469,315 Members | 1,795 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 469,315 developers. It's quick & easy.

What browsers are using to test?

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
133 6218
In our last episode,
<11*************@corp.supernews.com>,
the lovely and talented IEDesigner
broadcast on comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
There's nothing wrong with the link.


Exactly what page is this supposed to keep stats on. I don't believe
that there are 64 hits for Netscape 1, but none for my current-release
browser.
--
Lars Eighner us****@larseighner.com http://www.larseighner.com/
"Shhh! Be vewwy, vewwy quiet! I'm hunting Muswims!"
- President Elmer Bush
Feb 22 '06 #51
In our last episode,
<11*************@corp.supernews.com>,
the lovely and talented IEDesigner
broadcast on comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
"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.


So, then, there is no excuse for people not getting a better browser
than IE.

--
Lars Eighner us****@larseighner.com http://www.larseighner.com/
"We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with
Kuwait." -- Bush's Ambassador April Glaspie, giving Saddam Hussein
the greenlight to invade Kuwait.
Feb 22 '06 #52
"Lars Eighner" <us****@larseighner.com> moaned in message
news:sl********************@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<11*************@corp.supernews.com>,
the lovely and talented IEDesigner
broadcast on comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
"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.


So, then, there is no excuse for people not getting a better browser
than IE.
--
Lars Eighner


Well there's no excuse for you that much is certain.

It appears you can't snip properly either. Pay attention and I'll show you:
<snip>
IEDesigner
Feb 22 '06 #53
"Lars Eighner" <us****@larseighner.com> moaned in message
news:sl********************@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<11*************@corp.supernews.com>,
the lovely and talented IEDesigner
broadcast on comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
There's nothing wrong with the link.


Exactly what page is this supposed to keep stats on. I don't believe
that there are 64 hits for Netscape 1, but none for my current-release
browser.
--
Lars Eighner


You use a browser? I thought you just laid hands on your monitor. Probably
works better than any browser you would call current.
IEDesigner
Feb 22 '06 #54
IEDesigner wrote:

You can set a default size text in IE
Sorry, but the choices IE gives the user are too limited.

Again, why settle for "barely adequate" when another browser has exactly
what you want?
(not that YOU would ever want too).


Huh? I most definitely *do* want to control my own default text size,
among other things.

BTW, we are seriously off-topic for this group, so I'm bailing out of
this discussion now. I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, anyway. ;)

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
Feb 23 '06 #55
IEDesigner wrote:
"Lars Eighner" <us****@larseighner.com> moaned in message
news:sl********************@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<11*************@corp.supernews.com>,
the lovely and talented IEDesigner
broadcast on comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
There's nothing wrong with the link.

Exactly what page is this supposed to keep stats on. I don't believe
that there are 64 hits for Netscape 1, but none for my current-release
browser.
--
Lars Eighner


You use a browser? I thought you just laid hands on your monitor. Probably
works better than any browser you would call current.
IEDesigner


Sigh. Ok, someone please tell me why we are still reading and replying
to this person? Some dose of nonsense is sometimes fun but, geez, after
a while, even that gets old. As has this. I hope it lives in a state
with liberal gun laws. I know I do. Someone, please, either shoot him
or shoot me. This is untenable.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net
Feb 23 '06 #56
Dan

IEDesigner wrote:
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.


Recent stats for some of my sites:

http://mailformat.dan.info/
39.65% of accesses are from Gecko-based (Mozilla) browsers.
40.54% of accesses are from MSIE-based browsers.

http://webtips.dan.info/
35.42% of accesses are from Gecko-based (Mozilla) browsers.
42.50% of accesses are from MSIE-based browsers.

http://domains.dan.info/
19.58% of accesses are from Gecko-based (Mozilla) browsers.
34.16% of accesses are from MSIE-based browsers.
(for some reason, that site had an unusually large number of recent
hits from spiders such as Googlebot, which fell in the "other" category
of non-IE and non-Gecko)

--
Dan

Feb 23 '06 #57
I am having a similar dilemma. I have a website under construction at:
http://www.websitesamples.j-starks.com/test/

This site uses no deprecated tags and is linked to an external
stylesheet. Looks great in IE but Firefox is somewhat distorted and
Opera leaves out background image.

What's the point of following the CSS rules if only one browser
displays the page correctly?

Please "view source" and tell me what I can do to make it compatible
with at least 2 of the three browsers.

Feb 23 '06 #58

sonnystarks wrote:
I am having a similar dilemma. I have a website under construction at:
http://www.websitesamples.j-starks.com/test/

This site uses no deprecated tags and is linked to an external
stylesheet. Looks great in IE but Firefox is somewhat distorted and
Opera leaves out background image.

What's the point of following the CSS rules if only one browser
displays the page correctly?

Please "view source" and tell me what I can do to make it compatible
with at least 2 of the three browsers.


Fix the errors in your HTML:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...arks.com/test/

Then look at your CSS:
http://www.websitesamples.j-starks.c...t/stylesht.css

Background-image : url("E:/Website HTML
Projects/Quilting/images/bgrng.jpg");

I don't have an E drive and I certainly don't have any directories with
those names on it. So that image can never be displayed in my browsers.
I doubt it can be displayed in any browsers except the ones on your own
computer.

And why do you have an HTML tag in your CSS file:
<img src="file:///C|/Documents and Settings/Sonny/Desktop/Mom's
Pool/21ft.jpg" width="432" height="323" border="0" align="left">

The extra bullet point in FireFox is because you've told the browsers
to treat the whole list <ul class="ulc"> as a list-item (i.e. display
the same as an <li>)
..ulc { Display : list-item;
FireFox is actually applying your styles more accurately than IE.
Steve

Feb 23 '06 #59
"Dan" <da*@tobias.name> wrote in message
news:11*********************@i40g2000cwc.googlegro ups.com...

IEDesigner wrote:
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.


Recent stats for some of my sites:

http://mailformat.dan.info/
39.65% of accesses are from Gecko-based (Mozilla) browsers.
40.54% of accesses are from MSIE-based browsers.

http://webtips.dan.info/
35.42% of accesses are from Gecko-based (Mozilla) browsers.
42.50% of accesses are from MSIE-based browsers.

http://domains.dan.info/
19.58% of accesses are from Gecko-based (Mozilla) browsers.
34.16% of accesses are from MSIE-based browsers.
(for some reason, that site had an unusually large number of recent
hits from spiders such as Googlebot, which fell in the "other" category
of non-IE and non-Gecko)

--
Dan


You probably (almost certainly?) attract visitors who's taste in browsers is
similar to yours. The stats I referred to don't suffer from such skewing.
IEDesigner
Feb 23 '06 #60
"kchayka" <us****@c-net.us> wrote in message
news:46************@individual.net...
IEDesigner wrote:

You can set a default size text in IE


Sorry, but the choices IE gives the user are too limited.

Again, why settle for "barely adequate" when another browser has exactly
what you want?
(not that YOU would ever want too).


Huh? I most definitely *do* want to control my own default text size,
among other things.

