Should we still support older browsers? [Archive]

carbonize

09-13-2003, 07:48 AM

There is a problem which is the blight of web designers lives. The problem being people still using older browsers such as Netscape 4 and Opera 5.

So I ask you, my fellow web designers, should we worry about how are pages will look in older browsers or just be concerned with how it looks in the latest since the majority of visitors are upto date?

There is a side thought on this thread which is that since Microsoft have stopped work on Internet Explorer (allegedly) and the CSS level 2 support in IE6 is incredibly shoddy compared to the latest Mozilla and Opera engines, should we start to think of IE as a hinderance to our work? Check out http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/ in both IE6 and either Opera or Mozilla to see what I mean.

Sualdam

09-13-2003, 10:33 AM

Whilst IE still has the penetration it does, it would be sheer madness to even think about not supporting it.

On the other hand, if its penetration ever fell to the same level as some of the older or more obscure browsers then it would make perfect sense to me to stop supporting it.

I expect many 'anti-Gates' buffs will argue that we should stop supporting all IE versions immediately ;)

carbonize

09-13-2003, 12:05 PM

I'm not anti Gates but how many web pages have you come across that have looked terrible on a browser such as Mozilla because the coder only uses IE and seems unaware their are other browsers? IE is too forgiving when it comes to sloppy code. A good web designer should always check their work in several browsers. IE's popularity is not down to it being the best, nor the cheapest, nor it having the most features but down to the fact that it came supplied with the OS(Windows).

Sualdam

09-13-2003, 01:22 PM

Now, now. You did ask ;) (<-- wink means I'm joking)

Anyway, I notice someone has forced the poll so it's 50:50 again. It wasn't you, was it? ;)

I didn't say YOU were anti-Gates, nor did I say you were anything else. I just participated in your poll and made it clear that it was MY opinion I was stating.

No comment was aimed at you.

I feel that anti-Gates sentiments colour opinions much of the time.

I also feel that targeting the lowest common denominator in most cases is a bad idea - but I know others disagree with me.

I know that sites can look bad on some browsers - but my view is based on the above. In my experience people who use obscure browsers often do so because they are vehemently anti-Gates and anti-MS.

Personally - and this is strictly a personal opinion (heck. I wish I didn't have to keep emphasising that) - I have better things to do with my time than worry about such a tiny minority of people.

Again, others don't feel that way. But I do. :)

OSFan

09-13-2003, 02:47 PM

People are always going to use older, slower systems, or other operating systems, for whatever reason may be.

I personally prefer to use Linux on my desktop, with Konqueror or Mozilla Firebird as my browser. As you will probably know, most software developed for these systems appear to be contantly in beta development, and people stick to the older, stable versions. I think this problem exists with Windows, such as the fact people missed out a Netscape version cause it was full of bugs, so people was using X or Z, missing Y.

I do however use Windows more times than not, because of the software I have to use for some work. (Now if everyone would just convert to something other than Windows, I wouldn't have to worry about compatibility).

But in Windows, I prefer Mozilla Firebird because it renders fast, and accurate, and takes less resources and time to download.

This isn't because I am anti Bill Gates. But many are not willing to try new things, and while IE is built into their operating system, they will use it for the simple reasons its convenient. People don't want to spend hours downloading and trying different browsers, when in most cases they are not going to see any difference, there is however many cases where it's visible that IE has serious problems.

SyrenSong

09-13-2003, 04:22 PM

Generally speaking, I think it's important to support as many browsers as possible. But I also believe there can be extenuating circumstances for providing support for some browsers but not others.

I believe that ecommerce websites should be built so that they support as many browsers as possible. After all, what's the point in losing sales, even if it's only 5 or 6 a day? A sale is a sale, and income is income. The site owner doesn't care what browser a buyer is using. All they want to know about is the bottom line.

However, when it comes to sites that specialize in certain markets, then you have to look at who the market is and what browser(s) they're likely to use. Higher-tech companies are more likely to appeal to visitors using the most recent browsers available, therefore you can ignore older browsers a bit more safely.

If you're going to try to deal with the U.S. Federal Government, get over the whole IE compatibility thing, 'cause there are plenty of government offices that have removed the ability to surf the web with IE. They've got Netscape installed on their machines. PERIOD! If the site doesn't work in Netscape, then those folks just can't see your website.

If you're designing a site for an intranet, then you've got to design it for whatever they're using internally. If it's IE, then fine. Design for that and have fun with all the joys that Bill added to his browser. If it's Netscape, you can use all their bells and whistles and ignore IE. If it's some other browser, like Mozilla or Opera, choose your added features and design specs accordingly.

However, if you're designing a site to reach the broadest possible market, then you also need to take into account browsers like Lynx and Jaws, and design for accessibility.

There's really no simple answer to a question like this. You can't simply look at a single factor to make a decision like that. You have to look at the market you're trying to reach and make your decision from that point forward.

After all, if you don't design your site for older browsers, there's always someone else out there who will. And that's where those visitors will go to spend their money.

Just my 2-cents.

httpman

09-13-2003, 06:51 PM

Hello Carbonize

When I create a design, I try to test it in as many brower as I can. But there are so many browsers, platforms and OS !

I stopped checking with IE4 1 year ago, because I couldn't see anymore login in my stats (less than 1% of my visitors used it at that time, so it was time to stop !). Now I'm checking for IE5+ full compatibility, seems reasonable even if IE6 IS the browser today.

I also test within NS4, but I should stop. Now that the whole Netscape story is dead, Mozilla should be the way. Of course I test my websites with Mozilla also - Who could not afford to test with Mozilla ?

.. Opera.
Up to now, I have seen no relevant contact from my log files. Opera is not really used as far as I can see, and in my mind it was supposed to be an old "text only" browser. I have to update. Regarding your post and the emphasis you put on it, I will check their browser - but it seems that I have to pay for that ? !"@~@##!.

Indeed, the main issue I encountered is the Mac. Their versions are not relevant to us on PCs : IE5 on Mac is based on an IE4 core!. Well, I have some eMac here but testing so many browsers on so many platforms sometimes gets on my nerves (I was about to say : sometimes sucks me, but I'm not sure it's great english ?). And I do not really test SUN, but I experienced some issues a few months ago. Now solved.

A+

Jean-Pierre

carbonize

09-14-2003, 01:34 AM

Opera is far from a text only browser and the reason you probably don't se it in your logs is that it sends a fake IE tag by default. Also you don't have to pay for Opera, you only pay to remove the ads.

One thing that I think you need to understand is that, when all's said and done, there are only three different rendering engines in PC browsers. They are Gecko (Mozilla and Netscape), Opera, and the built in windows engine (IE and many derivatives).

