SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 33 of 33
  1. #26
    + platinum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Posts
    6,441
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by OneChance
    See what I'm getting at? When you drop support for one browser you could potentially be losing a helluva lot of visits. I think backward compatibility is very important, to a point - and that point is, IMHO, when NS 4.x usage drops below 1% for six consecutive months. Right now I have no need to use JavaScript or CSS that can only be used in the latest browsers.
    The site in your profile certainly has enough javascript and CSS in it to sink a ship

  2. #27
    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)
    Originally posted by cybercodeur
    Extremely well-written post
    This post wins!
    Mattias Johansson
    Short, Swedish, Web Developer

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

  3. #28
    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)
    Originally posted by OneChance
    That's some serious ignoring, but what about ignoring domestically?

    Anyhoo, look at it in the way of "word of mouth" advertising: Say you have a web site about fishing. Some guy goes to your web site using NS 4.x. Nothing works right and he gets several scripting errors. It turns out this guy is part of a group of fishing enthusiasts that happens to number in the millions. He posts a message on the group's online forum that basically says your site sucks. He's sharing his experience; he has no idea what your site may look like in another browser; he only uses one, the one you don't support. The members of his group pass the word to other members, who pass it to their fishing buddies, etc. All of these people don't even bother to visit your site because Joe Fisherman's word is usually good, and if he says your site sucks, then it must suck. So now the word is that your site sucks. No one knows exactly why at this point, they just know.

    See what I'm getting at? When you drop support for one browser you could potentially be losing a helluva lot of visits. I think backward compatibility is very important, to a point - and that point is, IMHO, when NS 4.x usage drops below 1% for six consecutive months. Right now I have no need to use JavaScript or CSS that can only be used in the latest browsers.
    This is what I'm trying to avoid, but I'm avoiding it in the long term, by coding after the standards. The new browsers nowadays comply with the W3C standards, but old browsers, such as NS4, does not.

    Standards are a good thing. If all browsers that is used comply with the standards, we can pretty easily, by writing standards-compliant and clean code, make a web site that works in ALL browsers.

    In the old days, every browser had their little way of interpreting the code. IE had their way, and NS had their way, and all the alternative browsers had their way. It sucked.

    That is why 4.x browsers should die ASAP. If we keep supporting them, it will just take a longer time for them to die.
    Mattias Johansson
    Short, Swedish, Web Developer

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

  4. #29
    Anyone seen my cypher? OneChance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    281
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Even though I support NS 4.x, I'm all for putting all of the NS 4.x users in one room and broadcasting "How to Upgrade Your Browser and Impress Your Friends" over and over again until they're muttering the steps in their sleep.

    I don't know any NS 4.x users, but I've always wondered why people don't just upgrade. Is it because they don't even know an upgrade is available? Maybe because they think they'll screw something up? Or maybe they just don't care? (That would include most everyone I know.) Perhaps they're just being rebellious? "Dadgummit! Dang site won't work in my Netscape! I'll show them. CSS positioning fools! Ma, come in here and witness my rebelliousness!" Yup, that must be it.

  5. #30
    Anyone seen my cypher? OneChance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    281
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by platinum
    The site in your profile certainly has enough javascript and CSS in it to sink a ship
    Fer sure.

  6. #31
    Gone!
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Witty Location Parody
    Posts
    3,889
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Um, answering the question here, this is what extreme tracker showed me:

    MSIE 5 1368 61.92%

    MSIE 6 660 29.87%

    Netscape 4 65 2.94%

    MSIE 4 39 1.76%

    Netscape 6 35 1.58%

    Netscape 3 32 1.44%

    Other 7 0.31%

    Opera 5 2 0.09%

    AOL 4 1 0.04%

    I do try as much as is practically possible to make any sites compatible for NS 4+ and IE3+.

  7. #32
    SitePoint Guru
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    788
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    less then 1.1% is netscape over the last 4 months... It comes down to about nothing
    the neigbours (free) WIFI makes it just a little more fun

  8. #33
    <C²: web standards /> cybercodeur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Montréal
    Posts
    729
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    These discussions will go on forever and I don't feel like having to explain my point of view in every thread when I feel misunderstood. So I'm posting here something I posted in other thread earlier today. It pretty much covers my point.



    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.


    ...who cares if NN4 gets 2,3,4 or 5%. It's not standards compliant. That's all there is to it. Even if it had 40% I'd still feel I'd have to push for Standards.

    There are polite and elegant ways to bring old browser users into the 21st century. Why not go along with them?
    Last edited by cybercodeur; Jan 2, 2002 at 14:27.
    Denis Boudreau <C²/> - Web Standards & Accessibility
    [+] ICQ number: 115649885 || Email: denis@cybercodeur.net
    [+] Daily Weblog on Web standards and accessibility : CYBERcodeur.net


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
  •