By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
424,658 Members | 1,255 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 424,658 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

What browsers are using to test?

P: n/a
Hello,

Just wondered what range of browsers, versions and OSs people are using
to test pages. Also, since I don't have access to a Mac, will I have
problems not being able to test on any Mac browsers, or is there some
other way of checking?

TIA

--
Alan Silver
(anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
Feb 20 '06 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
133 Replies


P: n/a
saz
In article <9Y**************@nospamthankyou.spam>, alan-
si****@nospam.thanx.invalid says...
Hello,

Just wondered what range of browsers, versions and OSs people are using
to test pages. Also, since I don't have access to a Mac, will I have
problems not being able to test on any Mac browsers, or is there some
other way of checking?

TIA


I'm spoiled, as I have all of these and use each for testing:

Win XP with IE 6, FF 1.5, Opera 8
Win ME with IE 6, Mozilla 1.7, Opera 7.5
Win 98 with IE 5.5, Mozilla 1.7, Opera 7.5
Mac OS 9 with IE5, Netscape 7, Opera 6
Mac OS X with Safari, FF 1.5

I don't know of any way to check on a MAC browser without a MAC.
Feb 20 '06 #2

P: n/a
In article <9Y**************@nospamthankyou.spam>,
Alan Silver <al*********@nospam.thanx.invalid> wrote:
Just wondered what range of browsers, versions and OSs people are using
to test pages.
Windows:

Opera
Firefox
IE
Netscape

Unix / Linux:

Lynx
Also, since I don't have access to a Mac, will I have
problems not being able to test on any Mac browsers, or is there some
other way of checking?


I'd like to know too.

-A
Feb 20 '06 #3

P: n/a
Alan Silver wrote:
Hello,

Just wondered what range of browsers, versions and OSs people are using
to test pages. Also, since I don't have access to a Mac, will I have
problems not being able to test on any Mac browsers, or is there some
other way of checking?


I hand-code all my Web pages, using an ASCII file editor. First of all,
I try to develop my pages in accord with the Viewable With Any Browser
Campaign. See <http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/index.html>.

I use only one browser to check the appearance of the page. Then I test
the page at <http://validator.w3.org/>. If I make any changes to a
style-sheet file or if I have more than 1 or 2 lines of style-sheet in
the HEAD section of the HTML, I test it at
<http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/>. If it's not my own personal Web
site, I also check the page for accessibility at
<http://webxact.watchfire.com/ScanForm.aspx>.

If the page is designed for all browsers, looks okay with one browser,
complies with the W3C HTML specification, and meets the WAI Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (Level A), I then assume it will indeed
look okay with other browsers on other platforms. Occasionally, I will
go to the nearby public library (whose PCs have a browser different from
my own) and check a sample of my pages.

--

David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>

Concerned about someone (e.g., Pres. Bush) snooping
into your E-mail? Use PGP.
See my <http://www.rossde.com/PGP/>
Feb 20 '06 #4

P: n/a
In article <MP************************@newsgroups.comcast.net >, saz
<sa*****@nospammersexcite.com> writes
In article <9Y**************@nospamthankyou.spam>, alan-
si****@nospam.thanx.invalid says...
Hello,

Just wondered what range of browsers, versions and OSs people are using
to test pages. Also, since I don't have access to a Mac, will I have
problems not being able to test on any Mac browsers, or is there some
other way of checking?

TIA
I'm spoiled, as I have all of these and use each for testing:

Win XP with IE 6, FF 1.5, Opera 8
Win ME with IE 6, Mozilla 1.7, Opera 7.5
Win 98 with IE 5.5, Mozilla 1.7, Opera 7.5
Mac OS 9 with IE5, Netscape 7, Opera 6
Mac OS X with Safari, FF 1.5


Thanks for that. Out of interest, do you ever see differences between
the same version of a browser, but on different platforms? For example,
you listed IE6 on both XP and ME, and Mozilla 1.7 on both ME and 98. Is
this necessary, or are you just enjoying being spoiled!!

As it happens, I have MS Virtual PC, so I have access to pretty much as
many MS OSs as I need, I just don't want to waste time checking things
that don't need checking.

Also, do you always stick to checking the latest versions? Apart from
IE5, which was such a major problem that you need to check separately,
you only seem to be checking the latest versions of each browser (apart
form Opera). I could hazard a guess that pretty much anyone keen enough
to download and install a non-IE browser on Windows is likely to keep it
up to date, but that's just a guess!!
I don't know of any way to check on a MAC browser without a MAC.


I thought not. This is a bit of a pain. I'm not sure of how to get
around this, other than buying a Mac, which is an expensive way to check
pages!!

Thanks for the reply.

--
Alan Silver
(anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
Feb 20 '06 #5

P: n/a
In article <7N********************@iswest.net>, David E. Ross
<no****@nowhere.not> writes
If the page is designed for all browsers, looks okay with one browser,
complies with the W3C HTML specification, and meets the WAI Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (Level A), I then assume it will indeed
look okay with other browsers on other platforms. Occasionally, I will
to the nearby public library (whose PCs have a browser different from
my own) and check a sample of my pages.


No disrespect, but my (limited) experience, and what I've read around
here leads me to believe that it's not that simple, unless you're doing
very very basic pages. Once you get into CSS for example, browsers have
very varied support, even if the code is 100% valid, and can render the
page very differently. That's why I was asking what people use.

Thanks anyway

--
Alan Silver
(anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
Feb 20 '06 #6

P: n/a
saz
In article <oO**************@nospamthankyou.spam>, alan-
si****@nospam.thanx.invalid says...
In article <MP************************@newsgroups.comcast.net >, saz
<sa*****@nospammersexcite.com> writes
In article <9Y**************@nospamthankyou.spam>, alan-
si****@nospam.thanx.invalid says...
Hello,

Just wondered what range of browsers, versions and OSs people are using
to test pages. Also, since I don't have access to a Mac, will I have
problems not being able to test on any Mac browsers, or is there some
other way of checking?

TIA


I'm spoiled, as I have all of these and use each for testing:

Win XP with IE 6, FF 1.5, Opera 8
Win ME with IE 6, Mozilla 1.7, Opera 7.5
Win 98 with IE 5.5, Mozilla 1.7, Opera 7.5
Mac OS 9 with IE5, Netscape 7, Opera 6
Mac OS X with Safari, FF 1.5


Thanks for that. Out of interest, do you ever see differences between
the same version of a browser, but on different platforms? For example,
you listed IE6 on both XP and ME, and Mozilla 1.7 on both ME and 98. Is
this necessary, or are you just enjoying being spoiled!!

As it happens, I have MS Virtual PC, so I have access to pretty much as
many MS OSs as I need, I just don't want to waste time checking things
that don't need checking.

Also, do you always stick to checking the latest versions? Apart from
IE5, which was such a major problem that you need to check separately,
you only seem to be checking the latest versions of each browser (apart
form Opera). I could hazard a guess that pretty much anyone keen enough
to download and install a non-IE browser on Windows is likely to keep it
up to date, but that's just a guess!!
I don't know of any way to check on a MAC browser without a MAC.


I thought not. This is a bit of a pain. I'm not sure of how to get
around this, other than buying a Mac, which is an expensive way to check
pages!!

Thanks for the reply.