As for IE on the mac you are very right. I once saw my site on a mac and it doesn't seem to like applying body background-colour to tables.

I have said before in this forum that I test all my pages on Mozilla Firebird, Opera, and IE. I occasionally ask people to test it for me in NS4, Konqueror, and on a mac.

eXaion

09-14-2003, 01:23 PM

I think that we should only support older browsers (and resolutions) only if there is a revelant number of visitors going to your site using them.

But always, there must be some sort of backward compatibility so that they could at least see some sort of information out of your site despite maybe some misplaced graphics.

If you always work with older browser or screen resolutions, web design techniques will never advance, it will hold the web designer from applying its full potential...

And then there's flash...

alex_b

09-14-2003, 07:34 PM

I guess it's more about a cost-benefit analysis. How much it costs you to support a certain browser versus how much would you loose if you don't.

And another issue is what do you mean by 'supporting'. The page either won't display, won't display the way you intended, or it will be ok. I think it should display as you intended in the most popular browsers and it should be usable in the others.

We try to stick to the standards, so we test primarily on Mozilla. At milestones we check with IE and Opera. There was very few situations when we needed to change something.

I would love to see more people stop using IE, but I'm afraid it won't happen very soon. So we have to take whatever challenges Big Bill gives us.

Sualdam

09-14-2003, 07:52 PM

...Whereas my view is that if everyone used IE there wouldn't be half the problems we have now :)

I think the original question was intended (i.e. the way I interpreted it) along the lines of 'it works in IE 5 and 6, so should I be worried about IE 4, old Netscape, Opera(?), etc.?'

It really is a difficult one to resolve, and I guess it is each to their own. After all, no matter what one person believes, there will always be a whole bunch who believe differently, and act accordingly.

carbonize

09-15-2003, 07:50 AM

If everyone used IE we'd be stuffed seeing how Microsfot have stopped work on IE. Now if everyone used a Mozilla based browser then we'd be talking.

Diana

09-15-2003, 02:13 PM

My personal opinion is content should be accessible regardless of the browser being used. The site might *look* like a dung-heap, but the information being provided should be accessible and understandable.

I test in IE5, IE6, & Mozilla. I used to test in Opera too, but have been lazy lately. Prior to my HD crash I tested in NE4 too, just for acessibility.

In the logs of all the sites I manage/own 97% of all hits are some version of IE (4 rarely, lots of 5, 5.5 & 6). The remaining hits are split between Moz/NS/Opera (sending proper info)/Mac.

Based on this I worry more about IE compatibility than other browsers, but that's what my site/client site visitors are using. I figure a lot of users are lazy or don't know how to change browsers so they use what was installed, which 9/10 times is IE

Diana

Diana

09-15-2003, 02:17 PM

On IE: I believe they only discontinued development of the Mac version of Internet Explorer...not PC development. MS would not shoot themselves in the pocket book like that...

Diana

kthulah

09-15-2003, 03:13 PM

If you're not famous already, then you need to keep your site as accessible as possible to most of your desired viewers.

If someone needs to download a plugin to view your site, you've lost them unless what you've got is something they can't get somewhere else with a higher search ranking and less of a headache.

jasidog

09-15-2003, 03:19 PM

IE is allready a hinderance and is simply a bad browser when compared to Mozilla or opera (from a users point of view) whats more it seems to make it's own standards. In my oppinion the sooner IE dissapears the better. However with it's huge share of the market sites have to be compatible with it for the forseeable future.

On the actual topic, i see no need to support outdated browsers like netscape 4 for example. There is no reason people can not upgrade these browsers.

Whats more if you make a standards based site then all your content is available to these browsers only style is not. You can even leave a hidden message visible to only browsers which cannot import the css file. Telling them why they have a basic page layout and design and urging them to upgrade.

dancedevils

09-16-2003, 02:06 PM

The Best of Both
You can in theory support both browser by adding the content for the older browsers at the top of the CSS file that supports older browsers like NS 4 then adding a more feature full design to the bottom of the file in the form of @media screen { }.

Example:

body {
background : #f90;
color : #fff;
font-size : 1em;
}
a {
background : #f90;
color : #666;
}
h1 , h2 , h3 , h4 , h5 , h6 {
color : #000;
}
img {
border : none;
}
@media screen { /* hides CSS from older browsers */
body , .siteSection {
margin : 0;
padding : 0;
}
body {
background : #f90 url(images/tocBg.gif) repeat-y fixed 0%;
font-family : "Arial", Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif;
}
h1 {
background : #666 url(images/ddTitle.gif) no-repeat;
position : absolute;
top : 0;
left : 0;
height : 57px;
width : 100%;
z-index : 1;
}

swstyles

09-16-2003, 03:45 PM

All you IE bashers need to come to grips with reality. IE is here to stay. Unfortunately MS cannot work on the PC version of IE until they get some things settled in court. I have heard that MS is developing another browser to live outside the Windows' OS.

But---

Being a programmer, I am drawn to windows for many reasons. You guys don't understand the power of IE on the PC. Windows scripting engine is probably the biggest draw for me but hardly anybody knows or uses it. With windows scripting engine, you can turn your IE browser into a mini version of MS Word. All my website administrative apps use it. When I first learned of this great tool 3 years ago, I was instantly drawn in. You can basically give your clients an html editor in their browser window without installing any special software. Your clients can then update their website from any terminal. This is one of the many reasons I prefer IE on the PC.

I own a mac and a pc. I learned on the mac so at first I was anti Gates but as I started to learn programming I became a Windows geek. I don't test in opera nor do ever care to do so. I do test in mac mozilla but do not in mac IE. I think MS hired a bunch of drunken sailor programmers to code IE for the mac. Mozilla for the pc is ok but without windows scripting engine, it seems pointless. IE and Mozilla have their differences especially when rendering CSS. I had a big problem yesterday where I had a navigation layer overlay an iframe. when your cursor was hovering over the navigation and the iframe at the same time. The navigation layer would dissapear. It worked great in IE for PC but mozilla bombed. Turns out that an IFrame in mozilla takes z-index priorty over a layer no matter what you set your z-index to. This sucks beyond belief. Just one of the many problems I have come across while trying to make my site cross browser compliant.

I prefer IE over mozilla. When these browser companies can agree to a common standard, I think the world will be a safer place for all.

dancedevils

09-16-2003, 03:49 PM

I have heard recent news that suggests that Internet Explorer is on its last legs; Mozilla Firebird being the replacement. IE seems to have collapsed now and if you have any evidance to suggest otherwise please tell me straight away.

joliettech

09-16-2003, 04:41 PM

Hello everyone,

I just have a couple questions.
First, what do you consider as older Browsers?
And second, do you have any stats as to who is using what?

