|
|
Posted by Gιrard Talbot on 10/27/06 03:35
Andy Dingley wrote :
> GΓ©rard Talbot wrote:
>
>> How about telling visitors using buggy, old, non-web-standards-compliant
>> browsers
>
> How do we identify them? This isn't easy if it's to be robust.
>
> It's practical to identify NS4, but is it really necessary to?
No, it's not necessary.
> NS4
> users will have noticed by now that things don't always work tooo well,
Exactly. They are used to/they recognize the quirks of NS 4.
> and if they're still using it, then presumably they have some other
> good reason for sticking with it.
My guess is it's often lack of knowledge, fear (of losing personal data,
emails, profile info, bookmarks, etc), hardware/memory limitations, cpu
limitations, or visiting only a short list of sites which work well with
their NS 4 (so then, there is no need to upgrade), who knows..
World stats regarding NS 4 put it at under 0.2% and declining.
Why should one more random website be
> a trigger to cause them to upgrade ?
>
I agree. They must have already notice that the layout is often
misaligned, misplaced, jagged, etc... during the last 3-5 years for
sure. And they must have heard of IE 6 or Firefox or Mozilla before. So,
they must have a reason to still use NS 4. I have brought up the same
argument regarding detection of IE5.x: it's rather useless to detect
them and then invite them to upgrade when pretty much everything around
them for the last 5 years must have invited them to upgrade.
> My real objection is to sniffing for IE6, or IE7 build n-1. This sort
> of fine-grained sniffing that claims last week's build is now terrible
> is the real problem. This sort of test is _never_ maintained and up to
> date.
Well, this one should be easy to do, easy to maintain (and it does not
rely on js):
<!--[if gte IE 6]>
<p><a href="[link to disclaimer page]">Recommended browsers [or some
other text]</a><p>
<![endif]-->
And disclaimer page says something like
"The webpages of this website use valid markup code, semantic markup
code and valid CSS code. Despite our best coding, testing and technical
efforts, the layout/formating of webpages may not render as intended in
browsers which have an incomplete support of W3C web standards or an
incorrect implementation of W3C web standards. For best viewing
conditions and for best security, we recommend Firefox 2.0 or Opera 9.1
or ..."
> A bad or outdated implementation of it is worse than no
> implementation.
>
Of course, very recently at IE blog (can't find where exactly anymore),
it was said that about 33% of all webpages fail to correctly identify
MSIE7; so IE7 users visit webpages which in turn tell them to upgrade to
MSIE6!
>
>> they may consider switching if they want his webpage code
>> to render as expected (layout, formating, functionality)?
>
> Advertise the best browsers by all means.
I agree. In advertising, it's called positive advertisement.
> Now's a particularly good
> time to plug Firefox 2.0
> But do this objectively -- "Use Firefox, it's good" rather than "Your
> browser sucks, go away"
>
Agreed.
GΓ©rard
--
remove blah to email me
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|