BTW, we are seriously off-topic for this group, so I'm bailing out of
this discussion now. I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, anyway. ;)

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


You are in error. I meant that you would have no interest in using IE but I
think you know that.
IEDesigner
Feb 23 '06 #61
"Ed Mullen" <ed@edmullen.net> wrote in message
news:z-********************@comcast.com...
IEDesigner wrote:
"Lars Eighner" <us****@larseighner.com> moaned in message
news:sl********************@goodwill.io.com...
In our last episode,
<11*************@corp.supernews.com>,
the lovely and talented IEDesigner
broadcast on comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:

There's nothing wrong with the link.
Exactly what page is this supposed to keep stats on. I don't believe
that there are 64 hits for Netscape 1, but none for my current-release
browser.
--
Lars Eighner


You use a browser? I thought you just laid hands on your monitor. Probably works better than any browser you would call current.
IEDesigner


Sigh. Ok, someone please tell me why we are still reading and replying
to this person? Some dose of nonsense is sometimes fun but, geez, after
a while, even that gets old. As has this. I hope it lives in a state
with liberal gun laws. I know I do. Someone, please, either shoot him
or shoot me. This is untenable.
--
Ed Mullen


It's not untenable it's Usenet. Perhaps you would be happier somewhere else.
IEDesigner

PS: Luckily for you I have a sense of humor otherwise I would report your
threat to my local police department. As they say "Don't let your elephant
mouth overload your parakeet ass".
Feb 23 '06 #62
Ed Mullen wrote :
IEDesigner wrote:


[snipped]
You use a browser? I thought you just laid hands on your monitor.
Probably
works better than any browser you would call current.
IEDesigner


Sigh. Ok, someone please tell me why we are still reading and replying
to this person? Some dose of nonsense is sometimes fun but, geez, after
a while, even that gets old. As has this. I hope it lives in a state
with liberal gun laws. I know I do. Someone, please, either shoot him
or shoot me. This is untenable.


Personal attacks, bashing and ad hominem arguements have no place in
newsgroups.

But, on the other hand, we should welcome rational discussions on
complying with web standards when making webpages. As long as a wide
majority of webpages do not comply with web standards and/or use
proprietary DOM or proprietary markup code, then such discussion is
welcomed and makes sense.

HTML was thought and designed to be browser-independent,
device-independent, media-independent, just like, say, Rich-Text-Format
language. HTML is a language used to describe the structure of a
document. Browser bugs, browser support for HTML/CSS/DOM and incorrect
browser implementations of properties/attributes/methods are things
which are being addressed by all major browser manufacturers, including
Microsoft.

The arguments brought by IEDesigner are still mostly based on stats,
therefore rather fragile.

Gérard
--
remove blah to email me
Feb 25 '06 #63
IEDesigner wrote :
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.
This is interesting. Since January 1st 2006, New-Zealand government
passed an accessibility law that requires that a website still be
accessible to 9.6K modem. Personally, I think such law makes a lot of
sense.
There are more and more small web-aware devices or web applications with
limited bandwidth being created these days.
And if they are
using an outdated computer there's very little chance that they can afford
to by anything online. Total rubbish.
IEDesigner


Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows 2000 users will not be able to upgrade
their browser to IE 7: that's an official commitment from Microsoft.
Now, what do you propose that these users which will be representing
from 10% to 40% of the web in the next 5 years do in terms of privacy,
security, usability features that IE 7 will offer but that they won't be
able to have in IE 6? They'll either have to switch to browsers like
Firefox, Opera or upgrade their os. There won't be much other choice.
If they choose to switch browsers, then in my opinion, they'll make a
much better choice since Firefox 1.5 and Opera 8.52 are currently better
browsers than IE 7 beta 2.

Gérard
--
remove blah to email me
Feb 25 '06 #64
IEDesigner wrote :
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


I'd personally go with iso-HTML (iso 15445) instead of ascii.

In the last 8 years (basically the whole web history as we know it),
each and all new browser releases, all new browser versions that have
been released have all been more compliant with W3C web standards than
the ones before. Each and all main browser manufacturers (and minor ones
like, say, Icab, Dillo, etc.) have all renewed their commitment, loud
and clear, to support and implement W3C web standards. Why should we
assume and conclude that new/future browsers and/or new browser releases
will not be *_more_* compliant to W3C web standards than previous
browser releases? (3) Therefore why should we conclude that writing
according to W3C web standards (HTML 4.01, CSS 2.1, DOM 2) is not
future-proof, forward-compatible, is not the most sound, reliable way to
write for multiple browsers, diverse web-aware devices, different media?

(1): "I want to be clear that our intent is to build a platform that
fully complies with the appropriate web standards, in particular CSS 2 (
2.1, once it's been Recommended)." Chris Wilson, IE7 lead dev. team manager
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/07/29/445242.aspx

(2): "We have stated that IE will return to a frequent and regular
release cycle with IE7 so you can rest assured that you will not have to
wait another 5 years for the next version. We have also stated a
commitment to W3C standards and IE7 is a clear and significant step
towards delivering firstly on the key demands of web developers. Full
CSS2.1 support will however have to wait for a future release."
Dave Massy, IE manager
http://blogs.msdn.com/dmassy/archive...62.aspx#530187

(3): "When we released Internet Explorer 3.0 for Windows back in 1996,
we had the first CSS implementation out there in a mass-market web
browser. (I personally wrote the code for that support.) (...)
Additionally, with every subsequent major release of IE, we have
expanded and improved our implementation of web standards, particularly
CSS and HTML."
Chris Wilson, IE7 lead dev. team manager
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/03/09/391362.aspx

Gérard
--
remove blah to email me
Feb 25 '06 #65
Dan wrote :
http://webtips.dan.info/
35.42% of accesses are from Gecko-based (Mozilla) browsers.
42.50% of accesses are from MSIE-based browsers.


Dan, I've been linking your site from my webiste for over a year now.
http://www.gtalbot.org/NvuSection/Nv...#WebpageDesign
I admit some of your articles have helped me :)

<handshake>

Gérard
--
remove blah to email me
Feb 25 '06 #66
IEDesigner wrote :
You probably (almost certainly?) attract visitors who's taste in browsers is
similar to yours. The stats I referred to don't suffer from such skewing.
IEDesigner


Most of the "obscure" browsers, as you call them, have user agent string
spoofing capabilities which, in fact, often fool web stats. When user
agent string spoofing happens, it is "obscur" browsers which disguise
themselves as IE6 rather than the opposite. So, for sure, web stats
underestimate the number of browsers like Safari and Icab and other
"obscur" browsers.

It is widely admitted and recognized that browser trends based on
several months (span) is the most important and reliable information.
And I do claim that IE 5+ browser share is diminishing, not increasing.

Gérard
--
remove blah to email me
Feb 25 '06 #67
sonnystarks wrote :
I am having a similar dilemma. I have a website under construction at:
http://www.websitesamples.j-starks.com/test/

This site uses no deprecated tags and is linked to an external
stylesheet. Looks great in IE but Firefox is somewhat distorted and
Opera leaves out background image.

What's the point of following the CSS rules if only one browser
displays the page correctly?

Please "view source" and tell me what I can do to make it compatible
with at least 2 of the three browsers.


I checked your page
http://www.websitesamples.j-starks.c...tist%20Church/
and I must say you should first use a doctype declaration (1) and then
start checking your page with the W3C HTML validator, CSS validator and
then HTML Tidy. You also created this page with either MS-Word or
FrontPage (btw, Mso is a prefix indicating/meaning Microsoft Office),
both products are known to produce invalid (markup and CSS) code and tag
soup, that is even according to Microsoft developers themselves.