CSS support is always going to be the major headache, so I use IE 5.5 on
WIN 98 regularly. There are some subtle differences in different OS's
with the same browsers, but often a minor tweak can fix it to look
somewhat like what I desire.

But the MAC's - now that can be tricky. IE 5 for Mac is not a good
browser, yet many use it. CSS support is poor. Safari is better, but I
remember about 6 months ago finally getting a site "just right" and then
viewing it in Safari - major problems that took several hours to fix.
Now I check sites as I go along each day instead of waiting to the end.
Feb 20 '06 #7

P: n/a
In article <MP************************@newsgroups.comcast.net >, saz
<sa*****@nospammersexcite.com> writes
Now I check sites as I go along each day instead of waiting to the end.


Oh I do that anyway, which is another good reason to limit the checking
to as few browsers as necessary.

Ta ra

--
Alan Silver
(anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
Feb 20 '06 #8

P: n/a
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Alan Silver <alan-
si****@nospam.thanx.invalid> writing in news:9Yo
$1***********@nospamthankyou.spam:
Hello,

Just wondered what range of browsers, versions and OSs people are using
to test pages. Also, since I don't have access to a Mac, will I have
problems not being able to test on any Mac browsers, or is there some
other way of checking?

TIA


I write for Opera, then test in Firefox and IE. I don't give NS4 a
stylesheet at all. I have all the versions of IE, except 7 beta (and
only because I don't want it taking over my system yet).

For Mac, I go to the local Mac store and view the pages there. I also
have a local Kinkos that has a Mac, and the local library has one, too.
I take a notebook with me and jot down and huge problems so I can fix
them when I get home. Of course, since I hand code, and I validate
everything, and I try very hard not to use any hacks, I don't usually
have any big problems.

--
Adrienne Boswell
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share
Feb 20 '06 #9

P: n/a
Alan Silver wrote:
In article <MP************************@newsgroups.comcast.net >, saz
<sa*****@nospammersexcite.com> writes

Win XP with IE 6, FF 1.5, Opera 8
Win ME with IE 6, Mozilla 1.7, Opera 7.5
Win 98 with IE 5.5, Mozilla 1.7, Opera 7.5
Thanks for that. Out of interest, do you ever see differences between
the same version of a browser, but on different platforms?


FWIW, I can't remember ever seeing any noticeable difference between the
same browser version on different Windows versions. It is also rare to
see differences between the same browser version on different platforms.
I don't even bother testing those scenerios any more.

What I do have is:
W2K:
- IE 5.0, 5.5, 6
- Opera 7.5 and 8
- Netscape 7.2 (and 4.x, but I don't bother with it any more)
- a recent mozilla build
- lynx
WinXP:
- IE7 beta
Linux:
- Konqueror 3.4
- Firefox 1.something
Mac OSX 10.2:
- IE 5
- Safari 1.0 (the last release available for 10.2)
- iCab 3.x

If there are any noticeable differences between NS 7.2 and a recent
mozilla build, I may test an interim version of Firefox, but that hardly
ever happens. A lot of times I even forget to test NS 7.2. :)

BTW, Apple wants me to pay them a lot of money for a new OS just so I
can upgrade Safari. I refuse to feed their greed, so I'm stuck with 1.0
there.
For example,
you listed IE6 on both XP and ME, and Mozilla 1.7 on both ME and 98. Is
this necessary, or are you just enjoying being spoiled!!
Sounds more like creating unnecessary work for yourself, IYAM. ;)
I don't know of any way to check on a MAC browser without a MAC.


Hopefully, if a recent version of Konqueror is OK, more recent versions
of Safari are, too. They are both KHTML browsers, though Apple does do
its own thing.
I'm not sure of how to get
around this, other than buying a Mac, which is an expensive way to check
pages!!


A couple years ago I got myself a used G3 powerbook for a couple hundred
dollars. They're probably even cheaper now. It's good enough for
testing, except for that OS version thing...

HTH

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
Feb 20 '06 #10

P: n/a
In article <9Y**************@nospamthankyou.spam>, Alan Silver
<al*********@nospam.thanx.invalid> wrote:
Just wondered what range of browsers, versions and OSs people are using
to test pages. Also, since I don't have access to a Mac, will I have
problems not being able to test on any Mac browsers, or is there some
other way of checking?


I test with the following:

Internet Explorer 6.0 Windows 2000
Internet Explorer 5.5 Windows 98
Internet Explorer 5.0 Windows 98
Internet Explorer 5.2.3 Mac OS X 10.4.3

Netscape 7.2 Windows 98
Netscape 7.2 Mac OS X 10.4.3

Mozilla 1.7.8 Windows 2000 SP5
Mozilla 1.7.8 Mac OS X 10.4.3
Mozilla 1.5 Windows 2000 SP5
Mozilla 1.5 Mac OS X 10.4.3

Firefox 1.5 Windows 2000 SP5
Firefox 1.5 Mac OS X 10.4.3
Firefox 1.0.7 Windows 2000 SP5
Firefox 1.0.7 Mac OS X 10.4.3

Safari 2.0.3 Mac OS X 10.4.3
Safari 1.3.2 Mac OS X 10.3.9

I'm almost ready to drop support for Internet Explorer 5.x for both Mac
and Windows because they are such a miniscule part of the audience for
most of the web sites I manage. On my personal site, all varieties of
IE 5.x in total are down to a fraction over 1% of my visitors.

As for testing with a Mac... I both develop and test on Mac using the
platform's native browsers and with Virtual PC. This allows me to run
my authoring tools, Apache, and multiple copies of Windows on a single
Macintosh.

I would strongly suggest buying a secondhand G4 Mac and setting it up
as your testbed. Use a KVM switch save desk space. You can have
multiple copies of Mac OS on the same machine, along with Virtual PC
(Windows 98 runs very nicely on a 1 GHz Mac, and that's all you really
need to test all available Windows browsers).

Personally, I couldn't ask for a better web designing environment.

--
Jim Royal
"Understanding is a three-edged sword"
http://JimRoyal.com
http://DigitalWind.com
Feb 20 '06 #11

P: n/a

saz wrote:
In article <oO**************@nospamthankyou.spam>, alan-
si****@nospam.thanx.invalid says...
In article <MP************************@newsgroups.comcast.net >, saz
<sa*****@nospammersexcite.com> writes
In article <9Y**************@nospamthankyou.spam>, alan-
si****@nospam.thanx.invalid says...
> Hello,
>
> Just wondered what range of browsers, versions and OSs people are using
> to test pages. Also, since I don't have access to a Mac, will I have
> problems not being able to test on any Mac browsers, or is there some
> other way of checking?
>
> TIA

I'm spoiled, as I have all of these and use each for testing:

Win XP with IE 6, FF 1.5, Opera 8
Win ME with IE 6, Mozilla 1.7, Opera 7.5
Win 98 with IE 5.5, Mozilla 1.7, Opera 7.5
Mac OS 9 with IE5, Netscape 7, Opera 6
Mac OS X with Safari, FF 1.5


Thanks for that. Out of interest, do you ever see differences between
the same version of a browser, but on different platforms? For example,
you listed IE6 on both XP and ME, and Mozilla 1.7 on both ME and 98. Is
this necessary, or are you just enjoying being spoiled!!

