SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1. #1
    Wanna-be Apple nut silver trophy M. Johansson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Halmstad, Sweden
    Posts
    7,400
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Analyzing and comparing browser statistics from January and June...

    I found that thecounter.com has published their global stats of July ... Have a look at this - these are stats composed by approx 685 million visits per month:

    Janurary 2001 stats:
    ------
    1. MSIE 5.x ------ 254691049 (72%)
    2. MSIE 4.x ------ 42613129 (12%)
    3. Netscape 4.x -- 35488809 (10%)
    4. Unknow ------- 6558431 (1%)
    5. Netscape comp. 5693823 (1%)
    (less than 1%-browsers edited out)

    June 2001 stats:

    1. MSIE 5.x ------ 547358243 (79%)
    2. MSIE 4.x ------ 55140983 (8%)
    3. Netscape 4.x -- 47151030 (6%)
    4. Netscape comp. 25254337 (3%)
    (less than 1%-browsers edited out)

    Adding up the percentage, this is where it stands today:
    January:
    IE: ----- 84%
    NS:----- 11%

    June:
    IE: ----- 87%
    NS:----- 9%

    During 5 months, NS4 usage has decreased 4%, and I expect it to drop at the same rate. Same thing with IE - the tendency is very clear. However, in the current situation, the bloody 4.x browsers still make up 14% of the visitors, and therefore it would be bloody crazy not to support them. I previously thought about dropping NS4.7 in my design, but if I decide to design for IE4, itís a small step to support NS4.7 anyway.

    Another annoying thing I discovered was this:

    800x600 --------- 334914911 (56%)
    1024x768 -------- 183393259 (30%)
    640x480 ------ 33921580 (5%)
    1280x1024 ------- 17533229 (2%)
    1152x864 -------- 16102869 (2%)
    Unknown --------- 8822087 (1%)
    1600x1200 ------- 2596637 (0%)

    AAAAARGGGGHHHHH! 5% still uses 640x480? Now THAT is disturbing. I have previously thought that it was fairly safe to design my sites for 800x600, but this is clearly not the case. I donít know about you people, but 5% is too much for me to ignore. I think that I have to revise my coding style. Again. Sigh.
    Last edited by M. Johansson; Jul 11, 2001 at 20:16.
    Mattias Johansson
    Short, Swedish, Web Developer

    Buttons and Dog Tags with your custom design:
    FatStatement.com

  2. #2
    SitePoint Wizard creole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Nashvegas Baby!
    Posts
    7,845
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I look at it like this:

    640x480 users are only 5%. They are used to having to scroll anyway. SO I don't worry about it too much. Besides, the market that I have for most of my sites is at least 800x600.
    Adobe Certified Coldfusion MX 7 Developer
    Adobe Certified Advanced Coldfusion MX Developer
    My Blog (new) | My Family | My Freelance | My Recipes

  3. #3
    SitePoint Wizard Aes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    3,392
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Oh yes. I don't even bother with 640x480 any longer. I keep my main content in a 600 pixel wide area so they don't have to scroll across the content, but I build my sites on a 760 pixel wide base usually. If somebody wants to use such a small resolution, they deserve to scroll. =) Plus, as creole said, they're used to it. Anybody have any idea when 1024x768 will become the standard? Because I use 1280x1024 and would love it when 800x600 reaches 5%.
    Colin Anderson
    Ambition is a poor excuse for those without
    sense enough to be lazy.

  4. #4
    SitePoint Wizard johntabita's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    In a big, big house, with lotsa lotsa room
    Posts
    1,062
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Anybody have any idea when 1024x768 will become the standard?
    Yeah, when good quality 21" monitors drop below $1500!

    People don't necessarily want to use 640x480. If you have a 13" monitor (which I did for years), 800x600 makes everything just too small to read.

  5. #5
    Making a better wheel silver trophy DR_LaRRY_PEpPeR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    3,428
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    why don't you guys use percentage widths? then it doesn't matter what res people are at.