Your page uses an enormous amount of absolutely positioned elements and
relatively positioned elements for no good/recommendable reasons
whatsoever. Also there are many other CSS declarations which are
useless, unneeded.
If you're not an experienced web developer, than I suggest you stay away
from absolute positioning, relatively positioning and line-height
declarations.

"Do not specify the font-size in pt, or other absolute length units.
They render inconsistently across platforms and can't be resized by the
User Agent (e.g browser).
Use relative length units such as percent (...)"
W3C Quality Assurance tips for webmasters
Care With Font Size: Recommended Practices
Good usage of CSS's font properties
http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/font-size

(1): http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html
I recommend HTML 4.01 strict:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">

Gérard
--
remove blah to email me
Feb 25 '06 #68
IEDesigner wrote :
"Steve Pugh" <st**********@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
IEDesigner wrote:

[snipped]
In your world IE is losing
ground,
Yes. In May 2002, Onestat measured IE usage to be 96.6% worldwide. Since
then, IE has lost support.

Internet Explorer 95.3, Mozilla 0.4 (Published: June 24, 2002)
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-938784.html

Consider that, at one point, in mid-2004, *_pretty much everyone_*
(security experts, columnists) was inviting web users to use something
else than MSIE 6. Even the Computer Emergency Readiness Team, a
department of US Homeland Security:

"Internet Exploder will harm your machine
Wednesday 30 June 2004, 13:54
THE US GOVERNMENT has sent out a warning out to internet users through
its Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT), pleading users to stop
using Microsoft's Internet Explorer."
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=16922
and you can read it all and all by yourself here:
http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/713878

Why You Should Dump Internet Explorer
http://channels.lockergnome.com/news...explorer.phtml
was written by Daniel Miessle who claims

"I'm actually an MCSE and I happen to like quite a few of Microsoft's
products. Rather than lump me into the Microsoft-basher category,
consider for a moment why you use the browser you use"

Firefox usage, as measured by 5 webstats corporations around the world,
has been steadily increasing since its 1.0 release in november 2004:

http://ff.asbjorn.it/#h6

Browser Statistics at w3schools
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

"our data, collected over a five year period, clearly shows the long and
medium-term trends."

IE 5.x for Mac is no longer maintained. What do you expect these users
(representing admittedly maybe 0.5% of users worldwide) to do when they
will want to upgrade either their browser or os or both? My bet is that
they will choose either Camino 1.x or Safari 2.x or Icab 3.x. They won't
upgrade to Windows Vista.

Just hypothetically speaking, if Linux users stats increase, then we
should normally see a decrease of IE stats, shouldn't we? Now, do you
know how much Windows Vista will cost, will be priced at? I'm just
asking hypothetical questions here.

When IE 7 is released, what do you expect current Windows 98, Windows
ME, Windows 2000 users to do? They won't be able to install IE 7. So, if
they want to upgrade their browser to the same level of features
(privacy, security, speed, W3C web standards compliance/correctness,
browser extensions, etc.) of IE 7, then they'll have a choice with Opera
9.x, Firefox 1.x, Seamonkey 1.x, etc.
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.


Absolutely. We agree on this. If you visit my website, you'll see that I
honor MSIE 6 as well as I honor any HTML 4.01/CSS2.1/DOM2
compliant/CSS1-box-model compliant browsers. But then, I'm not
responsible for browsers which lack proper PNG support, good DOM 2
support, HTML 4.01 support, complete CSS 2.1 support, correct CSS1 box
model, etc..

Gérard
--
remove blah to email me
Feb 25 '06 #69
Gérard Talbot wrote:
IEDesigner wrote :
"Steve Pugh" <st**********@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
IEDesigner wrote:


[snipped]
In your world IE is losing
ground,


Yes. In May 2002, Onestat measured IE usage to be 96.6% worldwide. Since
then, IE has lost support.

Internet Explorer 95.3, Mozilla 0.4 (Published: June 24, 2002)
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-938784.html

Consider that, at one point, in mid-2004, *_pretty much everyone_*
(security experts, columnists) was inviting web users to use something
else than MSIE 6. Even the Computer Emergency Readiness Team, a
department of US Homeland Security:

"Internet Exploder will harm your machine
Wednesday 30 June 2004, 13:54
THE US GOVERNMENT has sent out a warning out to internet users through
its Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT), pleading users to stop
using Microsoft's Internet Explorer."
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=16922
and you can read it all and all by yourself here:
http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/713878

Why You Should Dump Internet Explorer
http://channels.lockergnome.com/news...explorer.phtml

was written by Daniel Miessle who claims

"I'm actually an MCSE and I happen to like quite a few of Microsoft's
products. Rather than lump me into the Microsoft-basher category,
consider for a moment why you use the browser you use"

Firefox usage, as measured by 5 webstats corporations around the world,
has been steadily increasing since its 1.0 release in november 2004:

http://ff.asbjorn.it/#h6

Browser Statistics at w3schools
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

"our data, collected over a five year period, clearly shows the long and
medium-term trends."

IE 5.x for Mac is no longer maintained. What do you expect these users
(representing admittedly maybe 0.5% of users worldwide) to do when they
will want to upgrade either their browser or os or both? My bet is that
they will choose either Camino 1.x or Safari 2.x or Icab 3.x. They won't
upgrade to Windows Vista.

Just hypothetically speaking, if Linux users stats increase, then we
should normally see a decrease of IE stats, shouldn't we? Now, do you
know how much Windows Vista will cost, will be priced at? I'm just
asking hypothetical questions here.

When IE 7 is released, what do you expect current Windows 98, Windows
ME, Windows 2000 users to do? They won't be able to install IE 7. So, if
they want to upgrade their browser to the same level of features
(privacy, security, speed, W3C web standards compliance/correctness,
browser extensions, etc.) of IE 7, then they'll have a choice with Opera
9.x, Firefox 1.x, Seamonkey 1.x, etc.
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.


Absolutely. We agree on this. If you visit my website, you'll see that I
honor MSIE 6 as well as I honor any HTML 4.01/CSS2.1/DOM2
compliant/CSS1-box-model compliant browsers. But then, I'm not
responsible for browsers which lack proper PNG support, good DOM 2
support, HTML 4.01 support, complete CSS 2.1 support, correct CSS1 box
model, etc..

Gérard
--
remove blah to email me

I use mosaic
Feb 26 '06 #70
Dan

Gérard Talbot wrote:
Dan, I've been linking your site from my webiste for over a year now.
I admit some of your articles have helped me :)


Thanks... glad you like it!

--
Dan

Feb 26 '06 #71
VK
Ge'rard Talbot wrote:
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.

Absolutely. And as you already noticed it is highly dependent on what
server stats are we looking at.

If say it's some Sally's Flowers Online (bogus business name) in San
Francisco when you lucky to get 1% of something besides IE 6.0

ACME, Inc. in the same city may give you up to 10% - or the same 1% -
depending on the business type.

Further to East variety arises but not dramatically - and again highly
dependant on the content type.

Europe gives you some increase of alternative UA's especially in
Germany (because Netscape promotion was / is nearly state politics
there).

Obscure "new Europe" and Russia are not studied yet well, but seems to
keep the variety increase trend.

China - after they really started with anti-piracy - is moving to Linux
(thus Firefox) so quickly that Microsoft is in worry and making their
"Windows for poors" which seems to be ignored though (and no surprise).