According to our stats (just for our site), NO One uses Mozilla or Opera.
67% IE6
29% IE5
4% NS5
These stats are just for today, but as long as I’ve been checking the stats NS has never been above 14% and Mozilla and Opera don’t even show.

If anyone else would like to share their stats, I would like to see them.

So if you consider IE5 an older browser, yes I do think we should support it.

dancedevils

09-16-2003, 04:52 PM

Mozilla is a gecko browser which classes it as Netscape.

httpman

09-16-2003, 05:03 PM

Swstyles,

I strongly agree with you about IE. I guess you are talking about execCommand. Actually, I can't see what could take any significant marketshares over IE, exception maybe of a new product from MS ?
This browser integrates so many features, and it even corrects slight syntax errors either in CSS or Javascript.

(Only its javascript debugger is a mess for me!)

------------------

Joliettech,

What we refer as "old browsers" are - I guess - mainly versions 4 of IE & NS. Mozilla is too young to have old versions, and people using it will naturally update to the latest version (because if they use it it's because they have installed it, and not because it was preloaded on their computer).

IE 5+ is OK and the latest 6 didn't bring any significant enhancement, while NS went from 4.x to 6 w/o version 5 (what you see as NS5 in your logs is what they called version 6 at launch time).

Jean-Pierre

carbonize

09-16-2003, 05:27 PM

All you IE bashers need to come to grips with reality.
<snip>
Being a programmer, I am drawn to windows for many reasons. You guys don't understand the power of IE on the PC. Windows scripting engine is probably the biggest draw for me but hardly anybody knows or uses it.
I have come to grips with reality which is why I use Mozilla Firebird. I more than understand the power of IE and the way it ties into windows. It's because of MS's insistance on deeply embedding IE into windows that allows hackers to find exploits to delete files, execute files, grab cookie data, and more.

According to our stats (just for our site), NO One uses Mozilla or Opera.
67% IE6
29% IE5
4% NS5
These stats are just for today, but as long as I’ve been checking the stats NS has never been above 14% and Mozilla and Opera don’t even show.
Well here's my stats for July

26904 96.9% Internet Explorer
405 1.5% Netscape
258 0.9% Mozilla
121 0.4% Opera
33 0.1% Konqueror

Opera's default HTTP agent string ID's it as Internet Explorer and unless your stats script is told to look for the real ID which comes at the end of the HTTP agent string then you will see it as IE. The same with Mozilla Firebird which ID's as Netscape 6. A lot of people tell their browsers to ID as IE just because a lot of sites, such as banks and online shops, wont allow none mainstream browsers to access their site.

By older browsers I mean NS4 mainly as it's crap to be quite blunt, but also including Opera 5 and IE 4/5.

Sualdam

09-16-2003, 05:38 PM

I think joliettech has hit the nail on the head.

If you do a simple search on Google and just pick any stats sites that come up, you'll find that IE typically covers over 90% of the population. IE4 is only 2%, though.

Opera is anywhere between 0.4% and 2% depending on the survey.

Netscape is around 1% depending on the survey.

Gecko, when listed separately is around the same.

If a designer is prepared to ignore IE4, then surely he should be ready to do the same for Opera users? (Note: that's just asking the question - not judging one way or another).

IE5 comes in at around 40%, so it perhaps wouldn't be wise to ignore that.

Now, I haven't seen any techie sites stats for browsers recently, but I do know that they show up a big difference. On screen resolution, whilst the stats above report 800x600 to be most prevalent (though only just), some techie sites report much higher resolutions as prominent.

So it shouldn't come as a surprise to learn that, for example, using the 'I hate Bill Gates and everything to do with Microsoft' web site hits as a measure of visitor stats, will show IE in a bad light. It'll probably be a readable site, being all in text for compatibility, of course, but you get the idea :)

Joking aside, measured stats are usually pretty reliable indicators of what is happening as long as you know whether they are skewed or not, and what the sample size is. The examples I used above were based on polls of up to 3 million visitors. The silly example I just gave would be seriously skewed and no matter what your politics you couldn't argue that is represented a normal cross-section of visitors.

And finally, if the measured visitors to your site is not an accurate indicator, we may as well all give up and go home now. You simply can't argue with facts like that.

dancedevils

09-16-2003, 05:38 PM

Mine can be seen here, note this is acurate proof (about my site stats):
http://www.nedstatbasic.net/s?tab=1&link=5&id=2307669

swstyles

09-16-2003, 05:43 PM

I wonder why hackers hack MS products.

Maybe because the products are so successful.

IE on Windows does takes advantage of the OS which makes it more powerful than any other browser. I see this as a plus, not a negative. Every straight guy in the highschool wants to have sex with the prom queen. Similiar scenario here, let's find the flaws and screw Bill Gates. MS gave programmers the tools to create quick applications for IE utilizing the OS. With all the benefits come all the drawbacks. Whenever a flaw is discover, MS is quick to patch it. It's only a big deal because most of world is using MS products.

Shouldn't that hint something. IE is the dominant browser out there and will stay that way until MS comes out with a replacement or people stop buying PC's with windows preinstalled.

As far as being browser compatible, I don't go farther back than IE 5.1 for the PC and I just tear up when I see my sites on IE 5.1 for the mac. I ocassionaly look at mozilla if I am building an ecommerce site. Ecommerce sites have to be as browser compatible as possible. A simple javascript helps. Tell your visitor to update. Give them links to all the browser, let them make the choice.

Sualdam

09-16-2003, 05:43 PM

That's useful, dancedevils. It actually agrees almost perfectly with the ones I found quickly on Google - especially the IE total of 93%.

Is Mozilla effectively 'all others' in your stats?

<and Carbonize, too - missed those. They're all in general agreement.>

swstyles

09-16-2003, 05:52 PM

Here are the stats of client of mine for last week.

reqs: browser
-----: -------
23011: MSIE
730: Netscape
622: Netscape (compatible)
119: ia_archiver
88: http:
63: Scooter
50: Zeus 2.6
41: WebTV
38: FAST-WebCrawler
22: Googlebot
21: NPBot (http:
14: Eudora
13: sitecheck.internetseer.com (For more info see: http:
2: NSPlayer
1: Microsoft Data Access Internet Publishing Provider Cache Manager
1: webcollage
1: SurveyBot
1: LWP::Simple
1: Moozilla

carbonize

09-16-2003, 06:29 PM

I wonder why hackers hack MS products.

Maybe because the products are so successful.