As it happens, I have MS Virtual PC, so I have access to pretty much as
many MS OSs as I need, I just don't want to waste time checking things
that don't need checking.

Also, do you always stick to checking the latest versions? Apart from
IE5, which was such a major problem that you need to check separately,
you only seem to be checking the latest versions of each browser (apart
form Opera). I could hazard a guess that pretty much anyone keen enough
to download and install a non-IE browser on Windows is likely to keep it
up to date, but that's just a guess!!
I don't know of any way to check on a MAC browser without a MAC.


I thought not. This is a bit of a pain. I'm not sure of how to get
around this, other than buying a Mac, which is an expensive way to check
pages!!

Thanks for the reply.

CSS support is always going to be the major headache, so I use IE 5.5 on
WIN 98 regularly. There are some subtle differences in different OS's
with the same browsers, but often a minor tweak can fix it to look
somewhat like what I desire.

But the MAC's - now that can be tricky. IE 5 for Mac is not a good
browser, yet many use it.


Many? Not according to the figures I see:
http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat.htm

What's your information?

/P.

Feb 20 '06 #12

P: n/a

axlq wrote:
In article <9Y**************@nospamthankyou.spam>,
Alan Silver <al*********@nospam.thanx.invalid> wrote:
Just wondered what range of browsers, versions and OSs people are using
to test pages.


Windows:

Opera
Firefox
IE
Netscape

Unix / Linux:

Lynx
Also, since I don't have access to a Mac, will I have
problems not being able to test on any Mac browsers, or is there some
other way of checking?


I'd like to know too.


I've used this for testing on Safari: http://www.danvine.com/icapture/

Then got one of the Mac jockeys in the DTP studio to bring the pages up
on their new Mac boxes for comparison. So far the results show that
iCapture is a good tool.

/P.

Feb 20 '06 #13

P: n/a
Paxton wrote:

I've used this for testing on Safari: http://www.danvine.com/icapture/


These tools (browsercam is another) really have limited use. They cannot
show you how the browser will respond to changes in text or window size,
for example. Those are the kinds of tests you really need to do, too,
not just see how it looks at full-screen with the tester's browser defaults.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
Feb 20 '06 #14

P: n/a
In article <9Y**************@nospamthankyou.spam>,
Alan Silver <al*********@nospam.thanx.invalid> wrote:
Just wondered what range of browsers, versions and OSs people are using
to test pages. Also, since I don't have access to a Mac, will I have
problems not being able to test on any Mac browsers, or is there some
other way of checking?


I have a Macintosh. I test as I write in Safari (which tends to be
fussy). Then I validate (usually only finding typing problems these
days on pages similar to existing ones), and test in Firefox and Opera.
I am assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that Windows and Linux versions of
Firefox and Opera will react the same.

I don't do any specific testing for Linux, as I suspect most Linux users
will find a way to cope with valid pages.

Using different window sizes, changing text magnification, and (in
Opera) zooming are part of the test. I put Opera into its phone mode to
see if the page is OK with some styles of phone. I also check the page
in one browser (usually Firefox) without a style sheet, in case I did
something really stupid in my HTML.

Don't make any special effort to provide content for Netscape Navigator
4.x or IE5 and previous. I don't test in Mac IE5. I know my pages will
almost certainly present problems for people using these browsers,
however on my sites that make logging available, use of these browsers
now seems minimal.

Sardonicus correctly pointed out to me that doing web page development
without a Windows PC isn't viable. I have a old borrowed Windows laptop
(not networked), and I check with Internet Explorer 6 using that. If I
am suspicious of a new stylesheet, I remove my Strict Doctype on a
sample HTML page, and try that way (I am told that has an effect similar
to IE5.5). Partly due to my working practices, almost all my unexpected
display problems come from IE. I try to avoid IE hacks.

However my pages are all very simple. I hardly ever use tables, forms,
Javascript, and never use frames. I am sure it is much more difficult
for a real commercial site.

--
http://www.ericlindsay.com
Feb 21 '06 #15

P: n/a
"Alan Silver" <al*********@nospam.thanx.invalid> wrote in message
news:9Y**************@nospamthankyou.spam...
Hello,

Just wondered what range of browsers, versions and OSs people are using
to test pages. Also, since I don't have access to a Mac, will I have
problems not being able to test on any Mac browsers, or is there some
other way of checking?

TIA

--
Alan Silver
(anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)


I use IE6 on WIN, the same browser that 90% of the public uses. Don't
believe me? Look at these stats pulled from several million users:
https://dongtaiwang.com/dm/uggc/jjj....gre.pbz/fgngf/

IE has a 90% market share and don't believe any misinformation to the
contrary. The internet is full of self appointed pundits who'd dearly love
to convince you that IE is losing ground (they wish).

Why waste time testing for the 10% that don't use IE? If they visit a site
that doesn't work for them they know it's because they're using an obscure
browser. If they're using a PC it came with IE preconfigured and can't be
uninstalled so they can always fall back to it if need be.

This question has come up here many times before and it's only important to
readers of this and a few other NG's. To the world at large it doesn't mean
diddly. The world uses IE, they don't even know there are other browsers.
Still don't believe me? Just ask your neighbors, your mechanic or at the
store where you shop, they'll tell you. They're all using IE.

IEDesigner
Feb 21 '06 #16

P: n/a
In article <NO********************************@freenews.iinet .net.au>,
Eric Lindsay <NO**********@ericlindsay.com> wrote:
I have a Macintosh. I test as I write in Safari (which tends to be
fussy). Then I validate (usually only finding typing problems these
days on pages similar to existing ones), and test in Firefox and Opera.
I am assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that Windows and Linux versions of
Firefox and Opera will react the same.


Lynx would be a dandy addition to that arsenal. I seem to have two
copies. I remember downloading the one in /sw, but I'm not sure if I did
or not in /usr/local/bin or if it came with OSX. But I probably
downloaded it. Lynx is both enlightening and fun once you get the simple
keyboard navigation down. And it's lightning for a google search.

leo

--
<http://web0.greatbasin.net/~leo/>
Feb 21 '06 #17

P: n/a
IEDesigner wrote:
"Alan Silver" <al*********@nospam.thanx.invalid> wrote in message
news:9Y**************@nospamthankyou.spam...
Hello,

Just wondered what range of browsers, versions and OSs people are using
to test pages. Also, since I don't have access to a Mac, will I have
problems not being able to test on any Mac browsers, or is there some
other way of checking?

TIA

--
Alan Silver
(anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)


I use IE6 on WIN, the same browser that 90% of the public uses. Don't
believe me? Look at these stats pulled from several million users:
https://dongtaiwang.com/dm/uggc/jjj....gre.pbz/fgngf/

IE has a 90% market share and don't believe any misinformation to the
contrary. The internet is full of self appointed pundits who'd dearly love
to convince you that IE is losing ground (they wish).

Why waste time testing for the 10% that don't use IE? If they visit a site
that doesn't work for them they know it's because they're using an obscure
browser. If they're using a PC it came with IE preconfigured and can't be
uninstalled so they can always fall back to it if need be.

This question has come up here many times before and it's only important to
readers of this and a few other NG's. To the world at large it doesn't mean
diddly. The world uses IE, they don't even know there are other browsers.
Still don't believe me? Just ask your neighbors, your mechanic or at the
store where you shop, they'll tell you. They're all using IE.

