Marvellous. Finally, the EU has had the bottle to give Microsoft a slap, and reports now state Windows 7 will ship without Internet Explorer 8. Good news, everyone!

Expect that it isn’t. Now the internet is practically ubiquitous and so important in many people’s lives, the prospect of an operating system lacking a browser in the default install is an appalling notion that will only cause a world of pain. What’s worse is that we now appear to be in an age where a weakening Microsoft is being beaten by all and sundry, several years after such actions might have actually had some benefit.

To clarify, I’m no Internet Explorer fan, nor a particularly huge Microsoft fan. The company as a whole has engaged in truly shocking business practices over the years (the nadir perhaps being the ‘knife the baby‘ incident with Apple’s QuickTime), and the company’s browser is a joke. Eight versions in and it’s still stuffed full of bugs, and it now has a confusing and misleadingly named ‘compatibility mode’ welded on. Since I spend about half my working life designing websites, I’d like nothing better in the browser space than for Trident—the engine powering Internet Explorer—to be taken round the back of the shed and shot, and for IE9 to be driven by WebKit. (Alternatively, IE9 could be WebKit and the ‘compatibility mode’ could switch the IE engine to Trident for a couple of versions.)

But—and this is a big ‘but’—the EU’s decision, if it comes to pass, will ultimately hurt users and benefit no-one. At best, a user with a new PC will have to install a browser from a standalone disc, or they’ll have to launch a utility to download and install a browser. This shouldn’t be necessary.

Arguments rage that this might at least offer users a choice—a multi-browser installer of some sort. Thing is, most people stick with what they know, and the typical home user will only have heard of IE. Corporates will also stick with Microsoft. IE’s market-share won’t significantly change due to the EU, but PC users in the area will have to do a little more work to get a system with a piece of software that almost everyone needs in the modern age.

This decision (assuming it’s more than a rumour) could have been an effective means of giving Microsoft the slap it needed years ago. But the browser wars are over and they have been for a long time. IE’s hold is slipping, slowly but surely, like the browser equivalent of the British Empire after the war. With savvy users, Firefox is gaining ground, as are Safari and Opera, and it’s only a matter of time before Chrome claims a large chunk of the market, driven by Google’s massive marketing clout. So quite what benefit the EU thinks depriving new PC users of a default browser is, especially now that Microsoft’s largely knocked on the head trying to warp web standards to its own ends, I really don’t know.

On Daring Fireball this morning, there was a link to Matt Asay’s CNET feature Google and Apple should join the Firefox party, which in a nutshell suggests Google and Apple should ditch WebKit and instead ‘invest in Firefox’. As someone immersed in the web design industry for much of my life, whether it’s in designing sites or writing about the process of designing sites, Asay’s suggestion made my head spin. Here are some reasons why he’s wrong:

Consolidation reduces software innovation

We see this everywhere, and notably in the creative industry. When Adobe bought Macromedia, it removed the bulk of its competition. Since then, it’s grown fat and lazy. This would likely happen if it was IE vs Frankenstein’s Monster Firefox.

All the competition has rising market share

Asay’s main argument for consolidation is that it’d smack Microsoft hard. He claims splintering efforts is less effective than a solidified counter attack. That must be news to Safari, Chrome, Opera and Firefox, each of which continues to chip away at Microsoft’s lead. Sure, it’s a slow process, but it is steady, and I haven’t seen too many ‘IE market share rises by five per cent’ headlines of late.

WebKit is often superior to Gecko

Firefox and its Gecko engine might be the runner-up to IE, but WebKit is smaller, sleeker and more efficient. If Apple knifed Safari, the Gecko equivalent would be more bloated and unsuitable for iPhone.

Ownership enables optimisation for own services

Google didn’t make a browser because they thought it’d be a fun jape—Chrome exists to be a solid runtime environment for Google’s online apps. Similarly, Safari is a browser but its core is a major component of Mac OS X and iPhone, accessible to developers. Ditching these components would be a crazy decision by either company, just to try and batter Microsoft’s market lead in an area that Apple and Google are only superficially interested in anyway.

IE’s competition is compliant and fast to react

The main concern from a design industry standpoint is standards compliance. When building a typical website, you can be reasonably sure that whatever you do will work fine in Safari, Firefox, Chrome and Google. It’s IE that’s the problem.

Asay argues that “common investment in Firefox […] would leave the industry better off”, but I’d say precisely the opposite is true. It would shackle Google and Apple’s development, leave Opera out in the cold (unless they too threw in their lot with Firefox, thereby obliterating their entire organisation in a single moment of madness), and provide no benefits to the end user.

That all said, there is one argument I’ll make for consolidation: I’d like to see IE9 bin the Trident engine and Microsoft base its browser around Gecko, WebKit or Presto. That way, IE’s odd quirks would be consigned to history, we’d have three competing but excellent rendering engines, and Microsoft could get on with providing a decent Windows-like interface for its users to access the web with. And for all those sites that would explode should that happen, just retain the irksome ‘compatibility mode’ for a couple of versions of IE, but make it a literal ‘engine switch’ to the last version of Trident.