For the same reason the people that write viruses write them for Windows. Windows is the most used OS and worm writers want publicity. Hackers look for exploits in IE because it is the most common, and exploitable, browser. Internet Explorer is not successful. IE is the most used browser as it comes packaged with the OS and most people are unaware that their are other browsers to choose from. If Windows didn't come with IE as standard and you had to get your own browser do you think IE would still have the user base it currently enjoys? In my opinion, and I'm sure many will agree, the answer would be a resounding NO.

swstyles

09-16-2003, 06:52 PM

I was an avid netscape user starting with version 2.0 back in '96 on a Macintosh. I hated Windows 3.0, it sucked in my opinion. Internet Explorer wreaked on windows. I loved using netscape. Apple should have backed netscape. Anyway, the browser war began. Netscape was on the verge of bankruptcy I think and the PC boom began. Windows was on almost all of those machines. Back then if you asked a typical Windows user what was Netscap? The answer would have been, "I dunno know, are you speaking French."

The answer is probably the same today. I asked my mom if she ever heard of mozilla. She thought I was talking about godzilla. I asked her if she has ever heard of Netscape and I got a blank stare in return. She knew what IE meant as do most PC users. Netscape lost the browser war. If microsoft loses its battle in court, they will probably develop a browser better than mozilla and it will probabl come pre installed with windows and it will probably still be titled "Internet Explorer".

Sualdam

09-16-2003, 07:05 PM

I agree with everything you said.

Don't you think, though, that the future based on what we currently have is likely to be easier on the majority of users (not programmers/designers) if we evolve naturally (with IE currently predominant) rather than force the issue (dump IE at all costs)?

We can't change the past, but is it in the core interest to manipulate the future as a direct alternative to that?

httpman

09-16-2003, 07:06 PM

Until this post, I was living in a dreamy world. IE5+, NS4+ and Mozilla, all my scripts were working.

Of course IE is the only one I test when I am short of time, but I like to test and make my sites as compatible as possible with NS and Mozilla; After all, by doing so I give to my visitors the freedom to use their favourite browser, and this is an additional spark of freedom on the web, no ? So I felt good.

Then Carbonize came, and I though I should have a look at Opera. I did. And I must say this navigator has impressive build-in functions, like the "zoom" capacity for example or the skins. Some could fall in love with it, I guess.

But the point is that I have to adapt some pieces of javascript, like my dropdown menus management, cause it does not work at 100% in Opera 7!...

Aaaahh, Carbonize !....

Jean-Pierre

swstyles

09-16-2003, 07:17 PM

I don't fault the other browsers. I think competition is great. It's just that the majority of people using non IE browsers are mac users and the web design community. Programmers are probably another group that use non IE browsers but my experience has been that most people just use what comes out of the box. They don't update unless you use a cattle prod on them. I make it a habit to visit all my local relatives and make sure they are up to date on the browsers they use. Almost all of them are using IE unless their ISP has a proprietary browser in which case I tell them to login then open IE. I just wish the powers that be from all browser developers would get on the same page. Instead they all try to out do one another and its us that suffer.

I developed a site a ago that had to work on netscape 4.7. At the time before we launched the redesign, the site had 2.3% netscape 4.7 visitors. now its like non existant. If we all as developers put little reminders on all our websites albeit a javascript warning to upgrade, then we can help drag our users into the next browser age.

carbonize

09-16-2003, 07:39 PM

If we all as developers put little reminders on all our websites albeit a javascript warning to upgrade, then we can help drag our users into the next browser age.
I prefer the idea someone put forward of placing a span or a div on our pages containing the message "This site is best viewed on an upto date browser" or some such message. The we use the CSS property display: none; to hide it from modern browsers.

Salut Jean-Pierre, vivá la Operá! (Although I've gone off Opera in favour of Mozilla Firebird as it's free, has better Dom and DHTML support, and renders the page faster than it downloads it. Well it seems that way to me. Also Firebird has an excellent extension for it for web developers that lets you mark a pages block elements, tables, remove images, and so forth).

SyrenSong

09-16-2003, 10:27 PM

Hmmmmm. Let's work this out with real (hypothetic) numbers, instead of percentages.

If one assumes that there are 10,000,000 people with internet access (as a low guess-timate) and 90%of those people are surfing the web using IE (of one flavor or another - it really doesn't matter). That leaves 10% of all surfers using non-IE browsers. Correct?

By my calculations, that means 1,000,000 surfers may not be able to properly view and/or use a website that's only been tested in IE.

How many of your ecommerce clients can afford to lose the potential business of 1,000,000 buyers?

Just something a little more concrete to consider before ignoring all those non-IE browsers. ;)

Sualdam

09-17-2003, 05:11 AM

If I was getting 10 million hits, I'd design for ANY browser - even imaginary ones!

;)

However, don't forget that the stats we are talking about are measured values. For someone getting 1,000 hits a week, that's maybe 20 people.

And of those 20, the differences - if they exist, of course: Netscape and Mozilla don't automatically not work if the site hasn't been tested on them - are likely to be mainly cosmetic.

So really, the number of people who are actually locked out is smaller still.

Mmmmm. 10,000,000 hits. If only...

carju1

09-17-2003, 07:03 AM

Sorry Syren,

That one won't wash...
By my calculations, that means 1,000,000 surfers may not be able to properly view and/or use a website that's only been tested in IE. How many of your ecommerce clients can afford to lose the potential business of 1,000,000 buyers?

I could just as easilly argue what percentage of those 10,000,000 don't speak English. I have no idea what that figure is but I'd bet its greater than 10%. By your logic therefore you site must also be built in Chinese, Japanese, French, German and Spanish just to cover the main alternatives and what about the 0.001% who only speak Greek they have as much right to see you site as the 14 Eudora users have. By only having English How many of your ecommerce clients can afford to lose the potential business of 2,000,000 buyers?

Now I accept that translating a site into Chinese is a lot more expensive than making it work in Netscape 2.0, but both are purely cost benefit analysis decissions, made by you and the client. Users have no 'Rights' to view a site in any particular browser (or particular language).

So in the answer to the topic question "Should we support older browsers", is: It's a pure business decision on the site owner not the site designer.

Regards
Julian

p.s. Syren nice to see we can disagree on a topic for a change :)

Paulo

09-17-2003, 07:44 AM

How old is an 'older browser'?

I regularly visit the website of a football team and when they had their site rebuilt in the summer (it wasn't broke, so why did they fix it?) i was quite p'd off that it didn't work in NS4.73 or IE5.5 - the screen hung and when I finally hit stop and viewed the source there was a message stating 'please upgrade to 6+ browsers'.

By this behaviour, one site i work for would have excluded 1757 & 26 unique viewers in the first 16 days of September alone. (17.77%)

I find all this latest verison stuff a bit cynical

Paulo v17.09.03 (Paulo v09.17.03 US release)

Sualdam

09-17-2003, 08:05 AM

The IE version mentioned isn't that old, Paulo - but in any case nearly 40% of users have it (as I said above).