  6. #6
    SitePoint Wizard Aes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    3,392
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I would except that I find it particularly hard to keep layout clean when using liquid (percentage) pages. In one browser or another, an image will be in completely the wrong place or the tables don't align properly forcing me to use way too many colspan or rowspan tags, which confuses and crashes some flavors of Netscape, and creates tough HTML markup. So I just threw it to the wind, so to speak, and use absolute values now ... call me lazy. =P
    Colin Anderson
    Ambition is a poor excuse for those without
    sense enough to be lazy.

  7. #7
    :) delemtri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    579
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm at 1280x1068 on a 15" monitor, AND I have to wear glasses to see the blackboard at school. It's no strain for me. I'm having LOTS of trouble fitting my current site to different resolutions... But you can have a different page for each resolution, if you use JavaScript.

  8. #8
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Sheffield, England
    Posts
    112
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm not too sure about Netscape. Unfortunately, Yahoo! requires sites to be visible in both IE and Netscape as I understand it, and Yahoo! is still king of the sidewalk - Google might be pulling up web pages for it, but pure Google searches are around 12% of all searches,I think, Yahoo! and Google (combined directory/web pages) are around the 50% mark - in other words, to get listed repectably you need to be on Yahoo!
    So now what? Do I design for Netscape Version 6 or whatever, or version 4.7 - really (to be honest) I don't want to design for either, I wish they'd both go hang. I wonder how 'bad' a site would have to look in Netscape for it to get thrown out of Yahoo! ?
    Design for 4.7? OR design for 6 +, which might be easier ?

    Any ideas?
    All the world's a stage......

  9. #9
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin
    Posts
    42
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The Yahoo! thing you mention, Gardner, is very interesting. Have you been following of the Web Standards Project's Browser Upgrade campaign (http://www.webstandards.org/action.html)? They are recommending (and I'm considering implementing) a strategy which completely seperates the formating from the HTML and targeting the formatting for v5 browsers. Of course, if you have an older browser, or an alternative device, you still get the content, just not the pretty stuff. In this scheme, all browsers are supported, but not all of them look the same.

    How do you think this would fit into the Yahoo! thing?

    And as far as the resolution thread goes, I agree that people with smaller screens are used to scrolling. (Although I still strive for a liquid layout if possible). I also think that people with Netscape v4 are used to pages that cause their browser to crash and that generally look inferior, even though they may not know it. Its like wearing eyeglasses with the wrong perscription as far as I'm concerned. If your stuff doesn't look 'right' in Netscape, take comfort in the fact that few people's pages do.

  10. #10
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Sheffield, England
    Posts
    112
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hi Doug,
    Actually, I wasn't aware of that campaiagn, no.
    Here's where the stats. came from, by the way:
    http://www.searchenginewatch.com/rep...diametrix.html

    Question: do I optimise for NS 6, or 4.7, bearing in mind that they're vastly different in how they display a page?

    Knowing no better, I'll prob. go for 6.
    All the world's a stage......

  11. #11
    The Hiding One lynlimz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    2,103
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I owuld recommend using css. argh. well. thats how i got my site to display exactly the same in ns4 and ns6
    "Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world."
    -- Albert Einstein

  12. #12
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin
    Posts
    42
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    As far as whether to target Netscape v4 or v6, I would recommend v6. It is one of the most standards compliant browsers out there. Standards compliance is the direction that IE is following with its v6 beta, and Opera 5 and IE 5 for Mac. And IE 5 is already pretty good about it too. So if you create standards compliant code, you would be targeting over 85% of the browsers out there, and that's of this moment. That percentage is only going to continue to climb over the next several months.

    However, fyi, IE 5 does not properly implement the CSS1 box model, so you should check out http://glish.com for the appropriate workarounds (yes, pa, we still have workarounds! hopefully they'll go away some day!). However, IE 6 beta does, from what I've read.

    Finally, another thought about people with older browsers. This is hypothetical, but if you have an older browser at this point, I think it means that you have a slow computer and a slow connection and very likely limited computer experience. With that in mind, I think it is perfectly okay to give the v4 browser user a much plainer page, because an html file with all the CSS in a seperate file will download much faster than a table clogged up with <font>s and <table>s. I would argue that v4 users ultimately will place a higher priority on a fast download time than a pretty page that takes forever to download.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •