs' principle applies when the cost implication (for the end user) is zero.

How would we feel if petrol companies changed their fuel so that cars over seven years stopped working? Or if TV companies required you to upgarde your TV after seven years (indeed, think how controversial the once in a lifetime digital switchover is for many people)? Of if your books self-destructed after seven years?

If you view your computer like other consumer durables - something you get and use till it wears out - there's nothing particularly unreasonable about still having IE6.

Why should you have to learn about new software versions and upgrading and worry about such thinks just to join in the internet with the geeks?

(OK, I admit - I'm not fully convinced by this argument, but I think it has a lot of merit, and it is important to remember what dealing with computers is like for the bulk of the population, particuarly when we're talking about government services.)