IEDesigner


Well, you better also check with IE 7 on an ongoing basis since it is a
moving target and is moving towards standards. Best to work with
standards which IE 6 supports, with documented exceptions. You are aware
that IE 7 will not support all of IE 6's quirks, as well as not all of
the standards for now? If you code to IE 6's quirks today, then your
pages will probably break for IE 7 tomorrow as well as all other
browsers that are standards supporting. Best is to code to the standards
and make adjustments for IE if at all necessary.

--
Gus
Feb 21 '06 #18

P: n/a
In article <11*************@corp.supernews.com>, IEDesigner
<IE********@notevenemail.com> wrote:
Why waste time testing for the 10% that don't use IE? If they visit a site
that doesn't work for them they know it's because they're using an obscure
browser. If they're using a PC it came with IE preconfigured and can't be
uninstalled so they can always fall back to it if need be.


I'm glad you're not building web sites for me.

That 90% figure for IE users is widely variable, and depends on a
site's specific audience. On my own business site, IE 6 is 75% of my
visitors. Firefox is a full 15%. I also have a higher than average
proportion of Mac visitors.

If you don't have reliable browser stats for the site you're
building/updating, it would be utterly irresponsible to skip testing
non-IE browsers.

And even if 90% of your visitors are indeed using IE/Win, why on earth
would you write off one of out every ten potential customers? 10% of
your sales is the margin between a loss and a Christmas bonus.

Testing only for IE is unbelievably foolish.

--
Jim Royal
"Understanding is a three-edged sword"
http://JimRoyal.com
http://DigitalWind.com
Feb 21 '06 #19

P: n/a
"IEDesigner" <IE********@notevenemail.com> writes:
Why waste time testing for the 10% that don't use IE?


I've seen better trolls in the garden of my neighbours while I was a kid
and lived in Germany, but they do bite tonight, don't they?

--
||| hexadecimal EBB
o-o decimal 3771
--oOo--( )--oOo-- octal 7273
205 goodbye binary 111010111011
Feb 21 '06 #20

P: n/a
Eric Lindsay <NO**********@ericlindsay.com> wrote:
Sardonicus


LOL, interesting use of my reputation to morph my alias ;-)

--
Spartanicus
Feb 21 '06 #21

P: n/a
In article <11*************@corp.supernews.com>, IEDesigner
<IE********@notevenemail.com> writes
Why waste time testing for the 10% that don't use IE? If they visit a
site that doesn't work for them they know it's because they're using an
obscure browser.


Because 10% is still 10%. If your site is getting (say) 1000 visitors
per day, then that 10% makes 100 people each and every day who may not
be able to make a purchase (for example) because you didn't bother
checking the site in other browsers. Maybe you don't care about that,
but my customers certainly do.

--
Alan Silver
(anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
Feb 21 '06 #22

P: n/a
IEDesigner wrote:
I use IE6 on WIN, the same browser that 90% of the public uses. Don't
believe me? Look at these stats pulled from several million users:
https://dongtaiwang.com/dm/uggc/jjj....gre.pbz/fgngf/
Oh yes, dongtaiwang, that well known and respected market research
company. Sorry why would anyone even click on a dodgy looking link like
that?
IE has a 90% market share and don't believe any misinformation to the
contrary.
88% on one site I maintain, 67% on another. (With the normal caveats
about web stats.) So you may well see 90% but other people will see
other values. Not every web site has the same audience.
The internet is full of self appointed pundits who'd dearly love
to convince you that IE is losing ground (they wish).
It is. The site that shows 67% in Dec 2005, showed 77% in Dec 2004.
That's losing ground.
Why waste time testing for the 10% that don't use IE?
Would you advocate switching your servers off for two and half hours a
day? That's "only" 10%...
If they visit a site
that doesn't work for them they know it's because they're using an obscure
browser.
It can be argued that users of other browsers are more likely to be
technically astute, and more likely to spend longer online. As such it
could be argued that they are more likely to be above average users of
e-commerce. So they would be users that you want on your site.
If they're using a PC it came with IE preconfigured and can't be
uninstalled so they can always fall back to it if need be.
If they're convinced that your site is worth visiting. The next site
on the search engine results list is probably better written and will
work in the browser they have already chosen to use.
This question has come up here many times before and it's only important to
readers of this and a few other NG's. To the world at large it doesn't mean
diddly. The world uses IE, they don't even know there are other browsers.
Still don't believe me? Just ask your neighbors, your mechanic or at the
store where you shop, they'll tell you. They're all using IE.


Yawn. Go back to troll school you need extra homework.

Steve

Feb 21 '06 #23

P: n/a
In article
<uv********************************@news.spartanic us.utvinternet.ie>,
Spartanicus <in*****@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Eric Lindsay <NO**********@ericlindsay.com> wrote:
Sardonicus


LOL, interesting use of my reputation to morph my alias ;-)


IANAP, so I get confused by call by name and call by value.

--
http://www.ericlindsay.com
Feb 21 '06 #24

P: n/a
In article <11**********************@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>,
Steve Pugh <st**********@gmail.com> writes
It can be argued that users of other browsers are more likely to be
technically astute, and more likely to spend longer online. As such it
could be argued that they are more likely to be above average users of
e-commerce. So they would be users that you want on your site.


I would take this a stage further (speaking from personal experience)
and suggest that those same technically astute people are less likely to
have patience with a site that doesn't work properly. Ordinary users
often assume that they are doing something wrong, whereas someone with a
bit of technical knowledge will often spot the errors in the site. They
are more likely to go off somewhere else than the uneducated masses.
Therefore, it becomes even more important to make sure they are offered
something that works.

Hey, I've a great idea!! I'm going to write a site that just doesn't
work in IE at all. If anyone wants to visit, they're jolly well going to
have to download FireFox (hmm, maybe I'll pick something with an even
smaller market share) and use that. That'll sort them out. Heck, who
cares about the other 90% anyway?

--
Alan Silver
(anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
Feb 21 '06 #25

P: n/a

Followup-to set: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html

Alan Silver wrote :
Hello,

Just wondered what range of browsers, versions and OSs people are using
to test pages.
I hand-code all the web pages I do. I first make sure the markup code
validates (for several reasons, I prefer HTML 4.01 strict to XHTML 1.0
strict) and that my CSS code validates. I also use HTML Tidy to
eradicate errors and mistakes that markup validators can't find: best
tool in my opinion is HTML Tidy validator as a Firefox extension
http://users.skynet.be/mgueury/mozilla/

Then I test with browsers in this order:

Firefox 1.5.0.1
Opera 9
MSIE 7 beta 2
MSIE 6
Lynx 2.8.5 rel.1

Then I test my Web pages with javascript enabled/disabled, with CSS
enabled/disabled, with images enabled/disabled. I verify that content is
accessible and that navigation is functional when javascript and CSS and
images have been disabled.

If really needed, I also check with NS 7.2, NS 7.0 and sometimes with NS
6.2.

Also, since I don't have access to a Mac, will I have
problems not being able to test on any Mac browsers, or is there some
other way of checking?