Japan is traditionally high on Macintosh, so a lot of Safary of last
versions should be expected.

Again: everything is highly relative.
Absolutely. We agree on this. If you visit my website, you'll see that I
honor MSIE 6 as well as I honor any HTML 4.01/CSS2.1/DOM2
compliant/CSS1-box-model compliant browsers. But then, I'm not
responsible for browsers which lack proper PNG support, good DOM 2
support, HTML 4.01 support, complete CSS 2.1 support, correct CSS1 box
model, etc..


Right, right and right again. The browser market needs a good cleanup
this year. After the Netscape defeat in The Browser Wars we've got way
too many of what I call "pity parasites". Way too many sloppy or
"alternatively thinking" (besides being sloppy) browsers got in the
warm niche under the slogan "Support us or it will be a Micro$oft
world". OK, we've supported them for how many years? 6? 7? 8? It is the
time to ask for some results. The reason "I'm existing so I have to be
supported" doesn't go anymore IMHO.
There was a whole army of developers right after The Browser Wars who
spent 3-4 years continuosly day-by-day making incompatible (often
intentionally incompatible) things to work together. So they kept doing
it automatically for a while even after that Netscape (do not mix whith
this netscape) was gone - even without financial stimulus. Overall it
was great because I see this as the only (or at least the main) reason
why Opera and Mozilla Project could survive in the in-between time.
But now there is W3C way and Microsoft way (not totally opposite, not
at all). There is Mozilla Foundation and Internet Explorer. i) So
please shoose either side and be at least as good. ii) You want to
start a 3rd way - you are welcome. Glad to support you - after you
accomplish the stage i) - and then start to be better than they are.
Until then do not bother me.

To OP's question:

My test list:

Internet Explorer 5.5 or higher under Windows 98 SE or higher *
Firefox 1.5 or higher for all supported platforms *
Camino 1.0 or higher for Mac OS X 10.0.2 or higher **
Opera 8.5 or higher for all supported platform ***

Any other browsers are out of my support or interest. Their users have
to choose from the list above.
Any older versions are out of my support or interest. Their users have
finally to find 10 minutes to make free upgrade of their current
browser.

* In the reality I test only under Windows 98 SE and Windows XP SP1,
but if something reported for other platform I'm trying to fix it.
** I don't have Mac OS X test machine but always glad to correct
something if reported.
*** Opera is really a "personality addon" here because this browser
stays on the border line of presence, especially in the US. I just like
this browser as being the first one who introduced the very idea of the
"3rd path" - when there was nothing but NN 4 and IE 4. So let's us say
this way: I support it as long as its support doesn't require a
significant solution change.

Feb 26 '06 #72
VK
Ge'rard Talbot wrote:
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.

Absolutely. And as you already noticed it is highly dependent on what
server stats are we looking at.

If say it's some Sally's Flowers Online (bogus business name) in LA
when you are lucky to get 1% of something besides IE 6.0

ACME, Inc. in the same city may give you up to 10% - or the same 1% -
depending on the business type.

Further to East variety arises but not dramatically - and again highly
dependant on the content type.

Europe gives you some further increase of alternative UA's especially
in Germany (because Netscape promotion was / is nearly state politics
there).

Obscure "new Europe" and Russia are not studied yet well, but seems to
keep the variety increase trend.

China - after they really started with anti-piracy - is moving to Linux
(thus Firefox) so quickly that Microsoft is in worry and making their
"Windows for poors" which seems to be ignored though (and no surprise).

Japan is traditionally high on Macintosh, so a lot of Safary of last
versions should be expected.

Again: everything is highly relative.
Absolutely. We agree on this. If you visit my website, you'll see that I
honor MSIE 6 as well as I honor any HTML 4.01/CSS2.1/DOM2
compliant/CSS1-box-model compliant browsers. But then, I'm not
responsible for browsers which lack proper PNG support, good DOM 2
support, HTML 4.01 support, complete CSS 2.1 support, correct CSS1 box
model, etc..


Right, right and right again. The browser market needs a good cleanup.
After the Netscape defeat in The Browser Wars we've got way too many of
what I call "pity parasites". Way too many sloppy or "alternatively
thinking" (besides being sloppy) browsers got in the warm niche under
the slogan "Support us or it will be a Micro$oft world". OK, we've
supported them for how many years? 6? 7? 8? It is the time to ask for
some results. The reason "I'm existing so I have to be supported"
doesn't go anymore IMHO.
There was a whole army of developers right after The Browser Wars who
spent 3-4 years continuosly day-by-day making incompatible (often
intentionally incompatible) things to work together. So they kept doing
it automatically for a while even after that Netscape was gone (do not
mix whith this netscape) - even without financial stimulus. Overall it
was great because I see this as the only (or at least on the main)
reason why Opera and Mozilla Project could survive in the in-between
time.
But now there is W3C way and Microsoft way (not totally opposite - not
at all). There is Mozilla Foundation and Internet Explorer. i) So
please shoose either side and be at least as good. ii) You want to
start a 3rd way - you are welcome. Glad to support you - after you
accomplish the stage i) - and then start to be better than they are.
Until then do not bother me.

To OP's question:

My test list:

Internet Explorer 5.5 or higher under Windows 98 SE or higher *
Firefox 1.5 or higher for all supported platforms *
Camino 1.0 or higher for Mac OS X 10.0.2 or higher **
Opera 8.5 or higher for all supported platform ***

Any other browsers are out of my support or interest. Their users have
to choose from the list above.
Any older versions are out of my support or interest. Their users have
finally to find 10 minutes to make a free upgrade of their current
browser.

* In the reality I test only under Windows 98 SE and Windows XP SP1,
but if something is reported for other platform I'm trying to fix it.
** I don't have Mac OS X test machine but always glad to correct
something if reported.
*** Opera is really a "personality addon" here because this browser
stays on the border line of presence, especially in the US. I just like
this browser as being the first one who introduced the very idea of the
"3rd path" - when there was nothing but NN 4 and IE 4. So let's us say
this way: I support it as long as its support doesn't require a
significant solution change.

Feb 26 '06 #73
"Gérard Talbot" <ne***********@gtalbot.org> wrote in message
news:46************@uni-berlin.de...
IEDesigner wrote :
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.


This is interesting. Since January 1st 2006, New-Zealand government
passed an accessibility law that requires that a website still be
accessible to 9.6K modem. Personally, I think such law makes a lot of
sense.
There are more and more small web-aware devices or web applications with
limited bandwidth being created these days.
And if they are
using an outdated computer there's very little chance that they can afford to by anything online. Total rubbish.
IEDesigner


Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows 2000 users will not be able to upgrade
their browser to IE 7: that's an official commitment from Microsoft.
Now, what do you propose that these users which will be representing
from 10% to 40% of the web in the next 5 years do in terms of privacy,
security, usability features that IE 7 will offer but that they won't be
able to have in IE 6? They'll either have to switch to browsers like
Firefox, Opera or upgrade their os. There won't be much other choice.
If they choose to switch browsers, then in my opinion, they'll make a
much better choice since Firefox 1.5 and Opera 8.52 are currently better
browsers than IE 7 beta 2.

