We all know how unsafe, non-standards compliant IE6 is. With the launching of Webkit browsers and CSS3 that gap is even bigger. While it used to be a little creek, now it has become a canyon.  

I believe that it's the designers/developers job and duty to educate the clients as they might not know how vulnerable they are by using it nor the extra development time that is required to make a site look "exactly the same" in IE6 as it does in more modern browsers. Some preach the "graceful degradation" approach but that only gives people the excuse to continue using IE6. That resembles the MS approach which is to point people to upgrade information but not push them over the edge. Every time someone created a site/domain bashing IE6, MS bought them out and replaced those sites with IE8 download sites. That is a too gentle push for a company with complete phasing out in mind.

The problem with that gentle push to upgrade is that the majority of IE6 users are either big corporations or non-savvy user. With the non-savvy user, upgrading might mean financial investment they are not prepared to make as they may be running older machines and therefore might need to get a newer computer in order to be able to install newer software. Or they might just be completely intimidated by the download/upgrade procedure and are taking the "if ain't broken" route. These situations are easily overcome once the need to access information, not available in outdated browsers, settles in. If those users cannot access sites they usually did in the past, which were made available in IE6 through several hacks and lots of sleepless nights, they will take the jump.

The big corporations have a more difficult problem to overcome. They are usually tied to old, proprietary (most developed in-house) applications which will only work in IE6. The liability of running IE6 internally is not that high if they have strong Acceptable Computer Use policies in place but that still doesn't stop an employee from spreading viruses and annihilating a network unintentionally. These big corporations will only jump when they get a big scare or if their security teams are active and vocal enough to pass the vulnerability information to the higher-up decision makers which in turn will base their decision on upgrading on ROI (Return On Investment) and liability. Even in those cases the jumping point can be reached.

What I am trying to say is that we, designers/developers, can make miracles happen, we can make a site look good in IE6, we know of many hacks and tricks by now that can help us achieve the necessary (if not painful) results but that is like stopping progress. We use these techniques and make everybody happy and in the process of doing so we also keep IE6 alive. It is a vicious cycle that will not be broken until we make a decision to stop it from spinning. What is the point of CSS3 and HTML5 if we still have to waste time with old hacks and even table layouts (*gag*) to make a site look good in IE6? 

We should concentrate our efforts in making the most out of the best technology available and use graceful degradation for modern non-Webkit browsers only. We should educate our users as well as our clients about the new technology available to them and get some "help me, help you" action going around. That should mark a turning point in eliminating the last 9% of users still on it. It's also important that marketing people get on the movement as they have become an important link between designers/developers and clients. If they can express clearly the liabilities and downside of taking IE6 into consideration when creating a new site versus the benefits and highlights of using compliant, modern markup then half of the battle is won.

For those (and there will be many I am sure) who will  find cons about a blunt killing just answer this question: Are you really willing to devote resources and your time to hacking code to work in IE6 (for as many years it takes for it to die a slow and miserable death) instead of spending the same time creating work people will enjoy as it was intended to be enjoyed? I truly hope the answer is no. Now let me get off my soap box...