Safari FAQ
"13. How do I ensure that my pages will work in Safari?
Safari renders HTML in conformance with the W3 specification. You can
validate your pages for compliance with the W3 specification via the
web-based W3 HTML Validator. (...)"
http://developer.apple.com/internet/....html#anchor13

Also:
"The Safari development team at Apple has made a dedicated effort to
implement Web standards. This means that the easiest way to ensure
optimal rendering of your pages in Safari is by following the
standards.(...)" is the actual first 2 sentences of
Web Page Development: Best Practices
http://developer.apple.com/internet/...estwebdev.html

But there is also now another possibility:
Browser shots
http://browsershots.org/
It's impressive and it can be useful. It won't do magic and won't
replace buying and using a Mac with a Mac browser (Safari, Icab, etc..)
but it will help to some extent.

Followup-to set: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html

Gérard
--
remove blah to email me
Feb 21 '06 #26

P: n/a
Alan Silver wrote :
In article <7N********************@iswest.net>, David E. Ross
<no****@nowhere.not> writes
If the page is designed for all browsers, looks okay with one browser,
complies with the W3C HTML specification, and meets the WAI Web
Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (Level A), I then assume it will
indeed look okay with other browsers on other platforms.
Occasionally, I will to the nearby public library (whose PCs have a
browser different from my own) and check a sample of my pages.
No disrespect, but my (limited) experience, and what I've read around
here


here? Where? You posted this message in 2 newsgroups.
leads me to believe that it's not that simple, unless you're doing
very very basic pages.
90% of the webpages having problems in several recent browsers, it is
because web authors misused markup and CSS code to begin with. They
unneedlessly bloat the code, unneedlessly increase depth of DOM objects
in the document. Over-coding (1), over-declaring, over-populating,
over-defining and over-constraining document objects creates/generates
differential rendering in different browser and browser versions.

Also, amateur web author over-excessively put emphasis on layout and
pixel-perfect positioning of every element. But that shouldn't be the nr
1 goal of the web: accessibility to content and navigability on a site
should.

Once you get into CSS for example, browsers have very varied support, even if the code is 100% valid, and can render the
page very differently. That's why I was asking what people use.

Thanks anyway


Browsers have bugs: that's true (2). But I still think that 90% of the
time, it's the web authors' fault, not the browser's fault. In about
5-10% of the time, there are bugs and implementations issues with
browsers and browsers/browser versions have different capabilities and
different support. And sometimes, the W3C recommendations are not
specific enough.

(1): also called tag soup, tagitis, divitis, classitis
(2): Nowadays, browser manufacturers are finally all addressing their
own bugs, even Microsoft. They all want to fully support CSS 2.1 and to
complete their support of HTML 4.01.

Gérard
--
remove blah to email me
Feb 21 '06 #27

P: n/a
Gus Richter wrote :
IEDesigner wrote:
"Alan Silver" <al*********@nospam.thanx.invalid> wrote in message
news:9Y**************@nospamthankyou.spam...
Hello,

Just wondered what range of browsers, versions and OSs people are using
to test pages. Also, since I don't have access to a Mac, will I have
problems not being able to test on any Mac browsers, or is there some
other way of checking?

TIA

--
Alan Silver
(anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
I use IE6 on WIN, the same browser that 90% of the public uses. Don't
believe me? Look at these stats pulled from several million users:
https://dongtaiwang.com/dm/uggc/jjj....gre.pbz/fgngf/

IE has a 90% market share and don't believe any misinformation to the
contrary.
I'd say IE is closer to 80% than to 90% on thecounter.com site stats
webpages.
http://www.thecounter.com/stats/

The internet is full of self appointed pundits who'd dearly love
to convince you that IE is losing ground (they wish).

Why waste time testing for the 10% that don't use IE? If they visit a
site
that doesn't work for them they know it's because they're using an
obscure
browser. If they're using a PC it came with IE preconfigured and can't be
uninstalled so they can always fall back to it if need be.

This question has come up here many times before and it's only
important to
readers of this and a few other NG's. To the world at large it doesn't
mean
diddly. The world uses IE, they don't even know there are other browsers.
Still don't believe me? Just ask your neighbors, your mechanic or at the
store where you shop, they'll tell you. They're all using IE.

IEDesigner


Well, you better also check with IE 7 on an ongoing basis since it is a
moving target and is moving towards standards. Best to work with
standards which IE 6 supports, with documented exceptions. You are aware
that IE 7 will not support all of IE 6's quirks, as well as not all of
the standards for now? If you code to IE 6's quirks today, then your
pages will probably break for IE 7 tomorrow


That's not true. The only changes to be expected in IE 7 final release,
(and in IE 7.1 or IE 7.5 or IE 8) will be done in standards compliant
rendering mode ("strict" or when/with document.compatMode ==
"CSS1Compat"). A webpage triggering MSIE 6 into its quirk mode is
assured to be rendered as intended in MSIE 7. That's what backward
compatibility with MSIE bugs, MSIE flaws, MSIE incorrect implementations
means.

"we have heard the feedback asking us to be more standards-compliant in
our rendering behavior. We must balance this ask with the need of our
customers (and end users) to have their pages not be broken. To find a
balance we introduced a strict mode in IE6 that lets authors opt in into
the more standards compliant rendering (and, if you're putting in a
modern DOCTYPE declaration, you're being opted in automatically). (...)"
What's New for CSS in [IE 7] Beta 2 Preview?
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2006/02/02/523679.aspx

as well as all other browsers that are standards supporting. Best is to code to the standards
and make adjustments for IE if at all necessary.


I agree and support your opinion and policy about coding according to
web standards but the way IE 7 is improved puts no pressure at all onto
people who ignore, disregards web standards and only code to support IE.
*That* is a real problem on the web.

Gérard
--
remove blah to email me
Feb 21 '06 #28

P: n/a
In article <46************@uni-berlin.de>, Gérard Talbot
<ne***********@gtalbot.org> writes
Alan Silver wrote :
In article <7N********************@iswest.net>, David E. Ross
<no****@nowhere.not> writes
If the page is designed for all browsers, looks okay with one
browser, complies with the W3C HTML specification, and meets the WAI
Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (Level A), I then assume it will
indeed look okay with other browsers on other platforms.
Occasionally, I will to the nearby public library (whose PCs have a
browser different from my own) and check a sample of my pages.

No disrespect, but my (limited) experience, and what I've read
around here


here? Where? You posted this message in 2 newsgroups.


Who said anything about posting? I said "what I've read" - note that
last word. You don't have any way of knowing how many web pages and/or
Usenet articles I've read. As it happens, I've read quite a lot. The
fact that I've only posted the message in 2 groups is irrelevant, that's
where I'm *asking* the question, not where I'm *reading* the background
information beforehand.
leads me to believe that it's not that simple, unless you're doing
very very basic pages.


90% of the webpages having problems in several recent browsers, it is
because web authors misused markup and CSS code to begin with.

<snip>

I'm not sure what your problem is. I agree with you. Most web pages are
badly written. I never said otherwise. My only point was that it is
quite easy to produce 100% valid pages, that will display differently in
different browsers. This could well be because they are badly written.

I wouldn't rely purely on valid code, and assume that this will give me
the same display on all browsers (even assuming that this was my prime
goal).

Maybe I missed something, but I think your argument (if it was that) was
misdirected. Sorry if I misunderstood you.