Gérard


New Zealand accessibility laws are confined to New Zealand. But even with a
9.6K modem large downloads are not impossible, just slow. In addition some
browsers are available on disk for free or for a nominal sum. I don't know
how you define "limited bandwith". There may be a market for devices with
limited bandwidth but as I see it current trends indicate that the public
wants devices with greater and greater bandwidth but that might not be the
case where you live. I didn't find anything on the MS site about using IE7
on WIN OS's prior to XP. In any event I did not specify IE7. Only
Nostradamus would make predictions about what might happen in the next five
years. I respect your right to voice an opinion about what you consider to
be a better browser. To be clear, I have only ever said that IE is the most
widely used browser.
IEDesigner
Feb 27 '06 #74
"Gérard Talbot" <ne***********@gtalbot.org> wrote in message
news:46************@uni-berlin.de...
IEDesigner wrote :
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
I'd personally go with iso-HTML (iso 15445) instead of ascii.

In the last 8 years (basically the whole web history as we know it),
each and all new browser releases, all new browser versions that have
been released have all been more compliant with W3C web standards than
the ones before. Each and all main browser manufacturers (and minor ones
like, say, Icab, Dillo, etc.) have all renewed their commitment, loud
and clear, to support and implement W3C web standards. Why should we
assume and conclude that new/future browsers and/or new browser releases
will not be *_more_* compliant to W3C web standards than previous
browser releases? (3) Therefore why should we conclude that writing
according to W3C web standards (HTML 4.01, CSS 2.1, DOM 2) is not
future-proof, forward-compatible, is not the most sound, reliable way to
write for multiple browsers, diverse web-aware devices, different media?

(1): "I want to be clear that our intent is to build a platform that
fully complies with the appropriate web standards, in particular CSS 2 (
2.1, once it's been Recommended)." Chris Wilson, IE7 lead dev. team

manager http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/07/29/445242.aspx

(2): "We have stated that IE will return to a frequent and regular
release cycle with IE7 so you can rest assured that you will not have to
wait another 5 years for the next version. We have also stated a
commitment to W3C standards and IE7 is a clear and significant step
towards delivering firstly on the key demands of web developers. Full
CSS2.1 support will however have to wait for a future release."
Dave Massy, IE manager
http://blogs.msdn.com/dmassy/archive...62.aspx#530187

(3): "When we released Internet Explorer 3.0 for Windows back in 1996,
we had the first CSS implementation out there in a mass-market web
browser. (I personally wrote the code for that support.) (...)
Additionally, with every subsequent major release of IE, we have
expanded and improved our implementation of web standards, particularly
CSS and HTML."
Chris Wilson, IE7 lead dev. team manager
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/03/09/391362.aspx

Gérard


The future can be described in one word "maybe". You have your
interpretation of the future and I have mine.
IEDesigner
Feb 27 '06 #75
"Gérard Talbot" <ne***********@gtalbot.org> wrote in message
news:46************@uni-berlin.de...
Ed Mullen wrote :
IEDesigner wrote:


[snipped]
You use a browser? I thought you just laid hands on your monitor.
Probably
works better than any browser you would call current.
IEDesigner


Sigh. Ok, someone please tell me why we are still reading and replying
to this person? Some dose of nonsense is sometimes fun but, geez, after
a while, even that gets old. As has this. I hope it lives in a state
with liberal gun laws. I know I do. Someone, please, either shoot him
or shoot me. This is untenable.


Personal attacks, bashing and ad hominem arguements have no place in
newsgroups.

But, on the other hand, we should welcome rational discussions on
complying with web standards when making webpages. As long as a wide
majority of webpages do not comply with web standards and/or use
proprietary DOM or proprietary markup code, then such discussion is
welcomed and makes sense.

HTML was thought and designed to be browser-independent,
device-independent, media-independent, just like, say, Rich-Text-Format
language. HTML is a language used to describe the structure of a
document. Browser bugs, browser support for HTML/CSS/DOM and incorrect
browser implementations of properties/attributes/methods are things
which are being addressed by all major browser manufacturers, including
Microsoft.

The arguments brought by IEDesigner are still mostly based on stats,
therefore rather fragile.

Gérard


No joking around for you hey? Thank you for acknowledging the stats I
referred too.
IEDesigner
Feb 27 '06 #76
"Gérard Talbot" <ne***********@gtalbot.org> wrote in message
news:46************@uni-berlin.de...
IEDesigner wrote :
You probably (almost certainly?) attract visitors who's taste in browsers is similar to yours. The stats I referred to don't suffer from such skewing. IEDesigner


Most of the "obscure" browsers, as you call them, have user agent string
spoofing capabilities which, in fact, often fool web stats. When user
agent string spoofing happens, it is "obscur" browsers which disguise
themselves as IE6 rather than the opposite. So, for sure, web stats
underestimate the number of browsers like Safari and Icab and other
"obscur" browsers.

It is widely admitted and recognized that browser trends based on
several months (span) is the most important and reliable information.
And I do claim that IE 5+ browser share is diminishing, not increasing.

Gérard


Is it a spoof that all PC's with WIN have IE preinstalled? The stats I see
do not agree with your assumptions about market share:
https://dongtaiwang.com/dm/uggc/jjj....gre.pbz/fgngf/
IEDesigner
Feb 27 '06 #77
"Gérard Talbot" <ne***********@gtalbot.org> wrote in message
news:46************@uni-berlin.de...

<snip>
Internet Explorer 95.3, Mozilla 0.4 (Published: June 24, 2002)
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-938784.html
<snip>
"Internet Exploder will harm your machine
Wednesday 30 June 2004, 13:54
THE US GOVERNMENT has sent out a warning out to internet users through
its Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT), pleading users to stop
using Microsoft's Internet Explorer."
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=16922
and you can read it all and all by yourself here:
http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/713878

Why You Should Dump Internet Explorer
http://channels.lockergnome.com/news...explorer.phtml was written by Daniel Miessle who claims
"I'm actually an MCSE and I happen to like quite a few of Microsoft's
products. Rather than lump me into the Microsoft-basher category,
consider for a moment why you use the browser you use"

Firefox usage, as measured by 5 webstats corporations around the world,
has been steadily increasing since its 1.0 release in november 2004:
http://ff.asbjorn.it/#h6

Browser Statistics at w3schools
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
<snip>
When IE 7 is released, what do you expect current Windows 98, Windows
ME, Windows 2000 users to do? They won't be able to install IE 7. So, if
they want to upgrade their browser to the same level of features
(privacy, security, speed, W3C web standards compliance/correctness,
browser extensions, etc.) of IE 7, then they'll have a choice with Opera
9.x, Firefox 1.x, Seamonkey 1.x, etc.
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.


Absolutely. We agree on this. If you visit my website, you'll see that I
honor MSIE 6 as well as I honor any HTML 4.01/CSS2.1/DOM2
compliant/CSS1-box-model compliant browsers. But then, I'm not
responsible for browsers which lack proper PNG support, good DOM 2
support, HTML 4.01 support, complete CSS 2.1 support, correct CSS1 box
model, etc..

Gérard


My name is not Nostradamus so I have no idea how much such and such OS will
cost. Pose real questions and I might answer them. If my name were
Nostradamus I would predict that if any other browser even comes close
equaling IE market share it will have just as many attacks launched on it.
The stats you reference reflect the preference of visitors who are
interested in browsers other than IE. My stats come from here:
https://dongtaiwang.com/dm/uggc/jjj....gre.pbz/fgngf/
IEDesigner
Feb 27 '06 #78
IEDesigner wrote :
"Gérard Talbot" <ne***********@gtalbot.org> wrote in message
news:46************@uni-berlin.de...
IEDesigner wrote :
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

I'd personally go with iso-HTML (iso 15445) instead of ascii.