NS4 is down in the very low single percentages. It may not be old, but the issue is over whether it is worth supporting something that isn't used often.

Something could be 2,000 years old - but if 90% of the population still use it, continuing support isn't an issue. :)

Paulo

09-17-2003, 09:16 AM

Exactly. Like you said, Sualdam, it'd be unwise to ignore that 40%, but someone did exactly that. Was it an oversight or a conscious decision? Will there be more such oversights and/or conscious decisions in the future of browsers?

Supposedly everything we (the people LOL) use is the 'best yet', next year it will be 'now even better'. I'm so glad it's 2003 because my 'whites' are so much whiter, so much better than in 2002. And as for 2001, ooh, that was not a vintage year for whites. How did we survive the nineties?

Enough about browser versions, I'd best get back to my 'single-serving' lifestyle ;)

Now, the spoon. That's been around for a few thousand years and that's a good design...

mysticlighthouse

09-17-2003, 12:02 PM

The American Weights and Measurements system is not standard compared to the Metric System, but you don't see tons of Americans switching over to Metric (although I wish they would)... the same can be said for Version 4 browsers and more compliant (at least more so) Version 6+ browsers.

Why is it that America hasn't standardized? The same reason Version 4 users haven't... there hasn't been a reason to! If you keep making everything so there is no need to change, do you really think people, on average, will put forth the effort and change? NO!

We need to make a stand as developers and designers and just not support the old browsers. If you still want to use geezer browsers, fine... use them... just don't expect to get any high quality surfing done.

That's just like someone that still wants to run programs on a TRS-180 (anyone remember that?)... Should software developers still have those users in mind? I think the cost far outweighs the benefits in backward (that's WAY back) compatibility.

Now don't get me wrong... I'm all about them still being able to use the site. It just won't be with all of the bells and whistles. Take, for instance, www.csszengarden.com ... now this site is still viewable in Version 4 browsers (as just text)... isn't that enough? Functionality is sufficient isn't it? Remember that content is king.

swstyles

09-17-2003, 12:32 PM

Unless a site totally bombs in an older browser I suggest using a server side browser detect and display text for those users like "This site best viewed using such and such browsers".

Give them a warning.

Isn't it strange here in the states where you can get pepsi in a 12oz can and a 2 liter bottle. Also most of our cars are manufactured using the standard system and the metric system. This must drive mechanics nuts.

Not designing for 40% is absurd but like someone mentioned above, most of the time if a site is designed using IE as the default browser its only the aesthetics that usually break in the other browsers.

mysticlighthouse

09-17-2003, 12:48 PM

rocky1

09-17-2003, 02:46 PM

Adding fuel to the flames, page requests per the stats on my site.

MSIE 23,742
1. MSIE/6 22,523
2. MSIE/5 1,191
3. MSIE/4 28
Netscape 1,242
4. Mozilla/1 1,238
Netscape 941
6. Netscape/6 581
7. Netscape/4 356
9. Opera/7 49

Given the argument herein, I'd have a real tough time designing without consideration of IE, folks! By the same respect, I would seriously have to question the need to design for IE 4 or Opera 7.

Internet seer is at #5 hitting my site more frequently than Netscape 6 or 4 users, and Google's bots hit the site more than Opera Users!

Rocky
www.rtfi.us

carbonize

09-17-2003, 03:13 PM

Opera's default HTTP agent string ID's it as Internet Explorer and unless your stats script is told to look for the real ID which comes at the end of the HTTP agent string then you will see it as IE. The same with Mozilla Firebird which ID's as Netscape 6. A lot of people tell their browsers to ID as IE just because a lot of sites, such as banks and online shops, wont allow none mainstream browsers to access their site.

Download Opera or ask a friend with Opera to visit your site and see if your stats script just reads the HTTP Agent string and says its IE or if it actually notices the Opera at the end of the string. While a few Opera users have set their browser to identify it's self as Opera a lot of users either don't bother or are unaware that Opera sends IE as it's identifier.

jasidog

09-17-2003, 03:13 PM

Adding lengthy browser sniffing javascript can affect download times with all of the code... the best solution is to use the css2 version...

<style type="text/css">
@import "yourstylesheet.css";
</style>

That will root out all of the non css2 browsers and doesn't add any overhead... plus they will still be able to access the content... just not the styles.

Can't agree more That allows version 5x and above of IE and dissalows content to no one :) I'm currently redesigning my site so be xhtml 1.1 and css2 compliant and that's how i will do things :)

TheWebDoctor(tm)

09-18-2003, 08:05 PM

First let's discuss stats since everyone seems to think they are accurate. Unfortunately, they are not accurate by any means. Now let me explain why they are not accurate.

First, there are many browsers out there like Opera that can id themselves as IE, but are not. Second, there are many assistive technologies that will id themselves as IE, but are not. Third, there are thousands of email harvesters that will id themselves as IE, but are not.

Now, let's discuss why there are browsers out there that id themselves as IE. Those browser developers realized a long time ago that the non-educated JavaScript kiddie writes scripts for two browsers - IE and Netscape. Therefore, to utilize the web site they have to id themselves as something they are not. AOL falls into this arena even though AOL has the IE engine it is not AOL and by far not the true IE engine.

The second issue is for many sites to work, assistive technologies like JAWS utilize the IE engine. JAWS does more than read web pages, it actually interfaces with the OS and can read any document properly developed and placed on the computer. As long as the API is programmed with the accessibility features JAWS can use it. IBM HomePage Reader identifies itself as IE to get beyond the JavaScript.

Now, everyone says but email harvesters identify themselves as robot or crawler. Some do, most don't. Because those people don't want you to know they have obsconded with your email address they will id themselves as IE.

Now, the IE on MAC has not been canned. It is the only 99.9% standards compliant browser developed by MS. IE is only 92%. It is a far cry from being worth developing for.

But for you nay-sayers out there, here's some news for you that you probably didn't know. IE on Windows is being canned as we know it. The next version of Windows is reportedly including an integrated browser and turn the desktop into a "real web page". Interesting concept. With that move, IE6 will be the last version and why MS has fought to hard against EOLAS Technologies. Since MS lost, they now have to reprogram how IE installs and uses plugins. This also means that MS has to go back to the drawing board on their next Windows version.

So, to answer the ever-tough question of which browser we should design for, I must say that you want to develop for standards compliant browsers. Additionally, under the Web Content Accessiblity Guidelines, you want to ensure that the technologies you are using are usable in at least one prior version of two or more technologies and those technologies must be available on two or more operating systems. By two or more operating systems, we do not mean Win95 and Win98. We mean Linux/MAC, MAC/Win, or Linux/Win.

Since IE is only ported to Win and MAC, you need to make sure your programming works in another browser or assistive technology that works on two operating systems.

