|
|
Posted by Jukka K. Korpela on 10/25/06 05:35
Scripsit Gérard Talbot:
> It all depends actually on what is the whole webpage context,
> situation (purpose served for browser detection), not just how
> detection is done - that is if it can be done reliably - but also
> *_how_* people are invited to upgrade. A simple clickable-reactive
> <browse happy image> might be good enough, you know.
Arguing with visitors about their choice of a browser is just foolish, no
matter how you do that. Even if your site is _about_ the choice of a browser
and nothing else, all this sniffing and puffing is pointless: anyone who is
really interested in the choice of a browser surely knows what he is using
and wants to read _rational arguments_ or comparisons.
Almost all sites that try to convince users about changing or upgrading a
browser are trying to say something about some other issues as well, and
then they lose their point by making noise about the browser issue. If you
use a telephone to contact a person or an organization about something, what
would you think if you first heard "Dear caller, we have detected that you
are using an old telephone model with serious security problems. You will
now be automatically connected to a person who will give you advice on
upgrading to a newer model..."?
>> The page author would just upset and throw out some part of potential
>> users. If he somehow managed to make someone update his browser, this
>> would still distract from the site's own content.
>
> Any link involving a download would do that too.
Indeed, if the download has nothing to contribute to the purpose and content
of the site. Wasn't this obvious?
>> Besides, the detection is bound to fail, and the redirects are bound
>> to take users to wrong pages.
>
> Of course, that's possible and it's the danger.
It _will_ happen, sooner or later, and it's _one_ of the dangers.
> That's why it will
> always be best to create real link in a webpage where people can
> choose a browser (download) by themselves
The "real link" will get rotten, sooner or later, as links tend to do -
_especially_ links related to technological issues like newest browser
versions.
> Very often, they don't maintain the monstruosity they create ... or
> copy from others' sites.
This also means that people with some experience on browser propaganda pages
know this and automatically devaluate sites with such features, since it is
rational to expect "Oh, this is one of _those_ pages".
> Jukka, just visit my own website http://www.gtalbot.org/ and you'll
> see that all links at the bottom of the webpages can not mislead or
> misredirect visitors.
Huh? What has that got to do with the issue. At the bottom of, say,
http://www.gtalbot.org/FirefoxSection/
I see the following:
"Valid HTML 4.01 strict! CSS compliant Web standards project Get Nvu
HTML editor"
That soup of links _is_ misleading. Very misleading. On the other hand,
there is no link for browser update, which is of course good, but then this
example is irrelevant.
> If you include the following in a webpage
>
> <!--[if gte IE 4]>
> <p>You're using Internet Explorer which is known to be prone to
> spywares, to have unpatched security weaknesses and to make computers
> unsafe. For best security and better usability, please consider
> switching to a better browser. You may visit <a
> href="http://browsehappy.com/"><img
> src="http://browsehappy.com/buttons/bh_185x75.gif" width="185"
> height="75 alt="Browse Happy" style="vertical-align: bottom;"></a> for
> explanations and assistance.</p>
> <![endif]-->
>
> it will work accordingly, as expected for IE users and it should still
> work for many years.
Parody has become impossible.
--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|