--
Alan Silver
(anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)
Feb 21 '06 #29

P: n/a
FWIW: I am still learning the XHTML/XML/CSS routine and have been
reading a lot of books. What I have run across is the opinion that it
may be worthwhile to go out and purchase an old MAC with just enough
memory to hold the current OS to use for testing puposes only. The
writers seem to agree that you can get away with charging more for the
websites you produce by making it "MAC certified."

Also, I have built a few websites and, personally, do not worry if they
are backwards compatible. With all the free browsers out there, if one
is too lazy to download one, I don't feel that is my problem.

axlq wrote:
In article <9Y**************@nospamthankyou.spam>,
Alan Silver <al*********@nospam.thanx.invalid> wrote:
Just wondered what range of browsers, versions and OSs people are using
to test pages.

>Also, since I don't have access to a Mac, will I have

problems not being able to test on any Mac browsers, or is there some
other way of checking?



Feb 21 '06 #30

P: n/a
"Gus Richter" <gu********@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:DN******************************@golden.net.. .
IEDesigner wrote:
"Alan Silver" <al*********@nospam.thanx.invalid> wrote in message
news:9Y**************@nospamthankyou.spam...
Hello,

Just wondered what range of browsers, versions and OSs people are using
to test pages. Also, since I don't have access to a Mac, will I have
problems not being able to test on any Mac browsers, or is there some
other way of checking?

TIA

--
Alan Silver
(anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)


I use IE6 on WIN, the same browser that 90% of the public uses. Don't
believe me? Look at these stats pulled from several million users:
https://dongtaiwang.com/dm/uggc/jjj....gre.pbz/fgngf/

IE has a 90% market share and don't believe any misinformation to the
contrary. The internet is full of self appointed pundits who'd dearly love to convince you that IE is losing ground (they wish).

Why waste time testing for the 10% that don't use IE? If they visit a site that doesn't work for them they know it's because they're using an obscure browser. If they're using a PC it came with IE preconfigured and can't be uninstalled so they can always fall back to it if need be.

This question has come up here many times before and it's only important to readers of this and a few other NG's. To the world at large it doesn't mean diddly. The world uses IE, they don't even know there are other browsers. Still don't believe me? Just ask your neighbors, your mechanic or at the
store where you shop, they'll tell you. They're all using IE.

IEDesigner


Well, you better also check with IE 7 on an ongoing basis since it is a
moving target and is moving towards standards. Best to work with
standards which IE 6 supports, with documented exceptions. You are aware
that IE 7 will not support all of IE 6's quirks, as well as not all of
the standards for now? If you code to IE 6's quirks today, then your
pages will probably break for IE 7 tomorrow as well as all other
browsers that are standards supporting. Best is to code to the standards
and make adjustments for IE if at all necessary.

--
Gus


Unless you're name is Nostradamus the future is uncertain. In any case I
doubt tables will break in IE7. You have my blessing to ridicule me for
using tables.

This is not a criticism but this notion that standards will somehow make
sites future proof is laughable. Nothing in the wide world of computers is
completely future proof nor will it ever be. I've got a suggestion for
devotees to standards. Use plain text and your sites will be future proof,
that is of course until such time as ASCII is no longer valid.
IEDesigner
Feb 21 '06 #31

P: n/a
"Jim Royal" <ji******@canada.com> wrote in message
news:200220062123084171%ji******@canada.com...
In article <11*************@corp.supernews.com>, IEDesigner
<IE********@notevenemail.com> wrote:
Why waste time testing for the 10% that don't use IE? If they visit a site that doesn't work for them they know it's because they're using an obscure browser. If they're using a PC it came with IE preconfigured and can't be uninstalled so they can always fall back to it if need be.


I'm glad you're not building web sites for me.

That 90% figure for IE users is widely variable, and depends on a
site's specific audience. On my own business site, IE 6 is 75% of my
visitors. Firefox is a full 15%. I also have a higher than average
proportion of Mac visitors.

If you don't have reliable browser stats for the site you're
building/updating, it would be utterly irresponsible to skip testing
non-IE browsers.

And even if 90% of your visitors are indeed using IE/Win, why on earth
would you write off one of out every ten potential customers? 10% of
your sales is the margin between a loss and a Christmas bonus.

Testing only for IE is unbelievably foolish.
--
Jim Royal


Those 10% that don't use IE will still see my sites. They might not be as
pretty as I hoped but still viewable and nothing bad will happen to their
computers, they won't lock up and no smoke will roll out the back. And as I
said before if they're using a PC they have IE and can always fall back to
that. In your world IE is losing ground, in the world at large it's 90% IMO
and in the opinion of everyone I talk to. You may call me foolish for only
testing on IE but I find it more productive than wasting time on obscure
browsers.
IEDesigner
Feb 21 '06 #32

P: n/a
"Eric B. Bednarz" <be*****@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> wrote in message
news:m3************@nntp.bednarz.nl...
"IEDesigner" <IE********@notevenemail.com> writes:
Why waste time testing for the 10% that don't use IE?


I've seen better trolls in the garden of my neighbours while I was a kid
and lived in Germany, but they do bite tonight, don't they?


Name calling is the refuge of small minds. You do yourself no service.
IEDesigner
Feb 21 '06 #33

P: n/a
"Alan Silver" <al*********@nospam.thanx.invalid> wrote in message
news:a+**************@nospamthankyou.spam...
In article <11*************@corp.supernews.com>, IEDesigner
<IE********@notevenemail.com> writes
Why waste time testing for the 10% that don't use IE? If they visit a
site that doesn't work for them they know it's because they're using an
obscure browser.


Because 10% is still 10%. If your site is getting (say) 1000 visitors
per day, then that 10% makes 100 people each and every day who may not
be able to make a purchase (for example) because you didn't bother
checking the site in other browsers. Maybe you don't care about that,
but my customers certainly do.

--
Alan Silver
(anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)


See my response to Jim Royal.
IEDesigner
Feb 21 '06 #34

P: n/a
"Steve Pugh" <st**********@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
IEDesigner wrote:
I use IE6 on WIN, the same browser that 90% of the public uses. Don't
believe me? Look at these stats pulled from several million users:
https://dongtaiwang.com/dm/uggc/jjj....gre.pbz/fgngf/


Oh yes, dongtaiwang, that well known and respected market research
company. Sorry why would anyone even click on a dodgy looking link like
that?
IE has a 90% market share and don't believe any misinformation to the
contrary.


88% on one site I maintain, 67% on another. (With the normal caveats
about web stats.) So you may well see 90% but other people will see
other values. Not every web site has the same audience.
The internet is full of self appointed pundits who'd dearly love
to convince you that IE is losing ground (they wish).


It is. The site that shows 67% in Dec 2005, showed 77% in Dec 2004.
That's losing ground.
Why waste time testing for the 10% that don't use IE?


Would you advocate switching your servers off for two and half hours a
day? That's "only" 10%...
If they visit a site
that doesn't work for them they know it's because they're using an obscure browser.


It can be argued that users of other browsers are more likely to be
technically astute, and more likely to spend longer online. As such it
could be argued that they are more likely to be above average users of
e-commerce. So they would be users that you want on your site.
If they're using a PC it came with IE preconfigured and can't be
uninstalled so they can always fall back to it if need be.