Now, which browser is the best? It is apparent that IE is not and will not be, at least on the Windows platform. The Mozilla versions - not Netscape - offers the best of each world as they have been ported to Linux, MAC, and Windows. Mozilla is not a Netscape browser. Gecko is used by other browsers as well.

If you are on the MAC I'd recommend Safari, as Safari is far more stable than any other browser.

I hope this has helped everyone.

SyrenSong

09-18-2003, 11:18 PM

I could just as easilly argue what percentage of those 10,000,000 don't speak English. I have no idea what that figure is but I'd bet its greater than 10%. By your logic therefore you site must also be built in Chinese, Japanese, French, German and Spanish just to cover the main alternatives and what about the 0.001% who only speak Greek they have as much right to see you site as the 14 Eudora users have. By only having English How many of your ecommerce clients can afford to lose the potential business of 2,000,000 buyers?

The reality of your statement, carju1, is that many French, German and Spanish speaking people also know some English. Maybe not a lot, but they can get by. So it's not a major factor to design a site translated into their language. (No offense intended to those who don't speak English.)

Oh, and if folks don't speak English, they can still fall back on online translation programs like AltaVista's BabelFish. It's not perfect, but it can handle most of the basics well enough to get the gist of a site across in most languages. It's easy enough for an owner to include a link to BabelFish from their website, too.

The problem with some websites, however, is that if they're not designed to handle browsers other than the latest and greatest version of IE, they can crash browsers and, occasionally, a person's entire computer can be quickly afflicted with the infamous Blue Screen of Death!

And speaking of "Death", websites that crash computers can kill a business site. Nothing travels faster than negative news and a total computer crashing because of visiting a website falls into the bad news category.

That being said, older browsers are often favored by folks with older computers, or just because the people feel comfortable with their old browser for whatever reason. Why should they have to update their favorite browser simply because a designer was too lazy to validate a website or create some kind of bypass so the site works in older (and non-IE) browsers as well as newer ones? Folks with older browsers understand that they may not see all the bells and whistles everyone else does, but they obviously don't care about bells-and-whistles or they'd update their browser.

The css @import tag is a prime example of how to put in a simple fix that allows a website to work in older browsers. Is the site as pretty doing it this way? No, of course not. But it makes the site viewable in the maximum number of browsers.

It's just good sense to make a business site as accessible as possible.

Think of it in terms of the old location-location-location argument. If you don't have your business in the proper location, folks won't see it, won't be able to get to it, and just won't come to it.

By not making a website accessible to older browsers, you're slamming the door in their faces. It's like you set up shop in a building that has no sidewalks and no driveway, and is set back so far from the road that lots of folks are going to miss it. In other words, your location sucks!

You're basically telling visitors "I don't want your business. Go somewhere else to spend your money. I don't need it."

S.

P.S. Carju1 - the disagreement continues! LOL!

Narasinha

09-19-2003, 12:50 AM

I've written a little stats program (more for my own amusement than anything else) that keeps its own log files (for free sites and others that don't have access to the server logs). Parsing the USER_AGENT string that is sent from the browser is very tricky. Like others have mentioned, Opera (my own personal favorite) and Mozilla can fake the user agent to indicate other browsers. I sometimes set mine to say IE on troublesome sites that feel the need to tell me that I need a new browser. I often write an email to the webmasters of such sites to inform them that they need a new browser-sniffer! :)

Because of my very low traffic, the stats for my own site are not terribly meaningful, but as you can see, IE6 still tops the list. I -do- check for Opera's faked USER_AGENT so that I can have a bit more accuracy. I'm having problems with Mozilla (Gecko) though. Parsing that string isn't always easy.

1) Internet Explorer 6 - 63.84%
2) Internet Explorer 5 - 17.15%
3) America Online 8 - 5.39%
4) America Online 9 - 3.63%
5) Internet Explorer 4 - 2.74%
6) Netscape Navigator 6 - 2.20%
7) Netscape Navigator 7 - 2.20%
8) America Online 7 - 1.18%
9) America Online 6 - 0.59%
10) America Online 5 - 0.54%
11) Opera 7 - 0.24%
12) Internet Explorer 2 - 0.15%
13) Netscape Navigator 3 - 0.10%
14) ia_archiver [robot] - 0.05%

As someone stated earlier, these compatibility issues, like standards compliance and accessibility, will ultimately be business decisions. Is it in your best interest economically to make sure your site works in browsers X, Y, and Z? If not, don't worry about it. If so, then get to work on that code!

carju1

09-19-2003, 06:13 AM

Syren says: many French, German and Spanish speaking people also know some English. Maybe not a lot, but they can get by
Carju1 says : many Netscape and Opra users also have IE on their computers so they can use that instead and if not it will usally display well enough for them to get by.

Syren says: Oh, and if folks don't speak English, they can still fall back on online translation programs like AltaVista's BabelFish
Carju1 says : Oh, and if folks don't have IE, they can still download it from MS.

Syren says: The problem with some websites, however, is that if they're not designed to handle browsers other than the latest and greatest version of IE, they can crash browsers
Carju1 says : The problem with some websites, however, is that if they're not designed to handle languages other than the latest and greatest version of American, they can't be read by Non-English speakers.

Syren says: That being said, older browsers are often favored by folks with older computers, or just because the people feel comfortable with their old browser for whatever reason. Why should they have to update their favorite browser simply because a designer was too lazy to validate a website
Carju1 Says : That being said, other languages are often favored by older folks because the people feel comfortable with their own language. Why should they have to to back to school to learn English because a designer was too lazy to translate a website

Syren says: By not making a website accessible to older browsers, you're slamming the door in their faces
Carju1 says : By not making a website accessible to non-English speakers, you're slamming the door in their faces.

Syren says: You're basically telling visitors "I don't want your business. Go somewhere else to spend your money. I don't need it." .... It's just good sense to make a business site as accessible as possible
Carju1 says : You're basically telling visitors "I don't want your business. Go somewhere else to spend your money. I don't need it." .... It's just good sense to make a business site as accessible as possible

Syren says : ?

Regards
Julian

SyrenSong

09-19-2003, 05:07 PM

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Uh, Syren says : Looks like I'd better find some hard-cord statistics that carju1 can't throw back in my face before I open my figurative-mouth on this topic again!

In the meantime, I'd like to point out that English is the most widely spoken language on the planet.

To which carju1 will likely reply : IE is the most popular browser on the planet.

So I guess I'll withdraw those words before speaking them..... LOL!

<Syren sheepishly withdraws to search the web for something more concrete to use against carju1's arguments.....> ;P

carju1

09-19-2003, 05:52 PM

Oh goodie now we get to throw statistics at each other :)

Syren says : I'd like to point out that English is the most widely spoken language on the planet.

