SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 44 of 44
  1. #26
    <C²: web standards /> cybercodeur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Montréal
    Posts
    729
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Just think of it this way... out of a hundred conmputer owners you know... how many own a Mac? 1% doesn't sound that incredible to me...

    Now we are part of the elite. We know people who work in the Web. The figures are much higher. But again, think of our average joe and his fiends. 99% PC? Very likely i believe.

    According to what we've said so far, I'm still gonna treat Mac users as version 3 browser users... as a disposable group not worth the compromises occasioned to the PC platform...

    Unless of course there is a BUDGET allowed for Mac developement, in which case I'll be more than happy to oblige.
    Last edited by cybercodeur; Dec 31, 2001 at 00:04.
    Denis Boudreau <C²/> - Web Standards & Accessibility
    [+] ICQ number: 115649885 || Email: denis@cybercodeur.net
    [+] Daily Weblog on Web standards and accessibility : CYBERcodeur.net

  2. #27
    Not a post-script error?!! guysmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Underneath the Earth w/ Krom (Canada)
    Posts
    787
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It depends on your target market. Imagine having an online graphic design - art direction - video/audio production site that looks like garbage on a Mac. People in the above industries use Macs! It's an extremely prominent platform in graphics (PRINT).
    --Creative industries. --also copywriters and journalists dig 'em.

    I WANT to believe more than 1% of people work in a creative industry!! Is it really THAT rare?? Can't be.
    At my work there isn't 1 PC in the joint!! (yes I complain)

    If a Power Mac wasn't so darned expensive, I'd pick one up!! That and a silver-finish 19" Sony Trinitron! (flatscreen)

    --
    Back to reality

    Here's a question:
    Are Macs really better for graphics?? I've read that the colors are more acurate on-screen with a Mac. I doubt they are faster than PCs for the same price!
    Give me some FACTS. (I'm considering getting a Mac to hang out with my PC)

    --
    Creole??!

  3. #28
    <C²: web standards /> cybercodeur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Montréal
    Posts
    729
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I can't really tell about facts but I know from experience that colors have always rendered closer to the real thing on a Mac than a PC. ALWAYS. Have no doubt. Mac kicks ***!

    If you can afford one, get one (a Titanium woud be nice). But keep a PC handy if you want to enjoy your internet surfing !!!
    Denis Boudreau <C²/> - Web Standards & Accessibility
    [+] ICQ number: 115649885 || Email: denis@cybercodeur.net
    [+] Daily Weblog on Web standards and accessibility : CYBERcodeur.net

  4. #29
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    23
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    CyberCodeur, is that "web standards psychopath" bit in your sig ironic then?

    You know what, if you make websites that are reasonably standards compatible, they work fine on my mac and probably everyone elses mac. I can't see why it's the same thing as catering to v3 browsers. I very rarely come across a website that looks dreadful so it can't be that hard.
    KartLink - The Portal for the World's Most Popular Motorsport!

  5. #30
    <C²: web standards /> cybercodeur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Montréal
    Posts
    729
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I must have been misunderstood somewhere. Or maybe it's my being french in an all english environment that sometimes makes me say things I don't mean.

    I was just trying to establish a comparison. Let me explain in different terms.

    About three years ago we decided the standards for resolution design was not 640x480 anymore, it was now 800x600. Why? because everybody was getting new computers and new computers came with a 15' or even 17 inch monitors and 800x600 was now possibly settable. A lot of people with windows 98 had it set by default and still they wondered how things had gotten smaller on their screen.

    You know what the real reason was according to the researches and studies we had made? It was because less than 20% were set in 600x640.

    Less than 20%. And we moved on.

    I'm not saying we should kill all non-compliant browser users. I'm not even saying we should nuke all MAC users. I'm only saying that at one point or another, the world has to move on. I have trouble with the idea that 95% of Web users worldwide will be penalized because of 5% of irreducible users still stuck with obselete browsers or 1 or 2% of marginal MAC users.

    Is marginal okay? Can I have that term? I am upsetting anone?

    So, this is it. I am totally pro Web Standards. I think we have to move on. I make it my responsability as someone who builds it on a daily basis to make things move. I want my Web to be dynamic, actual and forwards compatible. Not the other way around.