If they're convinced that your site is worth visiting. The next site
on the search engine results list is probably better written and will
work in the browser they have already chosen to use.
This question has come up here many times before and it's only important to readers of this and a few other NG's. To the world at large it doesn't mean diddly. The world uses IE, they don't even know there are other browsers. Still don't believe me? Just ask your neighbors, your mechanic or at the
store where you shop, they'll tell you. They're all using IE.


Yawn. Go back to troll school you need extra homework.

Steve


On eliminating 10% see my response to Jim. In your world IE is losing
ground, in the world at large it's 90% IMO and in the opinion of everyone I
talk to. I don't know what you call astute users but I assume you me people
who don't use IE. I have no data to support or refute that assumption but I
see no correlation between spending and browser preference and I don't
require my visitors to be astute. People visit sites because of content not
because of browser preference. And finally name calling is the refuge of
small minds. You do yourself no service.
IEDesigner
Feb 21 '06 #35

P: n/a
"sonnystarks" <si***********@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:11**********************@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...

<snip>
Also, I have built a few websites and, personally, do not worry if they
are backwards compatible. With all the free browsers out there, if one
is too lazy to download one, I don't feel that is my problem.


I agree. With all the wailing I hear about standards you'd think people were
writing web sites in proprietary formats. Let them use ASCII if they're so
concerned about it.
IEDesigner
Feb 21 '06 #36

P: n/a
Gérard Talbot wrote:
Gus Richter wrote :
Well, you better also check with IE 7 on an ongoing basis since it is
a moving target and is moving towards standards. Best to work with
standards which IE 6 supports, with documented exceptions. You are
aware that IE 7 will not support all of IE 6's quirks, as well as not
all of the standards for now? If you code to IE 6's quirks today, then
your pages will probably break for IE 7 tomorrow


That's not true. The only changes to be expected in IE 7 final release,
(and in IE 7.1 or IE 7.5 or IE 8) will be done in standards compliant
rendering mode ("strict" or when/with document.compatMode ==
"CSS1Compat"). A webpage triggering MSIE 6 into its quirk mode is
assured to be rendered as intended in MSIE 7. That's what backward
compatibility with MSIE bugs, MSIE flaws, MSIE incorrect implementations
means.

"we have heard the feedback asking us to be more standards-compliant in
our rendering behavior. We must balance this ask with the need of our
customers (and end users) to have their pages not be broken. To find a
balance we introduced a strict mode in IE6 that lets authors opt in into
the more standards compliant rendering (and, if you're putting in a
modern DOCTYPE declaration, you're being opted in automatically). (...)"
What's New for CSS in [IE 7] Beta 2 Preview?
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2006/02/02/523679.aspx


My statement primarily refers to the Holly hack, which if used for IE 6,
will break the layout in IE 7 once the bugs including * html are
repaired. Please correct me if I am wrong.

--
Gus
Feb 21 '06 #37

P: n/a
"Gérard Talbot" <ne***********@gtalbot.org> wrote in message
news:46************@uni-berlin.de...
IEDesigner wrote:
<snip>
I use IE6 on WIN, the same browser that 90% of the public uses. Don't
believe me? Look at these stats pulled from several million users:
https://dongtaiwang.com/dm/uggc/jjj....gre.pbz/fgngf/

IE has a 90% market share and don't believe any misinformation to the
contrary.

I'd say IE is closer to 80% than to 90% on thecounter.com site stats
webpages.
http://www.thecounter.com/stats/


<snip>
Gérard
remove blah to email me


My link is to the counter.com (after redirect).
https://dongtaiwang.com/dm/uggc/jjj....gre.pbz/fgngf/
Here are their numbers:
Feb 2006: IE6 87% IE5 3% = 90% total
Jan 2006: IE6 86% IE5 4% = 90% total
IEDesigner

Feb 21 '06 #38

P: n/a
In article <11*************@corp.supernews.com>, IEDesigner
<IE********@notevenemail.com> wrote:
Those 10% that don't use IE will still see my sites.
Yeah, but if the layout is broken, they won't buy anything. A
badly-rendered site erodes the online customer's frail confidence. Why
would they buy from someone who can't even make something as simple as
a web site work properly?
In your world IE is losing ground, in the world at large it's 90% IMO
and in the opinion of everyone I talk to.


My world is the world at large. Everyone's experience is variable, no
exception.

And opinion matters little. What are the numbers on the sites you
manage?

And if your sites are not rendering properly in non-IE browsers, aren't
you DRIVING AWAY these customers, thus selecting out non-IE users from
your site stats? Your 90% figure becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.

--
Jim Royal
"Understanding is a three-edged sword"
http://JimRoyal.com
http://DigitalWind.com
Feb 21 '06 #39

P: n/a
sonnystarks wrote:

I have built a few websites and, personally, do not worry if they
are backwards compatible. With all the free browsers out there, if one
is too lazy to download one, I don't feel that is my problem.


FYI, laziness often has little to do with it. There are many reasons why
someone may not download a newer browser. For example, it may not be
feasible on a slow dial-up connection, especially if the user is paying
by the byte, or minute. Or it may require a hardware or OS upgrade
first. The latest browsers all take more system resources than they used
to. Not everyone has the latest toys.

Backwards compatibility doesn't mean a page has to look the same in
antique browsers as it does in more modern ones, either. Graceful
degradation can mean a plain unstyled page, or limited styling. The
result may not be as attractive, but is just as usable, sometimes even
more so, depending on the designer. ;)

If you are only putting together personal sites for your friends and
family, you can do whatever you like, but commercial ventures have to
consider a broader audience with more varied browsing environments.

BTW, please don't top post.
<URL:http://allmyfaqs.net/faq.pl?How_to_post>

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
Feb 21 '06 #40

P: n/a
"Jim Royal" <ji******@canada.com> wrote in message
news:210220061528469847%ji******@canada.com...
In article <11*************@corp.supernews.com>, IEDesigner
<IE********@notevenemail.com> wrote:
Those 10% that don't use IE will still see my sites.


Yeah, but if the layout is broken, they won't buy anything. A
badly-rendered site erodes the online customer's frail confidence. Why
would they buy from someone who can't even make something as simple as
a web site work properly?
In your world IE is losing ground, in the world at large it's 90% IMO
and in the opinion of everyone I talk to.


My world is the world at large. Everyone's experience is variable, no
exception.

And opinion matters little. What are the numbers on the sites you
manage?

And if your sites are not rendering properly in non-IE browsers, aren't
you DRIVING AWAY these customers, thus selecting out non-IE users from
your site stats? Your 90% figure becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.
--
Jim Royal


So your experience is different. Mine is that 90% of all people use IE. Here
are more numbers to support this from thecounter:
https://dongtaiwang.com/dm/uggc/jjj....gre.pbz/fgngf/

You proceed from a false assumption. I'm not driving anybody away. Visitors
to my sites can see them with little or no difficulty with most modern
browsers. Only in this NG are there any worries about losing visitors
because of browser choice. Possibly this is because people here assume that
they will have to make their sites 100% compatible with every browser ever
made. If they enjoy this sort of thing that's fine by me but as I said
before the rest of the world could care less, they're using IE.
IEDesigner
Feb 21 '06 #41

P: n/a
IEDesigner wrote:

If they're using a PC it came with IE preconfigured and can't be
uninstalled so they can always fall back to it if need be.