In the last 8 years (basically the whole web history as we know it),
each and all new browser releases, all new browser versions that have
been released have all been more compliant with W3C web standards than
the ones before. Each and all main browser manufacturers (and minor ones
like, say, Icab, Dillo, etc.) have all renewed their commitment, loud
and clear, to support and implement W3C web standards. Why should we
assume and conclude that new/future browsers and/or new browser releases
will not be *_more_* compliant to W3C web standards than previous
browser releases? (3) Therefore why should we conclude that writing
according to W3C web standards (HTML 4.01, CSS 2.1, DOM 2) is not
future-proof, forward-compatible, is not the most sound, reliable way to
write for multiple browsers, diverse web-aware devices, different media?

(1): "I want to be clear that our intent is to build a platform that
fully complies with the appropriate web standards, in particular CSS 2 (
2.1, once it's been Recommended)." Chris Wilson, IE7 lead dev. team

manager
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/07/29/445242.aspx

(2): "We have stated that IE will return to a frequent and regular
release cycle with IE7 so you can rest assured that you will not have to
wait another 5 years for the next version. We have also stated a
commitment to W3C standards and IE7 is a clear and significant step
towards delivering firstly on the key demands of web developers. Full
CSS2.1 support will however have to wait for a future release."
Dave Massy, IE manager
http://blogs.msdn.com/dmassy/archive...62.aspx#530187

(3): "When we released Internet Explorer 3.0 for Windows back in 1996,
we had the first CSS implementation out there in a mass-market web
browser. (I personally wrote the code for that support.) (...)
Additionally, with every subsequent major release of IE, we have
expanded and improved our implementation of web standards, particularly
CSS and HTML."
Chris Wilson, IE7 lead dev. team manager
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/03/09/391362.aspx

Gérard


The future can be described in one word "maybe". You have your
interpretation of the future and I have mine.
IEDesigner


I did not interpret the quotes from D. Massy and C. Wilson.

The past behavior of all subsequent browser releases from major and
minor browser manufacturers in the last 8 years regarding web standards
support and web standards compliance/conformance/correctness is not an
interpretation: it's something anyone/everyone can verify and measure
reliably.
Your opinion and conclusion go against such undeniable trend.

Gérard
--
remove blah to email me
Feb 27 '06 #79
IEDesigner wrote :
I didn't find anything on the MS site about using IE7
on WIN OS's prior to XP. In any event I did not specify IE7.


I am saying that IE7 will NOT be available for Windows 98, Windows ME
and Windows 2000 users. Those users will have to upgrade their browsers
with something else than IE7.

Gérard
--
remove blah to email me
Feb 27 '06 #80
IEDesigner wrote :
"Gérard Talbot" <ne***********@gtalbot.org> wrote in message
news:46************@uni-berlin.de...

<snip>
Internet Explorer 95.3, Mozilla 0.4 (Published: June 24, 2002)
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-938784.html
<snip>
"Internet Exploder will harm your machine
Wednesday 30 June 2004, 13:54
THE US GOVERNMENT has sent out a warning out to internet users through
its Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT), pleading users to stop
using Microsoft's Internet Explorer."
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=16922
and you can read it all and all by yourself here:
http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/713878

Why You Should Dump Internet Explorer

http://channels.lockergnome.com/news...explorer.phtml
was written by Daniel Miessle who claims
"I'm actually an MCSE and I happen to like quite a few of Microsoft's
products. Rather than lump me into the Microsoft-basher category,
consider for a moment why you use the browser you use"

Firefox usage, as measured by 5 webstats corporations around the world,
has been steadily increasing since its 1.0 release in november 2004:
http://ff.asbjorn.it/#h6

Browser Statistics at w3schools
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp


<snip>
When IE 7 is released, what do you expect current Windows 98, Windows
ME, Windows 2000 users to do? They won't be able to install IE 7. So, if
they want to upgrade their browser to the same level of features
(privacy, security, speed, W3C web standards compliance/correctness,
browser extensions, etc.) of IE 7, then they'll have a choice with Opera
9.x, Firefox 1.x, Seamonkey 1.x, etc.
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.

Absolutely. We agree on this. If you visit my website, you'll see that I
honor MSIE 6 as well as I honor any HTML 4.01/CSS2.1/DOM2
compliant/CSS1-box-model compliant browsers. But then, I'm not
responsible for browsers which lack proper PNG support, good DOM 2
support, HTML 4.01 support, complete CSS 2.1 support, correct CSS1 box
model, etc..

Gérard


My name is not Nostradamus


I don't run the Computer Emergency Readiness Team. I did not write
http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/713878

so I have no idea how much such and such OS will cost. Pose real questions and I might answer them. If my name were
Nostradamus
I don't own secunia.org. I don't run secunia.org.

I would predict that if any other browser even comes close equaling IE market share it will have just as many attacks launched on it.
Apache servers are more popular than Windows servers and they have less
known security vulnerabilities, weaknesses, flaws.

In the last 3 years, it has been measured by secunia.org that IE has had
more flaws, also more severe ones, which takes much more time to be
fixed than Firefox flaws and Opera flaws. Again, this is not an
interpretation or an opinion: it's widely admitted as a reliable trend.
Even S. Ballmer admitted publicly that Microsoft response to security
flaws was lagging, not up to par.
The stats you reference reflect the preference of visitors who are
interested in browsers other than IE.


I don't own any of these 5 webstats companies; the stats they report
have nothing to do with preferences of non-IE users.

Gérard
--
remove blah to email me
Feb 27 '06 #81
In article <12*************@corp.supernews.com>, IEDesigner
<IE********@notevenemail.com> wrote:
To be clear, I have only ever said that IE is the most
widely used browser.


To be clear, you have been quite vocal in saying that IE is the only
browser woth coding for, which is an entirely different matter.

--
Jim Royal
"Understanding is a three-edged sword"
http://JimRoyal.com
http://DigitalWind.com
Feb 27 '06 #82
In article <11*************@corp.supernews.com>,
IEDesigner <IE********@notevenemail.com> wrote:
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.


I know plenty of people who do. Many of them are overseas from the
U.S.

I also know plenty of business travelers (including me) who must
occasionally pay by the minute (or at least by the hour, but even
at that rate each minute counts). Ever tried to get online in an
airport, using the airport's wireless service?

-A
Feb 28 '06 #83
In article <7N********************@iswest.net>,
David E. Ross <no****@nowhere.not> wrote:
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.


Bad assumption. Here's one example:

In my experience, a CSS-style simple unordered list using graphical
bullets such that the bullets are left-justified properly will look
'okay' on Opera and IE but still be deeply indented in Netscape and
Firefox, which definitely isn't 'okay' if the list must occupy a
fairly narrow horizontal space. Some browsers designed to display
bullets inside a bounding box, and some display them on the outside.

-A
Feb 28 '06 #84
In article <11*************@corp.supernews.com>,
IEDesigner <IE********@notevenemail.com> 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:
Clueless. The User-agent header isn't a good indicator. Opera, for
example, identifies itself as IE by default. I have proxomitron set up
to identify my browser as IE regardless of what browser I actually use.

Also, visits to one site aren't indicative of visits to my site.
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).