    Now I agree that some sites can't afford to take the plunge. Sites that do ebusiness won't want to lose a single sale. I understand that. It's not even their battle. It is our battle. Us the advisors up to which the project managers turn. Us who have our hands in Web oil every day.

    I think the main reason we're not moving on just yet is that we're not ready yet. Web standards aren't easy to implement. The concepts are simple, but the application is far less simple.

    Hell, even the W3C can't figure it all just yet! How could we do it?

    I just thik we have to pack our things, get our act together and move on. And think of this :

    How many people will access the Web on a cellphone, just as of next year. 10%? 20% 50%? Who knows.

    Take that percentage. This is how many people will say ecommerce sites suck because they can't access it at all. An increasing % of their potential sales will go up in smoke because they didn't want to jeopardize 5% (which will keep on diminishing) of users. That's one hell of a good marketing plan.

    Personnaly I am preparing for the world to move on. And I would recommend you do it too, if only you still want to work and still be reputed in this field in a year or two from now.

    Peace my friends.

    P.S. : There is a big difference I'd like to point out between MACs and v4- browers users.

    MAC users are part of a culture. This is the sole reason why they have to be respected as a minority. Older browser users are just irreducibles. They slow the Web developements and as such are a nuisance. That's my word.
    Last edited by cybercodeur; Jan 2, 2002 at 11:14.
    Denis Boudreau <C²/> - Web Standards & Accessibility
    [+] ICQ number: 115649885 || Email: denis@cybercodeur.net
    [+] Daily Weblog on Web standards and accessibility : CYBERcodeur.net

  6. #31
    Made with a Mac! philm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Portsmouth, UK
    Posts
    735
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Talking hehehe

    I can see where this is leading....LOL

    Mund send me a url, we use ALL MACS for our web design at work. But we test on the ol' PC

    Oh and BTW Tahoma isn't a Mac font, it looks real cool on PC's but defaults to Times on a MAC. Stick to Verdana as suggested above. Nice and legible on all platforms. Maybe use Arial size 1 for real small text if u need to.

    Carry on cybercodeur.......


  7. #32
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    23
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have trouble with the idea that 95% of Web users worldwide will be penalized because of 5% of irreducible users still stuck with obselete browsers or 1 or 2% of marginal MAC users.
    but you don't have to penalize the 95% to make a Mac compatible site. You just have to carry on making well designed sites that work in IE5 or NS6 on a PC like you do already I'm the last person to say you should block out the vast majority of your users because I won't even have anything to do with NS4.7 and I would be being hypocritical
    KartLink - The Portal for the World's Most Popular Motorsport!

  8. #33
    <C²: web standards /> cybercodeur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Montréal
    Posts
    729
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    But I don't block MAC users quite the opposite. Which is why i added the line on MAC culture. I'm just saying that if for some reason something that was standard-compliant wasn't working on the MAC i would not bother and keep going that's all.

    Your MAC is safe with me my friend... as long as it behaves!
    Denis Boudreau <C²/> - Web Standards & Accessibility
    [+] ICQ number: 115649885 || Email: denis@cybercodeur.net
    [+] Daily Weblog on Web standards and accessibility : CYBERcodeur.net

  9. #34
    SitePoint Wizard bbolte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    The Central Plains
    Posts
    3,304
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    my stats tend to agree with zeldman's on mac usage...

  10. #35
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    12
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Totally unrepresentative, I know, and not very many hits, but the Hitbox stats for my own web site show

    1. Windows 1,220 90.98%
    2. Macintosh 85 6.34%
    3. Other 31 2.31%
    4. Unix 5 0.37%

    That feels about right - it's a creative writing site, not graphics, and the vast majority of hits seem to come from searches.

    Now, what are these "others"?

  11. #36
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    12
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    For the information of any new readers, I had to consider Macs specifically because the pages we are constructing were intended to be viewed by the staff of an art and design department. The pages will be written to a CD using the ISO9660 format and with fingers tightly crossed (it's less than a week to delivery day and the artist - my son - is still producing).

    I have a pet Mac user who will help us test that the CD is readable, but he uses the AOL browser, so that could be even more fun.