To which Carju1 says:
English = Population total all countries 341,000,000 first language speakers (1999 WA), 508,000,000 including second language speakers (1999 WA).
Chinese Mandarin = Population total all countries 874,000,000 first language speakers, 1,052,000,000 including second language speakers (1999 WA).
Source http://www.ethnologue.com

<Carju1 sits smuggly waiting for round 2 to start :>

SyrenSong

09-20-2003, 12:03 AM

Ah - Ammunition I can use!

To which Carju1 says:
English = Population total all countries 341,000,000 first language speakers (1999 WA), 508,000,000 including second language speakers (1999 WA).
Chinese Mandarin = Population total all countries 874,000,000 first language speakers, 1,052,000,000 including second language speakers (1999 WA).
Source http://www.ethnologue.com

Population of China: 1,286,975,468 (July 2003 est.)
Population of United States: 290,342,554 (July 2003 est.)
Population of United Kingdom: 60,094,648 (July 2003 est.)
Population of Australia: 19,731,984 (July 2003 est.)

Internet Users (2002)
United States: 165,750,000 (Ranked 1st)
China: 45,800,000 (Ranked 3rd)
United Kingdom: 34,300,000 (Ranked 4th)

(Figures taken from CIA's The World Fact Book (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/))

Looks to me as if the Chinese are a bit outnumbered online. (No offense intended to any Chinese or other non-English-speaking members of WPW forums intended.)

Seems there's nothing that can be done regarding a language barrier for folks that aren't online, short of publishing a newspaper in their languages. But that would defeat the purpose of deciding which browser should be used to display the information to the largest number of online internet users, now wouldn't it? <smirk!>

Okay. I think we've had our fun with the language barrier analogy, carju1. ;) After all, this topic is supposed to be about whether older browsers should be supported or not, right?

I will concede the point that people could open IE if they have it on their computers. However, I will point out that not all computers have IE available on them.

If a person works for the US Government, they may not have IE available to them. Folks using Linux and Unix machines, as well as those on Macs, may not have it on their computers. Also, there's the problem with folks using AOL. Some of them simply aren't web saavy enough to figure out that they've even got the option of surfing with IE, let alone being able to figure out how to do it.

Then there are those who don't want to use IE because of all the potential viruses, trojans, and other potential security problems associated with IE. They simply prefer to use other browsers and are suspicious of sites that require them to use IE for surfing.

Without opening another can of worms with the above statements, it's important to accept the fact when programming websites that not everyone will be surfing the web using IE. That's true of non-English speakers, as well as English speakers.

The same is true of whether folks are willing to update their browsers. Many folks are offended by a website that tells them they should have a specific size screen or monitor size for "best viewing". Similarly, they're offended by a website that tells them what browser they need to have to view a website.

It's like telling folks they need to speak a foreign language to read what's written on a specific website. Most times, folks just leave and don't bother returning, rather than trying to find a way to translate the site.

The same is true of buyers. If they can't use their preferred browser (no matter how ancient it is), they simply leave the site, rather than switching to a browser they dislike and aren't familiar with.

Any way you look at it, the idea of an ecommerce site is to provide access to as many people as possible so the site can make as much money as possible. If the site doesn't work in the maximum number of browsers possible, then not as much money is being made as is potentially possible.

<Syren smiles quietly to herself, with the understanding that carju1 and others will probably try to find a way to turn this all around to their own nefarious purposes....> ;)

carbonize

09-20-2003, 06:47 AM

Since when do you have to live in China to be, and speak, chinese?

SyrenSong

09-20-2003, 11:19 AM

Since when do you have to live in China to be, and speak, chinese?

Here I am trying to get back on the topic of supporting older browsers, and everyone's picking on my language analogy! ;)

You obviously don't have to live in China to speak Chinese, but I'm pretty sure almost everyone living in China speaks Chinese. I also didn't include all English speaking countries in my figures. Just the 3 best known for speaking English.

I'd also like to point out that everyone who programs for the web has at least some knowledge of English, otherwise they wouldn't be able to program html, php, asp, etc. Those languages all contain some English. If you can't understand at least a little bit of English (I'm talking about the programming concepts here, not necessarily the ability to carry on a conversation), you can't program for the web. (Caveat: Unless, of course, there's some program out there that converts a foreign language to English for web programming purposes.)

I'm honestly not trying to get a debate going on who speaks what language. The point is whether older browsers should be supported, not whether various languages other than English should be supported.

At least, I thought that was the topic under discussion here.... ;P

carju1

09-20-2003, 03:20 PM

Syren,

That's where you've gone wrong, we've settled the old browser question - No you don't need to support them :) So now its much more fun to discuss the language population of the world.

Anyway you're far to knowledgeble on browsers, at least I have a chance to confuse you with languages. The whole reason language came up was because I was using it as an analagy of relative importance. I personally feel you will miss out on a bigger audience just having a site in English than you do building a site to work in IE.

Of course the real solution to the browser question is to build simple sites using standard HTML - which then doesn't using all those annoying bits of code that do nothing usefull and take ages to d/l - which works in all browsers.

All the surveys I've carried out (Don't forget my background is large intranets so its internal surveys) over the past 8 years have shown that users prefer simple easy to use site with good content rather than fancytricks or complex sites. In one test we did, we put up 4 site designs for evaluation and the site that we had designed (for 000's by an award winning graphics agency, that I have to admit was visually stunning) only got 6% of the votes compared to I think it was 28% by a pure Black text on white with l'h static navigation site. The actual winning site was a more traditional top menu + lh menu + rh content with colour but I couldn't believe the difference in votes between the other two. More importantly even though we only had to worry about 1 browser for the intranet (IE) the simple site would have worked in any browser.

Julian

SyrenSong

09-20-2003, 04:14 PM

That's where you've gone wrong, we've settled the old browser question - No you don't need to support them :) ....

...Of course the real solution to the browser question is to build simple sites using standard HTML - which then doesn't using all those annoying bits of code that do nothing usefull and take ages to d/l - which works in all browsers.

Aha! So we do agree that older browsers should be supported. :P

A little validation is all it really takes. And the css @import coding helps with everything that validation might miss due to the age of a browser, in most cases anyway.

I feel much better now! :)

=======================

As for the language issue, you're probably right there as well. There should be more support for languages other than English.

Unfortunately, it's a lot more expensive to create a site that's compatible and viewable in many languages than it is to create a site that's viewable in a multitude of older and newer browsers.

That's really the cause of the language barrier on the web - Cost!

Validation doesn't take much time, if the programming is done correctly from the beginning, and therefore, generally doesn't add much (if any) cost to a website's creation.

Translation to another (or several) language(s) can be very expensive, especially for larger websites.