It is. If you pay attention to stats like you quoted, you have blinders
on.

-A
Feb 28 '06 #85
"axlq" <ax**@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:du**********@blue.rahul.net...
In article <11*************@corp.supernews.com>,
IEDesigner <IE********@notevenemail.com> wrote:
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 posterto say if he knows any who do. I did not say there aren't any.


I know plenty of people who do. Many of them are overseas from the
U.S.

I also know plenty of business travelers (including me) who must
occasionally pay by the minute (or at least by the hour, but even
at that rate each minute counts). Ever tried to get online in an
airport, using the airport's wireless service?

-A


Point taken. But you could download a new browser when you're home. Some
browsers are also available on disc for free of for a nominal sum.
IEDesigner
Feb 28 '06 #86
"Gérard Talbot" <ne***********@gtalbot.org> wrote in message
news:46************@uni-berlin.de...
IEDesigner wrote :
I didn't find anything on the MS site about using IE7
on WIN OS's prior to XP. In any event I did not specify IE7.


I am saying that IE7 will NOT be available for Windows 98, Windows ME
and Windows 2000 users. Those users will have to upgrade their browsers
with something else than IE7.

Gérard


Whatever. You specified IE7 as a target not I. How about a link to an MS
page that says IE7 will only work with XP.
IEDesigner
Feb 28 '06 #87
"Jim Royal" <ji******@canada.com> wrote in message
news:270220061825109248%ji******@canada.com...
In article <12*************@corp.supernews.com>, IEDesigner
<IE********@notevenemail.com> wrote:
To be clear, I have only ever said that IE is the most
widely used browser.


To be clear, you have been quite vocal in saying that IE is the only
browser woth coding for, which is an entirely different matter.

--
Jim Royal


Unless memory fails I have not said those words in this thread.
IEDesigner
Feb 28 '06 #88
"Gérard Talbot" <ne***********@gtalbot.org> wrote in message
news:46************@uni-berlin.de...
IEDesigner wrote : I don't run the Computer Emergency Readiness Team. I did not write
http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/713878
<snip>
I don't own secunia.org. I don't run secunia.org.
I would predict that if any other browser even comes close
equaling IE market share it will have just as many attacks launched on
it.
Apache servers are more popular than Windows servers and they have less
known security vulnerabilities, weaknesses, flaws.

In the last 3 years, it has been measured by secunia.org that IE has had
more flaws, also more severe ones, which takes much more time to be
fixed than Firefox flaws and Opera flaws. Again, this is not an
interpretation or an opinion: it's widely admitted as a reliable trend.
Even S. Ballmer admitted publicly that Microsoft response to security
flaws was lagging, not up to par.
The stats you reference reflect the preference of visitors who are
interested in browsers other than IE.


I don't own any of these 5 webstats companies; the stats they report
have nothing to do with preferences of non-IE users.
Gérard

Pay attention. A browser is not a server. I did not say you owned those
sites. I spoke of stats and I postulated about vulnerabilities of any
browser that might reach the market share that IE currently has. I still
believe the stats you reference reflect the preference of visitors who are
interested in browsers other than IE (and you have not show evidence to the
contrary) .
IEDesigner
Feb 28 '06 #89
"axlq" <ax**@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:du**********@blue.rahul.net...
In article <11*************@corp.supernews.com>,
IEDesigner <IE********@notevenemail.com> 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:
<snip>
Also, visits to one site aren't indicative of visits to my site.
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
loveto convince you that IE is losing ground (they wish).


<snip>
-A


All PC's with WIN have IE preinstalled. That's more than enough users to
support these stats:
https://dongtaiwang.com/dm/uggc/jjj....gre.pbz/fgngf/
But If you get more than 300,000,000 visitors a month to your site then I'll
discard these stats and switch to yours.
IEDesigner
Feb 28 '06 #90
"Gérard Talbot" <ne***********@gtalbot.org> wrote in message
news:46************@uni-berlin.de...
IEDesigner wrote :


<snip>
The future can be described in one word "maybe". You have your
interpretation of the future and I have mine.
IEDesigner


I did not interpret the quotes from D. Massy and C. Wilson.

The past behavior of all subsequent browser releases from major and
minor browser manufacturers in the last 8 years regarding web standards
support and web standards compliance/conformance/correctness is not an
interpretation: it's something anyone/everyone can verify and measure
reliably.
Your opinion and conclusion go against such undeniable trend.

Gérard


Pay attention. I did not say that you made an interpretation. I said nothing
about standards. I went against nothing except your incorrect conclusions
about other browsers versus IE's market share.
IEDesigner
Feb 28 '06 #91
IEDesigner wrote:
"Gérard Talbot" <ne***********@gtalbot.org> wrote in message
news:46************@uni-berlin.de...
IEDesigner wrote :

I didn't find anything on the MS site about using IE7
on WIN OS's prior to XP. In any event I did not specify IE7.


I am saying that IE7 will NOT be available for Windows 98, Windows ME
and Windows 2000 users. Those users will have to upgrade their browsers
with something else than IE7.

Gérard

Whatever. You specified IE7 as a target not I. How about a link to an MS
page that says IE7 will only work with XP.
IEDesigner

IEDesigner,

How about http://www.microsoft.com/windows/IE/...redirect.mspx?
Read the fine print toward the bottom of the page.

Chris Beall

Feb 28 '06 #92
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).


IEDesigner,

I agree with your general assessment. The numbers may not be precise,
but the vast majority use IE.
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.
Because 10% is 10%. or 15% or whatever. By testing on the most popular
of the fringe browsers (which I would say includes Firefox, Opera,
(Safari if you can), and a text browser) you go from 85-90% coverage to
nearly 100%. It doesn't take long to do that, so why wouldn't you?

The reason I test with IE last is that I think the other browsers
provide a better development environment. Since I use them for
development, I test with them first, then make minimal accommodations
for IE. Sometimes the IE rendering is less than ideal. As long as the
content is usable, I don't worry about it if I'm working for myself. If
a paying client wants to spend money on making IE look better, that's OK
too.
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.
I agree. But the question is really only of concern to site DEVELOPERS,
not to site USERS. Just because something is of concern only to
developers doesn't mean it has no value. And the world at large may
well take note if a site doesn't work at least minimally in their
browser, whatever it is.

When I buy a stove, I'm not concerned that it will catch fire, but I do
look for the UL sticker that indicates that the designers were concerned
enough to have somebody review their design for safety considerations.
The world uses IE, they don't even know there are other browsers.
I think that's a bit overstated. Firefox seems to be coming up in
casual conversations more and more, even among the folks you list below.
Things change.

Speculation: What will happen when IE 7 comes out and all the users of
Windows 98 (I'm one) realize that:
- IE 6 is obsolete and works less well by the minute.
- They can't get IE 7 without upgrading the OS.
- Upgrading the OS costs a significant percentage of what a whole new
system would be.
- They don't want or need a whole new system.

My guess is they will ask their techno-buddies what to do and will end
up with Firefox or Opera or ????? But nobody really knows.
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


Chris Beall

Feb 28 '06 #93
IEDesigner wrote :
"Jim Royal" <ji******@canada.com> wrote in message
news:270220061825109248%ji******@canada.com...
In article <12*************@corp.supernews.com>, IEDesigner
<IE********@notevenemail.com> wrote:
To be clear, I have only ever said that IE is the most
widely used browser.