  12. #37
    SitePoint Wizard bbolte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    The Central Plains
    Posts
    3,304
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Now, what are these "others"? [/B]
    they may be search engine spiders... or a browser that the stats program doesn't know...

  13. #38
    <C²: web standards /> cybercodeur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Montréal
    Posts
    729
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Here are the stats from thecounter.com

    Stats derived from:

    483.000.000 hits at
    +500.000 different sites
    during Dec, 2001

    1. Win 98 331633485 (68%)
    2. Win 2000 76661833 (15%)
    3. Win 95 30874792 (6%)
    4. Win NT 23155188 (4%)
    5. Mac 8807690 (1%)
    6. Unknown 7731952 (1%)
    7. WebTV 1775697 (0%)
    8. Win 3.x 1551286 (0%)
    9. Linux 1276713 (0%)
    10. Unix 459310 (0%)
    11. OS/2 35965 (0%)
    12. Amiga 20202 (0%)

    Now that's representative of a real poll...
    Denis Boudreau <C²/> - Web Standards & Accessibility
    [+] ICQ number: 115649885 || Email: denis@cybercodeur.net
    [+] Daily Weblog on Web standards and accessibility : CYBERcodeur.net

  14. #39
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    12
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks for all your help. My son's CD seems to work, and he's been accepted onto the course. Mission accomplished!

  15. #40
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Chico, Ca
    Posts
    1,125
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    You guys are argueing the same point from different sources of information. I would say "theCounter.com" is pretty relable they seem to claim that they get a good sample of the net usage. And by the numbers that they state it seems so, but I would like to see a list of the sites that they poll. Is there a common focus that would be predominatly a PC field? Say if all the stats were coming from VB sites, I don't know of anyone programing VB on a Macintosh ( just and example).

    What is probably happening is that "theCounter" is getting stats from all over the world. There is a thread here at Sitepoint about how priacy is huge in Asia and other countries. I am wondering how much of this software is Macintosh. I have personally searched for Macintosh cracks in the past, and came up with nothening, My point is that why would someone buy a computer that they have to pay an arm and leg for the software, when they can buy a cheaper computer and borrow the software from their neighbor? Espacally in the poor countries. Also I wonder how much of Apples sales goes overseas.

    The 6% could represent the amount of people that use Macintoshes in the US. Also keep in mind That this is ONLY web usage, this does not mean that there are Universities that don't have labs full of Macintoshes that are not hooked to the Internet( not to intelligent in my mind, but you would be surprised the stuiped things Universities do, and they claim to be a fountain of higher education!).

    Chuck
    Last edited by Chuckie; Jan 16, 2002 at 20:35.
    "Happiness doesn't find you, you find happiness" -- Unknown
    www.chuckknows.com

  16. #41
    SitePoint Addict DevilBear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Hades
    Posts
    301
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    congrats

    Excellent, Mund. Tell your son "good job" for me

    What is wrong with you people? Capitalizing letters, as in MAC, denotes an acronym, not an abbreviation. Hence, "MAC" could not possibly mean Macintosh like "Mac" does.

    And Chuckie, Mac users don't use cracks. That's bourgeois. Nonetheless, Mac developers also suffer from piracy, although I couldn't tell you to what extent.

  17. #42
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Chico, Ca
    Posts
    1,125
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    There I fixed my entry just for you DevilBear.
    "Happiness doesn't find you, you find happiness" -- Unknown
    www.chuckknows.com

  18. #43
    SitePoint Addict DevilBear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Hades
    Posts
    301
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    LOL thanks, Chuckie! You're a great sport!

  19. #44
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophy Jeremy W.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    9,121
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well, the reason I would consider thecounter's stats to be fairly accurate is exactly because of who they target: small sites.

    Small sites make up 90% of all web traffic, despite what the big boys try and make you believe.

    Thus, even if thecounter only had a 1% market share, their stats would cover roughly 5% of the market (assuming overlapping, errors, etc).

    That's a more accurate stat then you are likely to get from anywhere
    SVP Marketing, SoCast SRM
    Personal blog: Strategerize
    Twitter: @jeremywright


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
  •