If more people were fluent in a wider variety of languages, it would be much easier and less expensive to create websites in many languages, rather than one. Unfortunately, many people don't have the level of fluency needed to create such websites. As a result, most sites are created in only one language.

The translation issue is purely a matter of economics. It may not be a good idea for many reasons, but that's the driving reason for many decisions that are made regarding programming any type of site.

carbonize

09-20-2003, 04:28 PM

Most Europeans are fluent in at least two languages :p Except us British as we are lazy and tend to have the "Everyone speaks English" philosophy just like the Americans.

matauri

09-21-2003, 02:10 PM

LOL...I thought I was back in Canada then listening to their bilingual debate ;-)

In regards to the english v's everything else...not even english is translated unilaterally. We have UK english & we have US english. Sometimes if your lucky you'll find an Aussie english. HTML, etc, is US english (i.e 'color'). So is the question really...compliant with US english?

And back to supporting older browsers...isn't this much the same as having to support outdated resolutions & different OS's. I think that you are chasing your tail if you are going to be designing to every different thing that can affect how your website turns out. So you have to bite the bullet & expect that you are going to lose 'some' hits.

Think of the alternative...spending hours making sure that your site views well in all browsers (including outdated ones), in all resolutions, and in the most popular languages.
or....
Set yourself a standard that you are prepared to design to, and put up with the loss of a few visitors.

HillsCap

09-22-2003, 07:20 PM

I firmly believe that users won't upgrade unless they're given a reason to. It's like some people using their computers for 15 years, and expecting the company they bought them from to continue supporting them as they have more and more problems with newer applications. It's ridiculous.

I designed our website for IE 5.5+ (and it'll soon be Mozilla compatible, once I get JSP DHTML navigation working correctly), but as for IE 5 and older, or NS 6 and older, forget it.

Those browsers are complete junk that can't handle what I'm trying to do on our site. They have so many limitations, bugs and quirks that supporting them requires massive amounts of selectively branched code and way too much extra work.

If people can't perform a free upgrade to a free browser, then they've got big problems, and I refuse to make those problems my own.

I support the Browser Upgrade Initiative, if a user is using an out-of-date browser, pop up a message telling them to upgrade, or they'll miss the whiz-bang fantasmagorical dog-and-pony show that is your website.

I say let's, once and for all, leave the old cruddy browsers behind and step forward into a brave new DOM-shaped world. The grass is much greener in Document-Object-Model-ville.

If you want DHTML and all that it entails, you've GOT to leave the older browsers behind. But, sometimes, to move forward, you have to leave something behind.

carbonize

09-23-2003, 01:39 AM

HillsCap so what does your site look like to people that use a text only browser such as lynx? Any site that uses DHTML/JS menu should also offer a standard plaintext link alterntive for navigation for people that don't support JS or have just turned it off for security reasons.

SyrenSong

09-23-2003, 11:49 AM

Or Jaws (a speaking browser for the blind) for that matter?

People who aren't supporting older browsers, may also be neglecting some brand-spanking new browsers!

And I won't even get into PDAs (mostly 'cause I've got a lot to learn about 'em). ;)

carbonize

09-23-2003, 12:14 PM

Opera 7.xx will emulate a PDA/Phone browser if you press Shift + F11. It can be very enlightening.

SyrenSong

09-23-2003, 12:46 PM

Opera 7.xx will emulate a PDA/Phone browser if you press Shift + F11. It can be very enlightening.

Oooooo! Nifty!! :)

tertius

09-23-2003, 05:23 PM

August 2003 browser stats

Browser Hits Visitors % of Total Visitors
Internet Explorer 6.x* *78,968*14,098 43.28%
Internet Explorer 5.x* *60,049*10,842 33.28%
Netscape 4.x* * 6,628*2,547 7.82%
Internet Explorer 4.x* *21,983*2,478 7.61%
Netscape 3.x* * 7,758*1,099 3.37%
Opera * 16,089* 336 1.03%
IE 5.5 Compatible Browser**426* 332 1.02%
Internet Explorer 3.x* *1,019* 253 0.78%
Netscape 2.x * * 470* 205 0.63%
Netscape 5.x* * 822* 158 0.49%
MSN TV (WebTV)* * 90* 46 0.14%
Internet Explorer 1.x* 45* 44 0.14%
Others *251* 39 0.12%
Netscape 6.x *38* 27 0.08%
Netscape 7.x * 13* 12 0.04%
Java/1.4.1_01* * 356* 11 0.03%
grub-client* *20* 10 0.03%
Lynx * * 46* 8 0.02%
Nutch* * 14* 7 0.02%
KaHT* *6* 6 0.02%
Mosaic* * 7* 6 0.02%
IUSA Browser* * 6* 6 0.02%
Java1.4.0_02* *5* 5 0.02%

Interesting range of browser types and versions...hard choices as to which browsers to ignore when setting up site design criteria.

If arguing that usage should drive design, from these stats should I then include design factors for IE 1, 2, and 3 and ignore factors for Netscape 5, 6, and 7 since the old IE browsers are used more than the newer Netscape ones???

Looking at Version 4 and older vs. version 5 and newer, the older versions are still used by over 20% of site visitors! This site's owner is not about to disregard 20 percent of potential sales. Because of the wide range of browser types and significant percentages of version 4 and older browsers, of necessity I'm held to a "lowest common denominator" design mode for this site.

FWIW!
-Tertius

carbonize

09-24-2003, 01:41 AM

Hmmmmmm I have a question. If your page is framed do you get the viewers HTTP agent or one from the server?

sudhani

09-24-2003, 02:06 AM

For me, the option is very simple!!!

Whatever technology / browser the customer uses, I want to support him. I cant afford to loose a SINGLE potential customer ... in this competitive world.

sudhani

09-24-2003, 03:14 AM

here is the link for google stats!!! This might be useful for all those concerned about the supporting different browsers.

http://groups.google.com/press/zeitgeist.html

the stats are avalable lil lowere in the page ... in a graph format

Sualdam

09-24-2003, 03:34 AM

For me, the option is very simple!!!

Whatever technology / browser the customer uses, I want to support him. I cant afford to loose a SINGLE potential customer ... in this competitive world.
That sounds great, but...

Don't you think you might lose customers from the other end of the spectrum if you cater for the lowest common denominator?

It seems that if you aim to cater for every conceivable browser then you must avoid (devil's advocate, here) any script, most graphics, and stick just to text.

Are you really going to attract as many people as you could with that strategy?

Surely there is a middle ground where you simply have to ignore the stragglers at the extremes of the range?

If you cater for 99% of the population, you'll probably do more business than if you struggle to satisfy the other 1% who use the Zippo browser. By targeting that 1%, the 99% are automatically on a back burner, aren't they?