Why would I want to use such an inferior browser? It is woefully
feature-poor compared to my regular browser. Heck, it won't even let me
set a decent default text size. I can't bear to use it, except for
testing web sites. I usually end up cursing at it then, too. :)

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
Feb 21 '06 #42

P: n/a
"kchayka" <us****@c-net.us> wrote in message
news:46************@individual.net...
sonnystarks wrote:

I have built a few websites and, personally, do not worry if they
are backwards compatible. With all the free browsers out there, if one
is too lazy to download one, I don't feel that is my problem.


FYI, laziness often has little to do with it. There are many reasons why
someone may not download a newer browser. For example, it may not be
feasible on a slow dial-up connection, especially if the user is paying
by the byte, or minute. Or it may require a hardware or OS upgrade
first. The latest browsers all take more system resources than they used
to. Not everyone has the latest toys.

Backwards compatibility doesn't mean a page has to look the same in
antique browsers as it does in more modern ones, either. Graceful
degradation can mean a plain unstyled page, or limited styling. The
result may not be as attractive, but is just as usable, sometimes even
more so, depending on the designer. ;)

If you are only putting together personal sites for your friends and
family, you can do whatever you like, but commercial ventures have to
consider a broader audience with more varied browsing environments.
--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.


This is rubbish. With a (free?) download manager you can download large
files even on dial-up so there's no reason why anybody can't download a
newer browser. How many people have you met who are paying for their
connection by the byte or by the minute? I've never met any. And if they are
I seriously doubt they're making many (if any) purchases online. I will
concede that a few people in rural areas might have to pay for a long
distance phone call to connect but that's it. And I can't think of any WIN
OS where the browser can't be upgraded unless it's WIN95 or earlier. You
must be referring to people using 486DX's on a 14.4K modem. And if they are
using an outdated computer there's very little chance that they can afford
to by anything online. Total rubbish.
IEDesigner
Feb 21 '06 #43

P: n/a
"IEDesigner" <IE********@notevenemail.com> wrote:
My link is to the counter.com (after redirect).
https://dongtaiwang.com/dm/uggc/jjj....gre.pbz/fgngf/


Why the redirect? Why redirect via some dodgy looking URL (and why via
a secure server?) instead of linking directly?

Steve
--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
Feb 21 '06 #44

P: n/a
"kchayka" <us****@c-net.us> wrote in message
news:46************@individual.net...
IEDesigner wrote:

If they're using a PC it came with IE preconfigured and can't be
uninstalled so they can always fall back to it if need be.


Why would I want to use such an inferior browser? It is woefully
feature-poor compared to my regular browser. Heck, it won't even let me
set a decent default text size. I can't bear to use it, except for
testing web sites. I usually end up cursing at it then, too. :)

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.


Groans! :)
PS: You can set a default size text in IE (not that YOU would ever want
too).
IEDesigner
Feb 21 '06 #45

P: n/a
"Steve Pugh" <st***@pugh.net> wrote in message
news:kn********************************@4ax.com...
"IEDesigner" <IE********@notevenemail.com> wrote:
My link is to the counter.com (after redirect).
https://dongtaiwang.com/dm/uggc/jjj....gre.pbz/fgngf/


Why the redirect? Why redirect via some dodgy looking URL (and why via
a secure server?) instead of linking directly?

Steve
--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>


Possible because I use a hosts file. But this link works for me.
IEDesigner
Feb 21 '06 #46

P: n/a
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:29:20 -0600, "IEDesigner"
<IE********@notevenemail.com> wrote:
How many people have you met who are paying for their
connection by the byte or by the minute? I've never met any.


Thank you for providing the conclusive proof that you are completely
clueless. The majority of the world's Internet users still use dial-up
connections, but you are entirely happy to ignore them completely.

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/
Feb 22 '06 #47

P: n/a
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 14:55:52 -0600, IEDesigner wrote:
Here are more numbers to support this from thecounter:
https://dongtaiwang.com/dm/uggc/jjj....gre.pbz/fgngf/


Why do you keep posting this suspicious link? Is there a reason you
want lots of people to visit it? It claims:

Certificate issed by
E = IM*******@rMFw8.com
CN = YsmJJGEewtgNoz9JxHl
OU = Qdh2HMaNY
O = 3LzTm3mG3kJ
L = fxEoc3dj
ST = bQPHwonfx
C = tp

on befalf of:
E = IM*******@rMFw8.com
CN = YsmJJGEewtgNoz9JxHl
OU = Qdh2HMaNY
O = 3LzTm3mG3kJ
L = fxEoc3dj
ST = bQPHwonfx
C = tp

You will have to forgive me if I don't find the evidence you keep posting
compelling.

--
Ben.

Feb 22 '06 #48

P: n/a
"Stephen Poley" <sb******************@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:bk********************************@4ax.com...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:29:20 -0600, "IEDesigner"
<IE********@notevenemail.com> wrote:
How many people have you met who are paying for their
connection by the byte or by the minute? I've never met any.


Thank you for providing the conclusive proof that you are completely
clueless. The majority of the world's Internet users still use dial-up
connections, but you are entirely happy to ignore them completely.

--
Stephen Poley


When you edit out all of my previous message which by the way answered the
vague question you raised you are supposed to indicate that with the
following:

<snip>

Here is my reply again. Please turn up the knob marked "intelligence" on the
side of your head before you read it and/or jump to erroneous conclusions:

"With a (free?) download manager you can download large files even on
dial-up so there's no reason why anybody can't download a newer browser. How
many people have you met who are paying for their connection by the byte or
by the minute? I've never met any. And if they are I seriously doubt they're
making many (if any) purchases online. I will concede that a few people in
rural areas might have to pay for a long distance phone call to connect but
that's it. And I can't think of any WIN OS where the browser can't be
upgraded unless it's WIN95 or earlier. You must be referring to people using
486DX's on a 14.4K modem. And if they are using an outdated computer there's
very little chance that they can afford
to by anything online."

If you read properly you can see that I said I hadn't met anyone who pays
for their connection by the byte or by the minute and I invited the poster
to say if he knows any who do. I did not say there aren't any. Anything is
possible I suppose even people who post on Usenet without the ability to
comprehend what they read. Incidentally, I use dialup.
IEDesigner
Feb 22 '06 #49

P: n/a
"Ben Bacarisse" <be********@bsb.me.uk> wrote in message
news:pa****************************@bsb.me.uk...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 14:55:52 -0600, IEDesigner wrote:
Here are more numbers to support this from thecounter:
https://dongtaiwang.com/dm/uggc/jjj....gre.pbz/fgngf/


Why do you keep posting this suspicious link? Is there a reason you
want lots of people to visit it? It claims:

Certificate issed by
E = IM*******@rMFw8.com
CN = YsmJJGEewtgNoz9JxHl
OU = Qdh2HMaNY
O = 3LzTm3mG3kJ
L = fxEoc3dj
ST = bQPHwonfx
C = tp

on befalf of:
E = IM*******@rMFw8.com
CN = YsmJJGEewtgNoz9JxHl
OU = Qdh2HMaNY
O = 3LzTm3mG3kJ
L = fxEoc3dj
ST = bQPHwonfx
C = tp

You will have to forgive me if I don't find the evidence you keep posting
compelling.

--
Ben.


There's nothing wrong with the link. Believe what you will. I forgive you.
IEDesigner
Feb 22 '06 #50

133 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.