Sometimes the best things in life start with a little mischief. That’s definitely the case with Bring Down IE6, a .net magazine microsite that I designed (using artwork from the wonderful people at ilovedust) and that launched on March 12.

Dan Oliver, the editor, was the culprit who lit the fuse. Knocking ideas around with me for features, he wondered if there was mileage in an article on the “growing trend to f—— IE”, meaning IE6, which even Facebook now hates. Being a web designer and also happening to know a lot of people who waste many hours dealing with IE6, I had a sneaking suspicion that, yes, this might just appeal to the mag’s readers.

The feature was duly commissioned, and I got to work, interviewing the likes of Jeff Zeldman and Bruce Lawson. I wrote the article, submitted it, and that was that. And then the mag hit the newsstands. Unusually, the article ended up online at the same time, rather than being delayed a few months, and there was one major addition: a badge.

Someone at .net had started a rallying cry, asking readers to download the ‘Bring Down IE6’ logo and link to the feature. But it didn’t seem loud enough. A spark went off in my head, and the microsite idea was born. It was then designed, built in suitably standards-compliant fashion, and IE6 was ignored bar an ‘upgrade’ notice that IE<7 users see. The finished site now sits at www.bringdownie6.com. Time will tell if it proves a success, but I’ve already seen the badge creeping out there and being attached to various designers’ blogs, which is heartening.

And despite the provocative and somewhat humorous tone of the site itself, the aim is deadly serious. It really is time for web designers to unite and finally get IE6 dealt with in some way. We need to move on, and together we will win.

Although Internet Explorer’s marketshare slide isn’t proving steep, it almost seems irreversible at this point. Latest trend charts now put IE’s share under 70% for the first time in many years. Interestingly, Chrome’s near-1% doesn’t appear to have been at the expense of Safari and Firefox either, since both are well up on January 2008.

It remains to be seen how Internet Explorer 8 will affect these figures, but for designers still mulling over whether to make the leap to standards compliance and stop designing for the largest market, the path is now clear. Once, you might have been unconvinced by the ‘one in ten using something other than IE’ argument, but with a third of users now browsing with something other than Microsoft’s giant, it’d be absurd to author web pages in any other manner.

Before I smash my Mac over your head

1. Automatically resizing my browser window

I realise you’re proud of your creation and restricting it to the absolute boundaries of my monitor is, frankly, an insult to your amazing talents. Clearly, if all was well with the world, your website would somehow be the latest man-made object to be visible from space.

But here’s the thing: when you resize my browser window, which, I hasten to add, I’ve sized exactly how I want it, it makes me want to claw your eyes out with a rusty spoon. It’s probably something you haven’t considered, but I’m actually quite capable of dragging a window-resize widget.

2. Background music

Look, I know that you’re ‘down with da kidz’, and keep abreast of every trend, niche and passing fad in the music industry, and I fully understand that your tastes are impeccable. But when I visit your website and you force me to listen to an infinitely repeating five-second loop of compressed, painfully in-vogue dance music, it makes me want to come round to your house at three in the morning and play Captain Beefheart through your letterbox. And when you don’t provide any option for turning said music off, you instantly confirm yourself as the person who’ll be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.

3. Making Flash equivalents to HTML

It might have escaped your notice, but HTML actually works rather well. You might think that making something in Flash when it could just as easily have been made in HTML ensures you retain your ‘web designer of the future’ crown, but it really doesn’t. It just makes you look like an idiot, and compels users to want to kill you when instead of getting their usual and extremely useful context menu upon right-clicking, they get Flash Player’s one instead.

4. Rebuilding pages on every load

Yes, your animation skills are unparalleled and make the combined forces of Pixar, Aardman and DreamWorks green with envy. And I know that you’re extremely proud of your logo spanging around the screen and your navigation items arriving one by one, like the cool kids showing up half an hour late at a party. The thing is, while I don’t mind seeing this once (well, actually I do mind, but it doesn’t make me want to hurt you), seeing it every single time I access a new page on your website makes me want to take a cheese grater to your gums.

5. Long loading times

This will be perhaps the biggest eye-opener of them all to you, but the reason I’m paying out for broadband, and the reason I consider broadband to be such an exciting technology, is because it makes things faster. When I used to have a Commodore 64, I hated it when things took ages to load. When I had a dial-up modem, I hated it when things took ages to download. Newsflash: I still hate it when things take ages to download.

When you think the web is ‘a bit like television’, or that I think your work is so great I’m willing to wait five minutes just to get a glimpse of it, or assume I have a web connection so fast that it would make government agencies weep and average routers melt under the sheer strain, it’s pretty clear reality has left your little world, and that you should just give up and spend the rest of your life in a dark corner working yourself into a sexual frenzy about just how big you can make multimedia files for web interfaces these days. But just leave me the hell alone while you’re doing it.