To be clear, you have been quite vocal in saying that IE is the only
browser woth coding for, which is an entirely different matter.

--
Jim Royal


Unless memory fails I have not said those words in this thread.
IEDesigner

IEDesigner, you did say
"I use IE6 on WIN, the same browser that 90% of the public uses. (...)
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?"

With an anonymous pseudonym used as a signature like you use, I'd say
you definitely claim IE is the only browser worth coding for.

Gérard
--
remove blah to email me
Feb 28 '06 #94
IEDesigner wrote :
"Gérard Talbot" <ne***********@gtalbot.org> wrote in message
news:46************@uni-berlin.de...
IEDesigner wrote :
<snip>
The future can be described in one word "maybe". You have your
interpretation of the future and I have mine.
IEDesigner

I did not interpret the quotes from D. Massy and C. Wilson.

The past behavior of all subsequent browser releases from major and
minor browser manufacturers in the last 8 years regarding web standards
support and web standards compliance/conformance/correctness is not an
interpretation: it's something anyone/everyone can verify and measure
reliably.
Your opinion and conclusion go against such undeniable trend.

Gérard


Pay attention. I did not say that you made an interpretation. I said nothing
about standards.


You did say
"this notion that standards will somehow make sites future proof is
laughable."
and you added (among several/others)
"I've got a suggestion for devotees to standards. Use plain text (...)"
That was your opinion and your conclusion.
Your opinion goes against a measurable and reliable trend regarding
browser releases in the last 8 years that anyone can verify and measure
reliably. IMO, the best policy when editing a webpage is to write
according to web standards (valid markup code, valid CSS code, strict DTD).

I went against nothing except your incorrect conclusions about other browsers versus IE's market share.
IEDesigner


We disagree on that issue but not by much :) . I think IE5+ is in the
low 80%'s (worldwide); you think IE represents 90% based only on that
unique webstats TheCounter.com. Such difference, hypothetically
speaking, can easily mean/refer to/be explained by user agent string
spoofing in secondary browsers. Icab 2+ can do that, Opera 7+ can do
that (in fact, the default value in Opera 7 was to id as IE6), Safari
can do that, Firefox can do that, lots of browser can do that. The other
way around (IE 6 disguising itself as a marginal browser is rather rare
as it is pointless).

Gérard
--
remove blah to email me
Feb 28 '06 #95
IEDesigner wrote :

[snipped]
I still
believe the stats you reference reflect the preference of visitors who are
interested in browsers other than IE (and you have not show evidence to the
contrary) .
IEDesigner


Onestat.com is a Nederland company and its stats refer to their
customers counters' (worldwide); Websidestory is US market only; XiTi is
European market only; I believe (am not sure) Webhits is European market
only.

All of these stats refer to all browsers, not just non-IE browsers. It
wouldn't make a lot of sense to gather stats only on non-IE browsers.

Gérard
--
remove blah to email me
Feb 28 '06 #96
"Gérard Talbot" <ne***********@gtalbot.org> wrote in message
news:46************@uni-berlin.de...
IEDesigner wrote :
"Jim Royal" <ji******@canada.com> wrote in message
news:270220061825109248%ji******@canada.com...
In article <12*************@corp.supernews.com>, IEDesigner
<IE********@notevenemail.com> wrote:

To be clear, I have only ever said that IE is the most
widely used browser.
To be clear, you have been quite vocal in saying that IE is the only
browser woth coding for, which is an entirely different matter.

--
Jim Royal


Unless memory fails I have not said those words in this thread.
IEDesigner

IEDesigner, you did say
"I use IE6 on WIN, the same browser that 90% of the public uses. (...)
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?"

With an anonymous pseudonym used as a signature like you use, I'd say
you definitely claim IE is the only browser worth coding for.

Gérard


Well at least you're talking too me and not arguing with yourself as you
have been in your recent posts. The OP asked about testing, hence my
statement. If you wish to test OR code for 10% of the users who don't use IE
that's your prerogative and I have no quarrel with you about that.
IEDesigner
Feb 28 '06 #97
"Chris Beall" <Ch*********@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:vZ*****************@newssvr33.news.prodigy.co m...
IEDesigner wrote:
"Gérard Talbot" <ne***********@gtalbot.org> wrote in message
news:46************@uni-berlin.de...
IEDesigner wrote :
I didn't find anything on the MS site about using IE7
on WIN OS's prior to XP. In any event I did not specify IE7.

I am saying that IE7 will NOT be available for Windows 98, Windows ME
and Windows 2000 users. Those users will have to upgrade their browsers
with something else than IE7.

Gérard

Whatever. You specified IE7 as a target not I. How about a link to an MS
page that says IE7 will only work with XP.
IEDesigner

IEDesigner,

How about http://www.microsoft.com/windows/IE/...redirect.mspx?
Read the fine print toward the bottom of the page.

Chris Beall


Point taken. But it is still in beta and nothing compels MS to stick with
that course. In any event the man in the street is using whatever came on
his machine.
IEDesigner
Feb 28 '06 #98
"Gérard Talbot" <ne***********@gtalbot.org> wrote in message
news:46************@uni-berlin.de...

<snip>
You did say
"this notion that standards will somehow make sites future proof is
laughable."
and you added (among several/others)
"I've got a suggestion for devotees to standards. Use plain text (...)"
That was your opinion and your conclusion.
Your opinion goes against a measurable and reliable trend regarding
browser releases in the last 8 years that anyone can verify and measure
reliably. IMO, the best policy when editing a webpage is to write
according to web standards (valid markup code, valid CSS code, strict DTD).
I went against nothing except your incorrect conclusions
about other browsers versus IE's market share.
IEDesigner


We disagree on that issue but not by much :) . I think IE5+ is in the
low 80%'s (worldwide); you think IE represents 90% based only on that
unique webstats TheCounter.com. Such difference, hypothetically
speaking, can easily mean/refer to/be explained by user agent string
spoofing in secondary browsers. Icab 2+ can do that, Opera 7+ can do
that (in fact, the default value in Opera 7 was to id as IE6), Safari
can do that, Firefox can do that, lots of browser can do that. The other
way around (IE 6 disguising itself as a marginal browser is rather rare
as it is pointless).

Gérard


Is it a spoof that all PC's with WIN have IE preinstalled? If MS builds IE
to comply to standards I think it's because it's convenient for them to do
so. IE still supports proprietary features and IMO it will continue to do
so. The bottom line is that if you test with IE you will satisfy 90% of the
public at large. I have no argument with those who want to test OR code for
the other 10%.
IEDesigner
Feb 28 '06 #99
"Gérard Talbot" <ne***********@gtalbot.org> wrote in message
news:46************@uni-berlin.de...
IEDesigner wrote :

[snipped]
I still
believe the stats you reference reflect the preference of visitors who are interested in browsers other than IE (and you have not show evidence to the contrary) .
IEDesigner


Onestat.com is a Nederland company and its stats refer to their
customers counters' (worldwide); Websidestory is US market only; XiTi is
European market only; I believe (am not sure) Webhits is European market
only.

All of these stats refer to all browsers, not just non-IE browsers. It
wouldn't make a lot of sense to gather stats only on non-IE browsers.

Gérard


We must agree to disagree. Still all PC's with WIN have IE preinstalled.
This supports my contention that 90% of all people use IE.
IEDesigner
Feb 28 '06 #100

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.